Conspiracy number one (1)
Kenyaâ€™s president blames the opposition for the recent attacks at the coast saying that the opposition wants to destabilize the country. I am sure he has read Aristotleâ€™s Rhetoric, because he successfully diverts the subject from what has actually happened to Who is responsible, thus diverting the attention from your own role to someone elseâ€™s, at least thats what he thinks. A proven technic, just look at world history to find your examples. By the way: these technics were very successful on masses that did not, or could not check the facts and connect the dots. Does it make sense? Mmmâ€¦ I wonder. Al Shabaab claimed responsibility before the Kenyan Government came with a statement, according to local newspapers, people were warned even before the attack took place. Does the opposition party really gain by an unstable country? Does their supporter -â€˜The Westâ€™- gain by an unstable country? Ans who is in charge of the police that did not react for six hours?
Is Al Shabaab part of the conspiracy as well? They might have a deal, that if Raila will be instated as a new leader (How are you gonna do that???), the Kenyan troops will be withdrawn from Somalia. All winners? Makes sense heh? Sureâ€¦ But who guarantees a stable country when Raila comes into power this way? Does the Government of Kenya really think that the opposition believes that they can stay in peace if this happens? And will Al Shabaab believe that this is gonna happen? In other words: is this likely? This might work if a leader who unites stands up, and not the one who divides, I would sayâ€¦ That gives space to another conspiracyâ€¦ I am leaving that to your imaginationâ€¦ But some political killings might be involved in this theory (hint)â€¦
The fun is that anybody with a little creativity and some Tuskers easily brews a whole bunch of conspiracies that all make sense (and donâ€™t make sense at the same time). They all have some elements in common: there is some mysterious power to blame, that power has a mission, in all conspiracies you have to use information that you call facts (but that is hard to check for the uninformed reader), and there is usually a lot of telling and only the suggestion of showing. Quit often, in these theories, the creators use emotion disguised as emotion. So, letâ€™s check the next brew.
Conspiracy number two (2)
The attacks are organized by the Chinese to separate Kenya from the West in the tense situation, thatâ€™s there according to some local newspapers. As a consequence, Kenya will cut more ties with â€˜The Westâ€™ (â€˜â€œTheyâ€ are out to destroy usâ€™) and make more profitable deals with the Chinese who are willing to do business with African countries, given their track record on looking the other side when transparency is demanded. Supported by facts of in-balance in trade, growing concern about Chinese involvement in Africa, growing public concern about ivory trade and Chinese who supposedly are responsible), the Chinese have a motive.
Conspiracy number three (3)
The attacks are organized by the Kenyan army, to destabilize the country. It took hours to respond to emergency calls according to some local newspapers and according to the government they already had the intelligence about the attacks three days in advance. When things get really out of hand, the army can take over power and â€˜Finally restore stability and peace in the countryâ€™, being the savers of Kenya.
Â Now choose the one of your liking and try them out tonight at your favorite hangout or just at home. And donâ€™t forget the rules: respect your opponent, listen to what he or she has to say and stick to the facts, oops, how to check the facts?. Entertaining night guaranteed (If Netherlands against Australia turns out to be a boring match, that is)â€¦ Andâ€¦ donâ€™t try this out over a few beers, it might turn into an inciting discussion.