JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/09/911.html (281 comments)

  Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.

jsid-1189503680-542190  Trackback at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:41:20 +0000

Trackback message
Title: REMEMBER
Excerpt: If you're reading The McGehee Zone on September 11, 2007, you'll see on the front page my posts from the previous five anniversaries, plus a post dated September 11, 2001. On the front page, just scroll down past those entries to find recent ...
Blog name: The McGehee Zone


jsid-1189520134-580067  Markadelphia at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:15:34 +0000

My response to this is here

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/


jsid-1189520616-580070  Guav at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:23:36 +0000

Why is the invasion and occupation of Iraq still being presented as a rational response to the 9/11 attacks?

Afghanistan? Absolutely. Iraq? No.

Those who oppose the war in Iraq are not pro-terrorist. Many of us opposed the war in Iraq precisely because we felt it was a distraction from the fight against Al Qaeda and terrorism in general, and there is a good deal of evidence to support the contention that the war has put us at greater risk of attack and weakened our overall security (to say nothing of the obscene cost and toll on our military).

There are valid arguments to be made for staying engaged in Iraq. I don't think playing on people's emotions by invoking 9/11 is not one of them.

Personally, I don't think it's all that different from gun-grabbers posting pictures of crying children or scenes from VA Tech to drum up support for gun control.


jsid-1189520869-580071  Guav at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:27:49 +0000

Pardon the accidental double negative, it should read "I don't think playing on people's emotions by invoking 9/11 is one of them."


jsid-1189521806-580072  Kevin Baker at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:43:26 +0000

"Why is the invasion and occupation of Iraq still being presented as a rational response to the 9/11 attacks?"

(*sigh*)

At least here, Guav, it isn't "being represented as a rational response to 9/11." It's represented as an action that was justified before 9/11, and was merely accelerated by the events of 9/11.

And whether you like it or not, our enemies are now in Iraq, and we're killing them in large numbers there. And leaving precipitously, as the Left desires, will only benefit them, and harm us.


jsid-1189522809-580075  OtherWhiteMatt at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:00:09 +0000

No, leaving them will benefit us, and harm them. They will go back to killing each other, instead of killing us and each other.


jsid-1189522861-580076  Markadelphia at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:01:01 +0000

Guav, absolutely correct.

Kevin, where did the plotters train in the recently foiled attack in Germany?

How about this?

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/09/09/2007-09-09_cia_agent_says_were_letting_bin_laden_wi.html


jsid-1189523877-580078  Kevin Baker at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:17:57 +0000

"No, leaving them will benefit us, and harm them. They will go back to killing each other, instead of killing us and each other."

When the Taliban controlled Afghanistan, they seemed quite capable of doing both.

If we leave Iraq and Iran steps into the power vacuum, what then?


jsid-1189524210-580080  Kevin Baker at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:23:30 +0000

Mark:

Where did the plotters who planned to attack the JFK pipeline train? The ones who planned to attack the British embassy in Denmark? The ones who blew up a bus and a subway trains in England? A train in Spain?

And why does it matter?


jsid-1189524581-580081  Breda at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:29:41 +0000

*sigh*

Kevin posts a poignant and thoughtful memorial about the tragedies and horrors that people suffered because of terrorism on the anniversary of 9/11.

The very first comment was from markadelphia, making it all about "me, Me, ME! Read MY blog! My blog! go here! Look at ME!" Juvenile and disrespectful, all in one fell swoop.

I am disgusted by a liberal. AGAIN. What a shock.


jsid-1189524634-580082  Yosemite Sam at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:30:34 +0000

Go read his latest post on the Ron Paul thread, Kevin. Mark's certifiable. He thinks 9-11 was some kind of PNAC conspiracy by Rumsfeld and Cheney because they KNEW about 9-11 but allowed it to happen.

There is no reasoning with someone like this. He is so bound up in fitting every thing into his ideology that he has lost his grip on reality.


jsid-1189524893-580083  Erbo at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:34:53 +0000

Six words:

NEVER FORGIVE!

NEVER FORGET!

NEVER AGAIN!

Says it all, really...


jsid-1189524910-580084  Yosemite Sam at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:35:10 +0000

"Juvenile and disrespectful, all in one fell swoop" They can't be respectful because their ideology forces them to make up inane conspiracy theories to explain 9-11 and still maintain their world views.

I'll be blunt. They are a cancer to this countries body politic.


jsid-1189525342-580085  Kevin Baker at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:42:22 +0000

Yosemite Sam, you're just being a meanie neo-con.

If we all sit in a circle, hold hands and sing "Kumba-ya" the Islamists will go back to happily killing each other and will leave us alone, don't you know? We have more important things to worry about, like universal health care.


jsid-1189526604-580089  Yosemite Sam at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:03:24 +0000

That must be it, Kevin. I'm just a mean old neo-con :)

I just don't get the line of thinking that would rather blame the leaders of this country for 9-11 than the bastards who did it.

I can understand not agreeing on Iraq or even that it is not in the best interests of this country to fight terrorism, militarily. I don't agree, but I can understand it.

It is not unpatriotic to be against the war.

But what is unpatriotic and disgusting is this line of thinking that our nation and its government are worse then the terrorists. Accusing our nations leaders of what would be a capital crime, if true. With nothing to back it up except innuendo and vapid conjecture. I didn't like it when the Right did it to Clinton and it is just as disgusting now that the Left is partaking of this horse shit.


jsid-1189526664-580090  Frank Stein at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:04:24 +0000

The truth is that the administration was obsessed with Iraq, and was looking for any excuse to invade (PNAC, anyone?). Which they got. But a dispassioned look at the evidence can only cause one bewilderment - how could 9/11, caused by Islamic extremists housed out of Afghanistan, funded by Saudi money and aided by Pakistan, cause any thinking person to believe the proper response in the War on Terror is to invade probably the least islamofascist nation in the region and sparking a civil/sectarian war in the process?

As expected, the spin machines are in high gear; questioning the war is akin to pissing on the flag, if you are not with us (as we jump off this cliff) you are against us, blah blah blah. The neocons can be as rhetorically retarded as the worst moonbats on the left.

On this day I remember the tragedy that occurred 6 years ago, I mourn the loss of life as well as the waste of resources in fighting in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Resources are finite, even for a mighty superpower, and our government owed it to the victims of that day to focus their efforts on those responsible, and those who fund them.


jsid-1189526964-580091  Guav at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:09:24 +0000

At least here, Guav, it isn't "being represented as a rational response to 9/11." It's represented as an action that was justified before 9/11, and was merely accelerated by the events of 9/11.
Not in this entry it wasn't. You merely posted a series of pictures from 9/11 (and other terrorist attacks) and then ended it with the implication that people who oppose the war in Iraq are "working for the other side" [in the fight against terrorism].

And whether you like it or not, our enemies are now in Iraq
Of course I don't like it. But why are they there? They are there because we are there—it's most jihadis only opportunity to have a shot at Americans—and if we left, the Iraqis will quickly dispatch them as they have been doing in Ramadi. The average Iraqi does NOT share Al Qaeda's vision for Iraq or their brand of Islam. Michael Totten was recently in Iraq and wrote about the turnaround in Anbar:

In October of last year the tribal leaders in the province, including some who previously were against the Americans, formed a movement to reject the savagery Al Qaeda had brought to their region. Some of them were supremely unhappy with the American presence since fighting exploded in the province’s second largest city of Fallujah, but Al Qaeda proved to be even more sinister from their point of view. Al Qaeda did not come as advertised. They were militarily incapable of expelling the American Army and Marines. And they were worse oppressors than even Saddam Hussein. The leaders of Anbar Province saw little choice but to openly declare them enemies and do whatever it took to expunge them. They called their new movement Sahawa al Anbar, or the Anbar Awakening.

Sheikh Sattar is its leader. Al Qaeda murdered his father and three of his brothers and he was not going to put up with them any longer. None of the sheikhs were willing to put up with them any longer. By April of 2007, every single tribal leader in all of Anbar was cooperating with the Americans.

“One night,” Lieutenant Markham said, “after several young people were beheaded by Al Qaeda, the mosques in the city went crazy. The imams screamed jihad from the loudspeakers. We went to the roof of the outpost and braced for a major assault. Our interpreter joined us. Hold on, he said. They aren’t screaming jihad against us. They are screaming jihad against the insurgents."

“A massive anti-Al Qaeda convulsion ripped through the city,” said Captain McGee. “The locals rose up and began killing the terrorists on their own. They reached the tipping point where they just could not take any more. They told us where the weapon caches were. They pointed out IEDs under the road.”

“People here tacitly supported Al Qaeda,” Captain McGee said, “because Al Qaeda was attacking us. But they took control of the city. They forced girls to stay home from school. They dragged people outside the city and shot them in the head. They broke people’s fingers if they were seen smoking a cigarette. They forced men to grow beards. Once they started acting like that they could only establish a safe haven by using terrorism against the local civilians.”

“Al Qaeda struck out three times,” said Major Peters. “Strike One: They killed a Sheikh and held his body for four days. Strike Two: They executed young people in public. Strike Three: They attacked the compound of another sheikh. The people here said enough. They aligned with us because they realized Al Qaeda was the real enemy. They didn’t like Al Qaeda’s version of Islam at all.”


The truth is that some elements of Al Qaeda will always be in Iraq as long as there are Americans to attack, so if the justification for staying is "our enemy is there" then that's a recipe for an eternal occupation. Occupying Iraq costs $5 billion a month. We can't even afford to stay for decades—it will ruin us completely.

But by and large, the Iraqis themselves can, and will, take care of Al Qaeda in Iraq. I'm more concerned with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia because large swaths of the populations of those country are actually sympathetic and supportive of Al Qaeda, whereas Iraq was always far more moderate and secular than it's neighbors, and wants to stay that way from most accounts.


jsid-1189528240-580094  Kevin Baker at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:30:40 +0000

"...whereas Iraq was always far more moderate and secular than it's neighbors, and wants to stay that way from most accounts."

And therefore Iraq is the best possible nation in which to begin the attempted conversion of the Middle East from its present hotbed of radicalism into modern, successful nations, as was very well detailed in this post by Steven Den Beste.

The fact that Al Qaeda streamed into Iraq was, most probably, not predicted was a failure on the part of the administration, but the "flypaper strategy" seems to have been accepted.

Again, like it or not, the Sunnis, former insurgents, are now working with the U.S. because they believe it is a better choice. They believe we will leave, but many also fear we will leave too early, resulting in even greater bloodshed.

You don't like that we invaded Iraq. Fair enough. BUT WE DID. Democrats voted in favor. Republicans voted in favor. Get over it.

Pulling out now will not help. Not us, not them.


jsid-1189529043-580097  Sarah at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:44:03 +0000

Kevin,

The one photo that says it all is of the lone man in the orange shirt who is falling against the backdrop of one of the WTC buildings. He got up that morning, put on the clothes he was wearing, ate his breakfast, probably kissed his wife and kids good bye, and went off to another day at the office. He had no idea that an hour or two later this would be his fate. Through no fault of his own. Just an ordinary civilian man with an ordinary life. He left behind a devastated family, deprived of a husband, a father, a son.

If this one photo doesn't drive home the nature of the 9/11 attacks and the evil in the hearts of our enemies, then nothing will.


jsid-1189529113-580098  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:45:13 +0000

Luckily, prior to 9/11, we had no military committments dealing with Iraq.

Right?

Oh, wait, we had a huge amount (roughly 25% of the total DoD effort) into surrounding and "containing" Iraq, trying to enforce sanctions that our "Allies" were doing their best to subvert and getting bribed to smuggle in forbidden technology and weaponry.

That's the problem with the "Liberal" worldview that we "Shouldn't have invaded Iraq" - it's utterly divorced from the last 30 years of history.

30. Really, guys. This started with Carter in 76. You might even can take it back to 58, as "obvious events".

But the "Liberal" worldview, there is no cause and effect. You can promise "Choice!" while promising "Quality!" and promising "Fast!" all at the same time.

And when it doesn't work that way, you can blame the people who didn't act "correctly", accuse them of being evil, and demonize them.

You can insist on "International Law!", demonize the US for "Starving Children" as Iraq claims sanctions prevent food (They didn't), or medicine (they didn't), or that they didn't have the money to buy the before (It was donated)....

But when I say "What, then, is the fucking use of the U.N., somehow I'm a crazy person with no sense of history!

If we hadn't invaded Iraq - we might as well pull out of the UN. (It's still not a bad idea.) If you want to support the UN (which requires supporting their 18 resolutions threatening a continuance of the war), then you really can't be "against" the "invasion" (really, the enforcement of the 91 Cease Fire).

You can ignore everything else, confident that you're Good, and they're Evil, and by Gum, if everybody were Good, then, Peachy Keen!

There were a lot of problems with Iraq prior to the invasion (Which really was a continuation of the '91 invasion, because Iraq was in violation of the cease-fire agreements

So someone thoughtful like Guav, what do you say if you don't hold people accountable to their agreements? How can you have any rational "international concensus" if anybody can violate anything they want, at any time, with no downside? (Except of course for America! (Where people are mad we're not in "compliance" with "Kyoto" - a treaty we never ratified))

It's not a simple process - we had a huge amount of military equipment doing nothing but containing Iraq, who was supporting terrorist attacks against the US and US interests. It's really simple to say "We shouldn't have invaded" - but then you've got to go back to 91, and decide what we should have done, and explain how things wouldn't have been worse - unless we'd taken Saddam out then.


jsid-1189529347-580099  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:49:07 +0000

Guav:

The average Iraqi does NOT share Al Qaeda's vision for Iraq or their brand of Islam.

No. But they had to experience it to believe it, you'll note.

In Afghanistan, for instance, there was no chance for real resistance, since there wasn't any outside help if you decided similarly. (The press in America was decidedly unfriendly towards the Northern Alliance prior to 9/11 and not very friendly aftward)


jsid-1189530560-580101  Guav at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:09:20 +0000

The fact that Al Qaeda streamed into Iraq was, most probably, not predicted was a failure on the part of the administration ...
Al Qaeda streaming into Iraq was predicted—the failure on the part of the administration was to completely ignore the predictions, marginalize those who made them and—then as know—question the patriotism of those who warned of it.

... but the "flypaper strategy" seems to have been accepted.
The "flypaper strategy"—luring all of the terrorists in the world into Iraq so that our soldiers could dispatch them—was only accepted here, it has not been accepted by the Iraqi people because turning someone else's country into terrorist hotbed is not only completely immoral but it flies in the face of "liberating the Iraqi people" and building their country—it has helped to tear it apart. You cannot simultaneously try to build a country whilst turning it into the biggest terrorist training camp in the world.

Of course, what happened in London and Madrid totally discredits the stated purpose of the flypaper theory—"Better to fight them in Baghdad so we don't have to fight them at home." We're going to fight them at home again, whether we stay in Iraq or not.

The problem with the "flypaper theory" is that we're the ones stuck in the flypaper (The War Bin Laden Wanted: How the U.S. played into the terrorist's plan). In addition to which, the flypaper theory rests on the irrational foundation that there is a fixed number of terrorists in the world, and all you have to do is lure them all to Iraq and kill them, and then terrorism is defeated.

"Terrorism" isn't a country populated by "terrorists," and it's not a zero-sum game—and far from Iraq being a facility for the destruction of terrorists, according to the CIA, it's also a facility for the creation of terrorists—we're treading water at best.

Again, like it or not, the Sunnis, former insurgents, are now working with the U.S. because they believe it is a better choice.
Well I like it very much right now. But their loyalties are unpredictable.

You don't like that we invaded Iraq. Fair enough. BUT WE DID. Democrats voted in favor. Republicans voted in favor. Get over it.
I don't really understand what this comment is supposed to mean. I've been over it. I'm neither a Democrat or a Republican, and I'm obviously not arguing that we shouldn't invade—we already did. My point in commenting initially was merely to point out that it's time to stop conflating 9/11 with Iraq. Past that, I'm just replying to the things you're saying.

Pulling out now will not help. Not us, not them.
I didn't say it would. I said that "we have to stay because our enemy is there" is just a recipe for never leaving, which will also not help us or them.

The best argument, as I see it, for staying in Iraq is to prevent a high-speed civil war from erupting out of the current slow-motion civil war. But that's an entirely different issue from the "Al Qaeda is there" argument.


jsid-1189531361-580102  Guav at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:22:41 +0000

Unix-Jedi:

The average Iraqi does NOT share Al Qaeda's vision for Iraq or their brand of Islam.
No. But they had to experience it to believe it, you'll note.
Well no, they didn't have to experience it—they always knew they didn't want it. They accepted Al Qaeda in the short term for their desire to be rid of us, not because they were interested in fundamentalism. Luckily they were able to understand that American soldiers are not a fraction as evil as Al Qaeda.

The press in America was decidedly unfriendly towards the Northern Alliance prior to 9/11 and not very friendly aftward
That's because the Northern Alliance were the warlords, rapists and narco-traffickers who had been victimizing Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal. The only reason the Taliban were ever able to take power in the first place is because they had the people's support after being victimized by the warlords. More Afghani civilians died at the hands of the warlords than they did from the Soviets.

The Taliban was a response to the warlords (who formed the Northern Alliance), not the other way around.


jsid-1189531672-580104  Kevin Baker at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:27:52 +0000

Pardon me then, Guav, for assuming you are making arguments that you are not. I've seen so much from others posting here and elsewhere that I automatically assume your arguments are the same as theirs.

"...turning someone else's country into (a) terrorist hotbed is not only completely immoral but it flies in the face of "liberating the Iraqi people" and building their country—it has helped to tear it apart. You cannot simultaneously try to build a country whilst turning it into the biggest terrorist training camp in the world."

Governments do immoral things all the time. The question here is "was this intentional." Some (perhaps you) say it was. I don't think so. Never attribute to malice what can be more easily explained by stupidity. True, building up Iraq is badly restricted by the influx of Al Qaeda and other insurgents, but had we not invaded Iraq, wouldn't Afghanistan served our enemy well enough? Would Saddam have not aided and abetted insurgency and terrorism in Afghanistan? Wouldn't Iran fill the same role it is playing now? Syria?

"My point in commenting initially was merely to point out that it's time to stop conflating 9/11 with Iraq."

I can see how you assumed the last photo in this piece does that, since you are not a regular reader here and probably did not see the piece I linked to above. However, the point of that photo is that Al Qaeda and their philosophical adherents are willing and eager to target innocent children, in Beslan and in Iraq, and I have no doubt right here as well. It was not intended to conflate 9/11 with Iraq, it was intended to illustrate that our enemy deliberately targets children. Beslan does not equal Iraq either.

As to your final point about avoiding a "high-speed civil war," we are in apparent agreement. I'm hopeful that a shared understanding that Al Qaeda and their ilk are the greater enemy will help Iraqis find common cause.

I could be wrong, but I hope not.


jsid-1189533705-580109  Markadelphia at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:01:45 +0000

Breda, my intent was not "look at my blog." Kevin asked awhile back to limit posts on Haloscan or link to my own blog if it is longer. And...um..."thoughtful and poignant?" Read this again please:

"Disagree all you want, but when you start working for their side, don't be surprised when the rest of us roll right over the top of you, leaving nothing but a smear."

I don't think so.

Frank, dead on right, brother.

Guav, ah. Another lunatic like me. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan you say? How dare we think of a better strategy? Why can't we just sit in the corner and be the good little traitors and looneys they say we are?


jsid-1189533897-580110  Markadelphia at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:04:57 +0000

Yosemite, just want to make sure I'm clear on this. It is your view that there is absolutely no way that Cheney and Rumsfeld had any foreknowledge of the attacks? And there is NO possibility at all..zero..none whatsoever...that, had they known, let it happen to further their own ends?


jsid-1189534188-580112  Guav at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:09:48 +0000

Pardon me then, Guav, for assuming you are making arguments that you are not. I've seen so much from others posting here and elsewhere that I automatically assume your arguments are the same as theirs.
That's OK, I understand the impulse, as I'm sure I do it also from time to time.

Governments do immoral things all the time. The question here is "was this intentional." Some (perhaps you) say it was.
Well no, I don't think it was intentional, because I think the flypaper theory was a bullshit excuse concocted to explain why the rising numbers of US casualties—before we became accustomed to it—was somehow proof that we were succeeding; it was a way to spin a negative into a positive. Low casualties? "See, we're succeeding!" High casualties: "See? We're succeeding!"

Never attribute to malice what can be more easily explained by stupidity.
It's the people who believe the flypaper strategy was a conscious plan rather than a retrospective justification of convenience who can only conclude that it was malice—if indeed turning Iraq into a terrorist magnet was the plan itself.

but had we not invaded Iraq, wouldn't Afghanistan served our enemy well enough?
Absolutely, but we were already engaged there. And we were already fighting the terrorists there. And we were already chasing bin Laden and killing Al Qaeda. Why open up a second front along with the can of worms attendent with overthrowing an entire government and rebuilding a nation?

Would Saddam have not aided and abetted insurgency and terrorism in Afghanistan?
Not as effectively as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia already were—we just added another problem.

Wouldn't Iran fill the same role it is playing now?
To a much lesser extent—Iran doesn't have the strong Shiite ties with Afghanistan as it does in Iraq, and since Afghanistan was never at any time a threat to Iran, it had much less incentive to be involved.

Syria?
Perhaps, but unlikely. Syria does not share a border with Afghanistan.

I can see how you assumed the last photo in this piece does that, since you are not a regular reader here ...
Only because I never noticed that you had an RSS feed :)

... and probably did not see the piece I linked to above. However, the point of that photo is that Al Qaeda and their philosophical adherents are willing and eager to target innocent children, in Beslan and in Iraq, and I have no doubt right here as well. It was not intended to conflate 9/11 with Iraq, it was intended to illustrate that our enemy deliberately targets children. Beslan does not equal Iraq either.
Oh, but it was not the photos per se that led me to that conclusion and prompted me to comment. It was the photos followed by the comment "Disagree all you want, but when you start working for their side ..."

You presented a series of pictures depicting the evil perpetrated by Al Qaeda (and their fellow travellers) but the only examples of people "working for the other side" were two links to opponents of the war in Iraq—not links to Americans calling for jihad, or sympathizing with Al Qaeda, or arguing that we shouldn't be fighting terror and terrorists, or that we should give terrorists hugs and comply with their demands. Just people opposed to the war in Iraq.

I feel that opposing the war in Iraq is a result of my love for this country and is working against our enemies. It is precisely because I want Al Qaeda destroyed that I think this war was an immense strategic blunder of epic proportions. Invading Iraq was emotional, not rational; it was a knee-jerk, shoot-it-if-it-moves reaction, not a well-informed, smart strategy. And I think it's made us less secure—and still does. That doesn't mean I'm working for their side, it just means that I have different ideas from you about what strengthens us and what weakens us I suppose.

As to your final point about avoiding a "high-speed civil war," we are in apparent agreement. I'm hopeful that a shared understanding that Al Qaeda and their ilk are the greater enemy will help Iraqis find common cause.
One indication that things might not go completely to hell should we leave is that most areas are already ethnically cleansed at this point. There are very few mixed neighborhoods anymore—people have either been killed, they moved, or fled the country altogether.


jsid-1189534214-580113  Yosemite Sam at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:10:14 +0000

Mark,

Why do you hate your own government more than the terrorists. Yes, that is insane and you need help.


jsid-1189534490-580114  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:14:50 +0000

Guav:

Well no, they didn't have to experience it—they always knew they didn't want it.

And the terrorists rolled in, pointed guns in the patriarch's faces and said "We'll kill your ass".

It wasn't noble like they were recruiting in saloons with $20 for gunmen.

They accepted Al Qaeda in the short term for their desire to be rid of us, not because they were interested in fundamentalism. Luckily they were able to understand that American soldiers are not a fraction as evil as Al Qaeda.

They "accepted" them because they thought it would be able to pass them over - when it didn't, and when it became obvious that Al Queda is bloodyminded and only interested in power - and was willing to stand on their bodies for it - did the backlash start. That's not invitation, and it's barely acceptance - it's apathy.

Northern Alliance were the warlords, rapists and narco-traffickers

And the Taliban came in and proceeded to out-narco-traffic, shoot, kill, and subjugate the population. Amazing how that works.

I'm not trying to say the Northern Alliance was a font of virtue - but the issue in Afghanistan is the tribal nature, and in the hills, the tribes have been unchanged, just the elders decided what group they were going to be with, and they went along and did what tey've been doing for 100s of years. That's a point often missed/ignored by many. (And it was incredibly well taken into account during the "invasion" by the military and CIA, to far too little acclaim).

But yes - it's far more complicated than the really simple view will show.

You cannot simultaneously try to build a country whilst turning it into the biggest terrorist training camp in the world.

It's not the training camp. That's a soundbite that I think you're far too insightful to fall for. The training camps are well known.. they're over the border. Funny, thing, that, isn't it?

And while your view on morality is one deservig of some consideration - is that a moral thing to do? I'd disagree that it's tearing the country apart - it stands a good possibility - if we don't run and leave the various factions to fight it out/search for backing from the people training and arming terrorists, and thus fragmenting and really tearing apart - it could very well cement loyalties across ethnic/tribal lines.

There's something to be said for that.

Occupying Iraq costs $5 billion a month. We can't even afford to stay for decades—it will ruin us completely.

Another interesting data point - it's costing somewhere in the vicinity of almost a billion a month, last I saw, for the terrorists of various stripes to keep up the attack. (One reason why civilians are coming under the gun, rather than the US military - lots cheaper). It might not be us that breaks financially first.

