Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Disinformation and the False MIHOP/LIHOP Dichotomy (14 posts)

  1. Arabesque
    Member

    http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinform...

    Disinformation and the False MIHOP/LIHOP Dichotomy

    By Arabesque

    Simplification is often achieved through the use of labels. Though they are 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 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: "You are either with us or against us in the fight against Terror. " [13] Also known as the false dilemma fallacy, the false dichotomy creates a false binary either/or choice [...]

    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'." [15] 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. " [16]

    Explained in this way, MIHOP is a coherent thesis that can be analyzed and critiqued. However, the terms MIHOP and LIHOP themselves are also easily misused when they are employed in the wrong context. When left without definition or clarification, these terms are vague, misleading, and open-ended as will be demonstrated below. 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. " [17]

    In 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!'" [18] In these examples, a comparison is made between LIHOP and MIHOP by referencing the book Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert. [19] Because the terms MIHOP and LIHOP can be inaccurate and clumsy, they often lend themselves very well to straw-man assertions. 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 ." [20]

    Ruppert's passage is very similar in content to the one seen in Tarpley's book above—how can Tarpley make the charge that Ruppert is arguing "LIHOP"? Noted 9/11 researcher Jim Hoffman comments on Ruppert's research that he "has done a great deal of work on documenting the role of government agencies, such as the CIA, in the September 11th attack." [21] If Ruppert's suspects include members of the White House and the CIA and do not include the alleged terrorists as cited in the above passage, how could he be promoting "LIHOP" if he is not blaming the alleged hijackers as Tarpley suggests? Not surprisingly, if Tarpley can make a stunning mischaracterization like this, lesser researchers and rank and file activists are even more prone to do the same. Clearly, LIHOP and MIHOP can mean different things to different people, but their meaning can easily shift 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.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  2. PresidentFord
    Member

    Arabesque describes this situation quite well. In fact, just a minute ago, I was at the YouTube page for the Loose Change Final Cut Trailer, where someone who seems unhappy with the new treatment of the film put it like this:

    So they've gone from MIHOP to LIHOP .. do these guys have any credibility left? .Nice work Mr Do Over Avery. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdoJASdLg_A)

    First of all, no real judgement can be made about a movie from a trailer. But, this illustrates how many use these labels. With 9/11 Truth, as in all aspects of life, labels are a very bad approach. Especially when they seem specifically designed to divide -- which I suppose is often the case. And if the genesis of these terms is as stated, I would argue it fits a pattern.

    Critical thinking has too often given way to Bumper Sticker Mentality. It's a good idea to watch our words.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  3. Menocchio
    Blocked

    "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire

    "You labeled me. I'll label you." - James Hetfield

    Posted 17 years ago #
  4. Menocchio
    Blocked

    My speculation is that some people within the government knew something was coming and intentionally stood back and let it happen. They would be LIHOP. Others within and outside of the USG actually committed the crimes, so that would be MIHOP. As for the question of where Bush was in this regard, first someone has to convince me that Bush has a purpose for anything he does.

    N987SA

    Posted 17 years ago #
  5. NicholasLevis
    Member

    It's easy to see MIHOP contains LIHOP, as Menocchio points out. It seems harder to understand why "LIHOP" if it means anything (on purpose) necessarily is a form of MIHOP. For some reason there is also an obtuse denial that morally they are the same.

    It's best of all to drop them and make your thesis statement.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  6. Arabesque
    Member

    For some reason there is also an obtuse denial that morally they are the same.

    It makes you wonder why some are obsessed with the terms.

    My thesis is that the terms LIHOP and MIHOP are:

    • Easily distorted and misleading because "let" and "made" are hopelessly vague if not clearly defined.
    • Almost identical in what they advocate, creating a false dichotomy. The 9/11 attacks involved both "let" and "made" happen elements (Wargames and NORAD stand down).
    • Their meaning changes depending on how they are used, easily setting up straw-man arguments. (see Ruppert example above)
    • Their meaning changes depending on who encounters the term if left undefined. Let WHAT happened? WHO made it happen and HOW can you prove it?
    • Used to FALSELY frame the 9/11 truth movement as being divided
    • Useless and should be rejected for all of the above reasons

    Webster Tarpley claiming that Ruppert's book is "LIHOP" is an excellent example of why the terms are disinformation--deliberately misleading information since they are easily misused and distorted as indicated above.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  7. Menocchio
    Blocked

    There is nothing inherently wrong with division if it is not of a nature where people are actively excluded because of their views. There are different schools of thought in most fields. It can actually be a positive situation because it fosters healthy debate. As for LIHOP vs. MIHOP the distinction I make is along the lines dividing "willful negligence" from "accessory before the fact".

