RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (5) < [1] 2 3 4 5 >   
  Topic: Conspiracy theories< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Fross



Posts: 71
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2006,20:07   

I read today that 75 "academics"  are coming out in support of 911 being an inside job done by people in the White House. (Project for a New American Century)  
This reminded me of the DI always touting their list of  "scientists" who are anti-evolution.  

The problem with conspiracies is they don't work. (unless it's the CIA or a gang of Chuck Norris clones)  Humans make too many mistakes.  Look at the efforts of the D.I.  They had their Wedge strategy and their hidden agendas.  By all definitions it was a conspiracy type project and look at how miserably that failed.  To think that a group could wire 3 buildings to explode and pull it off successfully is pretty absurd.

--------------
"For everything else, there's Mastertard"

   
mcc



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2006,22:25   

The funny thing is, the real-life PNAC* has basically proven conspiracies are useless. People don't trust cover-ups, if you act secretive about what you're doing people will consider that more worrisome than whatever it is you're actually doing. If you want to do something truly horrible in America today, what you want to do is do it way out in the open, and be very public and loud about what you're doing.

* You know, the one that's a think tank with incredibly good connections that for a time wrote policy papers that appear to have significantly either impacted or reflected the thinking of the current presidential administration in its first term... as opposed to a shadowy entity with the ability to make entire airplanes vanish into thin air and fire missles at the pentagon unnoticed

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,02:43   

Quote
if you act secretive about what you're doing people will consider that more worrisome than whatever it is you're actually doing.
Thats the problem though, with things like 911 the government generally lies about some part of it or witholds evidence, probably to cover up their own incompetence, which just feeds into the hands of the conspiracy theorists. And of course PNAC saying in a statement that we need another 'Pearl Harbour event' so they can get the people on side probably doesn't help either.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,05:00   

I've heard it said that any major event will inspire conspiracy theories. Sounds like the sort of thing that should be recognized as [Someone's] Law... Is it?

Theories about anything other than those planes taking those buildings down are just dumb. The reality of what happened is sufficiently bad. Besides, what is more dangerous to us at this point, inside guys sneaking into buildings to set explosives to go off when planes fly into them, or, just guys flying planes into buildings.

I'm gonna go with just the guys flying planes into buildings- it's a lot easier.

I also tend to think W would be slogging around in Iraq right now whether 911 happened or not- though he continues to try to use it as an excuse for being there, direct connection or not.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,05:01   

That doesn't sound like PNAC. Surely a true-blue American conspiracy would say "Pearl Harbor event". Uh-oh, now we apparently have the Brits controlling the Bush administration.

:)

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,06:49   

The other problem with this type of conspiracy theory is that so many people have been caught lying. And they keep doing strange things. And they are Cheney / Rove who are well known to be dastardly Machiavellian types. And and and.

It's too easy of a target. The conspiracy theories are as plausible as the "official" accounts so people who have never experienced massive ineptitude are forced to believe them.

I just googled 9-11 conspiracy and wow. Lot's of sites. And, they are often plausible given few facts.

I have never read much about this before so I don't have my info straight but the Conspiracy researchers appear to be using better math and so forth than the News and Gov't reports.

What are you going to believe? You are Joe mechanic, you know a little about the vote rigging, the secret energy task force, the NSA wiretapping, the lies before the war, etc. and someone points out the obvious inconsistencies in the official accounts so, being in need of an explanation, you take the one offered.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,10:09   

Also, keep in mind that the official story is just as much a "conspiracy theory" as any of the other "conspiracy theory." Personally, I've always been skeptical of the story of 19 Arab hijackers, almost all of whom were known to the FBI, many of whom were actually under surveillance, and all of whom were operating in the U.S. for months if not years beforehand, who were nevertheless able to bring off such a complicated operation, maintaining perfect operational secrecy after having mostly purchased their own tickets under their real names, leaving a paper trail a mile wide for days prior to 9-11, rendering our trillion-dollar defense establishment absolutely powerless to do anything about it.

And official statements ("no one could have predicted anything like this happening") in the immediate aftermath certainly didn't inspire confidence in the official story either.

I don't know how many of you have read the official 9-11 report, but it lays most of the blame for the events that actually transpired on 9-11 at the feet of the FAA. This is the same organization that was able to do something never before attempted in history: the immediate grounding of all flights, foreign and domestic, in less than five hours, without causing a single casualty. Strange that the same agency could be hyper-competent and utterly incompetent simultaneously.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,10:20   

I'm surprised nobody mentioned the recent Bush revelation that the CIA has been holding a dozen or so suspects in the 9/11 event incognito, and is just now deciding to reveal them to the public and move them to Guantanamo.

Fact is stranger than fiction.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/07/bush.europe.ap/

On a positive note, I hear Blair plans to step down.

Now if only there was some parallel event on our side...

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,10:49   

There was a long interview with ol' Shrub on TV last night, with some network talking-head, they all look the same to me, anybody else see that? It was,er, quite a performance.

Best line: "One of the hardest parts of my job, see, is connecting Iraq to 9/11."

Priceless. I laughed until I cried.

As far as 9/11 conspiracies go, I'm here in Berkeley, which is probably ground zero for that stuff (forgive the pun). And it's pretty screwed up, because I talk to people about it, and there's this typical polarization that goes on. I express my doubts (which extend to all such speculation), and I'm immediately labeled an apologist for the administration or some kind of sympathizer.

I can't get people to take of the tinfoil headgear and understand that it's not that Bush and his cronies are somehow above such a horrible act. They're plenty evil. The question is one of risk/benefit. Did they NEED such a disaster to acheive their goals (presumably, the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq)? It's hard, IMO, to make a case that they needed it badly enough to risk exposure and execution as history's worst traitors.

The bottom line is, the bigger and more reprehensible the aims of the conspiracy, the more likely someone gets cold feet and talks, or there's a leak. Now, if there were a pattern of mysterious deaths in the administration following the event or something, there'd be more of a case. But the idea that a couple of operatives could pull off something like this is just stretching.

And, of course, as eric points out, the official account is pretty shady as it is.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,17:45   

Just remember this: Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out t'get ya! ;)

  
ScaryFacts



Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,20:12   

ericmurphy
Quote

And official statements ("no one could have predicted anything like this happening") in the immediate aftermath certainly didn't inspire confidence in the official story either.


Everyone seemed surprised.  When I heard about it my first thought was "why weren't they prepared for this?  Didn't anyone read Tom Clancy?"  TC used this exact scenario in one of his books.  I think it was called "Rising Sun" or something like that.  Vintage early 90's.

But I guess its a little like the anthrax scare--scientists had warned for a couple decades about how simple it would be to pull off that type of attack.  They did nothing until a couple people died and the outcry of the public was great.

I don't know (obviously) who did the anthrax thingie, but I have often thought about the ruthless logic behind the attacks.  No one can get anything done any more without some sort of public outrage.

Last year Popular Mechanics did a pretty good series on the  9/11 conspiracy theories.  Here's a link:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,02:47   

Thanks Scary, I was just going to offer the link for the Popular Mechanics article, it pretty much destroys any thought of conspiracy.  Also, as Eric pointed out, the 9-11 Report is a great source; although, I'd spread the blame beyond the FAA.  My read of the report tells me there was a total breakdown at all levels that allowed 9-11 to occur.  Even looking back on what we know now I doubt if another American airliner will ever be hijacked again, ala Robert Reid.  Its very telling that if a Hurricane Katrina Report was issued and laid side-by-side with the 9-11 Report we'd say that it was the same story with different actors.

  
PennyBright



Posts: 78
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,16:50   

What always astonishes me about conspiracy theorists (and particularly 'government conspiracy' theorists)  is how willing they are to assume an inhuman degree of competency on the part of massive groups.

That's really become one of my basic tests for the reasonability of any such theories that people try and sell to me.

--------------
Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - Shakespeare (reputedly)

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,17:02   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 08 2006,08:47)
Even looking back on what we know now I doubt if another American airliner will ever be hijacked again, ala Robert Reid.

If you follow security issues closely, you're really pissed off about the stupid, stupid, stupid approach to security we're taking. Confiscating nail clippers and makeup? Making air marshalls wear conspicuous suits and ties? (that's been changed, finally) long lists of "terrorist" names that flag school teachers and babies?

Fortunately, terrorism's a nuisance rather than an existential threat, so it's not like this stupidity is ultimately going to cost us the game.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,18:37   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 08 2006,22:02)
Fortunately, terrorism's a nuisance rather than an existential threat, so it's not like this stupidity is ultimately going to cost us the game.

I'm not sure I can agree with that.  For those personally affected I'm sure you wouldn't characterize it as a nuisance.  But for the vast majority of us the true danger is the effect it has on how we live our lives, how we govern and what sacrifices we are willing to accept to avoid further "nuisances".  If I remember correctly, John Kerry equated terrorism to a nuisance during the 04 elections and he paid dearly for it.

  
don_quixote



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,01:13   

Talking of conspiracy theories, I just read this:

False Flag Operations: Declassified Military Documents Show How US Government Planned Terrorist Attacks Against its Own Citizens

I think the main problem with CT's, already mentioned above, is that the more people required to facilitate a 'false flag' operation, the less chance it has of succeeding, or staying secret.

Presuming for a moment that Bush et al came up with the plan to attack their own country with commercial aircraft, what do you think would be the least amount of people that would have to be 'in on it'? Also, how would one ensure that such people didn't tell (or if they did tell, wouldn't be believed)?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,04:41   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 09 2006,00:37)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 08 2006,22:02)
Fortunately, terrorism's a nuisance rather than an existential threat, so it's not like this stupidity is ultimately going to cost us the game.

I'm not sure I can agree with that.  For those personally affected I'm sure you wouldn't characterize it as a nuisance.  But for the vast majority of us the true danger is the effect it has on how we live our lives, how we govern and what sacrifices we are willing to accept to avoid further "nuisances".  If I remember correctly, John Kerry equated terrorism to a nuisance during the 04 elections and he paid dearly for it.

