http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/1 ... op_06.html
By Arabesque
Accuracy in language is important. Reality is often far more complex than can usually be understood with simplistic terminology. By definition, labels and phrases like “9/11 was an inside job”, “MIHOP”, “LIHOP”, “conspiracy theories”, and “War on Terror” are frequently used to simplify reality into small and easily comprehensible packages. While often helpful, translating reality into black and white labels is often misleading and inaccurate. This can even be purposeful and deliberate as frequently seen in politics and the mainstream media. The events of 9/11 are controversial and misunderstood by many and one significant culprit for this situation is the misleading and inaccurate usage of language to describe what happened. Understanding the role of disinformation and misinformation is essential to form a complete and accurate understanding of the 9/11 attacks.[1] What is disinformation? Jim Fetzer explains that “while ‘misinformation’ can be simply defined as false, mistaken, or misleading information, ‘disinformation’ entails the distribution, assertion, or dissemination of false, mistaken, or misleading information in an intentional, deliberate, or purposeful effort to mislead, deceive, or confuse.”[2]
The Misleading and False MIHOP/LIHOP Dichotomy
As observed, simplification is often achieved through the use of labels. Though they are frequently helpful, labels and descriptive terms can lend themselves to misuse, over-simplification, and distortion when used in a misleading context. The most significant example of this within the 9/11 truth movement is the misleading and false “Made it Happen on Purpose” (MIHOP) and “Let it Happen on Purpose” (LIHOP) dichotomy. What is a false dichotomy? George Bush gave us this famous example in his response to the 9/11 attacks: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”[3] False dichotomies such as these are commonly used to inaccurately frame debates in political discourse.
The MIHOP and LIHOP labels were purportedly coined by Nico Haupt in 2002: “I invented the acronym ‘LIHOP’ at the same time [we] created [the] ‘9/11 Science and Justice Alliance’.”[5] Consequently, these terms were widely adopted and “MIHOP” was popularized in the book 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA by Webster Tarpley:
“This book argues the rogue network MIHOP position. That is to say, it represents the analytical point of view which sees the events of September 11, 2001 as a deliberate provocation manufactured by an outlaw network of high officials infesting the military and security apparatus of the United States and Great Britain, a network ultimately dominated by Wall Street and City of London financiers. It is our contention that any other approach… misrepresents what actually happened in the terror attacks.”[6]
When clearly defined as seen in the above passage, MIHOP is a coherent thesis that can be analyzed and critiqued. In fact, it is not even necessary to use the word “MIHOP” to forward this thesis. The labels LIHOP and MIHOP are like an empty drinking glass ready to be filled with clarification and context—left unfilled, they specify almost nothing. As such, the terms MIHOP and LIHOP themselves are also easily misused when employed without clarification leaving them vague, misleading, and open-ended. Discussing his book in an interview with Alex Jones, Tarpley explained that:
“This is the only book that gives strong MIHOP… There is the negligence theory, not wearing well. Then there is LIHOP, Let it happen on purpose, like the Arab hijackers have some kind of independent reality. Like Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon. This also has not worn well. Then MIHOP, Make it happen, that the patsies are controlled assets, they don't make it happen, the professionals make it happen under the cover of drills.”[7]
In the preface to the second edition of Synthetic Terror, Tarpley repeats the charge that “[the] LIHOP view of things has been vociferously and voluminously defended by Mike Ruppert, whose book features the constant refrain borrowed from Delmart ‘Mike’ Vreeland, 'Let one happen. Stop the rest!’”[8] In the above passages, Tarpley makes a comparison between LIHOP and MIHOP by referencing Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert.[9] However, the largely undefined terms MIHOP and LIHOP are inaccurate and clumsy when taken out of context, often lending themselves very well to straw-man assertions.[10] Is Ruppert’s book “LIHOP”? From page 1 of Crossing the Rubicon:
“While these attacks were arguably one of the most serious homicides ever committed, the investigation and ‘prosecution’… has never even approached the legal and logical standards governing all such investigations. Regardless of whom the suspect(s) turns out to be, these are the basic questions every homicide investigator must seek to answer in the course of the investigation… In the end the only ‘suspects’ found to meet all of these criteria will not be al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. They will instead be a group of people operating within certain government agencies, including the White House, for the benefit of major financial interests within the United States and in other countries.”[11]
Ruppert’s thesis is almost identical to the one given in Tarpley’s book. Since this is the case, how can Tarpley make the charge that Ruppert is arguing “LIHOP”? As 9/11 researcher Jim Hoffman observes, Ruppert “has done a great deal of work on documenting the role of government agencies, such as the CIA, in the September 11th attack.”[12] Elsewhere in his book, Ruppert expands on his actual thesis while clearly insinuating that the alleged hijackers could not have flown the aircraft on 9/11:
“The 9/11 terrorists did not act on their own volition. The suicide hijackers were instruments in a carefully planned intelligence operation… I [am] absolutely convinced that… the so-called hijackers… could not have accomplished the flying required on 9/11... Their behavior was more consistent with the creation of a detailed “legend” to make the public believe they had done the deed... The technology to fly airliners by remote control or, what the air force calls remotely piloted vehicles (RPVs), has been around since the 1960s... Like any “well-planned” government operation, the planning and initial preparations for what became 9/11 had begun in the Clinton administration as a contingency plan. That’s when the 19 so-called hijackers (and/or their handlers) began establishing their legends... Some of these “terrorists” had been turned by US, British, or Israeli intelligence long before 9/11. Some were probably long-time, deep-cover field agents... I believe that the so-called hijackers who had received this training were probably part of an ultra-secret US military and intelligence joint operation “Opposition Force,” or OPFOR, which routinely played bad guys in hijack exercises around the world and inside the US...What is clear is that the government’s assertions that 19 hijackers, funded from caves in Afghanistan, were able to execute what happened on September 11th is beyond ludicrous.”[13]
Clearly, Ruppert implies that the planes were flown by remote control, the hijackers were patsies, and the attacks were a “well-planned government operation”—almost exactly what Tarpley argues in his book. If Ruppert’s suspects included members of the White House and the CIA but excluded the alleged terrorists—how could his book “vociferously” argue “LIHOP” as Tarpley suggests? Not surprisingly, if Tarpley can make a stunning mischaracterization of Ruppert’s thesis, lesser researchers and rank and file activists are even more prone to misuse these labels. Not only can “LIHOP” and “MIHOP” mean different things to different people, their meaning can easily change when they are not clearly defined or clarified. On their own, the words “made” and “let” are as simple and basic as exist within the English language, while “it” can mean anything that happened on 9/11. Both imply intent with the phrase “on purpose”.
If the MIHOP/LIHOP dichotomy is agreed to be divisive, misleading, and inaccurate (i.e. disinformation or misinformation), what terms should we use instead? “Inside Job” and “insider complicity” are far more descriptive and accurate labels, but even these have problems of their own depending on how they are used to frame understanding of the 9/11 attacks. Although more useful and precise than the false LIHOP/MIHOP dichotomy, "inside job" suffers from a similar problem. On its own, it starts with the conclusion and assumes that the intended audience knows the necessary facts. In this context, "inside job" is useful to those who know the evidence, and useless to those who do not. When terms are not supported by compelling facts or explanation, descriptive labels have limited power to encourage new members to the join the 9/11 truth movement or convince them that the official story is false. On their own, labels and terms are not enough—education and unmasking the disinformation supporting the 9/11 ‘official story’ is necessary to reach new activists, researchers and force an investigation.
Just an excerpt. Read the rest here:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/1 ... op_06.html