And I suppose you're right - I guess we ought to get out of Germany and Japan first, though. Those 60 years of occupation have been expensive.


jsid-1189534577-580115  Guav at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:16:17 +0000

Markadephia:

It is your view that there is absolutely no way that Cheney and Rumsfeld had any foreknowledge of the attacks? And there is NO possibility at all..zero..none whatsoever...that, had they known, let it happen to further their own ends?
I'm with Kevin on this one—never attribute to malice what can be more easily explained by stupidity. It is possible? Of course, anything is possible—there is no way to rule it out to zero—but I don't think it's probable at all.

I think the 9/11 attacks did happen to further the ends of certain authoritarian elements within this country, but I don't think those elements had knowledge of or were complicit in the attacks, they just did not hesitate to take advantage of the opportunities the attacks presented, which is to be expected.


jsid-1189535460-580116  Yosemite Sam at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:31:00 +0000

"I think the 9/11 attacks did happen to further the ends of certain authoritarian elements within this country, but I don't think those elements had knowledge of or were complicit in the attacks,"

I agree with this. There is no doubt that government has been expanded as a consequence of 9-11 and in an authoritarian manner. Homeland Security and TSA procedures that are geared to make people feel safe but do little to actually enhance security, but give the government more control over our lives. But keep in mind that these procedures are popular. Many people feel safer in a more authoritarian environment and will vote for such if they feel threatened.

What I object to is these silly conspiracy's ala Markadelphia that posit that officials in our government caused 9-11 or through inaction allowed 9-11 to happen. They are offensive and a slap in the face to the people who died. Markadelphia should be ashamed of himself.


jsid-1189536114-580117  Yosemite Sam at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:41:54 +0000

"they just did not hesitate to take advantage of the opportunities the attacks presented, which is to be expected."

Now this is the type of rhetoric that irritates me. No one took "advantage" of the opportunities.... The Bush administration believed that a regime change in Iraq was an integral component to the war on terror. You may disagree with that and that's fine, but it wasn't some nefarious plan. The administration and Bush have pursued this course of action because they believe it is the right thing to do. They may be completely and utterly wrong in their belief, but it isn't malicious. That's why Bush is so stubborn, because he believe what he is doing is right.


jsid-1189536679-580119  Breda at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:51:19 +0000

Mark - I'm rather bored and irritated today, otherwise I wouldn't even bother justifying your comment to me with a response...but since I'm here, let me say this:

The mere fact that you cannot recognize your own inability to resist posting a link to your self-absorbed, paranoid, bullshit 9/11 rant does a lovely job of proving my point.


jsid-1189536917-580120  Markadelphia at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:55:17 +0000

Yosemite, I love and support my own country all the time and my government when it deserves it. Right now, it doesn't deserve it. Read these quotes and tell me how insane I am.

Rumsfeld on Larry King Dec 5, 2001
(this is directly from the transcript)

On 9-11

"I had said at an 8:00 o'clock breakfast that sometime in the next two, four, six, eight, ten, twelve months there would be an event that would occur in the world that would be sufficiently shocking that it would remind people again how important it is to have a strong healthy defense department that contributes to -- That underpins peace and stability in our world. And that is what underpins peace and stability.

In fact we can't have healthy economies and active lives unless we live in a peaceful, stable world, and I said that to these people. And someone walked in and handed a note that said that a plane had just hit the World Trade Center. And we adjourned the meeting, and I went in to get my CIA briefing --"

Now, how about this, which addresses some of the other comments here? Also from the same interview.

On Al Qaeda

"There isn't any army we can go out and defeat. There's no navy we can sink. There's no air force we can shoot out of the sky. It is a very complicated process where we have to apply pressure on the terrorist networks all across the globe by arresting people and interrogating them, by gathering intelligence from people who live next door and know something, by the countries that have friendly intelligence services, by freezing bank accounts, by working with people like the opposition forces in Afghanistan to try to root out the Taliban who have been harboring the al Qaeda terrorists. It is a complicated, long, difficult, messy, dirty job."

And

"The project of going after terrorism involves every aspect of the globe, and a whole variety of different ways of doing it -- financial, economic, political, diplomatic, military, overt, covert."

Can you now see how far off track we have gone?


jsid-1189537192-580121  Guav at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:59:52 +0000

Yosemite:

No one took "advantage" of the opportunities .... The Bush administration believed that a regime change in Iraq was an integral component to the war on terror. You may disagree with that and that's fine, but it wasn't some nefarious plan.
I just specifically said that it wasn't a plan, and you know it. I don't agree that the Bush administration believed that a regime change in Iraq was an integral component to the war on terror, because they wanted it before "The War On Terror" even existed. I'm not arguing that that was an unreasonable desire either—I wanted him dead as well. But without the attacks on 9/11, it's quite unlikely that they'd ever had gotten the popular support for an invasion of another country.

So, like I said, I do not by any means feel that the administration had specific knowledge of the attacks and allowed them to happen, but they did not hesitate to take advantage of the fact that the attacks allowed them to accomplish something they already wanted to do but were politically unable to gain support for—overthrowing Saddam.

What part of that is so irritating? It's politics.


jsid-1189537260-580122  Guav at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:01:00 +0000

Unix-Jedi:

It wasn't noble like they were recruiting in saloons with $20 for gunmen.
Actually, they did. Also from Totten's piece:
And they recruited and paid willing local Iraqis to help them. “To get paid by AQI for killing Americans,” Lieutenant Hightower said, “the attack must be videotaped. They often used tracer rounds so they could prove it was real. We found whole piles of these tapes when we cleaned the city out. We found and killed a sniper just northeast of the city. He had all kinds of video tapes of himself shooting and killing American soldiers.”

Snipers were everywhere in Ramadi. Some were committed Al Qaeda fighters, and others were just paid to help out.

“One of my soldiers was shot in the head through his helmet by a sniper,” he said. High powered bullets will pierce helmets if they hit at a head-on angle. “The sniper was shooting from behind a curtain in a van. He was a teacher at a women’s vocational school by day and a sniper for extra money at night. AQI just recruits people who need money and hires them as insurgents as if it were a regular job.”

Conveniently for Al Qaeda, the economy in Ramadi utterly disintegrated during the war. Almost everybody needed money, and even those who did have money had a hard time buying anything since all the stores had closed down.
I wouldn't call it noble at all, but they certainly had their hired guns. Desperation will do that to people. I've never lived in a warzone or a failed state (unless Jersey City counts) so I don't know firsthand ...

And the Taliban came in and proceeded to out-narco-traffic, shoot, kill, and subjugate the population. Amazing how that works.

In July 2001 we gave the Taliban $48 million because they reduced 99.86% of the opium production. With the expulsion of the Taliban, opium cultivation increased in the southern provinces liberated from the Taliban control and by 2005 production was 87% of the world's opium supply, rising to 90% in 2006. The Taliban certainly did not out-narco Traffic the NA.

The Taliban were excellent at subjugating the population, but no, they didn't kill as many of them as the warlords did. Of course, they also only held power for 6 years, so I'm sure they eventually would have given the NA a run for their money in the brutality contest.

It's not the training camp. That's a soundbite that I think you're far too insightful to fall for.
Wrong word perhaps, a semantic issue. No, not a formal camp, but a training ground. At least according to our intelligence services.

if we don't run and leave the various factions to fight it out ...
I have to take exception to that phrasing. Nobody is running from Iraq. The arguments to withdraw from Iraq are not because we fear anyone, or because we lost—we didn't, we already won the war—or as a retreat. It's because, at least for me, I'm not convinced that staying there is good for us, and I'm not convinced that the factions will not eventually fight it out at some point. I don't want us caught in the middle of someone else's civil war and I think the war is irreparably damaging this country.

it's costing somewhere in the vicinity of almost a billion a month for the terrorists of various stripes to keep up the attack. It might not be us that breaks financially first.
Unlikely that the terrorists will break financially before we do as long as we keeping sucking oil down at the current increasing rate.

And I suppose you're right - I guess we ought to get out of Germany and Japan first, though. Those 60 years of occupation have been expensive.
We only occupied Japan from 1945 to 1952. Furthermore, our occupation of Japan was seen by the Japanese people as being entirely legitimate. The Japanese government remained intact at all levels and there were no hostile political or religious factions within the country fighting us or each other—there were no insurgents, there was no civil war. Likewise, we only occupied postwar Germany from 1945 to 1955, and the German people saw our occupation as a legitimate consequence of their government's aggression.

Iraq is very unlike both of those examples and I don't think there are really any valid WWII analogies with the current situation in any respect.


jsid-1189537436-580123  Markadelphia at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:03:56 +0000

"I don't think there are really any valid WWII analogies with the current situation in any respect."

Yeah, it's ludicrous to compare the current situation to WWII. There is nothing similar about them at all.


jsid-1189537806-580125  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:10:06 +0000

Guav:

The George Washington University, The Graduate School of Education and Human Development,


jsid-1189538225-580128  Yosemite Sam at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:17:05 +0000

Mark,

What in the world is so shocking about anything Rumsfield said in that transcript.

Of course they knew something was going to happen in the future. It was bloody obvious the way Al Qaeda was ramping up the attacks. What should the administration have done with vague and uncertain chatter that some attack is going to happen somewhere? I see nothing remarkable in Rumsfeld's comments because I am not bat shit insane with hatred for our government. Do they make mistakes, Hell yes, but not what you assert.

Guav,

I should have said nefarious intentions, not plan. I recognize that you have said that you don't believe there was any plan.

"I don't agree that the Bush administration believed that a regime change in Iraq was an integral component to the war on terror, because they wanted it before "The War On Terror" even existed"

Just because Bush wanted to take Saddam out before 9-11 doesn't imply that they wouldn't believe that it was more important after 9-11 to remove him. In fact the argument was that in the post 9-11 world, we can no longer tolerate Saddam's government in Iraq.


jsid-1189538765-580129  Yosemite Sam at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:26:05 +0000

"What part of that is so irritating? It's politics."

Oh, lots of things irritate me, Guav. I guess that's just my cross to bear. :)


jsid-1189538869-580131  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:27:49 +0000

Guav:

You actually reversed what I was talking about - that's got Al Queda hiring local gunfighters - not the reverse which is what I was pointing out hadn't occurred - the locals didn't hire Al-Queda to come in.

I have to take exception to that phrasing. Nobody is running from Iraq.

That's simply not true. You may well take issue with it, but that is quite frankly, exactly what has been proposed by most politicians in favor of withdrawal, and no matter how you dress up withdrawal, it will appear in the dynamics of the ME and the politics of the world to be running.


The arguments to withdraw from Iraq are not because we fear anyone, or because we lost—we didn't, we already won the war—or as a retreat.

Which is all well, good, possibly academic talking points. But that's what they were. Al Queda would insist they "ran" us out of Iraq.

Look only at the Israel withdrawal from Lebanon, if you need a more recent example - the Israeli's pulled back "To facilitate the peace process". Hezbollah took up their positions, declared victory, and began attacking.

The last year's small offensive - when Israel withdrew, having accomplished (Well, per the plan) the objectives, again, they were considered as "having lost" against Hezbollah (who had run away from their chance at glory against "cowardly Jews"). Tell Hezbollah they "lost". (Or Iran). Tell Iran that we're not scared of them, but oh, we're pulling all the troops out. But don't get any smart ideas! We Won't Be Back! So Don't Make Us Berate You On the U.N. Floor! We're not running! We're.. just.. leaving.

Guav, you're obviously very smart. And you obviously have to see that the problem we have now cannot be simply, easily fixed. If we run, the problem gets even worse.

That's the realistic problem with the "containment" of Saddam that the opponents of invasion won't provide an alternative for. Had we merely said "we're busy", and pulled back the troops - Saddam would have (with some ability of being right), declared victory, and redoubled his brashness. You can see a consistant pattern from '91 on, when he was not removed by the military forces.

We "lost" the "First Gulf War". According to him. And Bin Ladin. Remember the "Weak Horse" call to arms?

It's because, at least for me, I'm not convinced that staying there is good for us,

And that's quite reasonable. But leaving... is running.

I don't want us caught in the middle of someone else's civil war and I think the war is irreparably damaging this country.

The first, yes, I can see and understand. It's a good point. The next question I'd ask you is... Who should be? Since World War One - we have been the moral intercessionist. we didn't create the problems that lead to WWII, or most of the Cold War battle lines, or the ME atrocities of map drawing... And I have some large sympathy for "It Ain't Our Problem!".

But I also know that's what we did in the 20s and 30s, insisted it wasn't our problem, and nothing short of Incredible Evil occurred. Even when we were fighting it - millions dead in the Cold War at the hands of Communism. When we didn't, we set the stage for even more, however.

And that's where I have to say I'm just not comfortable, as much as I'm not comfortable with some of what we're doing, I'm positive we're a force for good, for progress, and I shudder to think (and cannot come up with any alternatives) what would happen if we pulled back to our "Shell".

I think the war is irreparably damaging this country.

It's not the war. I'm pretty sure I know exactly what you mean, but it's not the war. That just gives it some focus - but that damage was occuring before, it's been occuring despite the war, and it will continue apace whether we're in Iraq or not.


jsid-1189538943-580132  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:29:03 +0000

Guav:

Woah, Ignore that non-sequitor. I ha done a Google search, that was in my clipboard, and damn if I know how that... not only pasted.. but... posted?!?!?

Damn Mac Keyboard.


jsid-1189540044-580134  Defiant_Infidel at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:47:24 +0000

"Disagree all you want, but when you start working for their side, don't be surprised when the rest of us roll right over the top of you, leaving nothing but a smear."

Sadly, I hear this more and more from people who can and do think deeper than the root of a hair folicle... I am very sad to say I agree with them. There will come a point wherein we will have to cut the infection that helps spread the Islamofascist disease we all face. Liberals are painting themselves into a corner and when it comes to all remaining in the civilized world's survival, we will again be forced into our own civil conflict. It is quite a thing of bewilderment when a significant portion of our population still cannot concisely isolate who the hell the real enemy is!

Excellent post with a most impressive list of intelligent commenters... most of them anyway.


jsid-1189541005-580137  Guav at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:03:25 +0000

Yosemite Sam:

Just because Bush wanted to take Saddam out before 9-11 doesn't imply that they wouldn't believe that it was more important after 9-11 to remove him.
Fine, I'll concede that.

But it doesn't disprove what I said at all—that 9/11 allowed them to do some things that they already wanted to do that they might not have had the support to do otherwise.

What's so controversial about that statement?



Unix-Jedi:
You actually reversed what I was talking about
Oh ok, sorry, I misunderstood your point.

no matter how you dress up withdrawal, it will appear in the dynamics of the ME and the politics of the world to be running ... Al Queda would insist they "ran" us out of Iraq.
What some people will perceive it as and what it is are two different things. Look, the fact is, that no matter when we leave, some cave-dwelling assholes are going to call it a victory and claim we ran away—it's inevitable. It should be the last thing we consider when deciding what to do with regards to our foreign policy. There is no conceivable realistic outcome to Iraq—good or bad—that will not result in Al Qaeda claiming victory haha ... come to terms with that, it's simply how they operate.

And you obviously have to see that the problem we have now cannot be simply, easily fixed.
I absolutely agree.

If we run, the problem gets even worse.
I'm not convinced of that at all. We're both completely speculating, there is no way to declare what will or will not happen if we leave.

But leaving... is running.
Withdrawing your army after achieving your stated objective is not running. Our stated objective was to get rid of Iraq's vast stores of WMDs and in the process, overthrow Saddam Hussein. Fuck what Al Qaeda says, we won the war, we accomplished our stated objectives. We can leave whenever the fuck we want and it ain't running.

Since World War One - we have been the moral intercessionist.
But do you really think we should be? There's a whole lot of shittier things happening in the world than what was going on in Iraq—where you gonna draw the line?

Damn Mac Keyboard.
Now those are fighting words.


jsid-1189542129-580139  Peet at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:22:09 +0000

Dammit, Kevin, that image blindsides me every time I see it.

On September 10 2001, I said "bye and have a safe trip" to my officemate at UMass Amherst and forgot all about it for the time being.

He was on UA-175. We didn't know until about 15:45 on the 11th that he had got on *that* flight. I had to stop on the way home after work and pull off the road...

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/people/1544.html

There is a memorial garden with a granite monument (small, but *big* in its way) behind Lederle GRC on the UMass Amherst campus.

Peet


jsid-1189542746-580141  Yosemite Sam at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:32:26 +0000

Guav:

"But it doesn't disprove what I said at all—that 9/11 allowed them to do some things that they already wanted to do that they might not have had the support to do otherwise."

I think we are arguing past one another. One of the disadvantages of the written word.
Sure, 9-11 made it easier to take out Saddam. 9-11 just made it more of an imperative in the eyes of the Bush Administration. I guess my point is that I think that the Iraq war was a natural consequence of 9-11. That regime just wasn't going to be allowed to continue its garbage anymore after 9-11. I believe this would have happened with a Democrat as president as well.


jsid-1189542853-580142  Markadelphia at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:34:13 +0000

Unix,

"Al Queda would insist they "ran" us out of Iraq."

What cares what they say or think? They're psychotic. This is where we should be focusing our energy, not in Iraq, but combatting their propaganda and exposing them for the fools they are. Why on earth would you allow Al Qaeda to define our actions?

"Fuck what Al Qaeda says, we won the war, we accomplished our stated objectives. We can leave whenever the fuck we want and it ain't running."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Defiant-Infidel, if you really want to focus on our true enemy, stop with the bullshit about liberals. What IS distracting us from prevailing in our struggle is crap like the lies in your post.


jsid-1189543412-580144  Yosemite Sam at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:43:32 +0000

"What IS distracting us from prevailing in our struggle"

The trouble is Mark is that you think that the struggle is against Rumsfeld and Bush, not Al Qaeda.


jsid-1189544005-580148  Guav at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:53:25 +0000

I believe this would have happened with a Democrat as president as well.
I do too, although I don't think it would have been much better of an idea. For the record, I was opposed to Slick Willy's bombing of Yugoslavia as well.

On the other hand, going into Afghanistan was indeed the correct reaction to 9/11, and I feel that Iraq has been a distraction and a drain on the War Against Terror—and that would hold true regardless of whether a Democrat or a Republican was Commander In Chief (although they might not have created quite the complete clusterfuck that this administration has).

I'm going to retire from this thread now, as I have some work to do. But I'd like to thank Kevin, Unix and Yosemite for an intelligent and civil discussion :)


jsid-1189545312-580150  Kevin Baker at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:15:12 +0000

We aim to please!

(And to strike our targets!) ;)


jsid-1189545891-580153  Ed "What the" Heckman at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:24:51 +0000

Markadelphia,

I tried reading your post but I simply couldn't finish. I just had to stop before I either puked all over my keyboard or popped a blood vessel. You. Simply. Don't. Get. It.

Mark: "A profound divide? It's more like a deep chasm. I am really trying hard to find some merit in what they have said here--and I realize there is some slight variety--but good Lord, their hatred of the left has completely clouded their judgement to the point of insane irrationality."

You claimed that you were going to do self examination, but you jumped from there to this point with no "Could I actually be wrong?" thoughts whatsoever. In fact, your entire argument boils down this formula Kevin quoted in an earlier post.

"It takes two to make a fight, so stop fighting me."

This was all I could handle:

Mark: "These folks are so far gone that they can't see that they are becoming their enemy. They are advocating a state that hides the truth."

"In other words, if you disagree with me, you're the enemy of this country." This from a guy who consistently rolls out Michael Moore films full of documented lies as evidence. I oppose all lies. If you would stop spouting them, I would stop opposing you.

For the record, here are some links which demonstrate the lies in some of Michael Moore's films:

FindOutMoore.com

Bowling for Columbine

Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 911


jsid-1189546185-580154  Markadelphia at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:29:45 +0000

That's untrue, Yosemite. I think that Bush Co is more concerned with accumulation of wealth than protecting this nation. We are most definetly in a struggle with Al Qaeda first and that is why I have repetedly advocated focusing our attention on Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. The operatives recently captured in Germany trained in fully rebuilt camps in Pakistan.

I want a new strategy against Al Qaeda because our current leadership is virtually ignoring the threat.


jsid-1189546527-580156  Markadelphia at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:35:27 +0000

Ed, I will make you a deal. I will thoroughly read all those links (although I have watched Farenhype 911) and even find points that I agree with IF you watch a Michael Moore film and tell me how YOU think he is lying.


jsid-1189546803-580157  Yosemite Sam at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:40:03 +0000

"That's untrue, Yosemite. I think that Bush Co is more concerned with accumulation of wealth than protecting this nation."

You prove my point by calling this administration BushCo. Your insane hatred of George Bush completely clouds your judgment.

"The operatives recently captured in Germany trained in fully rebuilt camps in Pakistan. "

So what would you have us do, declare a unilateral, preemptive war on Pakistan. A country that is currently our ally. That has helped us in many ways in the fight against Al Qaeda. That may be passing us intelligence that you have no clue about. Are you serious? I thought you guys were against preemptive war.


jsid-1189547108-580158  Ed "What the" Heckman at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:45:08 +0000

Markadelphia,

You claim to be a christian, yet you wrote this:

"I think that Bush Co is more concerned with accumulation of wealth than protecting this nation."

“For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?”
(1Corinthians 2:11a NAS95S)

“for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”
(1Samuel 16:7b NAS95S)

Are you claiming to be God, able to judge men's intentions?


jsid-1189547502-580159  Markadelphia at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:51:42 +0000

Al Qaeda has bases in Pakistan similar to what they had in Afghanistan. They will use those bases to launch attacks on US soil. They are currently training to do so. These are the same type of warnings that Clinton and Bush got before 9-11 and nothing was done. So, what would you do?

We can't really afford to delay any longer. I spend a lot of time researching this and read the NIAs when they come out. Musharaf has got all sorts of problems right now that is largely causing much of his inaction in a region. We need to get his approval to go in and take the bases out. I am for pre-emptive stikes when they are against people that actually attacked us.

Here is a point of view that I agree with for the most part. It outlines what went wrong and what we can do about it now. It's not all love and flowers btw...

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/09/09/2007-09-09_cia_agent_says_were_letting_bin_laden_wi.html


jsid-1189547702-580160  Ed "What the" Heckman at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:55:02 +0000

"IF you watch a Michael Moore film and tell me how YOU think he is lying."

How would that have any impact on the truthfulness or lack thereof in his films?

By all accounts his films are very slickly made, to the point where his deceptions slide right past unless you're already aware of the facts which he is twisting. For example, in Bowling for Columbine he takes parts from two different speeches by Charlton Heston and makes them seem like a single crass and obnoxious speech even though he's wearing different clothing and the backgrounds are different in each shot. With such blatant deception going on, there is simply no way I could accept any conclusion he draws based on his arguments.

Let me put it this way, when he spends an entire movie claiming that 2+2=5, 3+3=22, and 4+4=96, it would be intellectual suicide to believe him when he claims that the answer to life, the universe and everything is 42.


jsid-1189547856-580161  Markadelphia at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:57:36 +0000

Ed, I judge a man on his actions. Being an American citizen, I want my president to be more concerned with protecting this country than his lobbyists. I realize in this day and age, I might be wishing that pigs could fly but I want to try, at least, to elect a man of character.

Bush's actions have caused me to conclude that he is not a man of high character. Believe or not, I actually liked him in the first few months after 9-11. I really supported him and wholeheartedly supported our actions in Afghanistan. I still do. But he lost me when he said bin Laden "didn't matter" and the Iraq bullshit lying machine started.

I don't hate the man....or judge the man...it's his actions and his words, which I can hardly stand to listen to anymore because they are complete crap.


jsid-1189548009-580162  Markadelphia at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:00:09 +0000

Have you seen Bowling for Columbine? It's funny because I didn't take it as an anti-gun film. I took it as an anti fear film.

I didn't care for the Heston bit. It felt to me like he was picking on an old man who didn't know where he was let alone could explain himself.


jsid-1189548383-580164  Ed "What the" Heckman at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:06:23 +0000

"But he lost me when he said bin Laden "didn't matter" and the Iraq bullshit lying machine started."

::Sigh:: We've been over this ground before.

Bin Laden is just like a mob boss. When we put Al Capone away, did the Mob dry up and blow away? No. How about when John Gotti, or Jimmy Hoffa, or any other mob boss was taken out? Again, no. The mob was (is) not just one man. It's an organization. When a leader is taken out, someone else takes over.

Al Qaida is exactly the same in that respect. (In many others too, but that's beside the point.) Our goal is not just to take out Bin Laden, it's to take out Al Qaida. That's all that Bush was saying.

Why do you find it so hard to understand this concept?


jsid-1189548552-580165  Yosemite Sam at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:09:12 +0000

"Why do you find it so hard to understand this concept?"

Because if he concedes the point, he loses another anti-Bush talking point.

Can't have that.


jsid-1189548576-580166  Ed "What the" Heckman at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:09:36 +0000

"Have you seen Bowling for Columbine? It's funny because I didn't take it as an anti-gun film. I took it as an anti fear film."

Again, so what? No matter what conclusion the film makes, it cannot be trusted because it is built almost entirely on lies. Why should I waste any time or money on known lies?


jsid-1189551879-580168  Markadelphia at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:04:39 +0000

But bin Laden is important. True, if you take him out the problem is far from over. I think Zawahari would be a bigger catch, actually. But wouldn't you agree that if we did get him, it would be considerable blow and a PR coup?

US FORCES CAPTURE BIN LADEN.

Think of it.

As far as the Moore stuff goes, the central issue I have here is the knee jerk reaction that goes on...

Michael Moore-HATER OF AMERICA!!! WON'T LISTEN TO A WORD HE SAYS!