Obviously getting murdered is not a nuisance for the victim. It's a nuisance at the nation level. The number of people killed on 9/11 are killed every month in car crashes. I don't remember what Kerry said about it, but I don't dispute what you say. People are really bad at understanding risk and statistics.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,10:27   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 09 2006,09:41)
Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 09 2006,00:37)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 08 2006,22:02)
Fortunately, terrorism's a nuisance rather than an existential threat, so it's not like this stupidity is ultimately going to cost us the game.

I'm not sure I can agree with that.  For those personally affected I'm sure you wouldn't characterize it as a nuisance.  But for the vast majority of us the true danger is the effect it has on how we live our lives, how we govern and what sacrifices we are willing to accept to avoid further "nuisances".  If I remember correctly, John Kerry equated terrorism to a nuisance during the 04 elections and he paid dearly for it.

Obviously getting murdered is not a nuisance for the victim. It's a nuisance at the nation level. The number of people killed on 9/11 are killed every month in car crashes. I don't remember what Kerry said about it, but I don't dispute what you say. People are really bad at understanding risk and statistics.

That may be true, but monthly car caused deaths do not bring a city to a halt.

Terrorism is no more than a pest on the national level. However it does look spectacular and makes people focus on issues.

9/11 aniversary very soon. Pretty sure both USA and England will have some sort of scare.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,13:29   

I usually don't bother to read the conservative columnists, but today I took a chance and read John Tierney's column in the NYT. It was amazing. He basically said

1 terrorism is just a pest
2 there are damn few terrorists
3 but the terror-fighting industry is making a killing off our fear

I was shocked. Unfortunately, the idiots at the NYT have decided to put their commentary behind a paywall so I can't link to it.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,16:14   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 09 2006,15:27)
The number of people killed on 9/11 are killed every month in car crashes.

Not to mention that more Americans have now died in Afghanistan and Iraq than in the terrorist attacks they were presumably fighting because of.

(Of course, nobody in America really cares how many Iraqis or Afghans have been killed.)


The basic problem has been, right from the beginning, treating 9-11 as a MILITARY matter rather than what it really was -- a LAW ENFORCEMENT matter.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,16:18   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 09 2006,18:29)
the terror-fighting industry is making a killing off our fear

So are the neocon fascist-wanna-be's.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,17:09   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 09 2006,21:14)
The basic problem has been, right from the beginning, treating 9-11 as a MILITARY matter rather than what it really was -- a LAW ENFORCEMENT matter.

Actually, the 90s are an example of treating terrorism as law enforcement and we see where that has gotten us.  Ten years from now we'll be able to look back and see if the military approach fared any better.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,17:56   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 09 2006,22:09)
Actually, the 90s are an example of treating terrorism as law enforcement and we see where that has gotten us.

Um, where has it gotten us?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,18:02   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 09 2006,22:09)
Ten years from now we'll be able to look back and see if the military approach fared any better.

Ten years from now we'll still have people dying in Afghanistan and Iraq, and will still be none the safer for it.

Here's hoping we still have the semblence of democracy ten years from now, and haven't given it all up in the name of "national security" and the, uh, "war on terrorism".

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,19:51   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 09 2006,21:14)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 09 2006,15:27)
The number of people killed on 9/11 are killed every month in car crashes.

Not to mention that more Americans have now died in Afghanistan and Iraq than in the terrorist attacks they were presumably fighting because of.

(Of course, nobody in America really cares how many Iraqis or Afghans have been killed.)


The basic problem has been, right from the beginning, treating 9-11 as a MILITARY matter rather than what it really was -- a LAW ENFORCEMENT matter.

Would you like to have a discusion about this?

I am interested.

My contention is that war wasn't the worst thing we did, rather it was the half assed country building post-war.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,02:48   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,00:51)
My contention is that war wasn't the worst thing we did

Which one?  The one on Afghanistan, which doesn't seem to have helped anyone, either us or the Afghans.  Or the one on Iraq, which had been planned the year before 9-11, and has nothing to do with 9-11 or fighting terrorists?

9-11 was a law enforcement issue, not a military issue.  When McVeigh and Nichols bombed Oklahoma City, we arrested and tried them in court.  We didn't invade other countries that had nothing to do with it.

When the IRA bombs London, the Brits don't bomb Boston for giving money to the IRA.  They arrest the people involved and jail them.

Why could we not have done the same with 9-11?

Do we have the rule of law, or do we have the rule of the tank and gun?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,03:22   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,07:48)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,00:51)
My contention is that war wasn't the worst thing we did

Which one?  The one on Afghanistan,...  Or the one on Iraq, which had been planned the year before 9-11, and has nothing to do with 9-11 or fighting terrorists?...

Both really.

Afghanistan was pretty much inevitable due to the actions of the Taliban govt.

First they denied that AlQeada/Osama BinLaden was in Afghanistan.

Then when it was shown that was not the case the denial was to Osams guilt.

Then it was a case of not only admiting it but boasting about the atack while refusing to hand the ofenders over.

The USA had klittle choice but to invade from that point on.

Iraq is a whole different can of worms. Bush may well have had his own agenda and I am well aware of Iraq having nothing to do with the 9/11 atack.

Sadam did himself no favours either. If he had no weapons prohibited by the first gulf war peace treaty, why the #### did he insist on obstructing the weapons inspectors and playing silly games of brinkmanship? Damned if I know.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2132
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,03:39   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,07:48)
When the IRA bombs London, the Brits don't bomb Boston for giving money to the IRA.  They arrest the people involved and jail them.

Or send the SAS to shoot them in Gibraltar.

I'm afraid we weren't terribly innocent either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....taries.

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,03:41   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,08:22)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,07:48)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,00:51)
My contention is that war wasn't the worst thing we did

Which one?  The one on Afghanistan,...  Or the one on Iraq, which had been planned the year before 9-11, and has nothing to do with 9-11 or fighting terrorists?...

Both really.

Afghanistan was pretty much inevitable due to the actions of the Taliban govt.

First they denied that AlQeada/Osama BinLaden was in Afghanistan.

Then when it was shown that was not the case the denial was to Osams guilt.

Then it was a case of not only admiting it but boasting about the atack while refusing to hand the ofenders over.

The USA had klittle choice but to invade from that point on.

Iraq is a whole different can of worms. Bush may well have had his own agenda and I am well aware of Iraq having nothing to do with the 9/11 atack.

Sadam did himself no favours either. If he had no weapons prohibited by the first gulf war peace treaty, why the #### did he insist on obstructing the weapons inspectors and playing silly games of brinkmanship? Damned if I know.

That would be the same Taliban that Bush invited to Washington the year before to discuss an oil pipeline, right?


The Taliban offered to extradite Bin Laden.  All they wanted first was to see the evidence against him.  The same request any other ocuntry would make of an extradition.  The US refused.  After all, this was a military matter, not a law enforcement matter.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,03:58   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 10 2006,08:39)
I'm afraid we weren't terribly innocent either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....taries.

Bob

Innocent?  Heck, the US has always been the single largest supporter of terrorism worldwide.  From the 1960's, when the CIA and Mafia were working together to launch terrorist raids against Cuba and assassinate Castro, to the US support for death squads in Central America, to US training and support for a whole big long string of unelected dictators who tortured their own people, from the Shah of Iran to Marcos to Batista to Pinochet to Somoza to the Saud family.

Heck, we even gave SADDAM weapons, and, when he was using nerve gas against Kurdish civilians, refused to impose any penalty or sanctions whatsoever.  He was, after all, one of the good guys.

The US has met very few dictators that it hasn't liked.  Even now, in Iraq, the Defense Department is considering "non-democratic alternatives" to the elected Iraqi government.  Democracy, shmemocracy.  That ain't why we are there.

No one is "innocent" in this thing.  All the idealistic talk we hear, from everyone on both sides, is a load of BS.  This is power politics, pure and simple.  The neocons want, literally, for the US to run the world as it sees fit.  To do that, we need a military.  And every tank that rolls, every jet that flies, every naval task force that sails, is completely totally utterly dependent upon one thing --- oil.  We need it.  They have it.  That's what this is all about.  it has nothing to do with "terrorism" or 9-11 -- it was planned years before anyone ever heard of Al Qaeda.  9-11 just gave the neocons a convenient rallying cry to do what they wanted to do all along.  And even more conveniently, it offered the opportunity for a "war" in which (so sadly) we must restrict civil liberties and rally round authority.  And even *more* conveniently, the "war on terror" is never-ending.  In a "war against terrorism", what the heck constitutes "victory"  How will we know then the war is over?  Ask the Democans and Republicrats that question, and you get the same blank stares.  After all, the entire point is that the war NEVER ENDS.

If the neocons hadn't shot themselves in the ear by bungling the Iraq invasion so badly, they'd be in neo-fascist heaven right now.

But fortunately for them, they have the Democans to bail them out.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,04:03   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,08:22)
Then when it was shown that was not the case the denial was to Osams guilt.

I was under the impression that, in the US, nobody is guilty of anything until they have been convicted in a court of law.

Am I mistaken in that impression . . . ?  Or have we now abandoned that principle in favor of the idea of summary military execution without trial -- at least for people we don't like . . . ?

Do we have the rule of law, or do we have the rule of the tank and the gun?  

Or do we get to switch from one to the other as is more convenient at the time?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,04:35   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,09:03)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,08:22)
Then when it was shown that was not the case the denial was to Osams guilt.

I was under the impression that, in the US, nobody is guilty of anything until they have been convicted in a court of law...

I am not sure how this would have been possible. The atacks on 9/11 were pretty much an act of war imo. I just don't see how the rule of law would work with respect to Bin Laden. Who would arest him? Who could?

Flying planes into buildings and deliberately targeting civilians was bound to sow the seeds of retribution.

