An epistemological point: MIHOP is actually easier to prove than LIHOP

I was reviewing the old thread by Harvey Korman that was recently revived which includes a discussion about whether LIHOP or MIHOP are easier to prove.

In other words, if MIHOP is what actually happened, it necessarily includes the elements of proof of the more "believable" LIHOP. So we should concentrate on LIHOP because it is easier to prove.

It occurred however that this is actually false and leads me to believe that if you think MIHOP actually happened, it is more efficient to concentrate on the elements of proof of MIHOP.

Here's why: the main element of proof of LIHOP is actually the internal mental state or motivation of the main actors, while MIHOP depends on physical and circumstantial evidence, whether it's controlled demolition, impossible flight patterns or intelligence and family connections.

LIHOP can only be proven using the oral testimony of the participants about their internal reasoning or at best, communications between them about their motives.

Imagine a man standing on the sidewalk watching a child cross the street as a car barrels toward her. The man does nothing to save the child. We now try to figure out why the man let the child get hit -- was it because he wanted the child to die and let her get hit (LIHOP), or because he was too stupid or slow to realize what was happening (incompetence theory). Even if the man had evil motives (LIHOP) he can easily claim incompetence, and there is no way we can disprove this. Without the ability to read minds, we can never know whether the cause was LIHOP or incompetence.

But if the man MIHOP we can prove that. We would have evidence of an insurance policy on the child's life payable to the man, or some conspiracy between the driver and the man. In other words, the evidence of MIHOP is external to the man's internal mental state.

The one way that LIHOP would be as proveable as MIHOP would be a record of communication among conspirators. But my worry about this is -- contrary to the position of the debunkers -- any initial conspiracy would have included an extremely small number of people, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and a few black ops chieftains, and I doubt their communications were reduced to paper.

On the face of Rice's public statements about Bu$h's policy of not swatting flies, this in itself is an admission of at least LIHOP.

From my perspective though, I see little difference between LIHOP and MIHOP insofar as agents of the government are concerned. These agents take an oath of office and to turn a blind eye to a potential threat so they can be enabled to gain political clout to push an agenda that would not have public support otherwise, to me this IS MIHOP. And I think a form of treason.

equally treasonable. But my point is only about which is easier to prove. My concern is that if you prove all the facts of LIHOP, the defense always exists that "we made a mistake" rather than a conscious decision not to act. The "swatting at flies comment" is truly appalling, but proves my point: it was Rice's assertion that they made an incorrect, incompetent choice that China or some other potential superpower was a bigger threat than terrorism.

Perhaps the best example of how unproveable LIHOP is, is Katrina. Bush lied a few days after Katrina, saying the usual lie, that no one could have predicted the levies would be breached.

Recently video appeared that showed Michael Brown and national weather experts clearly telling Bush that Katrina could cause the levies to be topped.

But we cannot really know the internal state of mind of Bush. Was he sleeping? daydreaming? Did he not understand what they were trying to tell him?

Even though in light of the video, Bush's response to Katrina looks like criminal negligence or even malice, his defense as usual is that he is just too stupid to understand what he is being told, and that negates the intent to do evil.

Malfeasance or misfeasance? As for intent, a big issue during a murder trial, it means nothing when placed against the Oath to Office and a failure to execute that pledge. That's why these people are paid big bucks, that is to succeed. There is no prize for failure. In another time, in another place, each of them would have been taken out and shot for "allowing" 9/11 to happen.

As for 'not swatting flies' being about China, the more credible threat. The context of Rice's admission about 'not swatting flies' was when discussing Clinton's response to OBL's embassy bombings and how it was ineffective to launch cruise missiles at OBL for his part in the African bombings.

Thus we see, the 'not swatting flies' policy was all about how best to deal with terrorism, letting terrorists give their 'best shot' at us. In effect, let them piss-off the people by letting them hit us. So we see, Rice admitted the government was an accomplice to the terrorists that attacked the USA on 9/11. They were accomplices by using the policy of 'not swatting flies' that allowed an attack to happen. It is a felony to allow a felony to happen.

This seems to be lost on many.

I found that to be the obvious conclusion of Rice's testimony too.

Like they didn't want to swat at the flies/hornets so they had to wait for something big to happen in order to gain the political will to go after the hornet's nest, so to speak.

But the fact that they let the al-Qaeda leadership slip out of Tora Bora into Pakistan shows that they weren't even serious at that. And it soon became obvious that the whole LIHOP set-up was merely a pretext to get the political will for a "pre-emptive war" against Iraq.

I so often hear from otherwise intelligent and aware people "Maybe I'm in denial, but I just don't want to think my government is capable of doing something like that."

And you can tell them about Northwoods, and Pearl Harbor, and Tonkin Gulf and Remember the Maine, but they still don't want to think aboout it. Some people are actually proud of their ability to put
blinders on that way (my ex-wife was one).

Some might call it dishonest, but I call it tact. You can ease them into the 9/11 lore by suggesting
things like:

Maybe they expected conventional hijackings, and had no idea how big the plans were.

Maybe al Qaeda installed bombs in the WTC and the government is covering it up because it's embarrassing to Marvin Bush's security company.

MIHOP may be more provable, but LIHOP is more believeable to the uninitiated.

Of course if Osama was wearing his CIA-asset hat when (and if) he dreamed up this scheme, then what's the difference?

Are you another 9/11 skeptics' divorce?

Worse than Jesus, it was. ("For my words shall sunder brother from brother, and father from son, and husband from wife...")

My divorce was before 9/11 but the issues were the same: my uncompromising pursuit of
the truth, however unreasonable it might seem, and her stubborn good-hearted refusal
to see evil even when it was staring her in the face. Our strengths brought us down.

Good analysis. This seems to sort of parallel my thought process with regards to 9/11. At first, I believed in the official story, then I progressed to LIHOP. Then, as I delved deeper, into MIHOP.

Another thing I've noticed when discussing 9/11 with a wide variety of people is that many people seem to have a built-in mental block with regards to MIHOP. They just can't allow themselves to believe that people in their own government would be capable of something like this, even though governments throughout history have been guilty of far worse.

I guess what I'm saying is that, absent some new revelation(s), it will take time for the issue of MIHOP to penetrate into the general public.

points to MIHOP

Some in the MSM mat want us to believe the govt is inhabited with total nitwits. But that's just.. i mean, is this a fairy tale or what? All the competent people are outside the govt? Let's not flatter ourselves to much.

Malicious intent may be hard to prove, but not impossible.

Still, MIHOP (if for real - which i think it is) is easier to prove; the perpetrators would have to -do more- to "make it happen" then to "let it happen", and thus would leave more traces.

how much it has to cover: Failing to deter 9/11 despite explicit warnings from US and foreign intelligence; faulty intelligence about Iraq; inability to pacify Iraq or plan for the right number of troops; inability to respond to evolving events in Iraq; before Katrina failure to comprehend explicit warnings that the levies would be breached.

No matter how much of a complete and total idiot bush is, it is inconceivable that all these things could happen because of sudden pervasive incompetence at every level of the federal government.

And if more people understood how much power that has we could see the truth someday.

http://concretecore.741.com/