9-11 Conspiracy Theories-ALL CRAZY!! ALL LOONEY!! CAN'T POSSIBLY BE TRUE!! WON'T LISTEN TO A WORD THEY SAY!!

I find it hard to understand the concept of dismissing people or ideas with a staggering amount of high authority and you haven't even taken the time to research them for yourself.


jsid-1189552487-580170  Kevin S. at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:14:47 +0000

"Fuck what Al Qaeda says, we won the war, we accomplished our stated objectives. We can leave whenever the fuck we want and it ain't running."
You should care what Al Qaeda says. This isn't tossing insults in a schoolyard, it's propagandizing and attracting new recruits. When they can say they ran off the Great Satan, I'm willing to bet Jihadi enrollment goes through the roof.
WE don't get to decide when we've won. The other side does. When THEY surrender, when THEY say uncle when THEY say "we've had enough". You don't step out of the ring while your opponent is still on his feet, swinging.


jsid-1189553409-580171  Kevin Baker at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:30:09 +0000

No, you walk away when the only thing they can do (as King Arthur said to the Black Knight) is "bleed on you."


jsid-1189553647-580172  Kevin S. at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:34:07 +0000

"I find it hard to understand the concept of dismissing people or ideas with a staggering amount of high authority and you haven't even taken the time to research them for yourself."

As for researching 9-11 conspiracies... does this mean I'm obligated to research every lunatic's ramblings whenever they're posed, or be denounced as close-minded? What the hell ever happened to common sense and sound judgement?


jsid-1189553648-580173  Ed "What the" Heckman at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:34:08 +0000

Sure, it would be a PR coup. But that's about all it would be.

How is it a knee jerk reaction when I have taken time to research what he says and what the truth is? Are you saying that Michael Moore's films don't actually match up to what those sites say? For example, does Bowling For Columbine not show portions of several Charlton Heston speeches as if they were one crass speech?

I already know that 2+2=4 when he says that it equals 5. I already know that 3+3=6 not 22 and that 4+4=8, not 96. How could it possibly be a knee jerk reaction to say that I don't trust his truthfulness (math skills in my analogy) when he has already proven that he doesn't actually care about the truth?

As for the Troothers, again, I have taken time to find out what they're actually claiming. Most of the time, they're easy to dismiss because they're so wildly unlikely (as in 1,000,000,000 to 1 against the possibility that it could ever succeed as they claim), the rest only seem to last a touch longer when compared to the evidence. A common feature of most such theories is a basic lack of respect for basic physics and/or human psychology. For example, "the first time ever in human history that fire has melted steel."

There's only one basic Troother theory that withstands even the most basic filtering: That someone in government knew it was coming and did nothing about it.

The problem is that the more details someone knew, the less likely it is that that fact could have been kept quiet. After all, if the government can't keep top secret national security secrets about how we're tracking terrorists, there's no way they would be able to keep a secret this explosive quiet.

The most likely scenario is either that they were completely clueless or that someone had an inkling that something was up without any more info than that. It's also possible that multiple people had various pieces but that they couldn't be put together.

But to think that anyone knew enough details about date, time, method, etc., and especially that they acted on such info to wire buildings with explosives, ranges in credibility from highly improbable to deserving of a rubber room.

It's called measuring claims against experience, otherwise known as "exercising judgement."

Humans learn to do it all the time when learning to drive. ("That car is not going to be able to go from 60 MPH in one direction to 60 MPH in the other direction within 1 second, but it could reasonably do X, Y, or Z.) People who fail to learn and apply such skills to everyday life are usually called credulous or more commonly, gullible.


jsid-1189553979-580174  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:39:39 +0000

Mark:

As far as the Moore stuff goes, the central issue I have here is the knee jerk reaction that goes on...

Michael Moore-HATER OF AMERICA!!! WON'T LISTEN TO A WORD HE SAYS!


Who's said that?

I've laid out to you some specific falsehoods Moore's done. Many are documented. Starting with the fact that he interviewed Roger Smith and then made a movie about how Roger Smith wouldn't meet with him.

It's been building since then.

9-11 Conspiracy Theories-ALL CRAZY!! ALL LOONEY!! CAN'T POSSIBLY BE TRUE!! WON'T LISTEN TO A WORD THEY SAY!!

No, Mark, we actually are listening. And listening critically.

You're in the cult of personality - even when you know the cult leader is known for lying. You're aware that all the troops he interviewed have insisted that he edited the interview to give a directly opposite view of the one they held?

I find it hard to understand the concept of dismissing people or ideas with a staggering amount of high authority and you haven't even taken the time to research them for yourself.

But we have reasearched them, Mark. That's why I, among others, gave you specific problems, that you waved away in the other thread and are waving away here.

The difference is you have not.

Hell, you told Sarah (essentially) to shut up, because she couldn't know her own experience, because Moore says otherwise!.

Why are you so caught up in us watching a movie - movies we already know have factual issues, but without addressing those issues?

And we've told you about them! Who's done more research?

I followed your link that you posted, and found this as also descriptive of your thought process:

The reason for this is that the people who run the gun lobby are a group of mentally ill Nazis who are so insecure about anyone expressing an opinion that wavers even slightly from canon that any small step out of line is meet with extreme punishment. This is how they have always been and will always operate. It's how pretty much all conservatives seem to operate these days.

Mark, I'd suggest you take note of the discussion Guav and I and others had. Guav and I obviously disagree.

But he's not trying to tell my why I think a certain way. You keep trying to tell me (or guess what I'm "getting at") - despite being wrong again, and again, and again. (This seems to be a pattern with you, and not being able to notice failures, and learn from them).

He and I totally disagree on some major points - and we can have a discussion on them, because he's not trying to psychoanalyze me or vice versa. This allows him to concentrate on The. Words. That. I. Say. The Meaning Behind Those Words.

Not my intent.

Notice the vast difference between your pronouncements on people and things, your wholesale belief in messengers - while trying to ignore the message.

Guav argued the point with me and others. And notice! When we had a mixup on what we meant, it was easily cleared up!

9-11 Conspiracy Theories-ALL CRAZY!! ALL LOONEY!! CAN'T POSSIBLY BE TRUE!! WON'T LISTEN TO A WORD THEY SAY!!

Mark:

There was a conspiracy uncovered September 11th.

It involved (at least) 19 men forcing their way into the cockpits of (at least 4) airliners. In one case, torturing and killing a stewardess to gain access. Then flying the airplanes into predetermined targets , trying to kill upwards of 50k "Americans" (or anybody else on the planes or in the way), destabilize the U.S. economy, and decapitate the U.S. military.

Yes, there was a conspiracy.


jsid-1189554183-580175  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:43:03 +0000

But wouldn't you agree that if we did get him, it would be considerable blow and a PR coup?

How much of a coup was capturing Saddam?

How much of a circus did it turn into? Did he get a fair trial, Subjected to the DEATH PENALTY...

No, we'd never announce that we'd captured Bin Ladin. Nor would I expect the SF team to bring him in alive.

Neither would I.


jsid-1189554236-580176  Markadelphia at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:43:56 +0000

Kevin S, I think you ought to take a look at how many times they say they have run off the Great Satan...something they said after we pulled out of Saudi Arabia (bin Laden's chief complaint against us) and in Afghanistan.

And we have stepped out of the ring because we let them re-group in Pakistan. How do you think that makes us look? Weak? Yes.

Ed, until you watch the films, how can you be critical of it? You go and find other people's view of the film and what they say is wrong but how do you actually know? That's why I watched Fahrenhype 9-11 to see the point by point refutation of Moore's film. I didn't agree with it but at least I saw it so I could judge for myself.

Troothers, I don't think anyone knew the details. In fact, I postualte that no one even knew the magnitude. They did know that Al Qaeda was going to attack inside the US and use planes to crash in to buildings. They they knew enough damage would be done to push the country in the direction they wanted it to go.


jsid-1189554937-580177  Kevin S. at Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:55:37 +0000

Kevin S, I think you ought to take a look at how many times they say they have run off the Great Satan...something they said after we pulled out of Saudi Arabia (bin Laden's chief complaint against us) and in Afghanistan.
I do. Every time we give the impression of being run off, that many more zealots jump in on the cause. BTW, if Bin Laden's chief problem with the US was our prescence in Saudi Arabia and we pulled out as you say, why did they continue to attack the US? Hmm, do you think it could have anything to do with his stated intent to have everyone in America convert to Islam? Wow. How do you compromise with that? Where's the diplomatic middle ground on that one?


jsid-1189555250-580178  Kevin S. at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:00:50 +0000

"And we have stepped out of the ring because we let them re-group in Pakistan. How do you think that makes us look? Weak? Yes."
You're crying about Iraq, but you have no problem pissing all over Pakistan's sovereignty? Dude, are you even familiar with the word "consistency"?


jsid-1189556032-580179  Yosemite Sam at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:13:52 +0000

"They did know that Al Qaeda was going to attack inside the US and use planes to crash in to buildings."

No they didn't. They had a vague report, one amongst many, that said that there was chatter that this might be a possibility. A big difference from they knew it was going to happen.


jsid-1189556580-580180  Ed "What the" Heckman at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:23:00 +0000

Mark,

I'll repeat these questions because you didn't seem to see them.

"Are you saying that Michael Moore's films don't actually match up to what those sites say? For example, does Bowling For Columbine not show portions of several Charlton Heston speeches as if they were one crass speech?"

In other words, are those sites accurate about what they claim Michael Moore put into his films? Yes or No?


jsid-1189558077-580181  LabRat at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:47:57 +0000

Unix-Jedi, standing fuckin' ovation. Not entirely wasted. :)


jsid-1189559479-580182  Kevin Baker at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 01:11:19 +0000

I'll say one thing for Markadelphia:

He's certainly made the comments a lot more active!


jsid-1189561154-580183  Ed "What the" Heckman at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 01:39:14 +0000

Yep, Markadelphia is almost as good as religion for running up comment counts! ;)

Speaking of which, I'm almost done with an über-comment response to Markadelphia for the abortion thread. Are you still gunning for more than 100 comments there?


jsid-1189567941-580186  LabRat at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 03:32:21 +0000

I dunno about Kevin, but I'll be there with popcorn.


jsid-1189573158-580192  Kevin Baker at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 04:59:18 +0000

mmmmm....popcorn...


jsid-1189606013-580201  DJ at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:06:53 +0000

This is why I don't have a blog, Kevin. All notions of having something to say notwithstanding, I'd have to not only read such comments, I'd have to understand them and respond to them.

Instead, I'm off to the range today, with four guns on the menu. A cold front came through two days ago, and now it's 60 degrees, dry, sunny, and dead calm.

Y'all have fun.


jsid-1189606527-580202  Markadelphia at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:15:27 +0000

Kevin S. the difference between Iraq and Pakistan is that one has a "franchise" Al Qaeda and the other has the main leadership of Al Qaeda and bases similar to the ones that they had under the Taliban. And the Taliban is back and causing trouble as well. So, I don't think it is inconsisitent.I also think that Iraq under Saddam was a problem but was less of problem than other countries in the region and should not have been a focus in our struggle against Islamism.

Unix, I said those things about the gun lobby and I was wrong. They were awful things to say and I have since come to realize that personal liberty is personal liberty and one doesn't get to pick and choose how it works.

Ed, I will peruse those sites thouroughly when you watch a Michael Moore film...any film...I think Sicko is the least partisan. Based on the last site you sent me, however, which is a transcript more or less of Fahrenhype 911 (a film that I have seen), I would say that they do not do a good job of refuting his points. Moore backs up all of his facts on his own site. Check it out. You would have to see Moore's film and the other one to truly judge this for yourself. I also think that what he did to Charlton Heston, the interview and the editing of his speeches, was wrong. He is an old man who should be left alone and I should really recuse myself from all matters Heston because I have such a personal bias in favor of him being the big Planet of the Apes fan I am.

On a personal note, Ed, I enjoy your comments the most of any as they make me examine my views in a more introspective way.


jsid-1189610530-580209  Markadelphia at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:22:10 +0000

Alright, I came across this quote and I am extremly interested in what all of think about this:

"My view all along has been that this is a War of Ideas. And not a war of bombs, bullets, and bayonets. And therefore to lead with a military instrument-and I'm 31 years into that instrument-is the wrong way to go. We should be leading first and foremost with our ideas which I think are much more powerful and better than bin Laden or Ayman el Zawahari's ideas.

And we should be leading with other instruments of power such as our economics, our financial might, our law enforcement, our intelligence capabilities, and so forth. The military should be the last instrument we're using.

As we use that instrument, we do, in fact, give bin Laden a recruitment mechanism."

Well?


jsid-1189611082-580211  Kevin S. at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:31:22 +0000

"Kevin S. the difference between Iraq and Pakistan is that one has a "franchise" Al Qaeda and the other has the main leadership of Al Qaeda and bases similar to the ones that they had under the Taliban. And the Taliban is back and causing trouble as well. So, I don't think it is inconsisitent.I also think that Iraq under Saddam was a problem but was less of problem than other countries in the region and should not have been a focus in our struggle against Islamism."

So let me repeat: you have no problem pissing all over Pakistan's sovereignty then? We should pull out of Iraq and invade Pakistan? Saddam was violating the terms of his cease fire AS WELL AS providing material support to terrorism. I could have cared less whether we found WMDs or not. Pakistan's leadership, on the other hand is working WITH us. You want to piss that away by bombing their country? The only Muslim country that DOES have nukes? I hafta say, I'm not really digging your foreign policy AT ALL.


jsid-1189611949-580213  Yosemite Sam at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:45:49 +0000

"And we should be leading with other instruments of power such as our economics, our financial might, our law enforcement, our intelligence capabilities, and so forth."

Uh, we did that for 8 years under Clinton and it worked oh so well.

Gradually escalating terrorist attacks culminating in 9-11.

BTW, how is law enforcement going to deal with a terrorist training camp in Pakistan, you know, the one you are so concerned about.


jsid-1189612243-580215  Yosemite Sam at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:50:43 +0000

"As we use that instrument, we do, in fact, give bin Laden a recruitment mechanism."

And not using that mechanism gives bin Laden a recruitment mechanism as well. You know, the weak horse bit. Face it, whatever we do, Al Qaeda will have little problem recruiting wannabe jihdis.


jsid-1189612517-580216  Markadelphia at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:55:17 +0000

Kevin S., we would not be "pissing all over Pakistan's sovereignty" if we destroyed the Al Qaeda bases in the unconntrolled Waziristan region. Musharaf himself has more or less given up on the area. He has no power there. And if we went in with a serious US force (not the piddily shit we have now) in tandem with the Pakistani military, that also would not be pissing on their sovereignty.

We could start by telling him that his 2 billion a year that we give him in aid (that he uses to pay off the military and the wealthy elite in the country) will dry up if we don't team up and take out the Al Qaeda camps.

Look, the situation there is serious. What will you say if another attack on the homeland occurs with operatives that were trained in these camps?


jsid-1189612786-580218  Markadelphia at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:59:46 +0000

Yosemite, the reason why I put up this quote (from Colonel Larry Wilkerson btw) is that it really encapsulates much of my view on how we win. To answer your question, Colonel Wilkerson said we use the military as a last resort and it is my opinion that we are just about there with Pakistan.

Law enforcement, especially working with law enforcement of friendly countries, is paramount. Observation, human intelligence, knowledge of jihadi mindset...all of these things can disrupt plots like we saw in Germany last week.


jsid-1189613404-580219  Yosemite Sam at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:10:04 +0000

Mark,

I can't believe you are the same person who thinks that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq because it has weakened the stability of the region and caused more chaos. But here you are advocating a full fledged military expedition into Pakistan that would make the Iraq war look like chicken feed. If we invaded Pakistan, the entire Islamic world would explode(even if we went in with Musharaf's blessing). The Musharaf government would collapse and radical Islamics would then have nukes. It would be WWIV. Not really a peaceful way to solve the terrorism problem.


jsid-1189613416-580220  Markadelphia at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:10:16 +0000

Yosemite, the reason why I chose this quote is that it encapsulates much of my thinking on this conflict. It is from Colonel Larry Wilkerson, btw. I think Pakistan may be at that “last resort” that Colonel Wilkerson spoke of….you’re right, law enforcement is clearly not working there.

But it will work in other countries where we are friendly with local law enforcement. Observation, human intelligence, research on the mind of a jihadi…all of these things will be far more effective than a bunker buster.


jsid-1189613659-580221  Yosemite Sam at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:14:19 +0000

"But it will work in other countries where we are friendly with local law enforcement. Observation, human intelligence, research on the mind of a jihadi…all of these things will be far more effective than a bunker buster."

But, who is really disagreeing with this. Most people here are not the "nuke them all" type. I totally agree that intelligence and law enforcement are key components of the fight against Islamic terrorist.

They are being used right this minute.


jsid-1189613903-580223  Markadelphia at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:18:23 +0000

Well, what's the alternative? Do you think our current policy is effective? Why? Again, I must ask, what do we do if another attack happens on our homeland with people that trained in those camps.

Iraq was a threat, yes, but the policy of the 1990s had largely worked, according to Gen Zinni, and Saddam was contained. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and Al Qaeda did. Afghanistan should have been the top prioity and it was for awhile. I was in full support of our leadership at this time. Looking back at their language then, they were really on the right track. The didn't finish the job there, though, and look where we are at now.

We should send enough troops to get the job done. How many that is would be up to the Pentagon, who I'm sure has a plan drawn up for this.

"If we invaded Pakistan, the entire Islamic world would explode"

Aren't they already there? Take a look at channel 375 at 9pm (on Direct TV) and watch their newscasts. There are a lot of things going on over there that we never see on our newscasts. They are frightening.


jsid-1189614200-580225  Kevin S. at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:23:20 +0000

Going in in tandem with the Pakistani military is fine with me. Going in without their let IS pissing on their sovereignty, whether they've "given up" on Waziristan or not.
I have no problem leaning on Musharraf a little more to get more co-operation out of him. The Al Qaeda presence in Pakistan must be addressed. My point is that it is not very smart to invade a country whose leadership IS trying to help, especially when that country has nukes.
As to what I'd say if an attack originated in Pakistan, I honestly don't know. I hope it doesn't happen. I hope we deal with them before that comes to pass. I gues you'll be saying "I told you so!", right?
I do believe we're working to that end in Pakistan, despite not having your choice of a massive military presence in country.


jsid-1189614572-580227  Yosemite Sam at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:29:32 +0000

"Well, what's the alternative? Do you think our current policy is effective?"

Effective?: It depends on what the goals are. To maintain the status quo, probably. To end the threat of Islamic terrorism, hell no.

I can't come up with an alternative. This is an extremely complex issue and it has befuddled the best minds in this country. There are no easy answers.

I can't say I'm even against the policy vis a vis Pakistan that you outline here.

But one thing I do know is that this country does not have the stomach, at this time, for the total war that an invasion of Pakistan would lead to. At a minimum the war would include us, Pakistan, India, Iran and possibly Russia. China is also very close to this region. It is a powder keg.

I do not want to send our soldiers to a war like that when the probability is high that a majority of the American people will not support them. It is unfair to them.

Mark, the casualties would be in the 100K range or greater. Do you think we have the stomach for that when we all get bent out of shape over 4000 deaths over the course of 4 years?


jsid-1189614896-580229  Yosemite Sam at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:34:56 +0000

"Going in in tandem with the Pakistani military is fine with me."

It sounds good, but the Pakistani generals would probably not agree with it and if they somehow did, the country would rise up and turn out the government and the entirety of the country would be in a state of anarchy. A perfect condition for Al Qaeda to get some nukes.


jsid-1189615361-580230  Kevin S. at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:42:41 +0000

I think we're already doing that, Yosemite Sam, just not in the numbers that Markadelphia would like. I agree with your point about dragging China and Russia into the conflict should we indulge in a full scale invasion. Projecting our power in such a manner so close to their borders is asking for a lot more trouble than we have right now.


jsid-1189615710-580231  Yosemite Sam at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:48:30 +0000

"I think we're already doing that, Yosemite Sam, just not in the numbers that Markadelphia would like."

We're doing it with Special Ops. and in a hush-hush kind of way right now. I think this is the most we can do in that region at this point in time.

A full scale invasion would trigger the scenario I have outlined.


jsid-1189618843-580239  Markadelphia at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:40:43 +0000

Kevin S., I am not so petty that I will EVER say "I told you so." Any more human lives lost to these scumbags is more than I can stomach. My frustration lies with our current leadership's seeming inability to address these issues seriously. Actually, I hope I'm wrong. That would mean we are doing enough.

I am happy to see that at least we can agree that we need to lean on Musharaf and I do see your point about going in there without his permission. You may be right. But remember, we did bomb a base where we thought Zawahari was without Musharaf's knowledge. He approved..post bombing.

Yosemite, perhaps there is a new strategy that would be in the middle of full scale invasion and special ops forces. I completely agree with the concept of elite strike teams for smaller camps around the world. Pakistan may be too big for that. We have to do something more than we are doing now.


jsid-1189626682-580255  Guav at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:51:22 +0000

The new issue of National Geographic has a cover story on Pakistan, and deals in depth with the history of fundamentalism, how it's growing there, and has some disturbing stories. It's very interesting, you guys should go check it out.

Plus there's mummies, bugs and volcanoes in it too :)


jsid-1189627382-580258  Markadelphia at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:03:02 +0000

Great article in the New York times today about a man who has renounced radical Islam. A lesson can be learned from this one...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/world/europe/12britain.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin


jsid-1189630080-580266  Kevin S. at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:48:00 +0000

Four years in an Egyptian jail is enough to change anyone's ideology, I'm guessing.


jsid-1189632150-580270  Kevin Baker at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:22:30 +0000

(*ahem*) 100! 8)


jsid-1189634850-580276  Guav at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:07:30 +0000

Fucking cheater.


jsid-1189635802-580279  Kevin Baker at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:23:22 +0000

It's my site. By definition, it's not cheating!


jsid-1189641745-580289  Markadelphia at Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:02:25 +0000

Kevin S...well, not really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri#Imprisonment_and_torture


jsid-1189649717-580306  Kevin Baker at Thu, 13 Sep 2007 02:15:17 +0000

"Kevin S...well, not really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri#Imprisonment_and_torture."


It would appear from that link, however, that the claims that "torture is useless" are incorrect.

Not that I'm advocating torture.


jsid-1189653467-580313  Russell May at Thu, 13 Sep 2007 03:17:47 +0000

"Al-Zawahiri's lawyer Montasser el-Zayat contends that Zawahiri was tortured in prison."

Cause we all know how truthful lawyers are.


jsid-1189654501-580315  Kevin Baker at Thu, 13 Sep 2007 03:35:01 +0000

Well, there is that. But the idea that Egypt tortures its prisoners is not one I find difficult to believe.


jsid-1189654527-580316  LabRat at Thu, 13 Sep 2007 03:35:27 +0000

Hell, we all know the unimpeachability of Wikipedia as source material, especially on matters political or potentially embarrassing to, well... anyone.


jsid-1189656556-580319  Russell May at Thu, 13 Sep 2007 04:09:16 +0000

"But the idea that Egypt tortures its prisoners is not one I find difficult to believe."

Same here.

I was merely pointing out the source of this particular allegation. Coupled with his self-inflicted skin abrasion from, ah, 'praying', I just find the whole thing a tad fishy.


jsid-1189662961-580322  Ed "What the" Heckman at Thu, 13 Sep 2007 05:56:01 +0000

Mark: "I will peruse those sites thouroughly when you watch a Michael Moore film...any film...I think Sicko is the least partisan. Based on the last site you sent me, however, which is a transcript more or less of Fahrenhype 911 (a film that I have seen), I would say that they do not do a good job of refuting his points. Moore backs up all of his facts on his own site. Check it out. You would have to see Moore's film and the other one to truly judge this for yourself."

Me: You still haven't made a case for why I should spend the time and money (and thereby support Moore) to watch one of his movies, mainly because you did not answer the question I've already asked twice. Did those sites misrepresent what Moore put in his films? In other words, did they build a strawman version of his arguments, or did they accurately portray the portions they have problems with?

Mark: "I also think that what he did to Charlton Heston, the interview and the editing of his speeches, was wrong."

Me: I'm curious about what you consider wrong about what Moore did here. Could you be more specific?


jsid-1189666567-580323  Ed "What the" Heckman at Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:56:07 +0000

BTW, I did look over Moore's response to the problems pointed out in Bowling for Columbine. (I'm focusing on this one because I already know more about it, the facts involved, and the fact that Kevin focuses a lot on gun issues.)

He starts off by pointing out that news reporters sometimes get things wrong. But so what? What does that have to do with the actual criticisms of his movie?

Then he starts the actual defense by engaging in ad homenim attacks. "It is now about organized groups going full blast trying to discredit me by knowingly making up lies and repeating them over and over"

Next, he continues the logical fallacies by using the genetic fallacy twice! His concept is that anyone involved in the gun industry is not allowed to respond to his movie because they're biased. It's a logical fallacy because someone can be biased about something and be correct at the same time. For example, I'm biased about the meaning of words in English. I believe that they hold certain meanings. My biases about the meanings of those words corresponds with the meanings printed in the dictionary. Does my bias about those meanings mean that I'm wrong about them? No!

Finally, he actually gets into some details. The first thing I noticed is that he doesn't even respond to some of the criticisms. That's not a "response."

The second thing I noticed is that he included the full transcript of Mr. Heston's Denver speech (good for him) but then he claims that the full speech makes Mr. Heston look more evil than the twisted version he put in his film! WTFrench?!? (Pardon my French.) Does Moore have some sort of mental filter in place which causes him to be completely blind to things like the part where Heston mentions that everything that could be cancelled was cancelled out of respect for the pain of the community? Or his expressions of support for the community? If he doesn't actually have such a mental block, then he has amazingly big brass ones (about the size of Manhattan) to brazenly call Heston's speech the exact opposite of what it actually was.

