Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Glice
Aren't you making a similar point to a well-known group of terrorists who flew into a well-known centre of trade?
|
Not really, the Terrorists might have leaped into first place with that attack but at that time there was no clear leader in the top of the evil league, certainly not the Bankers. Saddam Hussein was effectively neutered at this point, Milosevic was no longer active, aside from Paedophiles there wasn't really anyone prioducing any particularly notable works of evil. Sure, you had the likes of Kim Jong Il, Mugabe & the Taleban pottering around, but none of them were really doing anything that meant much to anyone beyond their own back yards. Obviously there were the Corporations too, but while their brand of evil is global and consistent, they've never really had the flair to get to the top, plus they half-heartedly try to keep their evil on the down low and combined with their tendency to stick to their guns it makes them someonewhat of a dull work horse to the viewer, having said that Enron did have a decent stab at things a few years later.
Anyway, The Terrorists had been languishing for years by this point, it was indeed a bold and daring play to take down the WTC, and you've got to respect Bin Laden for pulling it off, although I don't think he was really prepared for the quite how galvinising the effect of his actions would be on his rivals. Bush and his cohorts realised they'd been resting on their laurels since stealing the election and really got into gear, and while they did put in the hours and came close to toppling the Terrorists, nothing they acheived really caught the public's imagination the same way Bin Laden & co did.
I do think though that historians will come to agree that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their cadre of Republican flunkys were actually more evil than the Terrorists, they just didn't have the panache to be top dogs in the eyes of the general public at the time, I think this was largely due to their insistence on portraying themselves as the good guys, and while being evil but appearing good effectively raises your cache in the eyes of the discerning spectator, I think they over estimated the sophistication of the average punter in terms of them picking up on the subtleties of their game plan and it was surprising that they would use that tack as Bush's rise to the White House was pretty much dependent on exploiting the idiocy of the man on the street. Essentialy, Bush & chums were just like their allies, the Corporations, but on a more dramatic scale, i.e. no great spectacles of evil, just thoroughness, no qualms about dispatching with any competitors who can't be put to use (i.e. Taleban, Saddam, etc), and a keen eye for making conditions particularly grueling for your successors.
It seems apparent that the Bankers have learned from the Terrorists how a good PR stunt (cf. the WTC) can really stave off the competition for a good while, and provided the bumblings of Obama & Brown don't put out their blaze then it seems the Bankers will be top of the league for at least a few years to come, although it did seem for a moment this January that they might have been pipped at the post by the Israeli Government.
The question that remains to be seen is that if the conspiracy theories are right and Bush was in fact responsible for 9/11, obvioulsy this would raise is stock to such an extent that he would most likely rule the roost of evil for the rest of the 21st Century, much in the same way Hitler did back in the 20th Century. Naturally, if this turns out to be the case then the Terrorists will lose all credibilty and plummet down the table to join all mouth and no trousers outfits like Iran, the Satanists & the BNP