BTW. Do you seriously doubt that BinLaden was behind those atacks?

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,05:26   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,09:35)
The atacks on 9/11 were pretty much an act of war imo.

And therein lies the problem.  When we insist on treating a law enforcement problem as a MILITARY problem, then it leads . . . well . . . right where it HAS led.

9-11 was no more an "act of war" than was the Japanese subway nerve-gassing or the Oklahoma City bombing or the Olympics bombing.  It was, like the others, a LAW ENFORCEMENT matter, and it should have been treated no differently.

Of course, the neocons jumped at the opportunity to treat it is a military matter, since they want EVERYTHING in the United States treated as a military matter, including civil rights.  Heck, the PNAC website lists "militarization of America" as one of its primary goals.

I do not want to live in a "militarized" society.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,05:45   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,09:35)
Flying planes into buildings and deliberately targeting civilians was bound to sow the seeds of retribution.

That's right.  Me, I see no difference whatever between killing people by putting a bomb ON an airplane, and killing people by dropping a bomb FROM an airplane. Particularly since the US has shown no reluctance whatever to bomb civilian targets like TV/radio stations (the World Trade Center had a TV/radio transmission tower), the electric and water systems (both industries had offices in the World Trade Center), and government offices (the World Trade Center had several US government offices, including a portion of the US Treasury reserve). By the very standards used by the US military in Iraq, the World Trade Center would be considered a legitimate military target (and the civilians would be mere "collateral damage"). Indeed, EVERYTHING in an industrialized society supports the military in some way or another, whether it's food production or road construction or steel factories or oil production.  That, after all, is the reason we carpet-bomed Japanese and German cities for years.  Indeed, we deliberately targeted the civilians in that case, because they served as workers in the industrial economy.

Of course, the US "doesn't deliberately target civilians" (though they keep getting killed at disporportionate rates anyway and of course the US prefers not to talk about the number of Iraqi and Afghan civilians that are killed -- and indeed most people in the US don't care anyway, since Afghans and Iraqis aren't white English-speakers and therefore don't matter anyway), but I doubt that will make much difference to the people whose relatives have just been blown up.  Indeed they, just like you, have the "seeds of retribution", and they, just like you, will demand revenge. Unless of course one is of the opinion that the US is entitled to "retribution", but no one else is.

Every day that the US occupies Afghanistan and Iraq, increases the number of people who resent it.  Every Afghan and Iraqi who is killed, increases the desire for retribution.  Those wars have, predictably, increased the number of our enemies, made it easier for them to recruit new members, increased their desire to strike back, and made us LESS safe than we were before.

And the more troops we send, the more targets we present for their retribution.  Heck, the rate of casualties in Afghanistan (which never seems to make the news, unlike Iraq) is now roughly equal to that faced by the Soviets during their 1979-1989 occupation.

US occupation is the CAUSE of the problem, not its solution.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,06:07   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,09:35)
BTW. Do you seriously doubt that BinLaden was behind those atacks?

Of *course* I don't doubt it.  That's not the point.

In the US, we have the rule of law.  When someone commits a crime (and I'm, uh, pretty sure that conspiring to fly airplanes into tall buildings is a crime), there are lawful procedures to punish that person.  One of those procedures is that everyone -- EVERYONE -- must be convicted of a crime in a court of law before they can be punished for it.  It's not enough to just say "well, we KNOW that he did it" and then go execute him.  You need to prove it in open court.

Those are basic, fundamental civil rights -- the very ones we are defending in the rest of the world (or at least we SAY we are).  And if those fundamental civil rights do not apply to EVERYONE, if they do not apply to certain people that we don't like and want "retribution" upon (whether it's terrorists or child molestors or mass murderers or rapists or nazis or commies), then they are no longer valid for ANYONE.  Once we begin to decide "well, *this person* doesn't deserve these rights", then they are no longer "rights" -- they have instead become "privileges", ones that certain favored people have and certain disfavored people do *not* have.  And when legal protection can be revoked or withdrawn from certain people at whim, then democracy and the rule of law is dead.  

There is no justification, none at all whatsoever, for summarily executing people without trial, even if "we know he did it"  --  whether that execution comes from an angry mob, or from a radar-guided cruise missile fired from a ship a thousand miles away.  "Terrorists" are, like it or not, entitled to the very same legal rights and protections that every OTHER person charged under US law is.  No matter how inconvenient or difficult it might be.  

When we lose those rights, when legal rights become a privilege that is revoked by some, and the rule of law is abandoned in favor of military-imposed "order", then we get things like, oh, people being imprisoned indefinitely without charges at secret locations based on secret evidence obtained through torture.  Sound at all familiar?  Isn't that what we are, uh, supposed to be fighting AGAINST?

Contrast our approach to 9-11 to the British response to the London tube bombings.  They arrested the people involved, and will put them on trial. They treat it as a LAW ENFORCEMENT matter, not a military matter.

What about us?  Do we have the rule of law, or do we have the rule of the tank and the gun?  Which is it?

Or do we have one set of laws for people we DO like, and a different set of laws for people we DON'T like?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,06:39   

Quote
The neocons want, literally, for the US to run the world as it sees fit.  To do that, we need a military.  And every tank that rolls, every jet that flies, every naval task force that sails, is completely totally utterly dependent upon one thing --- oil.  We need it.  They have it.  That's what this is all about.  it has nothing to do with "terrorism" or 9-11 -- it was planned years before anyone ever heard of Al Qaeda.  9-11 just gave the neocons a convenient rallying cry to do what they wanted to do all along.  And even more conveniently, it offered the opportunity for a "war" in which (so sadly) we must restrict civil liberties and rally round authority.  And even *more* conveniently, the "war on terror" is never-ending.  In a "war against terrorism", what the heck constitutes "victory"  How will we know then the war is over?
Interestingly that's exactly what PNAC say.

A minor nitpick I know but if the Americans really want to convince the rest of the world that the war was all about Osama and 9/11 they could update the FBI page on him that doesn't mention 9/11 at all, and update the official list of 9/11 highjackers to not include the people that have been proven to be alive. It does kind of suggest that that isnt the real reason the administration is acting.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,06:42   

WOW! Lenny you are a prolific writer and I doubt I will be able to keep up with you.

However I will atempt to adress some of your points.

Are you not a resident of Florida? Isn't it true that you are entitled to shoot someone who breaks into your house there? They don't get a trial.

In Britain the people who set those bombs off on the underground. Well the people directly responsible for letting them loose were arrested. That is true. It was a different situation for America with the 9/11 incidents though as most of those responsible were resident in Afghanistan.

Anyway I conceed that you make some very good arguments. I will try to cover more of them a bit later. The weather is absolutely marvelous over here at the minute and I want to sit by the river with a beer or two, maybe three.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,07:58   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,11:42)
Are you not a resident of Florida? Isn't it true that you are entitled to shoot someone who breaks into your house there? They don't get a trial.

No, but YOU do.  The cops don't just come by, see the dead body, look at you standing there with a gun in your hand, and say "Good job".  They have an investigation, and if criminal charges are warranted, they file them.

By the way, if you shoot someone while they are NOT in your house, even if they are walking in broad daylight across your yard with your TV set under one arm and your computer under the other, you will go to jail.  The law of self-defense allows the use of deadly force only if you are under IMMINENT DANGER of bodily harm.  It does NOT allow you to shoot someone who is leaving the scene, or isn't at the scene at all.  If a Mafia don orders a hit on your friend, you do NOT have the right under "self-defense" to go to that Mafia don's office and shoot him.  That is "retribution", not "self-defense", and the law does not allow killing in "retribution".

I.e., we would be entitled, under "self-defense", to shoot down an airliner that was piloted by Osama Bin Laden and was diving towards the White House.  We would NOT be entitled, under "self-defense", to shoot down an airliner just because it is carrying Osama Bin Laden -- even if it carrying him out of the country.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,08:01   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,10:26)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,09:35)
The atacks on 9/11 were pretty much an act of war imo.

And therein lies the problem.  When we insist on treating a law enforcement problem as a MILITARY problem, then it leads . . . well . . . right where it HAS led...

IIRC the USA did try to get hold of Bin Laden through diplomatic means but was thwarted.

As far as I am aware the "evidence" of Bin Ladens involvement was almost entirely if not 100% inteligence based. That is not the sort of info you would present to a potential enemy. They could then alter their operational procedures to deny future information.

Had Bin Laden been handed over or surrendered himself, I am fairly sure he would have had a fair trial (I bet hundreds of good lawyers would have wanted to represent him), also the occupation in Afghanistan would never have happened.

On a side note. I think whoever ordered the destruction of the poppy crops made a serious blunder.

Why the beejesus we didn't buy it then destroy it or use it for medication manufacture I can't understand. Pay somewhat more than the going rate then promise the farmers a better deal for food the next year would have been far more sensible.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,08:20   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,11:42)
It was a different situation for America with the 9/11 incidents though as most of those responsible were resident in Afghanistan.

That is why we have this legal process called "extradition".

Under the rule of law, we do not get to ignore that process simply because it's inconvenient and delays our (rather juvenile) thirst for retribution.

And, under the rule of law, sometimes people *escape* the law.  One way to do that is to live in a country that has no extradition agreement with the US (such as, say, Afghanistan).  Another way is to go to trial and win, like OJ did.  What would you do if Bin Laden went to trial and was **acquitted** -- would you execute him anyway?  Do you think someone should shoot OJ after his acquittal, since we all "know he did it"?

Alas, in real life, unlike the cowboy movies, the bad guys sometimes do get away with it.  Life isn't fair.  (shrug)

But let's reverse the situation and see how you feel about it:  suppose that the IRA blows up Parliament.  Suppose the bombing was planned and financed in a heavily IRA-friendly area, like Boston or New York.  Suppose the Brits, when asked to provide evidence of the bomber's guilt for an extradition hearing, instead refused to do so and simply demanded that we hand him over, no questions asked (remember, the Taliban asked the US to simply produce some evidence -- and the US refused).  