These are just examples. There is a heck of a lot more about Moore's response which is lacking. Here is a detailed fisking of Moore's response to critics.

In short, Moore's response is lacking because he completely ignores the strongest criticisms of his movie and he dissembles about other portions. He does have a few good points in his response, but they don't resolve the critical problems with his movies.

Remember, just because someone responds to an argument does not mean that they have made a debate winning argument. "Yea? Well f*** y**!" may be a response, but it's utterly lacking in the kind of content needed to succeed in an actual debate.


jsid-1189709885-580358  Markadelphia at Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:58:05 +0000

My original point about Zawahari was that he was in prison and came out more of a psychotic.

Ed, you certainly don't have to spend the time and money watching the films. By not seeing them, however, your criticisms of him lack any foundation whatsoever. If I said Ann Coulter was full of crap and then I said I never read her columns, how insightful would I be?

Based on Fahrenhype, they spent more time attack Moore and less time refuting his points. In my eyes, they did not do a good job of proving to me that he lied.

Heston, you have to watch the film Bowling For Columbine. He makes a compelling argrument, which I agree with, about how fear is used to manipulate beliefs in this country and then he goes to an old man's house, a barely cognant Heston, and interviews him in a way that I found to be unfair given his mental state. While I disagree with Heston politically, I have always enjoyed his films and because of this bias, I was turned off by Moore bothering someone with Alzeimers.

Maybe you should watch Bowling for Columbine and decide for yourself. The thing I really go out of it was Barry Glassner's book The Culture of Fear. Hey, maybe you could check that out from the library and then you wouldn't be paying anyone anything!


jsid-1189710011-580359  Markadelphia at Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:00:11 +0000

Just checked out the fisking link you put up...completely misses the point of the film. There is so much more to it than those points.


jsid-1189712908-580371  Yosemite Sam at Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:48:28 +0000

"There is so much more to it than those points."

ie. Fake but Accurate


jsid-1189715748-580378  Ed "What the" Heckman at Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:35:48 +0000

"ie. Fake but Accurate"

'zactly!

Markadelphia,

It is a basic rule of logic that when you have several steps involved in reaching a conclusion, the conclusion is invalid if any of the intermediate steps are wrong. It doesn't matter if most of them are right, or even if all but one is right, that one (or in Moore's case, one dozen) is all it takes to destroy the entire chain of logic.

Imagine a pure logic problem such as this math problem:

((2+5) * 7) - (12 / (3 * 2)) + (8 ^ 9)

There are 7 steps in this problem. If you get only 6 of those steps correct, will you get the right answer? No!

I think it's fascinating that your complaint about what Moore did to Mr. Heston was that it bothered you that Moore essentially kicked him when he was down. Yet you didn't mention Moore's editing of Mr. Heston's speech to change it from a speech of sympathy and support for the community into an arrogant and abusive speech of contempt. Apparently the truth of a thing matters less to you than your sympathy for Mr. Heston's faltering health. Emotion over logic.

Mark: "By not seeing them, however, your criticisms of him lack any foundation whatsoever. If I said Ann Coulter was full of crap and then I said I never read her columns, how insightful would I be?"

It would only lack foundation if those sites were inaccurate about what was in Moore's movie. I'll ask you yet again: Do those sites accurately portray what is in his movies? Yes or no?

If you didn't read any of Ann's columns, but you still had accurate knowledge of what she said (not taken out of context, etc.), then you would have a solid basis to discuss what she said.


jsid-1189725652-580391  Markadelphia at Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:20:52 +0000

"Do those sites accurately portray what is in his movies? Yes or no?"

Well, Fahrenhype doesn't at all, that's the third link. And the other one just above that you linked doesn't either. The first two I will go to and peruse thoroughly if you watch one of his films.

In our ongoing debate about sex in the Bible in the other link you said....

“Things go wrong when the author's intent is distorted. This can happen for several reasons. The author could have ignored the rules of the language and written something which can not be understood; or the reader failed to apply those same rules, losing the meaning in the process; or, worst of all, the reader could attempt to impose his own meaning on what was written.”

Or filmed.


jsid-1189729918-580400  DJ at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 00:31:58 +0000

"Ed, you certainly don't have to spend the time and money watching the films. By not seeing them, however, your criticisms of him lack any foundation whatsoever. If I said Ann Coulter was full of crap and then I said I never read her columns, how insightful would I be?"

Bullshit, in spades.

Are you aware there are such things as ...

... excerpts?
... reviews?
... summaries?
... quotes?

Do you s'pose one can learn something from them?

Do you s'pose that what one can learn from them is not accurately described as lacking "any foundation whatsoever"?

Still having trouble with hyperbole, aren't you?


jsid-1189776366-580424  Ed "What the" Heckman at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:26:06 +0000

Me: "Do those sites accurately portray what is in his movies? Yes or no?"

Mark: "Well, Fahrenhype doesn't at all, that's the third link. And the other one just above that you linked doesn't either."

"The other one" would be Bowling for Columbine. Has anyone here actually seen these movies and compared them to what these sites say? I may actually do that myself at some point for one of the movies, but it will take many hours (I figure at least 4) and I'm not going to be able to get to that right away.


jsid-1189780963-580436  Markadelphia at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:42:43 +0000

DJ, until you see a Michael Moore film (if you, in fact, have not) your criticisms of him will not be credible and you will demonstrate to me an unwillingness or fear (?) of information that does not fit within your idealogy.


jsid-1189784209-580443  Kevin Baker at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:36:49 +0000

Mark:

I saw Bowling for Columbine.

I know, for a fact, that the scene he staged of being handed a rifle in a bank was an outright lie. The way that works is you deposit your money into an account and you receive a certificate which you take to a federally licensed dealer. There you undergo a background check before being given the firearm.

When someone deliberately lies, I feel perfectly justified in dismissing them as a source. Period. The "rifle in a bank" lie was accompanied by many, many more; all deliberate, all egregious. After "Bowling for Columbine," Michael Moore has absolutely no credibility with me.

But you think he's just wonderful.


jsid-1189790476-580456  Ed at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:21:16 +0000

Kevin,

According to Moore's response, the bank is actually an FFL. According to mooreexposed.com that part is actually true.

However, if I understand the events depicted in the movie, Moore walked into the bank, opened an account, he filled out the 4473, they handed him the rifle, and he left. (This is just a bare bones account of the important steps.) Is this correct?

The bank doesn't actually stock the rifles. Normal procedure is that a rifle is selected from a catalog and only picked up several days later after it's shipped to the bank branch. Even more (Moore?) interesting, as a NYC resident, Moore is required by law to get a permit for that rifle before he got it. Apparently that currently takes about 6 months.

So in reality, Moore had to start the process months in advance, arrange for the bank to already have the gun on hand, open a 20-year CD, just to get a gun "too easily." In short, the process he showed is not how it actually works. He lied by omission.

In fact, he openly lied in his "response." He states, "Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account." In his interactions with the bank, at minimum he would also have needed to arrange for them to have the rifle shipped to the branch ahead of time.

The details are here and here.


jsid-1189793045-580461  Kevin Baker at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:04:05 +0000

Thanks for the update, Ed. I was not aware of the details. That must be the only bank in the nation with an FFL.


jsid-1189794105-580462  Markadelphia at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:21:45 +0000

Kevin B, OK, but what point do you think he was trying to make at the bank?

Again, not the main point of the film at all but more of an extraneous sub plot of the film. You're focusing on the parts of the film that piss you off not the overall theme of the film which is an exploration as to why our country is so violent.


jsid-1189795474-580465  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:44:34 +0000

Mark:

And you're not focusing on that:

Michael Moore Deliberately Lied At That Point.

not the main point of the film at all but more of an extraneous sub plot of the film.

A rather important "side point", "That guns are easy to get".

That you could walk in and walk out with a gun.

That's not true.

You're focusing on the parts of the film that piss you off

Because they're not true.

How can you tolerate being manipulated, knowing that that right there, (among other things), but that scene, right there, was dishonest, and set up to manipulate you into feeling outrage and agreeing with Moores "main point?. Either you agree that scene was false, or you don't. If you do, it fatally flaws the "Documentary" aspect, since Moore's now fictionalizing for the camera. If you don't, then you've got to deal with the next issue - and the one after that, and the one after that... How many before you say "This isn't true?" (The Heston editing, the Willie Horton Ad... These were not true depictions, or were totally false. And they're not even most of the objections to truth in the movie.

not the overall theme of the film which is an exploration as to why our country is so violent.

Really.

Funny, thing, that. 50% (fifty percent, aka one half) of the murders in this country are committed by a certain, distinct, demographic.

How much discussion was that in there in "Bowling"?


jsid-1189795559-580466  Ed "What the" Heckman at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:45:59 +0000

::switching gears::

Last night, I learned that Hershey, PA held a celebration for Milton Hershey's 150th birthday yesterday, the 13th. Apparently, the schools there held a 1 minute moment of silence in his memory. What makes this odd is that they did not have a similar moment of silence for the victims of 9/11 two days earlier.

The good news is that the students were absolutely livid over this PC garbage. Most of the teachers were also bothered by this, but the impression I was given was that the student body was the most outraged over it. The fact that "mere" teenagers recognized just how wrong this was gives me some small hope.


jsid-1189795560-580467  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:46:00 +0000

Mark:
Oh, yeah.

Kevin B, OK, but what point do you think he was trying to make at the bank?

That he was a dishonest, manipulative hack looking to deceive people unaware of the laws or truth through false pretenses?

Worked well enough for me.


jsid-1189795779-580469  LabRat at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:49:39 +0000

Okay, so Mark cannot and will not understand why a film-maker using very blatantly deceptive tactics to score a "minor" point- although why he would assume the film-maker's MAJOR points are therefore probably solidly made will remain a mystery for the ages- so we're not going to get anywhere on that.

I'm going to pretend for a second that I DON'T think those who stoop to such tactics even to score a "minor" point have blown all their credibility to kingdom come. So, premise: Moore might, like the stopped clock twice a day, be right about something despite the fact that he's a lying sack of shit.

Another premise: the rest of us are right in that as long as the details are faithfully recorded- NOT THE SPIRIT, Mark, it doesn't matter if you think they missed the point of the film because they were distracted by all those piddling little blatant deceptions- we can use quotes from sources who have wasted time and money on Moore so we don't have to.

Why is (according to Moore) our country just so goshdarn violent, and why do you think he's right?


jsid-1189796508-580470  Russell at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:01:48 +0000

LabRat,

Isn't obvious? Any truth can be reached by assembling false and distorted premises!


jsid-1189796833-580471  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:07:13 +0000

Mark:

Drop the replies to me, if you would, I'll conceed the time for the reply to LabRat and her questions.


jsid-1189799933-580480  Markadelphia at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:58:53 +0000

But wait a minute. Are you saying that guns are difficult to get? Because we already know that's not true. Cho-Virginia tech?

The point of the film for me was that our culture, this includes everyone not just gun owners, are in a perpetual state of fear and paranoia. Barry Glassner, author of the book Culture of Fear, is interviewed in the film and discusses at length how the media is complicit in this. Marilyn Manson-blamed for Columbine remember?-sums it up eloquently when he says that in order for our society to function well i.e. be good consumers, people need to be afraid all of the time.


jsid-1189804868-580483  LabRat at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:21:08 +0000

our culture, this includes everyone not just gun owners, are in a perpetual state of fear and paranoia.

....
....!
....!!!

A few threads up you express the fear that "they" are going to create drugs to make us "all the same". All over the place you assert your belief in conspiracy theories, all of which involve some description of a "them" that is so all-powerful they can delude the entire human race and expect to keep them that way more or less indefinitely, and who of course have nefarious intentions. You think we should bomb the ever-loving shit out of Pakistan, innocents and allies be damned, because they're obviously so embroiled with Al Qaeda that we have no other rational choices.

And you are seriously sitting here telling me that the wisdom of Michael Moore we should be so sure not to miss just because of a few little massive honesty problems is people and organizations use fear to motivate others to believe their agenda? Un-freakin'-believable.

But, fine. I invited, I should do something other than have the logical equivalent of a system error.

But wait a minute. Are you saying that guns are difficult to get? Because we already know that's not true. Cho-Virginia tech?

You're right, it's not. Then Why on earth would Moore want to make buying a gun look much easier than it actually is ALREADY? Why, for that matter, would he need to take a situation that already involved a great deal of fear all out of proportion- Columbine- and proceed to commit several more total fabrications (re-splicing Heston's speeches so that they sound callous rather than sympathetic, assert that the Columbine kids grew up around "weapons of mass destruction", or any of the other bullshit?

Because the agenda of the film- the reasons to put all that fiction into his "documentary"- isn't "fear drives people to stupid stuff and people exploit that" (a fact of life that should be obvious to anyone over the age of twenty), it's: guns and gun owners are what you should really fear. (As opposed to the minorities he creates a cute cartoon of to claim fear of drives gun ownership.) You might note the irony of using exactly the same tactic you took away as the "message" of the film to lead viewers to conclusions about what widespread gun ownership says about American culture. Or you might not, you seem to be immune.

THIS IS WHY THE DETAILS ARGUMENTS REST ON ARE IMPORTANT.


jsid-1189822306-580501  DJ at Sat, 15 Sep 2007 02:11:46 +0000

"DJ, until you see a Michael Moore film (if you, in fact, have not) your criticisms of him will not be credible and you will demonstrate to me an unwillingness or fear (?) of information that does not fit within your idealogy."

Utter bullshit again, Mark.

Consider Kevin's direct response to your statement:

"I know, for a fact, that the scene he staged of being handed a rifle in a bank was an outright lie. The way that works is you deposit your money into an account and you receive a certificate which you take to a federally licensed dealer. There you undergo a background check before being given the firearm."

That's the reality that you, or I, or anyone else would face if they accepted the bank's offer. What Michael Moore showed was not reality, rather it was a fucking lie, a deliberate attempt to mislead the audience about the reality of acquiring guns.

I have seen an interview of Michael Moore in which he was asked about this specific scene. He was quite belligerent in his answer, admitting what happened, stating that he knew it was a lie, but that he didn't care, that he got his message across, and that's all he cared about.

I'm with Kevin:

"When someone deliberately lies, I feel perfectly justified in dismissing them as a source. Period."

Michael Moore has no credibility with me. It is a status that he has earned and that he deserves. As I stated to you before, I am not willing to wade through the bullshit he delivers to find out whether or not he has anything to say worth hearing. It says a lot about you that you are, and that you hold him up as an example of what we ought to pay attention to so as to learn about reality.

And I don't have to go watch his work to find that out, and you know it. Save your holier than thou bullshit for someone who is impressed by it.


jsid-1189824465-580503  Kevin Baker at Sat, 15 Sep 2007 02:47:45 +0000

I believe the expression is "picking through the shit to find the corn."

As far as I'm concerned, the fact that the corn is in the shit renders it inedible.

Others apparently don't feel that way.


jsid-1189866683-580518  DJ at Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:31:23 +0000

Well said, Kevin, and I agree. I explained it in detail and in plain English because I think Mark has difficulty enough with reading comprehension without using shortcuts.


jsid-1189871492-580521  Markadelphia at Sat, 15 Sep 2007 15:51:32 +0000

Lab, well, then you should take stock in the fact that Moore failed in what you describe as his intent of the film. This:

"guns and gun owners are what you should really fear"

is completely NOT what I got out of the film. Nor is it what anyone I know got out of the film. Oddly, the only people that I know that say that the above is what the film is about are....the gun lobby and conservatives. Explain that one to me.

DJ, well, what can I say? Perhaps our brains are just wired differently. And now there is scientific evidence to prove it.


jsid-1189872334-580522  LabRat at Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:05:34 +0000

Uh, sure, Mark. That's why the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence is listed as a sponsor on the Bowling for Columbine site. And why in his evasive rebuttal to attacks on the movie, he says he "went after" the NRA and its supporters, and that he's donating the proceeds of the gun he got at the bank to the Brady Campaign. And why if you search Michael Moore's site you instantly find several articles supporting gun-control efforts and decrying the "easy access" to guns and the NRA. He also hosts an article by somebody posting about his absolute horror at seeing boys play with toy guns.

So I guess the only people that think BFC was anti-gun are conservatives and Michael Moore.


jsid-1189885167-580530  Markadelphia at Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:39:27 +0000

Again, that's not what I got out of the film at all. In fact, I would say that when I watched the film I experienced what I like to call "width of vision," an experience that is reserved for truly notable expressions of music, televion, literature, art or film, in this case. My vision was expanded to see America in a broader perspective.

The same holds true for my experience here at Kevin's blog. I understand, in a much deeper way, the defintion of America....why people think the way they do and what drives them.


jsid-1189887890-580532  Kevin Baker at Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:24:50 +0000

That's good, Mark. I think the main difference is that you've not previously been this exposed to people like us, but we've all been exposed all our lives to people like you; in schools, in the news and entertainment media, and in our everyday lives. The difference between us is that the exposure largely "took" with people like you, and the people like us largely rejected it.

There is, of course, a spectrum of beliefs, but I think the main thing that separates us is a pragmatic one. Those on our side hold everything up to a "does it work?" standard. Those on your side may recognize that something doesn't work, but refuse (or neglect) to inquire as to why.

It's a major theme of this blog: the cognitive dissonance we see evidence of each and every day.

Capitalism isn't fair, but it works - it provides the best solution for the greatest number. Socialism never works - it concentrates power into the hands of bureaucrats and abuse of said power has essentially no penalty. Capitalism distributes happiness and opportunity - completely unevenly (and you say, unfairly). Socialism removes opportunity and distributes misery, but it does it very equally.

Unless you happen to be in the class that does the distribution.

Ask George Orwell. Ask F.A. Hayek. Ask Eric Hoffer.

You are a self-confessed utopist. We are realists, dedicated to the same goal that James Lileks expressed in that quote I've provided before:

"Personally, I’m interested in keeping other people from building Utopia, because the more you believe you can create heaven on earth the more likely you are to set up guillotines in the public square to hasten the process."

We've studied history. We know the truth of that statement.

We recognize the people who think the way you do, but I can't say we really understand it.


jsid-1189891123-580535  LabRat at Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:18:43 +0000

What YOU get out of a movie is a totally different animal than what the film-maker intended people to get out of it. I doubt George Lucas intended me to root against the Jedis, but that's what I get out of the Star Wars series.

This entire time we've been arguing about what Michael Moore did and what he meant- I'm glad you got such a good experience out of it, but that doesn't redeem Moore.


jsid-1189892701-580537  Unix-Jedi at Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:45:01 +0000

*waves 2 fingers at LabRat and starts speaking in a monotone*

You've misunderstood the story. Go back. Believe in the Force and the Jedi. Watch them again.

*waves 2 fingers*

You really like the Jedi Order.

*waves*

They're your friends and protectors. Now you can go back about your business.


jsid-1189900032-580541  Markadelphia at Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:47:12 +0000

Kevin B., it's not that I haven't been exposed to folks like you before. In fact, I have several members of my family who say, verbatim, the same things that you do. I have several close friends as well who are much of the opinions and beliefs expressed here. It's the interaction here, though, that I find to be tremendously self-actualizing.

For example, the gun issue. I don't bide hypocrisy and I especially loathe it within myself. So, if I stand for liberty, which I strongly do, I stand against gun control. In addition, I never would've gone looking for the gunbloggers.org link that I found with the reams of information about how wrong the Patriot Act is and why. Thanks, by the way.

As we peel back the layers that is Markadelphia, I think you will find that there are several misconceptions you have about the left. We aren't all the same...just like conservatives aren't all the same. To classify oneself as part of "they" or "us" has never fit well with me, even though I have done it in the past.

Things didn't really "take" with me as you have suggested. For example, I have and always will refer to women as "chicks." I also think that porn does not demean women as they are clearly in charge (and run the industry now anyway). I think that if a group of men behaves in a belligerent fashion, yelling and asking for seat belt extensions on an airplane, then they deserve to be questioned regardless of their ethnicity.

I think that every adult in this country should work, preferably doing something they enjoy so they should make it their life's passion. I think that parents should parent and not be their children's "pals." I think the biggest problem with our education system is not that it has been co-opted by communists but that it has far too many lazy teachers who end up sticking around too long or for the wrong reasons.

So, it is my hope that, while I'm sure I will called many things down the line, that you take note of when I make comments that are outside of the vast left wing conspiracy to brainwash the American public.


jsid-1189902154-580546  Kevin Baker at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:22:34 +0000

"We aren't all the same...just like conservatives aren't all the same." - Mark

"The difference between us is that the exposure largely "took" with people like you, and the people like us largely rejected it.

There is, of course, a spectrum of beliefs, but I think the main thing that separates us is a pragmatic one.
- Me

Reading comprehension problems again?


jsid-1189907305-580550  Markadelphia at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 01:48:25 +0000

Oh, sorry. Missed that one.

You know, I spend a lot of time being irratated by dingbat liberals as well. Some are terribly naive about Al Qaeda. They have no clue whatsoever how they treat women and so if I were a feminist, I would be actively speaking out against strict Islamic culture. The same holds true in many ways when the subject of Israel comes up. While I believe that America is partly too blame for why they "hate us," I think there is absolutely no reason or provocation on the part of Israel to warrant the hatred they have and the violence they unleash against Jewish people.

Somewhere along the line some liberals in this country forgot what anti-Semitism is...


jsid-1189948564-580564  Kevin Baker at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:16:04 +0000

What you don't seem to grasp is that they hate Israel for much the same reasons they hate the West.

We exist. We're successful. And we're infidels.

What I don't understand is why you don't.

(They especially hate the Jews - aside from the historical religious strife - because they came into what was essentially a barren desert after WWII where generations of Muslim Arabs had failed to build anything of note, and within a very few decades they built an incredibly successful, vibrant, prosperous nation. More, they did it while being constantly attacked, and without any natural resources to speak of. In short, they proved that it wasn't necessarily Allah's will that everybody had to be poor. It just took trust and hard work - something that modern Middle Eastern cultures don't encourage.)


jsid-1189950330-580566  Markadelphia at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:45:30 +0000

Well, I know I'm gonna get reamed for this one but....:).....I see Israel as simply fighting for its right to exist. The US, on the other hand, behaves in a more Imperial fashion.

I don't see Israel all over the world saying "It's our way or the highway." I see them surrounded by a group of Nazi-esque countries bent on liquidating Jewish people. I agree completely with your last paragraph in parenthesis.

I also have first hand knowledge-a girl I used to date :)- served in the Israeli military for 3 years. The amount of restraint they show on a daily basis is remarkable. I think if we behaved more like that, I would be much happier with our country. Of course, the Islamists would still hate us but that's going to be the case no matter what how we behave.


jsid-1189957092-580576  DJ at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:38:12 +0000

"Well, I know I'm gonna get reamed for this one but.........I see Israel as simply fighting for its right to exist. The US, on the other hand, behaves in a more Imperial fashion. "

Well, you ought get reamed.

Lessee now ...

The US is fighting militant islamic extremists, whose repeated public statements are to the effect that we will convert to Islam or they will destroy us. And that's not fighting for our right to exist?

We invaded a country, crushed it gubmint, defended it while it established and elected a new gubmint, restored its sovereignty, defend it while that new gubmint learns to function and the people learn to function with it, and defend it while it develops the ability to defend itself. When they do, we'll leave, and thereby complete the process, just as we did with Japan and Germany. And that's imperialism?


jsid-1189963134-580584  LabRat at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:18:54 +0000

The US, on the other hand, behaves in a more Imperial fashion.

Wait a second, didn't we have a whole long big discussion two threads up about this word? And didn't nailing down that definition with respect to the U.S. end with you saying this: We are protecting our interests or financial investements, as any country would do, to maintain economic stability. in the end of that discussion, before it turned into Capitalism Is As Bad As Any Economic System Ever?

Dammit, learn what words mean!


jsid-1189964973-580589  Kevin Baker at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:49:33 +0000

"Dammit, learn what words mean!" - LabRat

This is what I really hate about modern Leftism.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
- Lewis Carrol, Through the Looking Glass

And, of course, Leftists deny this and project this behavior on their ideological opponents, which Mark has done in these very comments:

The reason why I refused to answer the question is that I, unlike other spineless turds in this country, will not fall victim to classic conservative double speak and language manipulation, which is what you unsuccessfully tried to accomplish with your question. - Markadelphia

Sorry, but I learned my lesson a long time ago not to play the conservative language manipulation game. - Markadelphia

To answer your (neocon language manipulation framing) question... - Markadelphia

It doesn't matter when the meanings of words are painstakingly pointed out to him. Words mean what he chooses them to mean, no more no less. And for the same reason.

The truly sad part about it all is I don't think he does it maliciously. I think it's a result of how he's been programmed his entire life. He's not doing it willingly, he is literally unable to think any other way.

This is what we're up against.

The Geek said in an earlier post, "I am, and have always been willing to entertain the idea that the neoLiberal has arrived at his position through an equally rigorous process.

"And yet, each and every time I've tested that by engaging once again in the tiresome debate, to see where the rubber meets the road, I find that the neoLiberal position holds little water, and the opponent is reduced to withdraw from meaningful participation in the debate, relying instead on various forms of intellectual dishonesty: fallacies, rhetorical grenades, or the playing of the internet superpower* card.
(Run away, claiming victory - Ed.)

"After a while, one wearies of entering the arena yet again to cover the same old ground."