    Posted 17 years ago #
  8. Arabesque
    Member

    There is nothing wrong with disagreement, but straw-man arguments are not disagreement.

    LIHOP/MIHOP terms are perfect for straw-man arguments. If disinformation is "deliberately misleading information", then MIHOP and LIHOP closely follow this definition. This is because they can mean almost anything, depending on what you want them to mean. When they are given specific definitions (WHO was responsible, WHAT happened, etc), they are useful, but when the do not they are open-ended. While on their face they are clear, in reality they are not, because they are NOT specific.

    Official story versus government complicity is a real dichotomy in which real debate can occur. LIHOP and MIHOP advocate many of the same things, and are often poorly defined or differentiated.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  9. Arabesque
    Member

    ... the difference between MIHOP and LIHOP is far smaller than many acknowledge. This false dichotomy occurs because the events of 9/11 can be demonstrated to fall into both “made” and “let” it happen categories. The incomplete understanding that the 9/11 attacks were ‘made’ to happen fails to account for the fact that the 9/11 attacks simultaneously involved elements of ‘letting’ it happen.

    To explain why, consider this reductio ad absurdum illustration. One of the most blatant anomalies seen on 9/11 was the fact that aircraft were "allowed" to hit their targets without interception by NORAD, leaving standard intercept procedure ignored—LIHOP. Putting this aside, even if one believes that the attacks were “made” to happen, this example clearly shows that other aspects of the attack involved “letting it happen”. But even this is an oversimplification of the 9/11 attacks. To further proceed with this analogy: assuming they “let” the planes hit their targets without interception, the aircraft could have been “made” to fly into their targets by remote control—MIHOP. However, a remote-control attack would have been impossible without a stand-down—isn’t that “letting it happen” LIHOP? To muddy this analogy even further, how was the stand-down accomplished? Was it “allowed” to happen under the smokescreen of numerous and simultaneous pre-“made” war-game scenarios “coincidentally made” to involve simulated hijacked aircraft? What about the alleged hijackers—were they incredulously “allowed” to attend flight training schools at US military bases or was this a “make it happen no matter how ridiculous it looks” deal? After all, it’s impossible to have a “let it happen” hijacker back-story without hijackers “made” to blame. For example, the Able Danger program: were the alleged terrorists “allowed” to stay in the US while under “make it happen” observation, or were they “made” to be manipulated as part of a pre-“made” cover story to blame them after the attack happened? What about the insider trading; was this foreknowledge before “allowing” the attack or evidence of a “make it happen” payoff? And who's to blame? Did some “allow” the attack to occur by simply following orders (i.e. stand down), while others ordered the attacks to “make it happen”? What about the promotions of those in charge on 9/11—LIHOP or MIHOP? What company “MIHOP” those fire/plane-crash surviving hijacker “LIHOP” passports anyways? Who cares if the government is equally responsible either way—we need another investigation just to sort out this MIHOP/LIHOP stuff!

    Posted 17 years ago #
  10. Menocchio
    Blocked

    The nature of generalities is that they are not specific. I don't typically use the terms LIHOP and MIHOP, and I tend to avoid the equally nebulous "government complicity". Though I haven't read Ruppert's book, I have seen his presentations, and I've read several of his articles. One that basis I have to agree with Tarpley in drawing a distinction between his view and what Ruppert has forwarded. A better example of a straw man would be the [i]4000 Jews told to stay home[/i] gambit. I've never come across anybody who has believed that claim. Nonetheless, look what the History Chanel did with it. For a veritable textbook on attacking the strawman, have a look at Popular Mechanics' Debunking 9/11 Myths.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  11. I wonder if the entire MI-LI-HOP phenomenon is more of a rating system of activists to see where they stand on the application of shame. Concurrently, it may indicate where activists stand on aggressive vs. passive aggressive behavior.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  12. Arabesque
    Member

    How can Ruppert's book be "LIHOP" if he does not claim that the alleged hijackers are the suspects in the attacks?

    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 .

    In fact, his thesis is almost identical to Tarpley's.

    I have read both books, and the label "LIHOP" is inaccurately used to describe Ruppert's book. It is just an ad-hominem--it is not a fair or accurate label. If anything, Ruppert makes a far more compelling case for complicity than Tarpley does. Tarpley's book, amusingly self-promoted as "the only book that gives strong MIHOP", blames the attacks on unknown bankers, while Ruppert names names and nails them for it. He extensively deals with the war-game exercises, motive, and means for the attack--none of these belonging to "Al CIA DUH". While his book has weaknesses of its own, it is simply clumsy and inaccurate to label his book "LIHOP", and there are many reasons why besides the obvious ones. I've dealt with this in my paper. The terms mean whatever you want them to mean. And that means they are basically useless.