Under those circumstances, do you think Britain would be justified in (1) bombing Boston or New York as retaliation for its "support for terrorists", or (2) invading the US and overthrowing the US government in an attempt to capture the bomber, and to retaliate for the government's refusal to hand him over?

Or do you think it's OK for the US to do so, but not OK for anyone ELSE to do so?

Oddly, that is precisely the official US position;  in recent hearings explaining the "new legal procedures for treating enemy combatants", the Bush Admin representative was asked by Congress if the US would accept these procedures if they were to be applied to a captured *US* soldier by *another nation*, and replied "Probably not."  Apparently, what's not good enough for us, is just fine and dandy for others.

There have, of course, been several *other* nations in history who also thought they were better than everyone else and should be treated with deference, and who thought that whenever they said "shite", the rest of the world should just ask "what color?".  Those nations, alas, are not remembered very fondly by anyone.

We should not join their ranks.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,08:30   

Lenny you seem to think that I have some sort of thirst for war. I can assure you that I do not. Maybe I have just missread you on that matter.

Anyway, had Osama gone to trial and was aquited I would be somewhat pigged off. However I would abide by a court decision.

On the OJ matter (yes I know it is a sideline but cannot resist). I am not at all certain he was guilty. I suspect he was but the evidence for police fixing was quite large.
If I was a juror at his trial I would have gone for not-guilty.

Oh! BTW, I get the impression that you consider me to be an American. I am English.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,08:39   

>>IIRC the USA did try to get hold of Bin Laden through diplomatic means but was thwarted.


Nonsense.  The US's "diplomatic effort" consisted of:

US:  Give us Bin Laden.
Afghanistan:  First show us some evidence that he did it.
US:  Up yours.  Just hand him over, or we're invading.



>As far as I am aware the "evidence" of Bin Ladens >involvement was almost entirely if not 100% inteligence >based.



That would be the same "intelligence based info" that said Saddam had WMD's, right?  Do you think THAT would have stood up in court?



That is not the sort of info you would present to a >potential enemy.


Is it the sort of info you would present to a, uh, jury in court?  If so, then what's the problem with presenting it to the Taliban?  If not, then how the #### do you plan on having a "fair trial"?  

Or did you just plan on having a secret military tribunal, without court review, based on secret evidence and held in secret session -- you know, like the ones the "captured terrorists" will (maybe) get?




>Had Bin Laden been handed over or surrendered himself, I am fairly sure he would have had a fair trial


With what evidence to convict him?  The very same intelligence info that couldn't be used to *extradite* him?

Make up your friggin mind.  Did we have evidence, or didn't we.  If we did, why the big stink over using it to extradite him diplomatically?

Me, I think the US had zip, zero, zilch evidence that would stand up in court.  And that is why Bin Laden, if he had surrendered, would never have lived long enough to get on an airplane.

Of course, the neocons don't WANT Bin Laden dead or captured.  He's too valuable as an enemy to rally everyone against (like Emmanuel Goldstein). Can't have a never-ending "war on terror" without him.  That's why we made no effort to catch him at Tora Bora (Iraq's oil was far more important), and why we've made no objections when our pals in Pakistan have agreed to give Bin Laden safe haven in Afghanistan.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,08:40   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,13:20)
...

But let's reverse the situation and see how you feel about it:  suppose that the IRA blows up Parliament.  Suppose the bombing was planned and financed in a heavily IRA-friendly area, like Boston or New York.  Suppose the Brits, when asked to provide evidence of the bomber's guilt for an extradition hearing, instead refused to do so and simply demanded that we hand him over, no questions asked (remember, the Taliban asked the US to simply produce some evidence -- and the US refused).  

Under those circumstances, do you think Britain would be justified in (1) bombing Boston or New York as retaliation for its "support for terrorists", or (2) invading the US and overthrowing the US government in an attempt to capture the bomber, and to retaliate for the government's refusal to hand him over?...

Funilly enough Lenny that was kinda the situation over here for a good few years.

OK Parliament wasn't blown up. But they did try. Well Downing street at least.

The IRA was heavilly financed by people in the USA. Mostly eejits who had no idea of the political situation in Northern Ireland. I think the majority of cash contributers thought the IRA represented most of  the people of Northern Ireland.

Anyway, I never felt a shred of resentment towards the average USA citizen. Never felt like bombong US cities myself. In fact I actually like the majority of your countrymen. Well the majority of those I actually know at any rate.

Anyway.

1) No we would not have been justified in bombing Boston.

and

2) We would not be justified in overthrowing the USA's democratically elected government.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,09:10   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,13:30)
Oh! BTW, I get the impression that you consider me to be an American. I am English.

Well, in the days of Tony Blair, there doesn't seem to be much difference.  ;)

But I do tend to forget sometimes that there are lots of people here from the other side of The Pond.

A plea to every one of you;  The neocon US cannot (or will not) stop itself. PLEASE stop us, before it is too late.  Don't let us drag the rest of the world into tyranny along with ourselves.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,09:16   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,14:10)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,13:30)
Oh! BTW, I get the impression that you consider me to be an American. I am English.

Well, in the days of Tony Blair, there doesn't seem to be much difference.  ;)  ...

lol. Tony Blairs days are now almost over. While I think that he should step down soon; I do not like the manner in which it seems to be happening.

Must admit that I feel somewhat disenfranchised from British politics.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,09:19   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,13:40)
OK Parliament wasn't blown up.

I've always wondered, when the British celebrate Guy Fawkes day, are they celebrating the fact that he FAILED to blow up Parliament, or are they celebrating the fact that he TRIED to.

;)


(BTW, just saw "V for Vendetta" --- a wonderful movie.  It's no wonder at all that it wasn't made by Americans.)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,09:20   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,14:10)
...
A plea to every one of you;  The neocon US cannot (or will not) stop itself. PLEASE stop us, before it is too late.  Don't let us drag the rest of the world into tyranny along with ourselves.

There is not much anyone else could do about it. You are the most powerfull nation on Earth right now.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,09:27   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,15:20)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,14:10)
...
A plea to every one of you;  The neocon US cannot (or will not) stop itself. PLEASE stop us, before it is too late.  Don't let us drag the rest of the world into tyranny along with ourselves.

There is not much anyone else could do about it. You are the most powerfull nation on Earth right now.

Don't let Lenny scare you, he's hyperventilating a bit. The neocons have sown the seeds of their own demise.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,09:30   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,14:20)
There is not much anyone else could do about it. You are the most powerfull nation on Earth right now.

We cannot take on the entire world at once.  Politically, economically, or militarily.

Stand against us, united.  Or, you will knuckle under to us, separately. One way or another.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,09:36   

Speaking of politics, I'm seeing some news that in the upcoming Pakistani elections, fundies might come to power. Anybody hear anything about that? Fundy Islamists with nukes?

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,09:39   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 10 2006,14:27)
The neocons have sown the seeds of their own demise.

Well, certainly their little Iraqi adventure didn't turn out quite as they planned . . . .

The problem, though, as I see it, is that the, uh, "opposition party" in the US, the Democrats, have for the most part accepted the neocon goals, and just want to argue over the methods.  I've not seen *any* leading Democrat stand up and say, out loud, that the US simply has no inherent right whatsoever to run the world as it sees fit.  Instead, every leading Democan accepts as a matter of routine course that, as the "only remaining superpower", the US *does* indeed have that inherent right -- although the Democans would prefer to be a bit more "kinder and gentler" about it.  While the neocon Republicrats are quite willing to just run roughshod right over everyone else (and send the military to discuss matters with anyone who doesnt' like it), the Democans prefer a more benevolent empire.  Carrot rather than stick. But underneath, the goals remain the same.  We run things.  Whether the rest of the world likes it or not.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,09:48   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 10 2006,14:27)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,15:20)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,14:10)
...
A plea to every one of you;  The neocon US cannot (or will not) stop itself. PLEASE stop us, before it is too late.  Don't let us drag the rest of the world into tyranny along with ourselves.

There is not much anyone else could do about it. You are the most powerfull nation on Earth right now.

Don't let Lenny scare you, he's hyperventilating a bit. The neocons have sown the seeds of their own demise.

Lenny does not scare me as such. Rather I find his point of view interesting. He does argue very well TBH. While I may not agree with him, he is hard to refute.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,09:52   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,14:30)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,14:20)
There is not much anyone else could do about it. You are the most powerfull nation on Earth right now.

We cannot take on the entire world at once.  Politically, economically, or militarily.

Stand against us, united.  Or, you will knuckle under to us, separately. One way or another.

Europe united? Please! We even had an argument about the shape of imported bananas a while back.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,11:22   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,14:48)
he is hard to refute.

That's because I'm right.


-edit-

Dooohhhhh, there is supposed to be a "clickable smiley" here.

Try again:


;)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,11:27   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,16:22)
...
That's because I'm right...

You may well be. I am not convinced yet though.

I still think that the reasons for overthrowing the Taliban were justified.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,11:30   

Heck, now even Moamar Gaddafi, the favorite US boogeyman for years, is one of the good guys.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62796-2004Oct25.html


Give it some time, and maybe even Osama will become one of the good guys.  Again.


Geez, ya need a #### scorecard to keep up.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,11:43   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,16:30)
...

Give it some time, and maybe even Osama will become one of the good guys.  Again.


Geez, ya need a #### scorecard to keep up.

Too drunk to argue right now. I will try again tomorrow.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,11:53   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,16:43)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,16:30)
...

Give it some time, and maybe even Osama will become one of the good guys.  Again.


Geez, ya need a #### scorecard to keep up.



Too drunk to argue right now. I will try again tomorrow.