It is wearying, but it must be done, or we lose by default.


jsid-1189969180-580594  Russell at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 18:59:40 +0000

I'd just like to thank Kevin, DJ, LabRat, Unix-Jedi et al. for their willingness to keep at it!


jsid-1189970115-580597  Kevin Baker at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:15:15 +0000

You're welcome, but DJ, U-J, and LR are doing all the heavy lifting here, and for that I thank them as well.


jsid-1189970232-580599  LabRat at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:17:12 +0000

If I'm to be completely honest, I'm doing this more for the same reasons I try to stick to a workout schedule than I am for the defense of ideals.

"You know how to use a sword, do you?"

"I've had the training, Sarge."

"Ah. Well, then if we're attacked by a lot of sacks of straw we'll be all right."


- Night Watch

As it happens, we have.


jsid-1189986758-580612  Kevin Baker at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 23:52:38 +0000

Just a note:

I think this is officially the longest comment thread ever at TSM.


jsid-1189988108-580615  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:15:08 +0000

But now, it's longer.


jsid-1189988769-580619  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:26:09 +0000

LabRat:

Great book. No. One of the best ever. I never tired of re-reading it.

And reading it would do Mark a world of good - Captain Swing should sound very familiar.


jsid-1189989034-580621  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:30:34 +0000

Kevin:

You're welcome, but I should thank *you* for your patience with (especially my) longwinded and hard-headed attempts to get sense through some people.


jsid-1189994228-580628  Kevin Baker at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 01:57:08 +0000

U-J, I pay HaloScan a little bit extra so you can post longwinded hard-headed attempts to get sense through to people without having to break up your comments in to several pieces. Please, feel free to continue!


jsid-1190045977-580660  DJ at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:19:37 +0000

"It is wearying, but it must be done, or we lose by default."

"I'd just like to thank Kevin, DJ, LabRat, Unix-Jedi et al. for their willingness to keep at it!

"You're welcome, but DJ, U-J, and LR are doing all the heavy lifting here, and for that I thank them as well."

And I thank you for appreciating our efforts.


jsid-1190050853-580673  Markadelphia at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:40:53 +0000

Well, I guess it's up to me to keep the ol thread going....I am confident that I will :)

DJ, every time you compare Iraq to Germany and Japan, you demonstrate to myself, and possibly others here as well, that you really don't know what you're talking about. Two completely different situtations separated by 60 years of history the most obvious of which is that we are not fighting a country. Iraq is not Al Qaeda.

And "repeated public statements?" How about these?

"For over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples. "

"All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims.And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries"

Kevin, you talk about programming. Here it is. Even thought OBL has repeatededly listed the above as the reason why Al Qaeda attacked us, you refuse to see it, citing other speeches that fit in more with your belief system. So tell me, do we listen to our enemies all the time or ony when it is idealogically convenient?

Continue to frame remarks in terms like "You're either with us or with the terroists" and you will get more responses like the one above to remind you that I am not going to fall for that crap. For the last six years, people in this country have let the Bushies set parameters and control language. For me, that game is over.

I don't believe every little thing my "side" tells me. I haven't been conditioned to think anyway at all. If anything, I am the only one thinking like an invidual here. Don't most of you generally believe, collectively, the same exact thing?

If you think that I have been brainwashed, answer me this....why do you think that President Bush has the policy he has on immigration and pushed the policy to let the UAE take over our port maintenence?


jsid-1190053268-580677  Kevin Baker at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:21:08 +0000

"I haven't been conditioned to think anyway at all. If anything, I am the only one thinking like an invidual here. Don't most of you generally believe, collectively, the same exact thing? " - Markadelphia

Geek with a .45: "Anecdotally, it is my observation that a great many who espouse neoLiberal ideals show a great deal of fear and rejection/denial that the positions of their opponents are the product of a well informed deliberate process of reason. For if that were the case, it would entirely call into questions the validity of their own positions, setting up the cognitive dissonance frequently mentioned on this site.

"Subsequently, in an act of projection, that exact same charge is then leveled by them going in the other direction, and both teams routinely accuse each other of mindlessness, crowd following, and indoctrination."


So far, Mark, you've been taken to school on basic word meanings, not to mention logical, reasoned arguments for our invasion of Iraq.

What you've responded with is repeated misuse of language - after your error has been repeatedly pointed out to you; argument by appeal to authority - said authority being immediately shredded through reason and logic; changes of subject - though we do try to bring you back, repeatedly; and continued insistence throughout that Iraq never attacked us and we should be fighting Al Qaeda and only Al Qaeda.

Well Mark, we are fighting Al Qaeda. Regardless of whether or not that organization was in Iraq prior to the invasion, it's there now, and ITS LEADERS HAVE MADE IRAQ THE MAJOR FRONT OF JIHAD AGAINST THE U.S.

So you think we should pull out.

So far I think I and the other individual thinkers here have reached a common conclusion based on the evidence available. We've explained it to you. Repeatedly. We've countered your arguments, logically and with data.

And you keep making the same arguments over and over and over.

You've not been brainwashed? Then why do you keep using, for example, "IMPERIALIST!" like a member of A.N.S.W.E.R?


jsid-1190056001-580685  DJ at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:06:41 +0000

"DJ, every time you compare Iraq to Germany and Japan, you demonstrate to myself, and possibly others here as well, that you really don't know what you're talking about. Two completely different situtations separated by 60 years of history the most obvious of which is that we are not fighting a country. Iraq is not Al Qaeda."

We began in Iraq by fighting the gubmint of a country. We "continue" by fighting terrorists who are in Iraq, including al Qaeda, by protecting Iraq, and by helping to restore Iraq to self-sufficient gubmint, self-sufficient economy, and self-defense.

With the exception of fighting terrorists, especially al Qaeda, you can substitute "Japan" or "Germany" for "Iraq" in that last paragraph and be perfectly correct.

And you think I don't know what I'm talking about.

Now go read Kevin's last comment. Do it over and over and over and over ...


jsid-1190056810-580686  Russell at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:20:10 +0000

DJ, every time you compare Iraq to Germany and Japan, you demonstrate to myself, and possibly others here as well, that you really don't know what you're talking about.

I cannot speak for others, but as for me, the fact that you cannot see the parallels and similitude of the two situations speaks volumes of who knows what and who doesn't.

If anything, I am the only one thinking like an invidual here.

I nominate this to be the funniest comment on this thread! Inadvertently, of course.


jsid-1190056929-580687  Kevin Baker at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:22:09 +0000

I second the nomination! :D


jsid-1190059478-580689  LabRat at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:04:38 +0000

Third.

Admittedly, since Mark came along we've mostly been arguing with him instead of with each other as per usual.

Oh well. The proof is in the archives, at any rate.


jsid-1190059526-580690  Ed "What the" Heckman at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:05:26 +0000

Call the vote!

All in agreement, say "Aye."

Aye!


jsid-1190060754-580692  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:25:54 +0000

Kevin:

You're welcome, but I should thank *you* for your patience with (especially my) longwinded and hard-headed attempts to get sense through some people.


jsid-1190060861-580695  Markadelphia at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:27:41 +0000

Alright, I can see we probably won't get anywhere with the goings on above so, in the interest of busting this comment thread to the MAX (can we say 200?) how does everyone feel about going back to the original topic of 9-11? Bear in mind, I will be happy to continue on the current line of debate but I thought it might be interesting to pose a few questions to all of you...questions that I have about that day that have not been sufficiently answered....so I would like to hear what you think.

Bear in mind, I do NOT have any answers to these questions...questions which once read by all of you may provoke cries of "looney" and "nutball." Also, bear in mind some other people are asking these questions and they aren't pimply faced geeks withSpock ears living in their mom's basement.

Anyway, here are the questions...

1. Why had NORAD failed to protect the skies of America and the known terrorist targets, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?

2. Why did the intelligence and security services fail to prevent the attacks from taking place despite numerous apparent warnings?

3.Why was President Bush allowed to stay in a Florida school classroom for over 10 minutes after being told that America was under attack?

4. No previous steel-framed skyscrapers had ever totally collapsed due to anything except controlled demolition, so why did it happen three times on September 11?


jsid-1190061907-580698  LabRat at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:45:07 +0000

Okay, I'm starting at 2:41.

1. Because NORAD doesn't protect us against our own civilian aircraft, or at least it had no reason to before 9/11. It had never occurred to anyone before that a hijacking might lead to something like that; they had always been hostage cases.

2. Because all intelligence and security services everywhere have to deal with hundreds of apparent warnings every day. Usually it is not clear which are the 99% that aren't actually threats (people who don't have real will, real means, or real opportunity) and which are the 1% that are.

3. What would have been the purpose of yanking him out immediately? What could he have done in that ten minutes that would have changed anything? Why would panicking a schoolroom full of young children have been worth it?

4. No previous skyscrapers had ever been struck by jumbo jets traveling at full throttle (450 mph), fully laden with jet fuel, hard enough to strip the insulation off some of the steel before. Just because something has never happened before does not mean it's impossible, especially when you change the conditions as radically as that.

2:47: six minutes.

Okay, y'all can go back to pressing him on the stuff we were just talking about before. I just wanted a figure.


jsid-1190063051-580703  Russell at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:04:11 +0000

(I can't believe that 6 years after these questions keep coming back.)

1. Rules of engagement changed radically that day. Bureaucracies don't react well to radical changes.

2. Remember Jamie Gorelick? The fact that no one tore down that wall she helped create? I do. (BTW, this is a great case for government taking more and more power from a seemingly innocuous start, in this case the FISA created in 1978.)

3. He forget his presidential super cape on Air Force One and had to wait for it before he could spring into super-president action.

4. Because past performances under completely different conditions are always indicative of future behavior. Remember, socialism/communism has failed in the past, so it will work in the future, but buildings haven't collapsed other than controlled demolitions, so they can't collapse in future by any other means.

Shoot. I didn't time it.


jsid-1190063497-580706  Kevin Baker at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:11:37 +0000

(I know I'm going to regret this, but...) Quick answers.

1) NORAD is tasked with intercepting threats coming from outside the continental U.S. - missiles, incoming bombers, etc. These flights were of domestic origin, were actual scheduled commercial flights with filed flightplans and everything. NORAD is not (or at least was not) concerned about what was flying from inside our airspace.

2) The general assessment is that our intelligence and security services did not talk to each other. The NSA, CIA, and FBI had procedural and legal firewalls up between them - firewalls that the horribly named Dept. of Homeland Security (*spit*) and legislative changes (portions of the equally horribly named PATRIOT Act) are supposed to alleviate.

3) Why would he be forced to move? What did anyone know at the beginning of that ten minute span, and what did they know at the end of it? What was Bush supposed to do? At 8:45 the first aircraft impacted the first tower. About three minutes later it was broadcast on national news, and the overwhelming majority of the country thought it had been a light aircraft accident. Bush sat down in that schoolroom at 9:03AM, after a phone call giving him what details were available on the first impact - the same moment the second aircraft struck the second tower. He was notified of the second impact shortly thereafter. I imagine that national security assets were attempting to piece together what the hell was going on, and the Secret Service was attempting to put together a plan of action on short notice.

What was Bush supposed to do? What orders was he supposed to give, and to whom? Where was he to go? He had a commitment to do the photo-op at the school. He was in a classroom, in front of TV cameras. His staff and the national security apparatus had to do their jobs to collect and collate the available information so that they could provide something resembling a briefing. Don't you think that might take more than ten minutes?

4) Do you know this for a fact? Can you cite a (credible) source for it? What constitutes a "skyscraper" to you (or your source)? The construction of WTC 1 and 2 was a stressed-skin type held in check with floor trusses connected to a central backbone. Having seen the structural design of these buildings, I'm not sure they could have collapsed in any other way, given the damage. Hell, I'm impressed that they survived the initial impact and held together as long as they did. Had the hijackers hit the buildings lower, (as the pilot that struck the Pentagon did) they wouldn't have, and the death toll would have been far greater.

The collapse of WTC7 was due to essentially the same thing that brought down WTC 1 & 2 - fire weakening the support structure. The designs were similar, though not identical, but the same stressed-skin technology was used. Not all skyscrapers use this technology. It was new when the WTC was built, and it has been adopted because it yeilds the maximum available floor space in large structures like the towers. The fire raged in WTC 7 before it collapsed for seven hours, essentially unchecked, surrounded by the debris from WTC 1 & 2, and with a large portion of the FDNY laying dead, wounded, or disabled nearby with their equipment destroyed. How many skyscrapers have had that happen? What would have been the outcome had effective firefighting measures been possible?

Finally, why is this a question? Isn't the fact that two fuel-laden large jet aircraft slammed into the two tallest buildings in NYC enough of an answer?


jsid-1190064794-580710  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:33:14 +0000

1: F-16 strafes NJ High School.

(You obviously don't even know anybody who's been in the military.) Dec 7, 1941:"Our guns and rifles were locked up in the armory room and our supply sergeant was on pass in Honolulu. We didn't have anything. The ammo was up in the mountains in a concrete igloo."

2) Begging the question - what about all the other reports they got? The ones about the tanker trucks?

Additionally, this is also explained quite simply by the fact that had all the hijackers been "profiled" and detained - the airlines would have faced $50k fines for every one over 2 in "the Arab male ethic group". Automatically. That rule still exists today.

3: What the hell was he supposed to do, jump up, scream, scare the kids? Or wait for the situation to firm up, his security detail to start moving (ahead of schedule), and make sure they weren't targetting him, as well?

One might note that John F'king Kerry admitted he sat staring at the TV screen for 90 minutes, dumbstruck.

4: Because nobody's ever slammed fully loaded airliners into any others at above 500 MPH before.

What kind of a utterly stupid, kool-aide drinking dumbass question is that?


jsid-1190065499-580713  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:44:59 +0000

If anything, I am the only one thinking like an invidual here.

I nominate this to be the funniest comment on this thread! Inadvertently, of course.

Russell: I just scrolled up, and almost choked to death on diet soda upon reading this.

I don't find that funny in the slightest!!!


jsid-1190065881-580714  Kevin Baker at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:51:21 +0000

Well, I'm pretty sure he meant individual, not "invidual."

While "invidual" connotes "invidious" I'm pretty sure it's not a real word.

But then, maybe it's one of those new words sweeping the inter-tubes like "unpossible" and "idiotorial."


jsid-1190066016-580715  Russell at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:53:36 +0000

I don't find that funny in the slightest!!!

Well, of course not, you're in a collective, and collectives are aren't known for their senses of humor.

Collectively speaking, that is.

But as one of the brainwashed, I thank you :)


jsid-1190069845-580719  Markadelphia at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:57:25 +0000

Yeah, well, I'm notoriously awful with typos. But I'm glad everyone found it funny :)

More on your answers to my questions later...need to do a little digging...


jsid-1190129231-580746  DJ at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:27:11 +0000

"More on your answers to my questions later...need to do a little digging..."

Utter, screaming BULLSHIT, Mark.

These questions were answered for you, in Kevin's parlor, long, long ago. As usual, you ignored the answers, learned nothing from them, and now come full circle to hash the questions again.

Tell me, in plain English, just why you asked them again, and why anyone should play your pathetic little game?


jsid-1190136092-580754  Markadelphia at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:21:32 +0000

OK, the questions I posed above were asked by the surviving family members of the victims of 9-11. They hoped that the 9-11 commission would answer them satisfactorily. They did not.

1. It's quite obvious to me that routine intercept procedures were not followed on 9-11. Between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times. In the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times. If you look at the official timeline of 9-11 and when jets were scrambled comparing that to the Payne Stewart accident for example, things just aren't right. Why this was I don't know for sure but to say that it was just "shock" or "incompetence" is ludicrous. These people are supposed to be proffesionals, trained for anything. I'd like to see more investigation but I doubt it will happen.

2. This, to me, is completely insane and your explanations for this seem to be so forgiving I think I might just throw up. There have been mountains of evidence that suggests that key people in our government were briefed daily on this threat. To say that "No one could've imagined" is just flat out wrong. The escalation of the attacks leading up to 9-11 should have been an indicator as to what was coming. Yet, programs like Able Danger, who had identified Atta, were shut down. Colleen Rowley was screaming her head off for months and her investigation was IMPEDED, not caught in bureaucracy. Why? Folks, please, I implore you all. Look into this and I guarentee you eyebrows will be raised. I won't bother giving you links since I know you will poo poo them all as looney. It would be beter to do your own digging.

3. I've already commented many times on this. If it was Gore, we would ALL be in agreement.

4. I have to confess that I am not very well versed in the areas of metallurgy and architechture so any comments I would give would be amateur at best. I included this question because I find it interesting that they are still asking this...oh well, guess they're all just a bunch of looneys, right?


jsid-1190139655-580757  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:20:55 +0000

I posed above were asked by the surviving family members of the victims of 9-11.

All of them?

Seems like this was a recent movie... Starring.. a ... really.. fat.... guy... Hrm. Can't recall.

In other words, Mark, you had those replies written before you ever saw what we answered.

You gave them no thought.

It's quite obvious to me that routine intercept procedures were not followed on 9-11.

I repeat myself. You're a fool.

And I believe you might want to listen to me a bit on this, I'm a pilot, and I've been briefed on intercepts and have had friends intercepted.

No, wait, what am I saying? Go along with your delusions.

Between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times. In the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times. If you look at the official timeline of 9-11

Meaningless. The only question was once there was a terrorist threat, once it became obvious that aircraft were being used as weapons, how long til the call and the response..

What were those other intercepts in response to? I'm damn sure I know 2 of the guys involved, one in 2000, one in 2001. Let's see if you can name me their incidents.

and when jets were scrambled comparing that to the Payne Stewart accident for example,

Jets weren't "Scrambled" in response to Stewart. Already airborne planes were vectored to investigate.

Notice they didn't shoot it down.

I'm not sure what's dumber. You making these statements, or me bothering to explain them.

There have been mountains of evidence that suggests that key people in our government were briefed daily on this threat.

Really? Mind if we look at any of this, or did you get to see it before Burglar shredded it?

Considering there were also briefings on poisioning water supplies, blowing up interstate bridges, blowing up NY and Boston tunnels, spraying anthrax via small airplanes.... Which of those were also "obvious"? Why wasn't everyone ordered inside under curfew? After all, we had well sourced reports....

If it was Gore, we would ALL be in agreement.

No, Mark, we wouldn't. Nobody had anything unkind to say about Kerry and Pelosi being dumbfounded - until they attacked Bush.


Mark: get the hell out of the country.

There's no reason for you to be here!

* It's no better or worse than any other (according to you)
* It's got horrible health care (according to you)
* It's soul-destroying (according to you)
* It's only interested with material wealth (according to you)
* The government conspired with Al Queda to attack the U.S. on 9/11 and other times, killing those warning of the attack, trying to kill 50-100,000 people, destroy the stock market to enrich Bush and his cronies and to curtail your civil liberties. (according to you)

Why in the $WORST_HELL_YOU_CAN_IMAGINE are you still here, and aren't you actively afraid for your life? Run! Go somewhere else "No better or worse!" Before it's too late!


jsid-1190139897-580758  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:24:57 +0000

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons


jsid-1190145695-580773  Markadelphia at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:01:35 +0000

Unix (and some others), I find it hilarious that for someone who distrusts government as much as you do that you completely believe everything they are telling you about 9-11. Why is that? Look, I'm not saying I know anything for sure but at I think that the questions need to be asked.

"In other words, Mark, you had those replies written before you ever saw what we answered.

You gave them no thought."

No. I really wanted to know where you all stood. So I started writing...had a class...came back, wrote some more...had a class...then finished.

"Jets weren't "Scrambled" in response to Stewart. Already airborne planes were vectored to investigate.Notice they didn't shoot it down.I'm not sure what's dumber. You making these statements, or me bothering to explain them."

Really?

10/26/1999 Knight-Ridder

"Flight controllers frantically tried to contact the Lear 35 by radio when it strayed off course from its intended path at about 9:30 a.m. By 9:38, an air-traffic controller called for military interception and a series of military jets scrambled to chase the plane as it streaked along, guided by its auto-pilot system until the fuel supply finally ran out.

According to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with a pair of F-16 Falcons from the Air National Guard at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact.

An F-16 and an A-10 Warthog attack plane from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., took up the chase a few minutes later and were trailing the Lear when it climbed abruptly from 39,000 to 44,000 feet at 9:52 a.m. CDT.

Fifteen minutes later, the F-16 intercepted the Lear, the pilot reporting no movement in the cockpit.

At 10:44 a.m., the fighters from Eglin diverted to St. Louis for fuel. Fifteen minutes later, four Air National Guard F-16s from Tulsa, Okla., took up the chase, accompanied by a KC-135 refueling tanker.

F-16s from Fargo, N.D., later scrambled to intercept the Lear jet, too. At noon Dallas time, the Fargo F-16s reported that the windows of the jet were fogged with ice and there was no evidence anyone was piloting the plane.

At 12:14, the Lear jet began to spiral. It crashed about six minutes later."

Now go look at the official timeline to 9-11 (I can provide it for you if you'd like) and tell me if you notice a difference. I have several friends that are pilots and they have told me that FAA regulations state that "if an air-traffic controller is "in doubt that a situation constitutes an
emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency."


jsid-1190146784-580775  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:19:44 +0000

Mark:

Really?

Yes. Really.

Of course, I've got some idea of how long it would take to get a turbine working, up to speed, and taken off - presuming the pilot's suited and in the cockpit.

You want to try and piece together things you don't understand. Then you have the audacity, the sheer effrontery to say that your mind is open and you're capable of changing your mind?

You've not changed you mind about anything, no matter how much we proved to you that you were wrong.

You didn't answer me. Did. They. Shoot. Payne. Stewart. Down?

That's the only note of signifigance between those two events. Only. Note.

Even you should be able to understand that.

Why are you still here?


jsid-1190147812-580776  Russell at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:36:52 +0000

I have several friends that are pilots[...]

And you know Canadians that like their health care and Russians who don't see a difference between the old USSR and the USA and so on. And all these people get to trump hard facts and, in the case of U-J, an actual pilot, people with sufficient expertise in the subject matter.

These are all the same fallacy, appeal to authority. It's wrong whenever used, and invalidates the argument.


jsid-1190154358-580784  Markadelphia at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:25:58 +0000

Unix, so let's be clear about this. You're saying the story is wrong. They didn't scramble any planes..they were just all in the air at the time and intercepted?

I'm not questioning your knowledge as a pilot. I guess I'm wondering why the information that I've read in every story about the Payne accident, including the one above, says they "scrambled."

No, they didn't shoot Payne down but that wasn't the point of the comparison. It may be the only note of significance for you but not for me.


jsid-1190155601-580787  DJ at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:46:41 +0000

"OK, the questions I posed above were asked by the surviving family members of the victims of 9-11. They hoped that the 9-11 commission would answer them satisfactorily. They did not."

That's not what I asked you. I asked you just why you asked them again, given that we have already answered them thoroughly.

Those people aren't asking those questions here, you are. Those people won't receive any answers that have been, or will be, given here, you will. So why the hell are you asking them again?


jsid-1190159584-580790  Kevin Baker at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:53:04 +0000

"Those people aren't asking those questions here, you are. Those people won't receive any answers that have been, or will be, given here, you will. So why the hell are you asking them again?"

Oooh! Ooooh! I know! I know!

Because he wants to prove to himself and all interested viewers that we're all brain-numbed Rightwingbots incapable of questioning the propaganda we're fed by the Ministry of Truth? So he can prove we all wear hip-high black leather boots and strut around to Wagner arias, pronging chubsters over warby songs about leather-clad thundergods?* (LabRat and Sarah excepted, of course.)

(Hmm.... LabRat and Sarah in hip-high black leather boots.....)

*Mental image brought to you courtesy of James Lileks. You may now proceed to apply stainless-steel wool & mental bleach to your memories.


jsid-1190161680-580794  Ed "What the" Heckman at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:28:00 +0000

Gee, thanks Kevin!

Got any lye handy?


jsid-1190162737-580795  LabRat at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:45:37 +0000

Okay, but hell if I'm wearing one of those brass bras. Those look DAMN uncomfy.

(Shortest. Valkyrie. Ever.)


jsid-1190163236-580796  Ed "What the" Heckman at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:53:56 +0000

Markadelphia,

I believe the point Unix-Jedi is trying to make in regards to "scrambling" the fighter jets is that the news article was imprecise about its use of the term. In precise terms, "scrambling fighters" means having them take off from their base as quickly as possible to meet a threat. Based on how that article, the writer's use didn't match that precise definition.

In the case of the Payne incident, the fighters were apparently already in the air. Therefore, they could actually reach Payne's jet fairly quickly, specifically, 12 minutes from the time they were called.

In the case of 9/11, there were apparently no fighters in the air anywhere near where the planes were highjacked. Therefore, not only was there the simple flying time for fighters to reach the highjacked jets, there was also ground time required before takeoff.

That leads to some questions where I don't have the answers at hand.

1) How long was the time between when the first jet was highjacked until it slammed into the WTC?

2) How long was the time between when the flight was highjacked and the call went out for fighters?

3) If the fighters had already been in the air over their bases, what is the shortest intercept time possible?

4) How long does it take to get fighters into the air once an alert is called?

Markadelphia, these questions are for you:

1) Given that a number of flights were highjacked at once, do you consider it likely that there was confusion about what was going on? Don't you think that would create problems directing the fighters where to go?

2) It's obvious to me from the various reports I've read that the incidents on these flights were clearly viewed by everyone as normal highjackings until at least the moment that the first plane flew into the WTC. Given that, do you seriously think that a shoot down order would have been given in time to do anything about any of the planes?


jsid-1190163964-580797  Ed "What the" Heckman at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 01:06:04 +0000

Okay, I'm doing a little more research, I've found the Complete 9/11 Timeline and I'm working my way through it.

