not that i want to be labeled as a "conspiracy theorist", far from it, and i try to take a logical approach to issues, but does it seem lately that some bombings just don't make sense?
could the new trend in world governments be to stage bombings, or, at least "allow" them to happen, to enforce more control over their people? if it worked in the US after 9-11 with the swift passage of the patriot act, why wouldn't other nations see an opportunity to do the same?
the old saying "make lemon aid out of lemons" comes to mind......
Actually, such a thesis does not require a "conspiracy theory".
Our present administration has already demonstrated a marked determination to judge the evidence according to whether it supports a desired conclusion, rather than base conclusions on the evidence. This is just another way of saying that they see what they want to see, and do not see that which they do not wish to see.
They saw evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq because they wanted to see evidence of such weapons. However, they see no evidence that evolution is true, nor do they see evidence of man-made global warming, because they do not want to see these conclusions as being true.
They go so far as to assert that, if the physical evidence does not support their conclusion, that the evidence is mistaken and must be restated. Thus, they edit reports so that they can write in their desired conclusions.
If they do not wish to see evidence of a particular type of event or consequence, then they will not see it. They will be able to look right at the evidence, and not see the conclusion, because their conclusions determine how they interpret the evidence. They cannot see the conclusion unless they have already drawn it in advance, and are looking for evidence to support it.
They are not lying. They are not saying, "I know that this is false, but I am going to say it anyway because it benefits me to do so."
They are saying, "This evidence cannot be right because it does not support the conclusion I know to be true. We have to go back and look at the evidence again until we get the evidence that makes sense."
Their are deceiving themselves as much as they are deceiving others.
Their basic inability to draw conclusions from evidence is, in short, a recipe for incompetence. It means that, rather than following a trail of evidence, they are going to go their own way in spite of the evidence. It is like driving a car while blindfolded. There is a chance, however unlikely, that one can turn the wheel right when the road turns and stay on the road for a considerable distance. However, more often than not, reality is going to diverge from the driver's imagination, with unpleasant results.