Oh heck, I do my best arguing when I'm plastered.   ;)


Hey, maybe after Iraq collapses into chaos and some oil wells start (gasp) going up in flames, maybe the US will install *Saddam* back in power to "control" the situation, and *he* will become a good guy.  Again.


You simply HAVE to make fun of US foreign policy.  The only alternative is to go to Washington and choke the living #$*%  out of all of them.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,12:05   

For an ATBC thread devoted to conspiracy theories, I'm surprised no one has brought up the fundamental conspiracy theory that lies at the heart of Intelligent Design -- the idea that scientists 'all know' that evolution doesn't work, and that the only thing keeping evolution afloat and holding ID back is a massive conspiracy on the part of the liberal, atheist, probably-homosexual scientific community.

It's everywhere in the IDC community, it's the way they all reassure themselves about how a theory they're all so in love with has failed so dismally among actual scholars of the relevant sciences.

Just ask Paley, he'll confirm that this is happening every day.  :p

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,12:28   

Hmmm. Been awhile since I was at college. Are there a disproportionate # of homos in science these days?

I thought they were just run-of-the-mill libruls. Not so much the fancy "city" type.

PS I've read a fair amount of the conspiracy stuff since this thread started (9-11 and normal neocon) Wow. Lots of stuff.

The "conspiracy theorists" have gone mainstream. When I was a kid they were about x-files stuff. Now they are about everything. Darn, maybe they are right. ;)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,13:31   

Quote (BWE @ Sep. 10 2006,17:28)
The "conspiracy theorists" have gone mainstream.

Oddly, so have the "conspirators".  Indeed, the Discovery Institute wrote down its Wedge Document that spelled out their whole plan, and the neocons PUBLISHED their plans in "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (found at the PNAC's own website, written a full year before 9-11).

Alas, it's not much of a "conspiracy" when it's openly printed for the whole world to see.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,13:40   

Quote (BWE @ Sep. 10 2006,17:28)

Hmmm. Been awhile since I was at college. Are there a disproportionate # of homos in science these days?

I thought they were just run-of-the-mill libruls. Not so much the fancy "city" type.


Not sure if there are any more or any less than there's ever been -- it's just that the religious right in America tends to combine atheists, liberals, gays, scientists, foreigners, etc. into one generalized amorphous 'super villian'. Like they're all the same thing. Again, ask GoP, he'll confirm this. :-)

     
Quote
The "conspiracy theorists" have gone mainstream. When I was a kid they were about x-files stuff. Now they are about everything. Darn, maybe they are right. ;)


Since no one on either the left or the right trusts "The Government" anymore (except for wingnuts who believe absolutely everything Bush tells them -- they must not think Bush is 'the government' ), conspiracy theories are indeed now normal. I think it all started with the Kennedy assassination, to be honest. Not believing The Government was considered much more nutty before then.

Since Fundies know they're right and like to think they're persecuted, this comes easily to them. I mean, what ELSE could explain the nonacceptance of Intelligent Design?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,16:48   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 10 2006,18:40)
I think it all started with the Kennedy assassination, to be honest. Not believing The Government was considered much more nutty before then.

But it didn't really go "mainstream" until Watergate, followed shortly afterwards by the Church Commission.

Until then, who on earth would have believed that the government of the United States was spying on its own people, drawing up "enemies lists" of people targeted for persecution, working with the Mafia to assassinate foreign leaders we didn't like, or cheating in elections through illegal methods?

Now, those things would be accepted without batting an eyelash.  And were we to find out things like (just as examples) Diebold is using its electronic voting machines to fix elections, or the Bush Administration is paying journalists to write friendly stories to mislead the American public, or the US is working with Moamar Gaddafi to kill foreign political figures that we don't like, nobody who knew about American hisotry would be shocked.  After all, we've already seen this sort of thing before.

Many people in the US, of course, are too young to remember much about those things.  (And, since the US suffers, collectively, from acute attention-deficit-disorder and has no history whatsoever, that only makes it all the more easy for those sorts of things to happen again.  And again.  And again.)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,22:12   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,14:19)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,13:40)
OK Parliament wasn't blown up.

I've always wondered, when the British celebrate Guy Fawkes day, are they celebrating the fact that he FAILED to blow up Parliament, or are they celebrating the fact that he TRIED to.

;)

I do believe we are supposed to be celebrating his capture and failure. However most people I know couldn't care less. Who needs much encouragement to stand around big fires and watch fireworks?

It is all a lot tamer (less dangerous=slightly more boring) now. When I was a kid we usually had private parties. The responsible adults would drink alcohol and then set off fireworks. Was bloody good fun though.

Recently the trend is for public well organised events. More spectacular fireworks and far less danger.

EDIT: There was an interesting TV programme about the "gunpowder plot" shown here about a year ago. They did a scale model of parliament and placed a scaled down amount of gunpowder filled barels in it. The result was spectacular.

Turns out that the barels themselves make the explosion more dramatic. Seems nobody in the modern world knew this until they did that experiment.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,11:05   

Stephen:

I'm curious as to what the general reaction has been to Blair's announcement of his stepping down?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2006,06:42   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 11 2006,16:05)
Stephen:

I'm curious as to what the general reaction has been to Blair's announcement of his stepping down?

It is difficult to say really. I think it is a non-event for most people. At least politically. Brown and Blair have never dissagreed on an important policy (at least as far as I am aware).

Blair was always going to stand down anyway. Brown is almost certain to be his successor. The whole handover to Brown was known before the last General Election.

The only part that even slightly interests me is the conspiracy angle.

It would seem that a rather large group (entirely male) of Labours parliamentary members wanted to push Blair out sooner than he intended to go.

So now Labour will probably have a far uglier episode of "regime change" than it otherwise would. All to get Blair out of office about 3 months sooner.

I expect that all major government members will be concentrating almost exclusively on this issue now.

Meanwhile we have troops deployed all over the globe. Lots of them in 2 rather fierce conflicts, the threat of a strike in the National health service and God knows how many other major issues. Not really good timing for a loss of focus.

I suspect that the motives of the conspirators is self advancement and currying favour with the next PM. Meanwhile the country could go to #### for all they seem to care.

So on the whole I am feeling as dissenfranchised as ever from the political system we have here.

All views expressed are solely those of the author.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2006,07:42   

Quote

So on the whole I am feeling as dissenfranchised as ever from the political system we have here.


Lot of that going around the English-speaking world...

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2006,08:11   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 12 2006,12:42)
Quote

So on the whole I am feeling as dissenfranchised as ever from the political system we have here.


Lot of that going around the English-speaking world...

LOL! Short and straight to the point.

Hats off to Arden

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2006,12:13   

I think it is incredibly ironic that this thread began with a generalized disdain for conspiracy theories and then  the good Rev launches into an irrational tirade in which a small group of completely inept politicians plot to control the world while manipulating foriegn govts, oil reserves, civil liberties and whatever other means are necessary to support their evil scheme.  Its amazing in this tired scenario that the US Govt is always seen as the greatest evil known to man regardless of it particular affiliation at the time and we really need to "walk in the shoes" of the poor ol' little freedom fighter/terrorist to understand how he ticks and how we've wronged him.  Please!  Some people are just evil.  Some people just want to kill other people.  Its ridiculous to create a moral equivilance and try to understand the motivations and desires of irrational people.  There you go; there's my rant.  Take it as you will.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2006,12:38   

and how would you rank McCarthy on your "evil" scale, there skeptic?

what about the people who supported his commission?

what about the people who used it to accuse people of being "communists" just in order to ruin their lives out of spite?

would you prefer we all turn a blind eye to the idiocies commited by our own government because others commit even worse ones?

rant away, but as usual, you aren't really making much sense.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2006,13:35   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 12 2006,17:13)
I think it is incredibly ironic that this thread began with a generalized disdain for conspiracy theories and then  the good Rev launches into an irrational tirade in which a small group of completely inept politicians plot to control the world while manipulating foriegn govts, oil reserves, civil liberties and whatever other means are necessary to support their evil scheme.  Its amazing in this tired scenario that the US Govt is always seen as the greatest evil known to man regardless of it particular affiliation at the time and we really need to "walk in the shoes" of the poor ol' little freedom fighter/terrorist to understand how he ticks and how we've wronged him.  Please!  Some people are just evil.  Some people just want to kill other people.  Its ridiculous to create a moral equivilance and try to understand the motivations and desires of irrational people.  There you go; there's my rant.  Take it as you will.

I suggest you go to:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf


and read it.

Take particular notice of the date.

Read it again.

Then look around.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2006,18:13   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 12 2006,17:38)
what about the people who used it to accuse people of being "communists" just in order to ruin their lives out of spite?

I wouldn't characterize McCarthy as evil just misguided.  He certainly didn't pursue his crusade out of spite, he just thought he was right and that the greatest threat to the US was communism.  About that he was wrong but it might be safe to say after fifty years of reflection that he was looking in the right places for the sympathizers.  It would be interesting to learn how many people were communist-leaning as opposed to how many were driven that way by his tactics.  Sort of the same arguement today as to how many terrorists there were originally and how many Bush has created by invading Iraq.  A better example of evil would be Hitler.  I think he and OBL would sit down together and have a cup of tea and a nice chat.  That's what we're dealing with.  Its hard even to include the presidents of North Korea and Iran in that club yet because they both seem to be crazy like a fox.  Only time will tell.