So far I've found that NORAD was first informed of the highjacking of flight 175 at 8:43 AM. That plane slammed into the North tower of the WTC at 8:46 AM. Mark, how the hell is any fighter supposed to be able to do anything at all in only 3 minutes?


jsid-1190164202-580798  Ed "What the" Heckman at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 01:10:02 +0000

Oops. I goofed. NORAD was apparently notified of flight 11's highjacking at 8:37 or so. Flight 11 is the one which hit the North tower. That leaves only 9 minutes to get there.


jsid-1190165576-580799  Ed "What the" Heckman at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 01:32:56 +0000

Continued reading:

Fighters were ordered to take off to find Flight 11 at 8:46. It apparently took them 6 minutes to actually take off. So tell me again how they were supposed to catch up to a plane which had already hit the tower 6 minutes before they left the runway?

As for the second plane, air traffic controllers called flight 175 highjacked sometime between 8:51 and 8:53, the same time the fighters apparently left the ground. Flight 175 crashed into the South tower at 9:03. Even at their best speed, the fighters could only reach NYC at 9:02, which is clearly not enough time to even locate and stop the jet. There is apparently significant confusion over exactly what happened, but the bottom line is that the fighters actually arrived in NYC sometime between 9:19 and 9:25, far too late to actually do anything.

Mark, here is the important point. Based on when the military actually knew something was going on, when the orders to scramble where received, how long it takes to actually get off the ground plus the best flying time, there was absolutely no way the fighters could arrive in time to do anything even under the best of circumstances. Based on that timeline, the confusion of that morning slowed reaction times somewhat, but not badly. The delays appear to be entirely reasonable, if unwelcome.

Why does it even matter when the fights arrived on scene even though it's clear that there was no way they could arrive in time to do anything at all, nevermind have time to figure out what was going to happen and do something about it?


jsid-1190168323-580801  Kevin Baker at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 02:18:43 +0000

Question: "Between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times. In the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times." How many of those times were jets scrambled to intercept scheduled airline flights?

Question 2: Assuming some were, how long from the time ATC determined there might be a problem until a fighter was requested?

Question 3: How long was the average time from when the request was made until a fighter actually reached the airliner in question?

Were not the overwhelming majority (if not all) of the intercepts called for private aircraft, or aircraft calling in a mayday or other trouble report?


jsid-1190172224-580805  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 03:23:44 +0000

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2001/010918intercept.html

That's what an "intercept" is.

After 9/11, they've been having "pop up" "Temporary Flight Restriction" areas. Some ADIZ (like around Wash, D.C. expansions). Interceptions through and around them are up.

The U.S. ADIZ (coming in from overseas, like the Bahamas caused the most intercepts prior to 9/11. (As one friend of mine can attest. Coming back from the Carribean, a radio malfunction caused him to get intercepted and directed to a AF base for inspection. As the MP pulled up to his plane after landing said, "Sir, if you got a problem, then you got no problem. If you don't got a problem, then you got a real problem".)

There are restricted areas, ("Restricted areas denote the existence of unusual, often invisible, hazards to aircraft such as artillery firing, aerial gunnery, or guided missiles. Penetration of restricted areas without authorization from the using or controlling agency may be extremely hazardous to the aircraft and its occupants.") flying into those without clearance will cause intercepts.

Unlike Mark's fantasy, these "intercepts" don't involve cannon fire, Sidewinders, or AAMRAMS.


jsid-1190178817-580810  Markadelphia at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 05:13:37 +0000

OK, let's take a look at the two days side by side...timeline wise with commentary and questions...

On Oct. 25, 1999, his Learjet
strayed off course from its intended path at about 9:30 a.m. By 9:38, an
air-traffic controller called for military interception. At 9:54, an F-16
reached his jet to perform a visual inspection - just more than 15 minutes
after being radioed to do so. A series of military planes provided an
emergency escort to the stricken Lear until it crashed in a field in South
Dakota.

On 9-11,
Flight 11 took off at 7:59 a.m., followed by Flight 175 at 8:14 and Flight
77 at 8:21. At 8:20, Flight 11, destined for Los Angeles, made a sharp
U-turn and headed for New York. Then the plane's transponder - which
identifies the plane to the controller - was shut off. Shortly afterward,
United Flight 175 made a similar U-turn. These deviations from the flight
plans made it clear something was wrong. The FAA states that if an
air-traffic controller is "in doubt that a situation constitutes an
emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency."
So the ominous U-turn Flight 11 performed should have sent up a red flag to
controllers, and military aircraft should have scrambled immediately. But
Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder, a spokesman for North American Aerospace
Defense Command (NORAD), said U.S. fighter jets were called to intercept
only after Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:40. A few days later, the
official story changed and government and U.S. Air Force officials claimed
two F-15s had indeed been called to intercept from Otis Air National Guard
Base in Cape Cod, Mass. The officials, however, said the planes left the
base at 8:52. That means after Flight 11 made its U-turn, 32 minutes passed
before fighter jets were called in to intercept.

So military aircraft were called for and met up with Stewart's jet in a
total time of about 30 minutes, yet it took 32 minutes before jets were even
called to intercept any of the hijacked flights. Why?

In addition, within minutes of Flight 11's U-turn at 8:20, the FAA became
aware of the unusual situation. But President Bush, who was reading to a
class at Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Fla., wasn't notified of the
situation until shortly after 9 a.m. And he didn't tell them he had to leave
but instead kept on reading.
In a national emergency, procedure dictates the president hold an emergency
meeting with members of his staff to assess the situation and plan a course
of action. But it wasn't until 9:30 a.m. that Bush finally came on the air
to tell America what already was obvious - we were under attack.By this
time, both planes had already disintegrated while Flight 93 was heading for
the Capitol and Flight 77 was making a beeline for its intended target, the
Pentagon. Any steps taken after this point in time were in vain. So even if
we are to entertain the idea that controllers failed to follow standard
operating procedure and get military aircraft in the air, it still doesn't
explain why Bush didn't immediately act when he was told our nation was
under attack.


jsid-1190204690-580816  Ed "What the" Heckman at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:24:50 +0000

Markadelphia,

It has already been stated numerous times on this blog why we think it did not matter that Bush did not run from the room immediately. You appear to have completely disregarded that explanation as if you think there is something he could have actually done by reacting immediately. So I just have to know; what, exactly, could President Bush have accomplished by leaving the room immediately? How would that have changed a single thing?


jsid-1190205778-580817  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:42:58 +0000

The FAA states that if an
air-traffic controller is "in doubt that a situation constitutes an
emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency."
So the ominous U-turn Flight 11 performed should have sent up a red flag to
controllers, and military aircraft should have scrambled immediately.


And this is why your fantasy and desires and promises for how government programs are utter, complete bullshit.

the ominous U-turn

Ominous. OK, Mark, the next time you turn around in your car, we'll need to hit it with anti-tank fire.

You know, because it's ominous.

Once you get into the real world, and actually work, and have to cope with real world problems, expectations... maybe, maybe you'll understand. Of course, I've got this suspicion that you will consider it unreasonable to be judged to Superman's standard... But you'll still hold others to it.

Why?

Asked, answered, and ignored.

It's delicious, really, really, delicious, that you think you've caught us in a contradiction of beliefs by our belief that the September 11th attacks were an Al-Queda conspiracy. My saying "I believe this, and believe the government is substantially telling the truth, but I want a smaller government" isn't in any way contradictory - but your insistence that government intervention "is good" or "isn't any worse", or would be "fair" or "Why, why not try"... that is contradictory. After all, the US Government was in on it!. Hey! Let's let them run health care!

You've got to stand for something, Mark, or you'll fall for anything.


jsid-1190207558-580819  Kevin Baker at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:12:38 +0000

So military aircraft were called for and met up with Stewart's jet in a total time of about 30 minutes, yet it took 32 minutes before jets were even called to intercept any of the hijacked flights. Why?

Stewart's aircraft was not a scheduled commercial airliner flight, was it? Stewart's flight stopped communicating almost immediately after takeoff, did it not? Not dozens of minutes into the flight.

At what time did ATC call for an intercept of Flight 11, Flight 175, Flight 77 and Flight 93? How long after each started behaving oddly (not ominously)?

But President Bush, who was reading to a class at Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Fla., wasn't notified of the situation until shortly after 9 a.m. And he didn't tell them he had to leave but instead kept on reading.

According to the timeline I read, Bush was advised of the first tower strike shortly before 9:00AM - about 15 minutes after it occurred- by telephone. This call delayed the start of the book reading photo-op by about three minutes. At about the time he sat down to start the reading, the second tower was struck. Staffers watching on a television in another room saw the hit, and that's when someone (Andrew Card?) interrupted to inform the President that we were under terrorist attack. Bush continued the reading, completing at about 9:10. By 9:30 he had been brought up to speed on everything we knew at the time (not much) and he took that opportunity to speak to the media.

Again, I ask you: What was he supposed to do between 9:03 and 9:30? Perhaps President Bush suffered from the same misconception you do - he believed that the situation was being handled by competent government bureaucrats who didn't need to be hand-held by their superiors.


jsid-1190208198-580821  Russell at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:23:18 +0000

Ed,

It's actually immaterial what President Bush would have done. Had he actually left right then the Toothers would then say "Aha! Bush already knew what was going on and so he didn't have to wait until the second plane hit the tower, or the Secret Service verify that the area was secure, because Bush already knew."

Leaving when he did the Toothers can say "Aha! Bush already knew what was going on so he didn't want to appear too anxious, so he waited, so the plan could have the time needed!"

So it doesn't matter what President Bush did, or didn't do, it can all be twisted to fit the sick theory that our government was involved.


jsid-1190209216-580824  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:40:16 +0000

Russell:

So it doesn't matter what President Bush did, or didn't do, it can all be twisted to fit the sick theory that our government was involved.

'Zactly.

And if the government screws up something, well, that's just proof we need to let them handle the recovery!

If the government is unable to act, then we need to get them to appoint a commission to study the ability of a study to investigate the bureaucracy and consider the ramifications of a re-organization.


jsid-1190215326-580838  Markadelphia at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:22:06 +0000

Ed, first of all, thanks for pointing out the Cooperative Research link and being open minded about their site.

True, he may not have been able to accomplish anything but maybe getting to a certain piece of information sooner might've helped something. To me, it seemed like he didn't care, wasn't decisive, and highly lackadaisical. At the very least, leaving right away would've helped HIS image as a leader because I honestly felt like Rudy Giuliani was our president that day. He was the President and our country was under atttack. Get up and start talking to your people!

We all know full well what Limbaugh, Hannity etc would've said if Al Gore had sat there and done nothing. But since it was W, we get to hear the whining explanations and faux victimization that is generally typical of Democrats.


jsid-1190216375-580843  DJ at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:39:35 +0000

Ed, it might be different now, but when I worked for McDonnell Douglas Astronautics in St. Louis, I spent quite a lot of time in a hanger on the flight line where new F-15's were tested. (They were built in the building next door.) Minimum scramble time for any aircraft from a cold start was about ten minutes, primarily due to the time required to align the inertial navigation system. I became aware of that because I worked on the design and testing of inertial navigation systems for cruise missiles at the time, and the Tomahawk cruise missile used the same inertial platform as the F-15.


jsid-1190216804-580845  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:46:44 +0000

DJ:

You're part of the coverup!
You can't know things, that are easily discovered! Unless you're part of the conspiracy!
Wait.. maybe you are.. too..

Pssst! The dog piddled on my overshoes in the rain! What's the countersign?


jsid-1190217307-580847  Russell at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:55:07 +0000

"I honestly felt like Rudy Giuliani was our president that day."

!?!

I'm left speechless over this remark.


jsid-1190217364-580848  Russell at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:56:04 +0000

What's the countersign?

"The moonlight is reflecting off my hubcaps."

What's the countersign to that!


jsid-1190218675-580852  Kevin Baker at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:17:55 +0000

"John has a long moustache"?


jsid-1190221176-580860  DJ at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:59:36 +0000

This is part 1, due to line break limits.

Mark, I have two serious comments here. Kindly don't confuse them.

Hindsight

I've explained this to you before, in detail. You continue to ignore it.

When you evaluate whether or not someone did what he was supposed to do, i.e. whether or not he made the right decisions, hindsight does not enter into the evaluation in any way. The only way to make such an evaluation that is logical, rational, and fair, is to take into account, moment by moment, what information the person had available at that each moment, and no more.

Consider also these facts: 1) At the time of 9/11, a concerted attack on high value targets using airplanes as kamikaze bombs had never happened in this country; and, 2) I have over 100 hours of flight time in the co-pilots seat, flight testing inertial navigation systems, thus giving me some familiarity with what air traffic controllers do when airplanes change course unexpectedly at high speed and with what air traffic controllers do when aircraft transponders fail.

Now, consider the sequence of events of 9/11 in that light.

A plane changes course. Sometimes, pilots do that. The flight controller, when he notices it, is not going to immediately think, "Oh, shit! We've got to shoot that plane down!"

A plane's transponder switches off. Sometimes, transponders fail. The flight controller, when he notices it, is not going to immediately think, "Oh, shit! We've got to shoot that plane down!"

Listen to the control tower tapes made when airplanes get in trouble, and you'll find that, when such happens, the crew on the flight deck gets really busy, and they spend very little time on the radio telling anyone about it. They have a plane to save, and chit chat isn't a part of it. Air traffic controllers know this, and so the immediate concern of the controller(s) in question was (and you, a betting person, can bet your every dollar on it), "What can I do to help this pilot and crew?" It was NOT, "Oh, shit! We've got to shoot this plane down!"

Your statement

"So the ominous U-turn Flight 11 performed should have sent up a red flag to controllers, and military aircraft should have scrambled immediately."

is complete and utter bullshit. You don't know what you're talking about. You are simply inventing a reason to find fault where there is none.

Interceptors do get scrambled now and then, but an airplane making an unexpected turn and its transponder going dead would not precipitate that prior to 9/11. If it did, the Air Force would have screamed, rightly so, that it didn't have the budget, the aircraft, or the crews to respond to all the gozillions of times such things happened.

During the flights I flew, we changed course unexpectedly, in deviation of our flight plan, a great many times, and on two occasions our transponder failed. No military jet was ever scrambled to intercept us. That is because such events were not considered a threat to anyone. Again, the response to such was not, "Oh, shit! We've got to shoot this plane down!"

You are simply evaluating what happened then in light of what happened after, and you don't know what you're talking about to boot.


jsid-1190221234-580861  DJ at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:00:34 +0000

This is part 2, due to line brake limits.


Leadership

This statement of yours

"So even if we are to entertain the idea that controllers failed to follow standard operating procedure and get military aircraft in the air, it still doesn't explain why Bush didn't immediately act when he was told our nation was under attack."

followed by

"True, he may not have been able to accomplish anything but maybe getting to a certain piece of information sooner might've helped something. To me, it seemed like he didn't care, wasn't decisive, and highly lackadaisical. At the very least, leaving right away would've helped HIS image as a leader ..."

encapsulates, quite neatly, two utter failures on your part:

1) You do not understand the concept of leadership.

2) You do not understand the concept of delegation of authority.

Again, this has been explained to you in detail, and you continue to ignore it.

During the whole of President Bush's administration, the dimocrat party has tried to tar and feather him with blame for everything that goes wrong on the implied grounds that, as Head Man What's In Charge, he is supposed to personally direct everything to see that it goes right. This is the purest crapola ever invented.

The President is the executive in charge of the largest organization ever created by man, namely the executive branch of the federal gubmint of the USA. He delegates authority and responsibility, as any capable executive must do. His authority to get things done is delegated to all who work for the branch of gubmint that he heads, including air traffic controllers, and military officers and pilots.

Now, recall that he is an ex fighter pilot who flew an F-102 Delta Dagger for six years, which is an aircraft designed to be an interceptor of incoming Soviet bombers. Golly gee, dude, do you suppose he knows something about what it takes to scramble a jet and intercept a big, lumbering airplane that is bent on destruction? Most significantly, do you suppose he knows one shitload more about it than YOU DO? And finally, do you suppose he, an ex military officer and now Commander In Chief, understands the concept of delegation of authority?

You have complained endlessly that, for seven minutes, he didn't do what you think he should have done, and the best you can come up with, for what he should have done, is

"he may not have been able to accomplish anything but maybe getting to a certain piece of information sooner might've helped something."

So, what would that be, exactly? Should he find out who the air traffic controllers were, get them on the phone, and tell them how to do their jobs? Should he find out who the general was in charge of the local air wing, get him on the phone, and tell him how to do his job? Should he find out who the pilots were who were to be scrambled, get them on the phone, and tell them how to start their engines?

You place great emphasis on how minutes, even seconds, mattered in the timing of the responses that were made. So how would President Bush putting himself "in the loop", getting the information needed to make ANY intelligent decision, making such a decision, and propagating in onward have speeded up any response or made it more appropriate?

Or, should he have done what he did, which was to not instill a national panic from the top down and let the professionals on the spot do their jobs?

You are not a leader, you are a complainer. You don't have a fucking clue what he should have done during those seven minutes, but you take delight in thinking ill of him. It is Bush Derangement Syndrome, and nothing more. It certainly isn't thinking.


jsid-1190221594-580862  Ed "What the" Heckman at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:06:34 +0000

"200!"

Mark, why would Bush leaving the room help information flow any better? In any chain of command, information flows upward, decisions flow downward.

That means two things:

1) By necessity, the President has to be the last person to receive the information flowing in from the various sources. Because he is only one man, he has a staff who has the job of collecting everything and putting it together. That's not to say information would arbitrarily be delayed, though that can and does happen, but that it is simply a function of how much information any one human being can handle.

2) Because of fact 1, various people in the chain of command are given the authority and responsibility to act on the information at lower levels than at the very top. This allows decisions to be made quicker, plus it avoids burying one man (again) in a mountain of decision details.

As far as I know, there is nothing which happened that morning which could not be handled responsibly by people at least several pay grades below the office of the president. Can you give me even one example of something which could only be handled by the President which was absolutely needed in those few minutes?

Mark, I would also be very interested to see your response to Russell's point that if he had reacted immediately the claim would be that his instant reaction "proved" that he knew it was coming. Is there any action he could have taken which not be cast in a bad light as you have done here?


jsid-1190222166-580863  Ed "What the" Heckman at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:16:06 +0000

DJ,

Thanks a lot for the details. It's nice to know that stuff.

According to the site I linked to, the fighters at Langley were not armed, which I assume is normal for planes not actively involved in a situation where armaments are needed. The missiles are stored in a special bunker and it normally takes about 3 hours to collect the missiles from storage and get the fighter armed for combat. The site also states that they pushed hard to complete this task as quickly as possible, and managed to do it in about 1 1/2 hours. Does this sound right to you?


jsid-1190223436-580864  Russell at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:37:16 +0000

Plus, had our jets shot down the planes, assuming somehow that order would have been given in time, can you imagine the shitstorm that would happen after?

President Bush gets raked over the coals for failure to respond in a manner approved some; he'd be tarred and feathered, with the entire military, if the Air Force was dropping planes out of the sky prior to 9/11.


jsid-1190229539-580867  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:18:59 +0000

http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx

You answered 55 out of 60 correctly — 91.67 %

(I missed 29, 36, 43, 50, 58 )


jsid-1190239530-580878  Markadelphia at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:05:30 +0000

"Most significantly, do you suppose he knows one shitload more about it than YOU DO? And finally, do you suppose he, an ex military officer and now Commander In Chief, understands the concept of delegation of authority?"

No, DJ, I don't. I think he has no concept about it whatsoever. In fact, I would say that he is probably the most incompetent leader we have ever had, slightly moreso than LBJ. When I look at my President, I want to feel the comfort of knowing that he is more capable, flexible, intelligent, and decisive than myself. George W. Bush is not. Now, I didn't agree with the policies of Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush, or Richard Nixon but they had, without a doubt, all of those qualities and more. And Nixon was a crook!

You say I suffer from BDS...well, sir, you suffer from BLS (Bush Love Syndrome). Let me see if I got this right...you stewed from 1992-2000 because a "liberal" Democrat won twice, took states in the south, is oddly our most popular president ever (here and abroad), and has since been looked upon by many conservatives as governing our country extremly well, especially from a domestic and economic standpoint.

Then 2000 came along and the wet dream of every conservative got "elected" president. But he turned out to be such a colossal fuck up that you don't know what to do. Attack me all you want but it doesn't take away from the fact that Bush's track record has proved time and again that he is not fit for office and never was.

Keep on thinking that I suffer from BDS. It shows how shortsighted you are.


jsid-1190239789-580879  Markadelphia at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:09:49 +0000

"Can you give me even one example of something which could only be handled by the President which was absolutely needed in those few minutes?"

Ed, President Bush has since said that he wanted to project an air of calm which is why he sat there for 7 minutes. For me, it projected the opposite. He could've handled the image of our leader better than he did. There was chaos and the only person I saw being decisive and brave was Rudy Giuliani.


jsid-1190241586-580880  Markadelphia at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:39:46 +0000

Unix, well, you're preaching to the choir about the need for civics to be taught again in schools.

My results, in case you are curious? I missed seven....1, 2, 9, 25, 36, 53, and 60 because I was stupid and didn't think about baby boomers

Odd, I got most the "math and money" ones right...I am not very knowledgable about that stuff.

Fun test, though :)


jsid-1190242075-580881  Kevin Baker at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:47:55 +0000

"You say I suffer from BDS...well, sir, you suffer from BLS (Bush Love Syndrome). Let me see if I got this right...you stewed from 1992-2000 because a "liberal" Democrat won twice, took states in the south, is oddly our most popular president ever (here and abroad), and has since been looked upon by many conservatives as governing our country extremly well, especially from a domestic and economic standpoint.

"Then 2000 came along and the wet dream of every conservative got "elected" president. But he turned out to be such a colossal fuck up that you don't know what to do."


Not even fucking close. I didn't like Clinton because he's one of those intelligent criminals. He lies, and does it badly and still gets away with it. I honestly believe he's sexually harassed women and more than likely has attempted (or completed) rape. He lied under oath before a Federal judge. I don't give a shit that he lied about sex. If you're going to lie before a Federal judge, it had better be a matter of critical national security. Other than that, you tell the truth. Bill did one thing that I admired him for: he signed the welfare reform bill that hit his desk. He then took credit for the bill. Fine, whatever. It became law, that's good enough. But I believe Bill also authorized the sale of sensitive technology to China that has allowed them to advance their missile guidance capabilities, and I believe that was a direct quid pro quo for money received ether personally or to the Democratic Party (or both) directly from mainland China, which is also a crime.

Yes, we had a good economy while Clinton was President, but if you'll do some economic research you'll find that the bloom was coming off the rose during the last year of his term in office. Bill wasn't the worst President we've had by a long shot, but I think he was the biggest petty criminal, and I think the Chinese connection needs to be very thoroughly investigated.

I also think it will be swept under a rug.

WRT to George Bush, the only thing he had recommending him in 2000 was that he wasn't Al Gore. On Sept. 11, 2001 I (and a lot of liberals) were very glad that Al Gore wasn't sitting in the Oval Office. Otherwise, I'm pretty certain we'd be negotiating with the Taliban today, and Saddam Hussein would be running Iraq with the sanctions on him lifted, while Al tried to push legislation to eliminate the internal combustion engine for everyone not a member of the glitterati or collecting a .gov paycheck.

So far about the only thing G.W. Bush has gotten right has been the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and there only partially. He was right to invade Afghanistan, and he was right to invade Iraq. How the job's been handled since that time is fairly poor, but both needed to be done.

He foisted a prescription drug plan on us that we cannot afford. He promoted an amnesty for illegal aliens without any effort to close our borders - an effort that we still lack. He backed off of any effort to privatize even partially Social Security. Shall I go on?

"Wet dream" my aching ass.

But he was a better choice than either Al Gore or John Kerry.

And if THAT isn't a condemnation of the state of political affairs in this country, I don't know what would be.


jsid-1190243807-580884  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 23:16:47 +0000

Then 2000 came along and the wet dream of every conservative got "elected" president.

Yes, Mark, you have BDS.

Bad.

Probably terminal.

Bush was never a conservative. Never claimed to be. Was going to deliver "Compassionate Conservatism". Pushed for Ted Kennedy's Education plan. Pushed through the "Prescription Drug Plan". Promised to sign the renewal of the "Assault" Weapons Ban.

And you think we cheered because he was a conservative. (Nevermind most of us here aren't that "conservative")

Whatadumbass.

No Mark. But I will tell you September 11, 2001 I had the same thought lifelong Liberal Democrat Charles Johnson had. "Thank $DIETY Gore's not President".

And you think we're Bush supporters. Blindly following the maximum leader. Yeah, that's why he's got such a great approval rating. (But Higher than the Democrats!).

No, I disagree with Bush on a lot. He waited too long to go into Iraq. He didn't handle the Iraqi situation well (But within the limitations of what could be done).

Under Bush, the DoD has totally reinvented itself for the "Special Forces" warfare they've supposedly been preparing for since Kennedy.
Under Bush, they've prosecuted the safest war - for combatants and non!
Under Bush, we've rebuilt Intel that were dismantled, and proved that we were no "Weak Horse".
Under Bush, FRANCE! Is gearing up to go to war with Iran if necessary.

No, I don't think Gore could have managed any of those.


See, Mark, I didn't like Bush in 2000. I thought he was an idiot, as well. I've since changed my mind, watching him work. I still disagree with him, but I do not hate him, and I'm willing to give him his due where it's due. (Just as I'll give Clinton his, nor am I blinded to his/her faults).