    LIHOP has been used to mean any and all of these things:

    • Government or insider foreknowledge of the attacks
    • Government or insider responsibility/negligence/complicity for the attacks
    • Government or insider cover-up of incriminating insider responsibility for the attacks
    • Government or insider benefit, and motive for the attacks to happen
    • Hijacker responsibility for the attacks

    Noteworthy is that the first four points are also common to MIHOP.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  13. Arabesque
    Member

    Ruppert's "LIHOP" book:

    the 9/11 terrorists did not act on their own volition. The suicide hijackers were instruments in a carefully planned intelligence operation... I was now absolutely convinced that some valuable and highly trained assets were among the so-called hijackers and that those assets 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... The US government had complete foreknowledge of 9/11 and did nothing! In fact, it actively shielded the hijackers from arrest before their crimes occurred, and then stood back and facilitated the attacks as an accomplice. Had the US government not opened the door and then prevented dedicated law enforcement personnel from closing it, the attacks would never have occurred... 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 socalled 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. Certainly some were just expendable fodder. It seems as if some of them wanted to get noticed. Most likely, a search through intelligence and law enforcement records by the planners disclosed not only ideas but pieces of a “legend” that could be quickly — if imperfectly — woven together around the key players like a patchwork quilt... 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.

    And yet Tarpley claims that Ruppert argues LIHOP, and that his book is the only one to argue MIHOP.

    The term LIHOP is misinformation and disinformation--deliberately leading terms that mean essentially nothing and effectively function as straw-man arguments: "You promote LIHOP!"

    Posted 17 years ago #
  14. Arabesque
    Member

    More LIHOP, MIHOP nonsense, just added this to my paper:

    The frequently inaccurate and misleading LIHOP/MIHOP dichotomy is the embodiment of the debasement of language; a subversive attack against subtlety, critical thought, and reason. These terms effectively think our thoughts for us: “LIHOP is bad! MIHOP is good!” They are framed as if they were opposites while inaccurately concealing their precise meaning from us. More accurately, these terms are different shades of the same thing—not opposites. When these terms are inappropriately employed in misleading contexts and false paradigms they function as disinformation and misinformation—possibly as a deliberate part of the 9/11 cover-up.

    As an example of this, the article entitled ‘The LIHOP/MIHOP Distraction Continued’, by writer ‘Angie’ implies that we should dismiss the testimony of Sibel Edmonds because she is “limited hangout” or “LIHOP”:[35]

    “[I’m] still wondering, who is still Lihop nowadays? [Taking] a look at 911truth.org, a site which places a premium on mainstream political correctness… is STILL LIHOP (including their mission statement)… From 911truth.org’s ‘breaking news and ongoing stories of special import’ link is Sibel Edmonds’ May 14th article. And to the right of that, a ton of Sibel links… [she] is not even LIHOP for 9/11, guys. Her hints consist of pointing fingers at unnamed corrupt gov't officials… REINFORCES the official story.”[36]

    On the other hand, Webster Tarpley’s book includes a section on Sibel Edmonds as part of the “MIHOP” thesis—completely contradicting the “LIHOP” point of view as put forward by ‘Angie’ and others:

    “Sibel Edmonds… worked as a translator for the FBI’s Washington field office… Edmonds’ letter provides another rare glimpse at how moles operate inside intelligence agencies to sabotage law enforcement and make sure that patsies are not rounded up or effective warnings given until it is too late… Edmonds also revealed a specific pre-9/11 warning on patsy activities which was simply ignored by the FBI, and then ignored again by the 9/11 commission… Edmonds goes on to mock the clichés about connecting the dots and sharing intelligence which are the stock in trade of the controlled corporate media. She points out that the Phoenix memo, the Minneapolis alarms, and the Sarshar material all converged in the J. Edgar Hoover Building in Washington DC. The FBI had all that it needed to know that a large operation was afoot, which it could have disrupted by rolling up parts of the patsy network. But the FBI did nothing, and the 9/11 commission dropped the ball here as well.”[37]

    Whereas Sibel Edmonds is dismissed as “LIHOP” by the writer ‘Angie’ and other 9/11 activists, Webster Tarpley embraces her as part of his “rogue network MIHOP” thesis. For these and many other reasons, not only are the LIHOP and MIHOP terms inaccurate, equivalent, and interchangeable while discussing many of the same types of evidence, they can be effectively used as misinformation and disinformation to falsely distort, devalue, and illegitimately discredit incriminating evidence, legitimate research, and valid areas of inquiry into the 9/11 attacks.

    Posted 17 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.