Rev, I'm not sure of the relevance of that paper because I have no idea who those people are and what influence they may or may not have.  There are any number of think tanks that develop position papers that scan the spectrum so I have no frame of reference for that particular one.  I could just as easily read Clancy's Debt of Honor and determine that he was in on the planning or at least knew about it years before the event.  in any event, in my years of government service I witnessed levels of incompetance that would drive any corporation into bankruptcy and liability court.  To imply the level sophistication required to pull off half of what you believe is simply not realistic in the massive behemoth we call the US Govt.  You'd get more play by involking the Illuminati or the Masons or some other shadow group who is controlling the world.  Pick any of them but they all amount to the same psychological need to lay blame at someone's feet even if the cold hard truth is that there really is no one to blame.  It's just life and we've got to deal with it at face value and not create bogeymen to make it all make sense.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2006,19:02   

Quote
June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

   • we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
   responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

   • we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

   • we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

   • we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams  
Gary Bauer    
William J. Bennett    
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney    
Eliot A. Cohen    
Midge Decter    
Paula Dobriansky    
Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg    Francis Fukuyama    Frank Gaffney    Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan    Zalmay Khalilzad    I. Lewis Libby    Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle    Peter W. Rodman    Stephen P. Rosen    Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld    Vin Weber    George Weigel    Paul Wolfowitz



--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2006,19:15   

Is that page still up on the PNAC site after all this time?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2006,00:02   

With regards to Blair, about the only good things he has done from many peoples view point is the minimum wage legislation and the EU human rights act.  
He's getting it from all political sides.  Over the past decade he has centralised even more, severely damaged the NHS, encouraged changes in the way things are done, such that billions of pounds of our money have been wasted on privatisation, got us involved in one stupid and pointless war, moved us further towards presidential gvt, encouraged lower and lower turn outs to vote, and so on.  Lets not forget the widening gap between rich and poor as well.

Brown will be no better.  If Brown carries on in the style of tony, in terms of governance, things will be bad.  Brown, as the financial wizard, has presided over the PFI/PPP, as well as other scams.  
Oh, and ID cards are a boondoggle as well.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2006,02:10   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 12 2006,23:13)
Rev, I'm not sure of the relevance of that paper because I have no idea who those people are and what influence they may or may not have.

Look at the names listed at PNAC.

Then look at the names of members of the Bush Administration.

Then look up the names of Reagan Adminstration members who were involved in the Iran-Contra affair.

See if any of them sound familiar.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2006,02:57   

How could I have been so blind.  You're right, if you look at these names then the plan becomes all too clear.

Cheney, of course, controls all the oil in the world and Halliburton too,

Forbes has the multi-nationals eating out of the palm of his hands (with a little help from Ben Stein, amazing how he was able to keep his name off the list),

Bennett is Limbaugh's advisor so he keeps the message going out strong and on target,

Quayle must be waiting for his accension into the Dept of Education so we can keep the public properly uneducated and oblivious to the master plan,

Rumsfeld controls the war machine, we're going to need to keep that strong and rolling to squash any resistance,

Bauer has the Christian Right in his backpocket and has to destroy the homosexuals and abortionists since they represent the greatest threat to the fablic of our society,

Jeb Bush is just waiting his chance to take over the Presidency, since we got those automated voting machines installed after the successful 2000 operation there's no doubt who the next president is going to be,

and finally, the wizard behind the curtain...Krystal works for Foxnews and so Rupert Murdoch must be in control.  He controls global communications, what we hear, see and think.

How could I have not seen it before, bring on the New World Order!!

(has everyone lost their friggin minds?  aren't we supposed to discussing science and combating just this kind of nuttiness that tells us that the Earth is only 6000 years old and the center of the universe?  HELLO!  Are there any sane people left out there?)

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2006,08:17   

Quote (guthrie @ Sep. 13 2006,05:02)
With regards to Blair, about the only good things he has done from many peoples view point is the minimum wage legislation and the EU human rights act.  
He's getting it from all political sides.  Over the past decade he has centralised even more, severely damaged the NHS, encouraged changes in the way things are done, such that billions of pounds of our money have been wasted on privatisation, got us involved in one stupid and pointless war, moved us further towards presidential gvt, encouraged lower and lower turn outs to vote, and so on.  Lets not forget the widening gap between rich and poor as well.

Brown will be no better.  If Brown carries on in the style of tony, in terms of governance, things will be bad.  Brown, as the financial wizard, has presided over the PFI/PPP, as well as other scams.  
Oh, and ID cards are a boondoggle as well.

Brown should be exactly the same. Do you know of any policy dissention between Brown and Blair?

I think we dissagree on which policies where bad though.

I take it you do not like the idea of ID cards? Personally I do not mind so long as it is done well. Biometrics would probably play a big part.

What anoys me the most is things such as banning hand guns, foxhunting etc. I canot see the point of these laws. AFAICS it was just a waste of parliaments time when other things could have been dealt with.

You seem to like the EU directive on human rights. I dislike it. IMO it concentrates too much on perpetrators rights and doesn't give a stuff about victims.

While I suported us joining the EU back in the 70's I intensely dislike it now.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2006,08:47   

Quote
(has everyone lost their friggin minds?  aren't we supposed to discussing science and combating just this kind of nuttiness that tells us that the Earth is only 6000 years old and the center of the universe?  HELLO!  Are there any sane people left out there?)


Skeptic, your ignorance and your dislike of talking about anything that reflects poorly on Republicans is your problem, not ours. If you don't like this thread, you're entirely free to leave.

There are other threads that stick closer to straight science. Perhaps you'd be happier there.

If you wish to engage this topic like a mature adult, which you haven't indicated yet, you can stay.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2006,08:59   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 13 2006,13:47)
Quote
(has everyone lost their friggin minds?  aren't we supposed to discussing science and combating just this kind of nuttiness that tells us that the Earth is only 6000 years old and the center of the universe?  HELLO!  Are there any sane people left out there?)


Skeptic, your ignorance and your dislike of talking about anything that reflects poorly on Republicans is your problem, not ours. If you don't like this thread, you're entirely free to leave.

There are other threads that stick closer to straight science. Perhaps you'd be happier there.

If you wish to engage this topic like a mature adult, which you haven't indicated yet, you can stay.

I dislike this reply.

Why can't skeptic say whatever he/she likes? We should not be afraid of what anyone says.

I am pretty sure that Lenny can defend himself. So can anyone else here. We do not require DT type protection.

*pulls out lightsabre*

"Trust the force young Jedi".

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2006,09:06   

Quote
How could I have not seen it before, bring on the New World Order!!

(has everyone lost their friggin minds?  aren't we supposed to discussing science and combating just this kind of nuttiness that tells us that the Earth is only 6000 years old and the center of the universe?  HELLO!  Are there any sane people left out there?)


uh, skeptic, these words were written by the folks whose names you see appear alongside.

go check out the PNAC site if you don't believe us.

this wasn't a fiction invented by some third party, these are the actual thoughts and beliefs of the signatories themselves.

It was simply posted as an example of how these folks think, what you read into it was entirely of your own making.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2006,09:18   

I do think Skeptic has any legitimate complaint. If he doesn't like this thread, which I think has nothing particularly wrong with it, he's free to ignore it. There are several ATBC threads I don't bother with, for various reasons. I don't stomp into those threads telling people they're 'crazy' and that they should be talking about something else.

All I can see is that Skeptic wants to shut this conversation down because (a) it makes Republicans look bad, which, given his defense of Joseph McCarthy, upsets him, and (b) it's not about science.

It's not that rare for a thread here to have nothing to do with science. If he doesn't like it, he can ignore it. There are several other threads that ARE, in which Skeptic doesn't usually participate much.

Plus, saying witless things like the following to get people to stop discussing this:

 
Quote
(has everyone lost their friggin minds?  aren't we supposed to discussing science and combating just this kind of nuttiness that tells us that the Earth is only 6000 years old and the center of the universe?  HELLO!  Are there any sane people left out there?)


...is unnecessary. No one person here has any right to try and tell everyone else what to discuss or not to discuss.

And I fail to see the evidence that we've all 'lost our friggin' minds' or that we're 'not sane'. The PNAC is a matter of public record, it was all signed by people heavily influencing American foreign policy today, and the Bush administration has enacted or attempted to enact most of its provisions. Much as Skeptic might like to stifle this conversation, we're not conspiracy mongering.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2006,12:52   

Presumably, before Bush came out and admitted it—nay, bragged about it—the NSA's wireless wiretapping would have been considered a massive conspiracy. Doubtless dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of people were aware that it was happening. Yet it went on for something like two years before anyone outside of the agency seems to have known about it.

If someone had come out in, say, early 2004 and said, "Guess what? The NSA is spying on Americans' phone calls!" I wonder how many people would have believed it.

Nevertheless, it was happening.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2006,13:06   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 13 2006,13:47)
Skeptic, your ignorance and your dislike of talking about anything that reflects poorly on Republicans

Certainly Skeptic is an ignorant right-wing cheerleader, but it should be pointed out that the Democans have not demonstrated any significant opposition to the aims or goals of the neocons either -- just to their militaristic methods.  I have not heard a single Democan in any leadership position say, out loud, that the US simply has no inherent right whatsoever to run the world as we see fit.  Indeed, most of the Democan leadership supports the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, though they question Dubya's bungled handling of it.

The Democans, once in power, will do nothing whatever to decrease American dominance of the globe.  After all, they are just as in favor of it as are the Republicrats.  They just want the "only remaining superpower" to be kinder and gentler in its global domination.  

It may also be helpful to keep in mind that, in the entire time since WW2, the American President who sent American troops into foreign countries on the largest number of occasions during his presidency was . . . .  Bill Clinton.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2006,13:14   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 13 2006,13:59)
I am pretty sure that Lenny can defend himself.

I have nothing to defend.  (shrug)

The things I posted are not MY thoughts; they are the thoughts, openly published, by the leading members of the Bush Administration.  *They* are the ones -- not me -- who described, in some detail, exactly what they wanted to do once they obtained power --- and then proceeded to go ahead and do it.  Exactly as the IDers did with their Wedge Document.

People who don't like what they said they were going to (and then did) should . . . well . . . think about what to  **do**  about it.  Instead of complaining about me, the messenger.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2006,13:24   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 13 2006,07:57)
Bauer has the Christian Right in his backpocket

Oddly enough, the Christian Right is the neoco'ns greatest weakness.  If you look at the most poweful figures in the Bush Administration -- Rumsfeld, Perle, Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz, Rice ---- not a single one of them is a fundie, and all of them think the fundies are nuts.  But they do recognize the political power that the fundies have, and thus kiss their holy asses, just enough to keep those votes and checks coming.