Let me see if I got this right.

As with everything else, no, you don't "got this right". You're entirely wrong.

Again.
And again. And again. And again. But never fear, you're open minded! (*cough*)! Nevermind all those other times I've been proven wrong! I'm OBLIVIOUSMAN! Aha! Let Me Pronounce Something Else! Pi Is 3.00! Tada! No! I Refuse To Listen To Your Closed Mind! Wouldn't It Be Better With Pi At 3? What Do You Have Against Orphans and Nuns?


jsid-1190244195-580886  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 23:23:15 +0000

(Damn! I had 199! Russell got 200!)


jsid-1190247896-580890  Kevin Baker at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:24:56 +0000

Russell cheats.


jsid-1190253882-580896  Kevin Baker at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:04:42 +0000

I just took the quiz and got 55 out of 60. I missed 9, 19, 35, 36, and 58.

And Mark? Question 60 was about the payout over the last 20 years. The Boomers don't start retiring until 2010.

THEN where will Social Security spending go?


jsid-1190255648-580897  LabRat at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:34:08 +0000

Just because I'm a Conservative Lemming*...

56 out of 60, missed 27, 31, 58, and 60.

*Far from being docile and stupid animals that lamely hurl themselves off cliffs whenever their population gets too large, lemmings are actually vicious little bastards whose mistaken reputation stems from the way they'll cheerfully crowd each other into streams and off edges while on the rampage. They're like mammalian locusts.

Personally, I think they resemble the crowds of furious protestors in San Fran that seem to want 6000 different, sometimes mutually exclusive things than anything else.

/severe digression


jsid-1190256889-580902  Russell at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:54:49 +0000

Russell cheats.

It's true.

I use Tarot cards to predict the comment numbers.

THEN where will Social Security spending go?.

Not to me or my kids.


jsid-1190295862-580921  Markadelphia at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:44:22 +0000

"that Al Gore wasn't sitting in the Oval Office. Otherwise, I'm pretty certain we'd be negotiating with the Taliban today"

First of all, this is wrong I am speechless.

Second, Uh, you mean like we are now, through Musharaf? Haven't you all been telling me that we have to let Musharaf negotiate with the area that is harboring Al Qaeda? Well, let's see how well that has gone.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/09/20/alqaeda.pakistan.ap/index.html

How odd that he would declare war on the country that is harboring him? Could it be that everything I have said in regards to Pakistan is right?


jsid-1190296167-580922  Kevin Baker at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:49:27 +0000

"First of all, this is wrong I am speechless."

That'd be a first. ;)

"Second, Uh, you mean like we are now, through Musharaf?"

Oh, I see, not speechless after all, just more hyperbole. :(

"Could it be that everything I have said in regards to Pakistan is right?"

No. 8)


jsid-1190302667-580937  DJ at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:37:47 +0000

"According to the site I linked to, the fighters at Langley were not armed, which I assume is normal for planes not actively involved in a situation where armaments are needed. The missiles are stored in a special bunker and it normally takes about 3 hours to collect the missiles from storage and get the fighter armed for combat. The site also states that they pushed hard to complete this task as quickly as possible, and managed to do it in about 1 1/2 hours. Does this sound right to you?"

Beats me, seriously. I haven't any experience with such.

At Lambert Airport in St. Louis, there was a wing of the Air National Guard based on the other side of the field. They flew F-100's when I moved to St. Louis, then F-4's before I left McDonnell a few years later, and then F-15C's before I left the state. On our side of the field, there were no ordinance stores that I was aware of. The F-15's had their guns mounted internally (weight and balance issues are involved), but I never saw a missile on a plane on that side of the field.

I was aware of the scramble times because of hob-nobbing with the production test pilots (all ex-military, of course) and because our test pilots, who flew the company's business aircraft also, were all ex-military fighter pilots. What else would they talk about?


jsid-1190303739-580939  DJ at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:55:39 +0000

"No, DJ, I don't. I think he has no concept about it whatsoever."

I see. Now you have training as a military pilot, in the role of flying an interceptor, and you have training as a military officer, in an organization that epitomizes the concept of "delegation of authority". Right? George W. Bush does. You don't.

"You say I suffer from BDS...well, sir, you suffer from BLS (Bush Love Syndrome)."

Sigh ...

I have stated to you many times that I am not a fan of George W. Bush, and I have stated why. Read on, you spineless fool.

And thank you, Kevin. I agree completely with your analysis of Mark's latest stupid statements. I won't repeat them. What would be the reason to?

"Keep on thinking that I suffer from BDS. It shows how shortsighted you are."

It shows much more about you than you can imagine.

Mark, I had no idea you were so important. It is amazing to find that your opinions are important, regardless of demonstrable facts that oppose them, that your questions should be answered, over and over and over again, despite the demonstrable fact that you ignore the answers, that no one else's opinions are worth considering, regardless of the demonstrable facts that support them, that no one else's questions should be answered by you, no matter how simple they are, and that rational thought simply isn't to be engaged in, either by you or in your presence.

Harrumph, dude.

I think you are terrified of rational thought, of having to defend the lines of reasoning that lead to your own opinions, and so you simply won't try. You cannot tolerate being shown you are wrong, and so you simply deny that it happens, even to yourself.

I think you suffer from narcissistic personality disorder. Your arrogance, your self-centeredness, your preoccupation with fantasies to the exclusion of rational thought, your paranoia, and your sense of self-importance are all strong indicators thereof.

Why else would you react to someone asking you a simple question as if you had been attacked, as if they were laying a trap for you to walk into? Why else would you hem and haw, and obfuscate and cringe, over and over and over, just to avoid responding to a simple question with a simple answer? Why else do you ask the same questions over and over and over, but don't answer anyone else's questions? Why else would you refuse to reason logically, from demonstrable facts to conclusions, instead of "feeling" your way through issues like a stereotypical jackass? Why else would you repeatedly tell us what we think and believe, instead of asking us what we think and believe, despite me endlessly showing you how fucking stupid this behavior is? Why else would you simply repeat the same old demonstrably discredited nonsense, over and over and over again, as if by sheer repetition you expect us to accept it? Why else does NOTHING have any effect on anything you purport to "think"?

Well, dude, I have news for you. You are not the Intellectual Deep Thinker that you would have us all believe you are. You have given us all a truckload of evidence thereof. You are simply a self-centered, self-important blowhard, and not a very bright one at that.

More to the point, you are a guest in Kevin's parlor. As Ben Franklin noted, fish and guests stink after three days. Your behavior here has been atrocious. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but I think you don't have the ability and I think you don't understand the need.

And, I don't care what your opinion is of me. Ya see, you really aren't that important.

Have nice day.


jsid-1190313933-580949  Markadelphia at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:45:33 +0000

Kevin B, If I were Musharaf, I would declare Waziristan no longer part of Pakistan. I would cede the area, it pretty much is already, to the tribal leaders. This area is not vital to the integrity of Pakistan nor is it to Musharaf.

That way, if we went in there, we would not be attacking an ally. We would be attacking a country that harbors Al Qaeda.

DJ, if you don't care what my opinion is then why write such a long diatribe against me? BTW, are you a Cardinals baseball fan at all?


jsid-1190321115-580969  Ed "What the" Heckman at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:45:15 +0000

Me: "Can you give me even one example of something which could only be handled by the President which was absolutely needed in those few minutes?"

Mark: "Ed, President Bush has since said that he wanted to project an air of calm which is why he sat there for 7 minutes."

Me: Now that is an interesting answer. The one example of what only the President could have done is exactly what Bush did. Or were you perhaps answering a different question? Maybe I should restate the question like this:

Can you give me even one example of something which could only be handled by the President, other than what he did do, which was absolutely needed in those few minutes?

I find it just as interesting which question you chose not to respond to:

"Mark, I would also be very interested to see your response to Russell's point that if he had reacted immediately the claim would be that his instant reaction "proved" that he knew it was coming. Is there any action he could have taken which [could] not be cast in a bad light as you have done here?"

Well???

(I also noticed that you still haven't responded to my question in another thread about why we lost the Vietnam war.)


jsid-1190322005-580972  Markadelphia at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:00:05 +0000

I think that upon receiving the news that America is under attack from Andrew Card, President Bush should have stood up and said "Excuse Me."

Then he should have left the room to find out what the hell was going on. After hopefully receiving a briefing from his staff, he should have immediately left the building and gone to the nearest place..air force base...government building...whatever... to set up emergency communications with his staff to see assess the situation. Perhaps he could've began emergency protocols earlier, kicked some people out of their shock, instilled some confidence in letting people know that he was on the case...leading. It was not reassuring to me that he just sat there.

I have never said that President Bush knew it was coming nor would I have thought that if he got up right away. I am not saying he should've jumped up upon hearing about the first plane, which was thought to be an accident. At that point, staying was fine. But after he heard that America was under attack...to stay? No.

Again, I say, since Gore has come back into the thread, based on your comments about him...just think about it for a second...Gore sits there for 7 minutes and does nothing. You are all telling me with a straight face that you would NOT make any negative comments about that and accept it as "projecting calm?"

Vietnam, don't you think I write too much as it is? I'll put something on my blog about Iraq and Vietnam at some point down the line as this is a topic I really want to explore. In that post I will answer your essay.


jsid-1190326101-580975  Markadelphia at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:08:21 +0000

Oops..I will answer your question, not essay.


jsid-1190385637-581009  Markadelphia at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:40:37 +0000

Unix,

Even though you have told me to stop talking about 9-11, you continue to bring it up. In doing so, I think you have painted some misconceptions about me so I'd like to clear them up. Here is what I think about the 9-11 truth theories:

LIKELY(meaning this is what I think based on available evidence)

1.Some people in our government knew 9-11 was going to happen and they let it happen to further their own goals. I don't know for sure who these people are but I have some ideas...President Bush is NOT one of them.
2. Key elements of security were stripped away to allow 9-11 to take place.
3. Several distractions and "red herrings" were thrown out there to further confuse the public.

POSSIBLE (meaning I can't say for sure one way or the other)

1. Explosive charges were place inside the towers ahead of time, including Tower 7.
2. United 93 was shot down, not bravely brought down.
3. People, who knew in advance of the attacks, sold stocks to gain and not lose money.

UNLIKELY (silly stuff that makes no sense)
1. The planes were flown by remote control.
2. All of the hijackers were actually CIA agents
3. Israel was behind the attacks.
4. President Bush knew ahead of time about the attacks and secretly plotted them all along with Cheney, Rumsfeld etc..
5. A missle hit the Pentagon.

To me, this represents a balanced look at what happened on that day, given the many unanswered questions. If you are satisfied with the explanations given that day or if you think the government is covering up incompetence, that's cool. It's possible that you're right.

Given the criminal behavior of memebers of government over the last 44 years, however, I find it unlikely that incompetence, while certainly a factor, is the only explanation.


jsid-1190387718-581016  Russell at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:15:18 +0000

I want to feel the comfort of knowing that he is more capable, flexible, intelligent, and decisive than myself.

Ah, yes, the Father Figure desire.

That explains so much.


jsid-1190388339-581017  Russell at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:25:39 +0000

[..][T]his is what I think based on available evidence[..]

Yes, but you consider the shit produced by Moore to be 'evidence'.

Highly unreliable sources lead to highly unreliable conclusions.


jsid-1190389038-581019  DJ at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:37:18 +0000

"DJ, if you don't care what my opinion is then why write such a long diatribe against me?"

Because I'm tired of attempting to communicate with you such that you do so on a rational basis. You simply won't do it.

"BTW, are you a Cardinals baseball fan at all?"

No, I am not a sports fan at all.

"After hopefully receiving a briefing from his staff, he should have immediately left the building and gone to the nearest place..air force base...government building...whatever... to set up emergency communications with his staff to see assess the situation."

This is what I mean by, "You don't have a fucking clue what he should have done during those seven minutes, but you take delight in thinking ill of him."

Such "emergency communications" were already set up and functioning, ready and waiting for his immediate use, and staffed by trained personnel. It always is. In that case, it was an airborne command post, one of a pair of highly modified Boeing 747's, called Air Force One. Wherever he is, such communcations are always within a moment's reach.

He knows that and you don't, but you think he was wrong and you are right. Could you possibly be more clueless?


jsid-1190390827-581022  Russell at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:07:07 +0000

DJ,

Apparently there is no action that President Bush could have taken that Mark would have approved of.

Then he should have left the room to find out what the hell was going on.

What else could he have done different? Who else could he have called that weren't already working on the situation? The government is a lazy, slothful mess, but there are people that do their duty and did so that day.

After hopefully receiving a briefing from his staff

He did what only one man could do, he waited for his staff to gather intel.

[H]e should have immediately left the building and gone to the nearest place..air force base...government building...whatever... to set up emergency communications with his staff to see assess the situation.

Like DJ mention, Air Force One was there and the staff doing their jobs. The fact you don't understand the protocol further undermines whatever little creditability you might have had before. Which wasn't much at all, really.

Perhaps he could've began emergency protocols earlier

How? Which ones weren't already in motion?

, kicked some people out of their shock

Like Senator Kerry?

Who needed to be kicked out shock that President Bush had direct kicking access to?


, instilled some confidence in letting people know that he was on the case...leading. It was not reassuring to me that he just sat there.


So, it's all about your response to his personality?


jsid-1190397007-581024  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:50:07 +0000

Russell:

Immediately after reading your comment, I wandered onto this: Explaining Liberal Thinking In A Single Column

Liberals love to think of themselves as intellectual and nuanced, but liberalism is incredibly simplistic. It's nothing more than "childlike emotionalism applied to adult issues." Very seldom does any issue that doesn't involve pandering to their supporters boil down at its core level to more than feeling "nice" or "mean" to liberals. This makes liberals ill equipped to deal with complex issues.

What timing. :)


jsid-1190398881-581027  Markadelphia at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:21:21 +0000

DJ, I thought the E-4B was the plane that was launched that day. Isn't this the plane that is supposed to function as the lynch pin in keeping things going smoothely?


jsid-1190398986-581028  Markadelphia at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:23:06 +0000

Unix, read the column and laughed. Funny, that's exactly what liberals think about conservatives.


jsid-1190399750-581029  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:35:50 +0000

Mark:

Yes, you've told us what you presume about us - and we've pointed out that you're wrong.

But you - with the statement Russell pointed out - verified the thesis of that column.

Yes. I know you don't understand how and why you did. But you did.

Meanwhile, you don't need to correct your errors, because they're NOT ERRORS, and ... Yeah. We get it.

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=9863


jsid-1190401227-581030  Kevin Baker at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:00:27 +0000

We all know full well what Limbaugh, Hannity etc would've said if Al Gore had sat there and done nothing. But since it was W, we get to hear the whining explanations and faux victimization that is generally typical of Democrats. - Markadelphia

Again, I say, since Gore has come back into the thread, based on your comments about him...just think about it for a second...Gore sits there for 7 minutes and does nothing. You are all telling me with a straight face that you would NOT make any negative comments about that and accept it as "projecting calm?" - Markadelphia

Liberals love to think of themselves as intellectual and nuanced, but liberalism is incredibly simplistic. It's nothing more than "childlike emotionalism applied to adult issues." Very seldom does any issue that doesn't involve pandering to their supporters boil down at its core level to more than feeling "nice" or "mean" to liberals. - This piece linked by Unix-Jedi

Mark apparently thinks that because conservatives would have treated Al Gore the way the Left has treated Bush over his actions between 9:03AM, 9/11/01 and 9:10AM, 9/11/01, that it's OK. I mean, because conservatives are meanies, it's understandable that liberals should be allowed to be meanies too!


jsid-1190405627-581033  Kevin Baker at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:13:47 +0000

While I think John Hawkins' piece is (only a little) hyperbolic - he paints with too broad a brush in order to make his point - he does hit a critical item with this quote:

Since liberals tend to support or oppose policies based on how those policies make them feel about themselves, they do very little intellectual examination of whether the policies they advocate work or not. That's because it doesn't matter to them whether the policy is effective or not; it matters whether advocating the policy makes them feel "good" or "bad," "compassionate" or "stingy," "nice" or "mean."

Markadelphia embodies this with his insistence that a government run healthcare system is something that must be done and that it "would work" if only the "right people" ran it - after explicitly acknowledging that government is evil because it concentrates power.

As Bob Godwin put it in a piece that is much more scholarly and erudite than John's, but echoes its every accusation:

We are wrong to think that the difficulty lies in the uneducated and unsophisticated masses - as if inadequate education, in and of itself, is the problem. As a matter of fact, no one is more prone to illusions than the intellectual. It has been said that philosophy is simply personal error on a grandiose scale. Complicating matters is the fact that intellectuals are hardly immune to a deep emotional investment in their ideas, no less than the religious individual. The word "belief" is etymologically linked to the word "beloved," and it is easy to see how certain ideas, no matter how dysfunctional - for example, some of the undeniably appealing ideas underpinning contemporary liberalism - are beloved by those who believe them. Thus, many liberal ideas are believed not because they are true, but because they are beautiful. Then, the intellectual simply marshals their intelligence in service of legitimizing the beliefs that they already hold. It has long been understood by psychoanalysts that for most people, reason is the slave of the passions.


jsid-1190410073-581036  Markadelphia at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:27:53 +0000

Unix, as long as we're clear that I'm wrong and you're right :)Nice link btw...always loved the one about how all liberals are Friends of Osama...so rooted in reality and has such clarity of thought..

Kevin B., there are plenty of liberals that are meanies. In fact, I was just yelled at and called a fascist at a party recently for supporting Israel. Ironic, eh?

"government run healthcare system is something that must be done and that it "would work" if only the "right people" ran it - after explicitly acknowledging that government is evil because it concentrates power"

Well, yes it makes perfect sense when you think start with "evil people are the cause of bad government." When you start with "government is the cause of evil" then you really have nowhere else to go. And I think that the government has to step in and do something about health care because the industry, with the help of the people that it has bought off in government, is inhumane.


jsid-1190411360-581037  Kevin Baker at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:49:20 +0000

"When you start with "government is the cause of evil" then you really have nowhere else to go."

No, Mark - government isn't the cause of evil. Government is concentration of power, and power corrupts and attracts the corrupt. Heinlein put it well:

Any government will work if authority and responsibility are equal and coordinate. This does not insure "good" government; it simply insures that it will work. But such governments are rare -- most people want to run things but want no part of the blame. This used to be called the "backseat-driver syndrome."

Our system has no effective accountability. Entropy has stripped away the little accountability that was engineered into the system. As one of the Adams' said, our Constitution is only suited to a "moral and Christian" people.

Oops!

(I)t makes perfect sense when you think start with "evil people are the cause of bad government."

And right there is where AND WHY you fail.

Evil people are not the cause of bad government. Lack of accountability is. And that lack of accountability is due to literally two centuries of entropy not just due to evil people drawn to or corrupted by power, but mostly due to what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis described as "the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."


jsid-1190413268-581039  Russell at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:21:08 +0000

And I think that the government has to step in and do something about health care because the industry, with the help of the people that it has bought off in government, is inhumane.

Yes, yes, do it again, only HARDER and this time it will work because we'll make sure the right people will be in charge, ad infinitum.

I say we stop mucking around and reinstate the Divine Right of Kings.

Makes as much sense as concentrating more power in the government, more money and expecting, somehow, the virtuous people will be in charge and the those bad, corrupted and/or corruptible people will stay away.


jsid-1190421995-581046  Rusticus at Sat, 22 Sep 2007 00:46:35 +0000

Unix, as long as we're clear that I'm wrong and you're right

As long has Unix-Jedi's premises are true and his arguments valid and sound, yes, yes he will be. Every time.

And this something that completely escapes your understanding.


jsid-1190424513-581049  Markadelphia at Sat, 22 Sep 2007 01:28:33 +0000

Kevin B, great points about accountability. I am working on a piece for my blog...it's probably going to take awhile...but the central tenet is that, while we have always had accountability issues in this country, it went so far out the window with the whole fucking OJ thing and it keeps getting worse...

The question is....how do you have accountability? Because you have to have government in some form....


jsid-1190425973-581053  Russell at Sat, 22 Sep 2007 01:52:53 +0000

Ahem, let me refer you to a document you may have heard of, but probably never understood.

It's called the Constitution of the United States of America.

Also, read the Federalist papers.


jsid-1190427265-581056  Kevin Baker at Sat, 22 Sep 2007 02:14:25 +0000

"The question is....how do you have accountability? Because you have to have government in some form...."

Here's a novel thought on that from someone who ought to know...

can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. they were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, well informed. the past which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure.


jsid-1190475502-581071  Markadelphia at Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:38:22 +0000

I guess I would tend to agree. Problem is, though, I think your defintion of who is a tyrant and who is a patriot is a little different than mine :)


jsid-1190501281-581077  Russell at Sat, 22 Sep 2007 22:48:01 +0000

Unless the definition of both is on the same page as Jefferson's, then the quote is meaningless for your purpose.


jsid-1190504615-581078  DJ at Sat, 22 Sep 2007 23:43:35 +0000

"DJ, I thought the E-4B was the plane that was launched that day. Isn't this the plane that is supposed to function as the lynch pin in keeping things going smoothely?"

Mark, that is priceless. Thank you for the putting the bullseye right on your fevered forehead.

OK, to particulars.

The "E-4B" is a Boeing 747-200 that has been modified to be an airborne command post. It serves as a survivable, movable base for the military to exercise command throughout the full spectrum of its responsibilities. There are three such aircraft in existence, one on alert at all times somewhere in the world.

It is not a "lynch pin in keeping things going smoothly", but such might be a statement made by someone who doesn't know diddly about military organization, operations, or delegation of authority. It is simply a command center to which authority can be delegated if necessary to guarantee that such authority survives a nuclear attack, and the assumption is that such a hard-to-kill command center would do so.

No, I did not mean the E-4B. I meant, and stated, AIR FORCE ONE.

Now, this is only a rhetorical question: Do you really not have a clue what Air Force One is?

Okay, go have a look, first at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_One for an overview and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_VC-25 for the particulars of the current aircraft used.

The quick overview is that Air Force One is the call sign of whatever aircraft the President is flying in, meaning it has that call sign only when he is actually flying in it.

Currently, two airplanes are commonly used for this purpose. As I stated earlier (go read it again), they are a pair of "highly modified Boeing 747's". In particular, a few details are:

"In the office areas, Air Force One has photocopying, printing, and word processing services, as well as telecommunication systems (including 85 telephones and 19 televisions). There are also secure and non-secure voice, fax, and data communications facilities.

"The airplanes can also be operated as a military command center in the event of an incident such as a nuclear attack. Operational modifications include aerial refueling capability and anti-aircraft missile countermeasures. The electronics on board are connected with approximately 238 miles (383 km) of wiring, twice that of a regular 747. All wiring is covered with heavy shielding for protection from an electromagnetic pulse in the event of a nuclear attack. The planes also have electronic countermeasures (ECMs) to jam enemy radar, flares to avoid heat-seeking missiles, and chaff to avoid radar-guided missiles. Many of Air Force One's other capabilities are classified for security reasons."


Go read the details of sleeping quarters, galleys, food storage, and so on, and so on, and so on. These aircraft are equipped such that, whenever they take off, they can stay aloft for days, indeed until they run out of consumables.

Now, Mark, consider your comment which led to this:

"After hopefully receiving a briefing from his staff, he should have immediately left the building and gone to the nearest place..air force base...government building...whatever... to set up emergency communications with his staff to see assess the situation."

My response was:

"Such "emergency communications" were already set up and functioning, ready and waiting for his immediate use, and staffed by trained personnel. It always is. In that case, it was an airborne command post, one of a pair of highly modified Boeing 747's, called Air Force One. Wherever he is, such communcations are always within a moment's reach."

See the bold part in your complaint, Mark? THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT PRESIDENT BUSH DID AFTER LEAVING THE CLASSROOM ON 9/11. HE WENT TO AIR FORCE ONE, WHICH IS HOW HE TRAVELED TO THE SCHOOL, AND TOOK OFF IN IT.

Ya see, Mark, he didn't have to "set up emergency communications". (I have visions of George W. Bush laying on the floor and plugging telephone cables into walls ...) Normal communication facilities are already set up for him and they are always close at hand (remember, he's they guy with his hand on the nuclear trigger, ready for a quick response when seconds count).

Now, Mark, finally, do you see the preciousness of this complaint of yours? It is that: 1) you simply MUST find something to complain about concerning President Bush's action when he learned about the ongoing attacks on 9/11; 2) you simply CANNOT acknowledge that his response was correct; 3) you are reduced to complaining that he should have done what he actually did; 4) you didn't have a clue, until now, what he did; and, 5) you have just had it shown to you that points 1, 2, 3, and 4 herein are correct.

And, do you now see that I knew what I was talking about when I responded to your final complaint?

And, is this your final complaint on the matter, or are you going to pull yet another complaint out of your ass?

Epilogue: Go read http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=%7B6A2ED953-7F19-4A6D-B095-CF59269B817B%7D


jsid-1190509033-581081  Kevin Baker at Sun, 23 Sep 2007 00:57:13 +0000

Watch! Mark will now perform an ad hominem attack on Charles Krauthammer!


jsid-1190511011-581084  Unix-Jedi at Sun, 23 Sep 2007 01:30:11 +0000

Errrr.

I went to reload, got a server error, reloaded - and it apparently reposted that from somewhere.

Damn magic elf boxes. (Fixed! - Ed.)

Anyway, wasn't going to direct the next comment at Mark, but at DJ and Kevin.

