Response to:

Anthony DiMaggio
Conspiracy, Inc.: Wild Tales From the Reactionary Right
http://www.counterpunch.org/dimaggio10302009.html

You can't even provide a reasonable definition of "conspiracy" in your mindless call to ignorance. I also strongly detest your guilt by association approach, as if we are all alike, all incredible, all in the same category because you say so. The smear that people who call out government complicity and cover-up must be from the "reactionary right" is worthy of the drooling neanderthals you hoped to lampoon.

If you had a dictionary handy, you might have learned that conspiracy is any crime involving multiple parties. It's one of the most prosecuted charges in the US by the justice department (sic).

We are to take it -- from you -- a priori that the government never commits crimes. People in the white house, for example, never agree to break the law.

Large mountains of empirical evidence dispute this "theory" you posit. Your position is laughable on its face, of course, and your rant is gibberish.

As for the pejoratives "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist," you are disparaging every single police detective and prosecutor in the land. Each and every one presents "theories" concerning crimes that have been committed. A theory -- another of those terms you haven't understood well enough to comment cogently on -- is a theory because it is falsifiable. It can be tested and disproven. Evidence can be brought to confirm it.

Your blather on 9/11 is shockingly ignorant and devoid of any facts whatsoever.

"Nowhere is this extremism better seen than in the “9/11 truth movement.” In the classroom, I have a standard response for students who inquire about 9/11 conspiracy theories. I point out that the difference between an argument and a conspiracy is crucial: the existence of evidence. Any great conspiracy theory requires a complete lack of tangible evidence, since conspiracies by definition are “secret” endeavors which the public knows little to nothing about. This lack of evidence is all the more reason why we should reject these conspiracies as lacking in seriousness and intellectual rigor."

You have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about.

Hard evidence links the government of Saudi Arabia to several of the hijackers. The victim's families sued the Saudis, who wiggled out of accountability because of something they call "sovereign immunity." This is in the New York Times, if you give a damn at all.

The failure to prosecute the Saudis by two successive US regimes is tantamount to high treason. Treason, if you don't know the definition, is "aid and comfort" to the "enemy." It is clearly established that the 9/11 hijackers were "enemies" of the United States. Protecting their sponsors is therefore treason.

You actually don't have any case whatsoever in your defense, and have grossly misled your students with outright lies that there is no evidence to press for a new 9/11 investigation. There is so much evidence, lazy stupid fucks like yourself choose to just ignore everything. You should be ashamed of yourself, do some real research, and apologize to the numerous students you have misled.

Some more food for thought, which I highly doubt you'll bother your pretty little head to understand