The aims of the fundies and the neocons are not compatible.  Theocracy is very bad for business, and the neocons know that.  Hence, the neocons have not the slightest intention whatsoever of actually implementing any of the fundie social agenda.  Instead, the neocons pay lip service to the fundies, make lots of speeches, take their money, take their votes, and then do nothing at all for them.

The fundies, of course, are screwed ----- they can't go to the Democans, after all --- and thus are forced to take whatever crumbs the Republicrats dole out to them, even if the Republicrats give them nothing at all. Dobson is already bitching and moaning that the Republicrats aren't delivering for him.  The other Christian Right kooks haven't figured it out yet, but they will.  And there's not a da,mn thing they can do about it, short of open rebellion and utter refusal to support any non-fundie candidates.

The resulting civil war will remove the Republicrats as any sort of effective political force, for quite some time.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2006,13:38   

Arden, you completely missed my point.  I could care less about what is discussed.  I was pointing out that the thread started in general opposition to conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 but we're more than happy to jump on New World Order theories as if there have some validity.  A nutty conspiracy theory is a nutty conspiracy theory regardless if it supports or opposes you political leanings.  I just assumed as science-minded individuals that we where above these crazy theories.  I know the general population is not and apparently some in academia also fall victim but aren't we attentive to facts and data above all?  I just noticed that Popular Mechanics has turned their article concerning 9/11 myths into an entire book.  As a society are we that suceptable to misinformation?

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2006,13:39   

Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 13 2006,17:52)
If someone had come out in, say, early 2004 and said, "Guess what? The NSA is spying on Americans' phone calls!" I wonder how many people would have believed it.

Nevertheless, it was happening.

Because people who live in the United States of Amnesia have no history and no longterm memory, they no longer recall that everything Bush has done  -- illegal wiretaps, illegal infiltration of opposition groups -- was done before, in the 50's and 60's, under the FBI's COINTELPRO program.  This program lasted through four different Presidential administrations -- two of them Republicrats, two of them Democans -- and was only abolished after its abuses became so widespread and so extensive (and so impossible to hide anymore) that the US Senate held hearings on the matter (chaired by Sen Frank Church of Idaho).  Those hearings uncovered that the US government was doing everything from planting fake news stories to discredit Martin Luther King and the civili rights movement, to hiring the Mafia to try to kill Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba, and other foreign heads of state. (The Church Committee Report is widely available on the Net -- a highly recommended read.)

Those abuses led directly to the FISA courts and legal restrictions on wiretapping ---- the very same FISA courts and legal restrictions that the Bush Adminstration has now unilaterally decided that it doesn't have to follow.  Indeed, Bush's basic argument ("the President can do anything he wants to in the name of national security") is the very same one used by LBJ and Nixon to defend themselves during the COINTELPRO abuses.

For me, none of the revelations about the Bush Administration's abuses of power are surprising.  I've seen them all before.  Indeed, as a longtime political activist, I've been the TARGET of some of them.

I'm quite sure there is an enormous reservoir of abuse and misuse of power in the Bush years that we haven't heard about yet, and won't -- until a new Senator Church steps forward to get to the bottom of it all.  We've just seen the tip of what I suspect is a very large iceberg.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2006,13:44   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 13 2006,18:38)
As a society are we that suceptable to misinformation?

Fact:  In September 2000 (a year BEFORE the 9-11 event which ostensibly started the whole thing), the people who would soon become the most powerful members of the Bush Administration stated, openly, in print, that they intended to militarize the US so that the US could dominate the globe without any effective challengers.

Fact:  Once those same people took office, they did exactly what they said they would do.

What conclusion would you draw from those two observed facts, Skeptic . . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2006,13:58   

I draw absolutely no connection between 9/11 and a conservative desire to reestablish a strong military in the US.

you know what they say about paranoia...

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2006,14:15   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 13 2006,18:58)
I draw absolutely no connection between 9/11 and a conservative desire to reestablish a strong military in the US.

you know what they say about paranoia...

(sigh)  Not terribly bright, are you, Skeptic.

Let's try this again . . . .


Fact:  In September 2000 --- pay attention to that date, Skeptic ------ the people who would become the leading figures in the Bush Administration laid out, in writing, in public, their plan to militarize America so it could dominate the globe without any serious challenge.

Fact:  Once they took power in January 2001 -- pay attention to that date too, Skeptic --- they began to do exactly what they said they would do.

That is not a "conspiracy theory" -- that is WHAT HAPPENED.  They told everyone, openly and clearly, what they would do, and then they did it.

It doesn't have a bloomin' thing to do with 9-11.  It was all mapped out a year BEFORE 9-11.  All of it.  The Iraq War.  The curtailment of civili liberties and the "militarization" of America.  The use of military force to prevent any effective challenge to US domination. The rejection of international law and the idea that the US can do what it wants, without restriction.  It's all there, in writing.

And it was all begun  **before**   9-11.

Which part of that are you having trouble grasping, Skeptic . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2006,15:52   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 13 2006,19:15)
It doesn't have a bloomin' thing to do with 9-11.  It was all mapped out a year BEFORE 9-11.  All of it.  The Iraq War.  The curtailment of civili liberties and the "militarization" of America.  The use of military force to prevent any effective challenge to US domination. The rejection of international law and the idea that the US can do what it wants, without restriction.  It's all there, in writing.

I believe this is the point in which you are injecting your own interpretation and preconceived notions concerning the events following 9/11 and their causes.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2006,15:57   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 13 2006,20:52)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 13 2006,19:15)
It doesn't have a bloomin' thing to do with 9-11.  It was all mapped out a year BEFORE 9-11.  All of it.  The Iraq War.  The curtailment of civili liberties and the "militarization" of America.  The use of military force to prevent any effective challenge to US domination. The rejection of international law and the idea that the US can do what it wants, without restriction.  It's all there, in writing.

I believe this is the point in which you are injecting your own interpretation and preconceived notions concerning the events following 9/11 and their causes.

Pay attention, Skeptic --- this was all laid out, in writing, a year BEFORE 9-11 EVEN HAPPENED.

9-11 had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

You, um, do understand that September 2000 was BEFORE 9-11 HAPPENED, right?

Geez.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2006,16:59   

Are you not saying that the events following 9-11 were planned prior to 9-11 and had no causal relationship to the event itself?  In effect, the invasions of Afganistan and Iraq were going to happen anyway and 9-11 had nothing to do with it?

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2006,22:40   

so... skeptic, you have NOTHING to say about the page from the PNAC site at all, do you?

other than assuming we are all conspiracy nuts for even posting it?

seems like the knee-jerk reaction is on your part.

You don't want to see these folks are idiots, do you?

don't want to see that when Cheney said that "Reagan proved deficits mean nothing", he was completely talking out of his ass.

don't want to see that one of the reasons YOUR wages aren't as high as Greenspan predicted they would be BEFORE Reagan took office is because of the very deficits he created.

don't want to see that all the signatories of that document firmly believe that their own personal accumulation of wealth is of course good for everyone, regardless of what actual REAL economists have to say about the matter.

don't want to see the MANY times the current administration has quashed or manually altered the results of science done by GO's that conflicts with their own positions.

one wonders just how much harder you can close your eyes before your lids glue themselves shut permanently.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
tiredofthesos



Posts: 59
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2006,00:30   

Lenny, why are you talking to that half-baked, self-impressed "skeptic" jerk-off???  He's as bright a bulb as Oliver Hardy, without the chumminess, humor, or endearing smile.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2006,01:55   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 13 2006,21:59)
Are you not saying that the events following 9-11 were planned prior to 9-11 and had no causal relationship to the event itself?  In effect, the invasions of Afganistan and Iraq were going to happen anyway and 9-11 had nothing to do with it?

*I* am not saying.  PNAC says it.  On its own website.  In writing.  Just look at the dates.

9-11 provided them with the "Pearl Harbor event" that they
wished they had to make their goals easier to obtain.  But they would have done all of it anyway.  It was all already in the works before 9-11 even happened.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2006,03:28   

Maybe you and I are reading two different papers.  I don't recall the "steal from the poor to make us all rich" quote, nor did I see the tactical plan for the invasion of the entire Middle East.  Then again I'm not the brightest bulb as was so usefully pointed out for me.

What you're missing here is a little objectivity.  The ideas set forth in this paper are hardly original.  You could go back and read very similar language during earlier presidencys, try Teddy Roosevelt for starters.  This latest iteration is merely restating one side of an ongoing debate.  So what?  Have you seen the alternate view?  Maybe we should cede souverignty to the UN or the EU or whoever else and beg forgiveness for our past transgressions.  Certainly, this country was created in the sin of slavery and the murder of the native american and we still need to pay for that.  

Anyway, you can believe what you like because fortunately for you it is still a free country and the thought police aren't knocking down your door...yet.  It would do well to remember that we're talking about mere men with all their limitations and faults so I don't think you have much to worry about.  Your rheotoric is fairly benign so I don't think you'll end up like Ron Brown; the Bushes have bigger fish to fry on their path of world domination.  But remember if you really what to send them a message and let them know what John Q. Public thinks about their policies just speak clearly directly into the vase.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2006,06:03   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 14 2006,03:40)
don't want to see the MANY times the current administration has quashed or manually altered the results of science done by GO's that conflicts with their own positions.

I was reading an article along those lines a month or so ago. Some scientist at NASA was complaining about scientific reports being altered by political overseers. It was more than a tad worrying.

Does anyone think the US government actually believes political spin will alter physical facts? Could it be a group psychological problem?

Well whatever the reason it is still disturbing to think that people are atempting to "wish-away" facts.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2006,09:46   

Quote
Does anyone think the US government actually believes political spin will alter physical facts? Could it be a group psychological problem?


