Terms of dismissal

I've already criticised the use of "conspiracy theorist" as a term of dismissal but I want to go a little deeper into this.
Lord Hutton, who chaired the inquiry into the death of weapons expert, David Kelly in 2003 famously concluded that the government was wholly innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever and that the BBC was tantamount to the Antichrist. Although this was widely criticised as a whitewash by anyone who possessed a pair of eyes connected to a brain, anyone who intimated at the reality of the situation was still dismissed as a "conspiracy theorist".

Among the "rational arguments" against these so-called conspiracy theories are such gems as "But they wouldn't allow that to happen!" Er... who are They? The only They in view are the They who happen to be committing these crimes against humanity. Who could possibly be the They who would not allow this to happen? But this is regarded as a rational response despite the total absence of reason!

Another and possibly less idiotic response is: "It would take too many people to pull that off. They wouldn't be able to keep it secret. Somebody would either slip or blow the whistle. They couldn't possibly take that risk!" OK. On the face of it, this sounds like a fair point. But it is overlooking one or two major elements here. For a start, while accepting that it would be impossible to keep these crimes secret, I would point out that... well... they haven't managed to keep it secret, have they? Which is why the whole fucking planet is talking about it! Yes, somebody is bound to slip up... and, in regard to 9/11 and the 7/7 London bombings, quite a lot of people slipped up Big Time. How about: "Somebody would blow the whistle"? If you happen to be one of these "conspiracy denial" freaks, please pay very close attention to the following sentences. People involved with these atrocities are blowing the whistle all the time. Those who have any credibility with the public psyche... those who played a pivotal part but have since expressed a desire to confess and set the record straight... are now dead. The remainder of those who played a minor part but were nevertheless privy to the subterfuge are simply being dismissed... as conspiracy theorists.

Lord Hutton has a well documented record of defending the government in the face of perfectly just criticism. He concluded that the government were perfectly above board and whiter than white with regard to the Iraq war. Last month, he became an "adviser" to the multi-billion-dollar US company, Bechtel. What has that got to do with the Iraq war? Bechtel has numerous controversial "reconstruction" contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Coincidence? What are you, some kinda coincidence theorist?

How is is that someone who believes that there are dirty deals behind Hutton's support of the government over the Weapons Of Mass Destruction debacle (since proved to be totally unfounded) and his now lucrative position on one of the major companies profiting from the war he defended is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist?

How is it that someone who believes that the fact that forensic evidence shows that the tube trains in the 7/7 bombings where detonated beneath the undercarriage... to which no terrorist could possibly have had access are in some way significant details is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist?

How is it that anyone who implies that the Home Office official story of the 7/7 bombings is fictional simply because it states that the "bombers" had traveled to Kings Cross from Luton on a train that was actually cancelled is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist?

How is it that anyone who points out that the fact that three of the "bombers" were shot by armed police in Canary Wharf could be regarded as evidence that they had not even been aboard the tube they had allegedly blown up is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist?

How is it that anyone who points out the fact that the alleged "bombers" could not have been aboard the trains they allegedly blew up because the earliest train they could possibly have caught from Luton didn't get into Kings Cross until after the tubes they had allegedly blown up had already departed is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist?

And how is it that anyone who so much as suggests that maybe these proven and undisputed facts should have figured in the inquiry into the 7/7 bombings is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist?

All it takes to be a conspiracy theorist, it would seem, is a functioning brain.