Guys, he's already explained.... there was a coup in '63. (Nevermind it replaced the "conservative" Kennedy with the "progressive" LBJ, it was apparently "bad").

So, err, everything makes sense from that. Puppetmasters bad! See how it all makes sense now?

Edited By Siteowner


jsid-1190522173-581089  Russell at Sun, 23 Sep 2007 04:36:13 +0000

These puppetmasters suck at their jobs! Look at how screwed up the world is today!

Sheesh, at least Il Duce could get the trains to run on time!


jsid-1190523413-581090  Unix-Jedi at Sun, 23 Sep 2007 04:56:53 +0000

Russell:

Cynic.


jsid-1190557377-581097  Markadelphia at Sun, 23 Sep 2007 14:22:57 +0000

Alright, guys, how about your thoughts on the as yet unsolved anthrax attacks?


jsid-1190562197-581102  Russell at Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:43:17 +0000

Oh look! A subject change! What surprising response to DJ's post!

Unix-Jedi:

Yes. As Hume said "A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence."


jsid-1190565729-581105  Unix-Jedi at Sun, 23 Sep 2007 16:42:09 +0000

Mark:

So, as a response to DJ's post, have you changed your mind at all?

Oh, a friend of mine had his transponder fail 25 miles out from Atlanta Thursday. Luckily, no fighters were dispatched to shoot him and the 85 passengers and 6 crew down.

The LESSONS OF 9/!! HAVEN'T BEEN LEARNED! Someone call Kos! Huffington Post! An airliner wasn't shot down when the transponder stopped responding!

Mark, has any of those explanations for how systems work sunk in?

Or, do you still hold the same beliefs, and feel that we are locked into a belief process without fact and context and understanding?


jsid-1190572334-581112  DJ at Sun, 23 Sep 2007 18:32:14 +0000

"Alright, guys, how about your thoughts on the as yet unsolved anthrax attacks?"

Oh, how precious, Mark. I'm so impressed.

I'll repeat myself:

"I think you are terrified of rational thought, of having to defend the lines of reasoning that lead to your own opinions, and so you simply won't try. You cannot tolerate being shown you are wrong, and so you simply deny that it happens, even to yourself."

Yup. You just did.


jsid-1190582626-581119  Markadelphia at Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:23:46 +0000

Guys, I'd be happy to continue on but I guess I felt like it would be fruitless. At this point anything I say is wrong so why continue?

And I am genuinely interested in your thoughts about the anthrax attacks...


jsid-1190589607-581125  LabRat at Sun, 23 Sep 2007 23:20:07 +0000

Ludicrous assertions -> Challenge -> Runaround -> Profound self-contradiction -> Fed-up highlighting of impossible contradictions -> "You won't listen to me anyway, you're too closed-minded" -> Acute irony poisoning -> Taking ball, going home -> Dust settles until next set of threads.

Wake me when we get to the last one.


jsid-1190595950-581131  Kevin Baker at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 01:05:50 +0000

LabRat, I am once again reminded of the words of Robert Godwin:

Underneath the intellectual's attachment to the dysfunctional idea is a more insidious fear that their entire intellectual cathedral, carefully constructed over a lifetime, will collapse in ruins.

--

For most intellectuals, understanding actually precedes knowledge. In other words, they have a certain feeling about the world, and then only pay attention to knowledge that confirms that feeling-based view.


jsid-1190643633-581144  Markadelphia at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:20:33 +0000

Did I ever say I was an intellectual? I don't really know if I am...

And this...

"they have a certain feeling about the world, and then only pay attention to knowledge that confirms that feeling-based view."

is exactly what you do in regards to several of the topics we debate about here-terrorism, health care, education etc...


jsid-1190648080-581154  DJ at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:34:40 +0000

"Guys, I'd be happy to continue on but I guess I felt like it would be fruitless. At this point anything I say is wrong so why continue?"

Because, yet again, you have been asked questions that you haven't answered.

We are still waiting for your answers to the many hundreds, if not thousands, of questions that we have asked you and you have not answered.

"And I am genuinely interested in your thoughts about the anthrax attacks..."

Really? So?

Why do you apparently think that the universe revolves around you, and everyone ought to satisfy your quests for information, but you should never satisfy theirs?

"Did I ever say I was an intellectual? I don't really know if I am..."

We do. You are not.

You are a phoney, Mark. You are a faux intellectual who regurgitates platitudes and generalities in an attempt to appear informed and intelligent. It doesn't work. It never will, except when used on those of a similar bent, and we are not.

You dodge and weave continually so as to avoid any and all attempts to get you to support your blather rationally, which you cannot do and will not attempt. Your favorite escape, your preferred slither when faced with the unavoidable proof that you are in error, is to, yet again, try to change the subject, as you are now trying to do.

Albert Einstein defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

That's YOU.

You fool no one here. You never will. Why do you keep trying?


jsid-1190653284-581160  Markadelphia at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:01:24 +0000

"Because, yet again, you have been asked questions that you haven't answered."

in the way you want me to answer them or because answering them would be fruitless since you have already made up your mind. DJ, you have blatantly told me that anything I say will not change your mind. Again, what's the point?

In regards to your assessment of me, throughout my life I have had people call me a fascist and a communist. I have had people tell me I'm smart, I'm an idiot and I'm a fool. I've had people tell me that I'm loving and tremendously insensitive. In the end, does it really matter what others think about me? It used to but now that I'm older I feel very comfortable in my own skin and, in particular, with my views of the world.


jsid-1190656225-581171  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:50:25 +0000

Mark:

throughout my life I have had people call me a fascist and a communist.

Really.
And it's not shaken your faith that you're somehow not a fascist/communist?
Oh, well.

I have had people tell me I'm smart, I'm an idiot and I'm a fool.

Notice that in these threads, we've pointed out that the "smartest" people can be the most foolish. That's a problem with a eliteocracy - they've never worked. The men who developed the Atomic Bomb were smart, but they couldn't have ended the Second World War - they didn't understand what they were facing, or how to use their smarts for that.

You can be smart, an idiot, and a fool, all at the same time.
It depends on the context in which you're referring.

I've had people tell me that I'm loving and tremendously insensitive.

Ah, you're a guy, comes with the territory. (Mark! RicoSuaveDelpia! OOh, hooo!)

In the end, does it really matter what others think about me?

To some degree, it should. You should be able to agree with them, in my opinion. I object when I'm described in ways that I don't agree with. But negative descriptions that have a basis in truth and fact I accept. I then can work on either changing them, or deciding to stay that way.

I feel very comfortable in my own skin and, in particular, with my views of the world.

And so you need not verify anything with anyone. I'm sure you do Mark. Someone else pegged you very early on with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and while that might have been a stretch, what you just said is a strong reinforcement/evidence for that. It would explain the cognitive dissonance, inability to meet in a common context for discussion, and extreme emotional overloading.


jsid-1190669995-581194  Markadelphia at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:39:55 +0000

But Unix, the left accuses the right all the time of having cognitive dissonance too so where is the truth really?

I would disagree with you regarding WWII. Someone sent me this email recently in regards to comparisons between Iraq and WWII.

"Churchill would fight the real threat, not the made up one, and would recognize we have no business in a sectarain civil war. Fight Al Qaeda in Iraq but let the Iraqis pacify the civil war."

Since this is struggle that is idealogical in basis, we need broad minded intelligent thinkers who have a deep understanding of the region. We do not have that now.

If you need brain surgery, don't you want an elite doctor? When your car is on the fritz, an elite mechanic is preferred over someone who might make it even worse or not fix the job at all. And if you are the coach of a football team, don't you want an elite quarterback? We sure need one in Minnesota these days:)

So why not an elite president? Someone who is smarter than most, braver than most, stronger than most...all of these things combined.


jsid-1190671281-581196  Kevin Baker at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:01:21 +0000

Churchill would fight the real threat, not the made up one,...

Right. That's why, after Pearl Harbor, the U.S. invaded Africa first.


jsid-1190671555-581198  Kevin Baker at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:05:55 +0000

So why not an elite president? Someone who is smarter than most, braver than most, stronger than most...all of these things combined.

You forget: The people that runs for President are pretty much chosen by the "fucking scumbags" who "will stop at nothing to achieve the power they crave". (Your words. Verbatim.)

I want to vote for the best candidates, Markadelphia, but they never run.


jsid-1190676308-581202  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 23:25:08 +0000

But Unix, the left accuses the right all the time of having cognitive dissonance too so where is the truth really?

Well, let's see. Can you demonstrate cognitive dissonance with any of the stances I have postulated to you? Not with projection, but with what I've said? (If you think there might be, you can ask, but so far you've presumed/guessed/projected, and been wrong.) That's how you can find out who's right. By sitting down and comparing facts.

I would disagree with you regarding WWII. Someone sent me this email recently in regards to comparisons between Iraq and WWII.

After telling me I suffer from CD, it might help to stay on subject. The men who developed the Atomic Bomb were smart, but they couldn't have ended the Second World War - they didn't understand what they were facing, or how to use their smarts for that. is what I said. What do you disagree with with that?

"Churchill would fight the real threat, not the made up one,

1) Churchill had nothing to do (other than funding and sending scientists) with the Manhatten Project. Nothing. You're changing the subject, and then trying to claim I'm wrong for being on the "other side" of your argument... despite the fact you've changed the subject. Manhatten Project geniuses. Not Churchill.
2) "Made up [threat]". Presumes facts only in BDS. The whole concept that Bush "made up" a threat, and then attacked it is - at best - highly contestable. Not a fact.

and would recognize we have no business in a sectarain civil war. Fight Al Qaeda in Iraq but let the Iraqis pacify the civil war."

Mark, remember that CD aspect?

Well, if the Iraqi's are fighting a civil war, then they can't "Pacify" it. Because they're fighting a civil war (Which, you'll note since Bush took Democrat advice and "surged" troop levels, has almost disappeared.)

Since this is struggle that is idealogical in basis, we need broad minded intelligent thinkers who have a deep understanding of the region. We do not have that now.

Again, you're asserting as fact with no backing. I'd argue that we do have that now, as witnessed by the incredible successes. Yes, I know you'll disagree, but for the sake of argument, just say that it's arguble.

If you need brain surgery, don't you want an elite doctor? When your car is on the fritz, an elite mechanic is preferred over someone who might make it even worse or not fix the job at all. And if you are the coach of a football team, don't you want an elite quarterback?

Mark: Not everyone can be "elite". Sure, I'd like to have elite people working on me. But I can't pass laws mandating only elites can exist. And in the meantime, you've got to accept that the elites are by definition, hard to find, and very few in number! Again, you're trying to win the argument by appealing to illogical, anti-factual emotion! Why else would you be bringing up "elite" doctors and Churchill (After all, who among us would disagree with the sainted Winston?)

But what of your fry cook? (Remember, the subject of the discussion The one who's "unsatisfied" unless you force him onto the moon/Mars mission? What does that have to do with elite doctors?

What is the fundamental underpinning of the study of economics?

So why not an elite president? Someone who is smarter than most, braver than most, stronger than most...all of these things combined.

Oh, my!

Gentleman, we have the technology. We can re^H^Hbuild him!
Better!
Smarter!
Stronger!
More Empathetic!
Faster!

Who can deliver PREMIUM HEALTH CARE to all! And Ice Cream! Vanilla! Plus a free Pony!


jsid-1190687334-581210  DJ at Tue, 25 Sep 2007 02:28:54 +0000

"in the way you want me to answer them or because answering them would be fruitless since you have already made up your mind. DJ, you have blatantly told me that anything I say will not change your mind. Again, what's the point?"

Answering questions is called good manners, especially when you ask questions of your own, you self-important blowhard. I've explained this to you over and over and over and you fundamentally don't understand it.

"In the end, does it really matter what others think about me?"

It can, if you understand why they think of you what they do.

"But Unix, the left accuses the right all the time of having cognitive dissonance too so where is the truth really?"

The truth is where the evidence shows that it is. We have shown, via a shitload of evidence, that you are a poster boy for it.

"So why not an elite president? Someone who is smarter than most, braver than most, stronger than most...all of these things combined."

Because no one is elected to public office because they are smarter than most, braver than most, or stronger than most. People are elected because they are more able to convince people to vote for them. To suggest that the answer to our problems, whatever those problems are, is to elect "_____er" people to office is to, yet again, simply believe that fantasy is the cure. To repeat it, endlessly, is just another symptom of NPD.

Ah, yet again, the intolerable labor of thought ...


jsid-1190726555-581223  Markadelphia at Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:22:35 +0000

" want to vote for the best candidates, Markadelphia, but they never run."

Yes, I agree. Or they're never nominated which is sadly what will happen to my guy Obama. Although my other guy (Giuliani) might get the nod.

"fighting a civil war (Which, you'll note since Bush took Democrat advice and "surged" troop levels, has almost disappeared.)"

I think you might want to look into this a little more. This is not entirely true. Nice 6 million dollar man reference :) I actually laughed out loud at that one. I used to love that show as a kid.


jsid-1190727181-581224  Markadelphia at Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:33:01 +0000

Oh, and does anyone here believe in serendipity? Last week, a friend of mine named Paul really bottomed out in his life. Has lots of emotional problems and all of us (his group of friends) feel that the pscyhologist he is seeing is not diagnosing him correctly and so we started talking about what really ails him. We discovered that he probably suffers from NPD!! He more or less meets all 9 of the traits, needing only 5 for the diagnoses. So, since it was just brought up, let's see if I meet any of them..

1.. has a grandiose sense of self-importance

Perhaps, but not anymore than anyone else here.

2.. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance,
beauty, or ideal love

I have achieved my career goals and am very content with my wife, who is mega hot btw. :)

3.. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people

Everyone is unique in their own way.

4.. requires excessive admiration

If that were true, why would I post here?

5.. strong sense of entitlement

Absolutely not!

6.. takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

I am guilty of the reverse of this-others take advantage of me all the time...way too nice

7.. lacks empathy

Definetly not.

8.. is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her

I don't wish to be anybody and honestly don't think anyone is envious of me.

9.. arrogant affect

Yes, I can be arrogant. This is definetly true.

So, a whopping 2 characteristics! Yep, I definetly have NPD.


jsid-1190731958-581231  DJ at Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:52:38 +0000

Try again, Mark. Lessee now ...

"has a grandiose sense of self-importance"

Yup. That's you. Your questions are important and should be answered, but no one else's questions are. The subject to be discussed is to be determined by you, via a change instigated by you, particularly when someone else has just asked you a question that you don't like the answer to.

We find this most pointedly in your statement to Kevin:

"I do think that you have made your mind about certain things and don't really feel the need for more information."

Amazing, isn't it? You simply ignore his question, and ours, as if they hadn't even been asked, and then tell Kevin that he doesn't "really feel the need for more information."

Yup. He is not important, but you are.

"is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love"

Yup. That's you. We can't have just a President who is elected, by gum, we must have a President who is "smarter than most, braver than most, stronger than most...all these things combined," and fry cooks need a mission to Mars to become fulfilled, and we must have a political and economic system that is based on the fantasies of Gene Roddenberry, not on the reality that we live in. Moreover, you claimed that you actually work toward such a system.

"believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people"

Yup. That's you. You have only to write something here and the rest of us are supposed to simply accept it as true, regardless of issues such as evidence, analysis, and logic. We just don't "get" it, do we? But the other people you talk with, elsewhere, don't have our limitations, and they "get" it, don't they? You, and they, are "special", aren't you? You don't need no stinking evidence, logic, or analysis, or rational thought, and you avoid them continually.

"requires excessive admiration"

Nope, that's not you. You're much closer to a masochist, as you keep coming back here to get your head handed to you.

"strong sense of entitlement"

Absolutely yes! You are entitled to your own beliefs, your own facts, and people are supposed to answer your questions, buy gum, but other people's facts and other people's questions are simply to be ignored. Your needs in a discussion must be met, and no one else's needs matter.

"takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends"

Indeterminate. We don't know you outside of these pages.

"lacks empathy"

empathy n. 1. identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives; 2. the attribution of one's own feelings to an object

It is often characterized as the ability to see things from another person's viewpoint, to "put one's self into another's shoes", as it were.

Yup. You give scant evidence of empathy. We've described our viewpoints until our fingers ache and it's been like writing on toilet paper. You just flush it away.

"is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her"

Yup. That's you. As I stated before, I believe you are a phony, a faux intellectual who regurgitates platitudes and generalities in an attempt to appear informed and intelligent. I believe you crave acceptance and envy those who have it.

"arrogant affect"

Yup. That's you.

Summary:

You scored seven out of nine by my analysis. Yup, you definitely have NPD.

Remember, Mark. My wife is a clinical psychologist. I learned about this disorder, and others, when your mamma was still emptying your rubber pants.


jsid-1190738603-581246  Russell at Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:43:23 +0000

DJ:

I concur. I'm seeing the same thing. Which means I have NPD!

Sweet!

I think I'll run for office. Or teach!

"I believe you are a phony, a faux intellectual who regurgitates platitudes and generalities in an attempt to appear informed and intelligent."

I and my NPD agrees, too.


jsid-1190739858-581250  Markadelphia at Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:04:18 +0000

DJ, would a clinical psychologist be able to make a diagnosis without having met someone?


jsid-1190745577-581256  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:39:37 +0000

But Unix, the left accuses the right all the time of having cognitive dissonance too so where is the truth really?

Well, let's see. Can you demonstrate cognitive dissonance with any of the stances I have postulated to you? Not with projection, but with what I've said? (If you think there might be, you can ask, but so far you've presumed/guessed/projected, and been wrong.) That's how you can find out who's right. By sitting down and comparing facts.

I would disagree with you regarding WWII. Someone sent me this email recently in regards to comparisons between Iraq and WWII.

After telling me I suffer from CD, it might help to stay on subject. The men who developed the Atomic Bomb were smart, but they couldn't have ended the Second World War - they didn't understand what they were facing, or how to use their smarts for that. is what I said. What do you disagree with with that?

"Churchill would fight the real threat, not the made up one,

1) Churchill had nothing to do (other than funding and sending scientists) with the Manhatten Project. Nothing. You're changing the subject, and then trying to claim I'm wrong for being on the "other side" of your argument... despite the fact you've changed the subject. Manhatten Project geniuses. Not Churchill.
2) "Made up [threat]". Presumes facts only in BDS. The whole concept that Bush "made up" a threat, and then attacked it is - at best - highly contestable. Not a fact.

and would recognize we have no business in a sectarain civil war. Fight Al Qaeda in Iraq but let the Iraqis pacify the civil war."

Mark, remember that CD aspect?

Well, if the Iraqi's are fighting a civil war, then they can't "Pacify" it. Because they're fighting a civil war (Which, you'll note since Bush took Democrat advice and "surged" troop levels, has almost disappeared.)

Since this is struggle that is idealogical in basis, we need broad minded intelligent thinkers who have a deep understanding of the region. We do not have that now.

Again, you're asserting as fact with no backing. I'd argue that we do have that now, as witnessed by the incredible successes. Yes, I know you'll disagree, but for the sake of argument, just say that it's arguble.

If you need brain surgery, don't you want an elite doctor? When your car is on the fritz, an elite mechanic is preferred over someone who might make it even worse or not fix the job at all. And if you are the coach of a football team, don't you want an elite quarterback?

Mark: Not everyone can be "elite". Sure, I'd like to have elite people working on me. But I can't pass laws mandating only elites can exist. And in the meantime, you've got to accept that the elites are by definition, hard to find, and very few in number! Again, you're trying to win the argument by appealing to illogical, anti-factual emotion! Why else would you be bringing up "elite" doctors and Churchill (After all, who among us would disagree with the sainted Winston?)

But what of your fry cook? (Remember, the subject of the discussion The one who's "unsatisfied" unless you force him onto the moon/Mars mission? What does that have to do with elite doctors?

What is the fundamental underpinning of the study of economics?

So why not an elite president? Someone who is smarter than most, braver than most, stronger than most...all of these things combined.

Oh, my!

Gentleman, we have the technology. We can re^H^Hbuild him!
Better!
Smarter!
Stronger!
More Empathetic!
Faster!

Who can deliver PREMIUM HEALTH CARE to all! And Ice Cream! Vanilla! Plus a free Pony!


jsid-1190745754-581257  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:42:34 +0000

I think you might want to look into this a little more. This is not entirely true.

This is entirely true.

Mark, show me where civil war is on the rise in Iraq. (There's been not-all-that much civil war in the first place.)

There's still a fair bit of violence - but rapidly decreasing - and almost all of it is totally Foreign fighters. As in, by definition, not involved in a civil war.

So, a whopping 2 characteristics!

As with your other assessments, you are rather off-base with some of your certain declarations.


jsid-1190759635-581270  Markadelphia at Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:33:55 +0000

No, I'm not. I have three people in Iraq right now who are telling me that the violence has gone down, it's simply shifted around a bit. Whenever troops move into the area, the violence shift to another area.

They also don't count certain types of deaths as civil war deaths. Nor do they count civilian deaths from causes other than bombs or gunshots.

From AP (Aug 25, 2007)

"BAGHDAD This year's U.S. troop buildup has succeeded in bringing violence in Baghdad down from peak levels, but the death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago.

Some of the recent bloodshed appears the result of militant fighters drifting into parts of northern Iraq, where they have fled after U.S.-led offensives. Baghdad, however, still accounts for slightly more than half of all war-related killings - the same percentage as a year ago, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press.

The tallies and trends offer a sobering snapshot after an additional 30,000 U.S. troops began campaigns in February to regain control of the Baghdad area. It also highlights one of the major themes expected in next month's Iraq progress report to Congress: some military headway, but extremist factions are far from broken.

In street-level terms, it means life for average Iraqis appears to be even more perilous and unpredictable."

And what does the average Iraqi think?

"There is no hope in the long or short run of a better future while power plays and sectarian struggles are still going on...Iraq needs a national leadership to bring it to the safe shore." Radhi Jassim Musin, 40, a Shiite school teacher in Hillah.

"Life has become miserable and hard...Unemployment has spread...militias are controlling everything here." Shakir Mohammed al Azawi, 55, a Sunni in Baqouba northeast of Baghdad.

"The situation is unchanged, if not worse...Nothing can be done without national reconciliation." Saeed Mohammed Ali, 42, a Shiite grocery store owner in Najaf

I have more if you'd like to read them. Finally, I would recommend watching this interview with Col. Larry Wilkerson, chief of Staff to Colin Powell, in which he also states that nothing has changed in Iraq

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLO50VtqyPw


jsid-1190759694-581271  Markadelphia at Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:34:54 +0000

oops...first sentence should be "violence has NOT gone down..."


jsid-1190770530-581281  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 26 Sep 2007 01:35:30 +0000

Mark:

First, well, the AP by itself is suspect. You should understand why.
Second, I'm still waiting on that "Brutal Afghan Winter" the AP assured me was in store and would break our troops if we invaded Afghanistan.
Third, it's well-documented that the AP writers are staying in the "Green Zone", relying on stringers of dubious, or even proven enemy affiliation.

Fourth, the MSM have a "Preferred Media Narrative." Remember those rapes and murders the AP reported - inside the United States, within range of cell phones at the SuperDome, post New Orleans Levee Break? The.. rapes.. and.. murders that never happened? As soon as proof came out that the Superdome had been "under control" the whole time, well, gee, uh, nice weather, huh? Combine that with examples such as Jenin, the 4 "Destroyed mosques"... ah well, you either get the picture or not.

What I've been reading:
Michael Totten“The average Iraqi post-Fallujah was not very happy with us being here,” he said. “If the insurgency only attacked Americans, the people of Ramadi would not have been very upset. But Al Qaeda infiltrated and took over the insurgency. They massively overplayed their hand. They cut off citizens’ heads with kitchen knives. The locals slowly learned that the propaganda about us were lies, and that Al Qaeda was their real enemy. They figured out by having dinner and tea with us that we really are, honest to God, here to help them.”

Michael Yon.

On the ground. Not minimizing the job, but doing a far better job of describing the realities of the situation. In my opinion, at least.

But even the MSM is being dragged toward the truth that the violence is not a "civil war", but is almost entirely a proxy war by Iran, Syria, and Al-Queda. And as the locals turn more against the proxies, the more progress we're making.


jsid-1190772993-581283  DJ at Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:16:33 +0000

"DJ, would a clinical psychologist be able to make a diagnosis without having met someone?"

Of course. Easily.

What would a clinical psychologist typically do to make such a diagnosis? Simply carry on a conversation with the person, preferably a series of conversations, such that the symptoms of disorders, or the lack thereof, can be observed. There is very little difference between observing a series of conversations that one is a part of and observing a series of conversations that one is not a part of, and so the psychologist need never have any interaction with the person if enough such material is available.

Over these many months, you have provided enough material for a whole book!


jsid-1190820704-581298  Markadelphia at Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:31:44 +0000

Unix, I see your points.

You can also factor in the fact that many Sunnis have either fled, been killed, consolidated their power, or are eating shit to stay alive.

Iraq has become a living example of the phrase "perception is reality." Good things happen everyday, bad things happen everyday. People see what they want to see and weigh their views accordingly.

I tend to look at the big picture and focus on whether or not our current strategy is working. I don't think that it is. But that doesn't mean I want to pull all the troops out tomorrow either. Generally speaking, I would like to see more emphasis place on fighting Al Qaeda and less emphasis on acting as intermediaries between the various factions in Iraq.

This would include a substantial troop re-deployment to Afghanistan to eliminate Al Qaeda there and inside of Pakistan. Last week, bin Laden declared war on the government of Pakistan. Pakistan, not Iraq, should be our primary focus right now. The situation there is turning from bad to grave very quickly.


 Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
 If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>