2013-03-26 12:08 pm (UTC)
Re: Eat the Rich (Pt. 1)
As far as religion and the shoehorning, as far as I've noticed, in the US, among the religious, they tend to be conservative, and those people are a majority of GOP voters. The GOP is about little-to-no government, free markets with as little restriction as possible, and upholding religious / family values.
But the main bent of the power base among GOP ... it's clearly about money, making money, free reign on the land by private sector. Close 2nd priority is slashing government. And they talk a huge game about the Jesus and God Bless 'Murica, but the reality is, of the people who align themselves as conservative / GOP, a lot of them are strongly religious, but they're also the types who tend to be regular people, getting by from paycheck to paycheck, and not making a whole lot in terms of household income. So the GOP as far as I can tell only pays lip service to the Jesus part ... the elite, behind closed doors, tend to give little regard to that priority.
So it makes sense that it's kind of shoehorned, because the reality of the elite is that many of them tend not to give a flying fuck about religious issues. They only take that up to get the plebian voters, the types who cling to their Bibles.
I don't believe, however, that 9/11 was a US government conspiracy, not even in the slightest. One thing to understand leading up to that incident ... during the 90s, President (elder) Bush and President Clinton's administrations started to cut back on intelligence funding. Part of the reason was because the Cold War had just ended, and the GOP started to ramp up their "we're too bloated in government projects" chant that they are currently bringing to a crescendo. Clinton pretty much went too far with the cuts, probably as a measure on his part to compromise with the other party, but also because public opinion seemed to feel that there wasn't a need to keep such big budgets on departments like the CIA, and the FBI.
They kept cutting these budgets, despite the fact that terrorist activity started to rise during their era. Al Qaeda, the US's main target since 9/11, carried out more than a handful of bombings during the 90s, one of them being a '93 bombing of the World Trade Center that, long after the fact, the US found out that Bin Laden had provided funding for that particular assault.
It wasn't just Al Qaeda that started to cause trouble in the wake of intelligence cutbacks ... McVeigh, Nichols, and Fortier carried out that high-profile bombing of a US Fed building in Oklahoma City in '95. So the US had faulty control over its intelligence, both at home AND abroad.
Plus, right after 9/11, someone started sending weaponized anthrax through the mail. FBI was caught with its pants down, again.
9/11 conspiracies are not something that I believe at all, when people suggest that it was a false flag ... due to that short funding on intelligence. The US simply didn't have the proper levels of intelligence running for about a decade, and it made things like hijacking planes, bombing major buildings, and conducting such chaos much more possible.
As for Al Qaeda and similar groups being far less successful in terrorist acts after 9/11, well, you can bet the intelligence community got all the funding it could possibly want in wake of that day.
The one thing I will believe, related to Zero Dark Thirty (did you mean that film?), is that it took far too long to eliminate Bin Laden after 9/11. Once President Obama was elected, his administration located him rather quickly. I think Zeitgeist might have mentioned the connection between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family, but I can't remember because it's been a while since I've watched it. But I think that the reason it took so long to eliminate Bin Laden was because of the Bush and Bin Laden connection. As long as (younger) Bush was in office, he'd promise to get Osama of course, but that was never ever going to happen while he was in power.