Possibly my legal pedantry cutting in but I thought "MIHOP" meant "made it happen on purpose" and who "made" it was a separate question.
This distinction is precisely what we are debating here: Does the de facto meaning of "MIHOP" imply the entity who made it happen on purpose (which I phrased as "agents of the US government"), or does it not? Is the "official" story of 19 AQ hijackers using planes, and only AQ hijackers (plus their planning and financing backbone), and only planes, included in the de facto meaning of "MIHOP"?
The answer most give is clear: Yes, it
does imply that those who made it happen on purpose owe allegiance to the USA, and no, a scenario where AQ terrorists made it happen on purpose is not included.
You see, MIHOP is a term that describes a class of conspiracy theories
other than the Al Quaeda conspiracy, and it pairs with LIHOP, which also describes a class of conspiracy theories
other than the Al Quaeda conspiracy. MIHOP and LIHOP are disjoint classes. Let's start with LIHOP - Let It Happen On Purpose: Here, it is pretty clear who let it happen on purpose: Those normally in charge of
not letting terrorist and foreign attacks against the USA happen - agents of the US government (the president, the secret services, the military, ... take your pick). This term LIHOP clearly contrasts with MIHOP, wherin the
same groups and persons charged with protecting the USA did the opposite and actively brought the attacks about.
One such scenario could involve a mere LIHOP
plus someone telling AQ to go ahead. This would not invlove any kinds of charges or other manipulations to the WTC towers. So MIHOP does not necessarily mean "towers were rigged", but it does mean inside job.
And, yes, I am aware of the prevalent practice of reading more into what is said than what is said.
When someone says "MIHOP", people can be excused for hearing and understanding "MIHOP", which, as explained, implies inside job, at least in the minds of all people who ever used the acronym ever since its inception.
If femr2 used the term, but with a different meaning, and he notices that people do not understand what he means, the fault is his: He used a wrong term! He shoud then clarify and say "Hey, I said MIHOP, but I actually meant something else, sorry for the confusion", but that's not happening.
I have experienced the phenomenon on another forum when I made statements that went just so far and stopped with legal precision at that point. Some readers still added the implication of where they wanted the statement to go rather than where I took it. IMHO better to stay with being precise rather than try to guess who will read what extra implications into something. What I say is what I say and what I don't say is something I didn't say.
Quite.
When femr2 says "MIHOP", he says "inside job", even if he didn't intend to. Because that's what MIHOP means. That acronym is not free for grabs. It has been around long enough, and been used often enough and consistently, by all of us. It's comman usage and meaning is fixed: The "who" is already determined, or bound. It can't be AQ.
You wouldn't be so foolish as to use a word incorrectly and defend your incorrect usage.
You want legal pedantry? Then you will appreaciate that no one can accuse Osama Bin Laden or his 19 henchmen of High Treason against the USA, as that term has a fixed meaning, and that fixed meaning limits the "who". If you want "High Treason" to include crimes committed by people who do not owe allegiance to the USA, you can't complain if people misunderstand you, and upon being told that High Treason is limited to people who owe allegiance to the USA, you would, out of legal pedantry, retract your earlier, false usage of the term.