Yes, they do.  Yes, it's a "group" issue, and they know well from previous experience that media spin can entirely affect the large majority of american's beliefs on any given issue.

so not only do they believe spin works to alter "physical reality", they can provide direct evidence as to its efficacy in doing so.

it's far more pervasive than just NASA.  reports from NOAA, DOI, and several others have been attacked and modified as well.

It caused a large group of nobel laureates to claim the current administration has done more tampering with scientific evidence than any previous US administration.

check out the Union of Concerned Scientists site sometime.  Even though they are biased, the reports can be tracked down there, along with the position statements from the group of scientists i mentioned above.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2006,09:55   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 14 2006,14:46)
it's far more pervasive than just NASA.  reports from NOAA, DOI, and several others have been attacked and modified as well.

It caused a large group of nobel laureates to claim the current administration has done more tampering with scientific evidence than any previous US administration.

check out the Union of Concerned Scientists site sometime.  Even though they are biased, the reports can be tracked down there, along with the position statements from the group of scientists i mentioned above.

I do not doubt you. Did you think that I did? I was just giving 1 example of a report I had read and "kinda" remembered.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2006,10:04   

Quote
I do not doubt you. Did you think that I did?


not at all.  I just thought you might like a bit more detail, and to realize that these folks really DO think that they can spin reality itself, and are often pragmatically successful.

cheers

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2006,13:21   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 14 2006,08:28)
What you're missing here is a little objectivity.  The ideas set forth in this paper are hardly original.

You're goddamn right I am.  I have no "objectivity" at all for a group of people whose political and military program is indistinguishable from "Amerika Ober Alles".

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2006,15:49   

Well, I think that just about sums it up.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2006,17:59   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 14 2006,15:04)
Quote
I do not doubt you. Did you think that I did?


not at all.  I just thought you might like a bit more detail, and to realize that these folks really DO think that they can spin reality itself, and are often pragmatically successful.

cheers

Witness the non-marginalized status of fundies. You can spin reality and gain converts. It works. They are using a very dirty playbook, no doubt. Look over at he afdave thread.

I don't hold out much hope for the future of the society we developed in the second half of the 20th century. You can't square the new media ownership patterns and consumer based philosophy with a society that learns how to weigh evidence and make conclusions from the evidence. And the extreme polarization of the left/right makes the ones who are somewhat capable unbearable. Witness normdoring and poppers ghost et. al. on the bathroom wall posts. Just miserable.

So we are ending up with the AFdave's and the Popper's Ghost types as leaders in our new culture armies.

Not a lot of hope. ???

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2006,02:05   

Don't dispair BWE.  I think we're actually seeing a little improvement.  If you look back, Clinton and his guys were 10 times more adept at spinning then anyone in the Bush administration so thats got to be a move in the right (strike that, correct) direction, right?  Maybe people are just getting better at spotting it and that can only be good news for the future.  I know, I know I'm sounding overly optimistic now, huh?  Thats just my nature.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2006,02:31   

Well, Skeptic, go ahead and make excuses for the Republicrats if you like.  It doesn't matter anyway, since the Republicrats will soon be removed from power.

My concern now is with the Democans.  I do not want to live in a miitarized society which seeks global domination and stifles dissent with a perpetual state of warfare.  So I want to see how much of the neocon program the Democans will actually roll back once they are in office.  And, sadly, I suspect they will roll back very little of it.  After all, governments come and go, but *interests* remain the same, and it is in US interests (or at least the corporados who run it) to dominate the world.  The Democans seem to have accepted as a matter of routine course that the US has an inherent right to rule the world as it sees fit.  (Skeptic also seems to accept that proposition, not surprisingly.)  So I don't expect the Democans to vary much from the Republicrats.  After all, they both share the same goal (a goal which I reject).

If the rest of the world is to save itself from the new Roman empire, it will have save ITSELF, and work together to stop us.  No one in the US is capable of doing it.  Few people in the US even WANT to do it. We're all in FAVOR of the new Roman Empire -- provided, of course, that we get to be the Romans.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2006,07:04   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 15 2006,07:31)
If the rest of the world is to save itself from the new Roman empire, it will have save ITSELF, and work together to stop us.  No one in the US is capable of doing it.  Few people in the US even WANT to do it. We're all in FAVOR of the new Roman Empire -- provided, of course, that we get to be the Romans.

Pardon me for sidelining, I would be interested to know why you selected the Roman empire for your analogy.

Wasn't the Spanish empire much more destructive? IIRC most societies benefited under Roman rule. Are you subliminaly encouraging us to "knuckle under"?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2006,07:10   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 14 2006,14:46)
Quote
Does anyone think the US government actually believes political spin will alter physical facts? Could it be a group psychological problem?


Yes, they do.  Yes, it's a "group" issue, and they know well from previous experience that media spin can entirely affect the large majority of american's beliefs on any given issue.

so not only do they believe spin works to alter "physical reality", they can provide direct evidence as to its efficacy in doing so.

it's far more pervasive than just NASA.  reports from NOAA, DOI, and several others have been attacked and modified as well.

1)It caused a large group of nobel laureates to claim the current administration has done more tampering with scientific evidence than any previous US administration.

2)check out the Union of Concerned Scientists site sometime.  Even though they are biased, the reports can be tracked down there, along with the position statements from the group of scientists i mentioned above.

Thanks for that reply.

1) Wasn't that published here or on PT recently? I think I recal reading that.

2) Checked that site out today while in work. I was a tad surprised at the amount of fiddling with science reports going on in the USA. I had heard a bit about it but it is amazing how pervasive it sounds. Guess we should all be worrying.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2006,07:15   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 13 2006,20:52)
 
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 13 2006,19:15)
It doesn't have a bloomin' thing to do with 9-11.  It was all mapped out a year BEFORE 9-11.  All of it.  The Iraq War.  The curtailment of civili liberties and the "militarization" of America.  The use of military force to prevent any effective challenge to US domination. The rejection of international law and the idea that the US can do what it wants, without restriction.  It's all there, in writing.

I believe this is the point in which you are injecting your own interpretation and preconceived notions concerning the events following 9/11 and their causes.

No, Skeptic, it's straightforward Straussian foreign policy. Read "Rebuilding America's Defenses," and then reflect on American foreign policy over the past five years, and tell me you don't think one is the blueprint the other.

It's got nothing whatsoever to do with "preconceived notions." In the same way the Mein Kampf set out in black and white Hitler's intentions should he come to power, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" set forth exactly what PNAC's intentions were should its signatories come to power (which, in case it's escaped your notice, they have).

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2006,11:48   

Having a conversation with skeptic seems more like having a conversation with a 10 year old most times.

He repeatedly comes across as someone who simply hasn't done their homework on any of the issues he proceeds to expound upon.

Maybe he actually thinks republicans are the conservatives they actually were in his grandfather's generation?

(psst: skeptic - they aren't!;)

stephen:

Quote
Guess we should all be worrying.


too late to worry about it now.  It's simply about damage control at this point.

One good thing to come out of this, is that as Bush has been repeatedly and publically called on his attempts to quash global warming research coming out of various GO's, he has been forced to change his position on the subject, or be called out for the lying coward he's been all this time.

So, in a bizarre sense, his overreaching efforts have done a service in that they have backfired and actually increased public consciousness of both the reality of the research, and the administration's attempts to spin it.

If these idiots were just a little more subtle in their manipulations, they could have delayed the inevitable at least until they were out of office.

"subtle" doesn't appear to be a strongsuit of the Bush administration, though.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2006,11:59   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 15 2006,16:48)
"subtle" doesn't appear to be a strongsuit of the Bush administration, though.

…something for which we should be eternally grateful.

The American public is oblivious enough to facts staring them right in the face (at least when they're not tuned in to Faux News). Think about how much worse things would be if the Bush administration understood subtlety, or actually "did nuance."

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2006,12:53   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 15 2006,12:04)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 15 2006,07:31)
If the rest of the world is to save itself from the new Roman empire, it will have save ITSELF, and work together to stop us.  No one in the US is capable of doing it.  Few people in the US even WANT to do it. We're all in FAVOR of the new Roman Empire -- provided, of course, that we get to be the Romans.

Pardon me for sidelining, I would be interested to know why you selected the Roman empire for your analogy.

Because it was the Romans who conquered the entire known world and thought it their civic duty to do so, all the while telling themselves that they were both acting "defensively" and at the same time were "civilizing the barbarians".  The Roman rulers, and the Roman people, both sincerely believed that theirs was a benevolent empire, and that they were helping the poor barbarians by invading and ruling over them.  The barbarians, of course, thought otherwise.  

The US shares that Roman attitude.

Also, as Rome's empire expanded, it's governmental structure changed, from a reasonably democratic republic, with reasonably free elections and a representative Senate, into a military dictatorship ruled by an unquestioned and unchallenged authority figure.  I see the same potential future for the US. For the same reasons.

Freedom and democracy are both quite impossible in a state of never-ending warfare.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2006,17:38   

Rev, from what I read here you hate the govt, both republicans and democrats, most corporations and the Roman Empire.  If this is true then what alternative do you favor?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2006,07:16   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 15 2006,17:53)
Because it was the Romans who conquered the entire known world and thought it their civic duty to do so, all the while telling themselves that they were both acting "defensively" and at the same time were "civilizing the barbarians".  The Roman rulers, and the Roman people, both sincerely believed that theirs was a benevolent empire, and that they were helping the poor barbarians by invading and ruling over them.  The barbarians, of course, thought otherwise.  

A wee bit like the British empire then? Except for the "whole known World" part, just a huge %.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2006,13:43   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 15 2006,22:38)
Rev, from what I read here you hate the govt, both republicans and democrats, most corporations and the Roman Empire.  If this is true then what alternative do you favor?

(sarcasm mode on)

Nuclear warfare to wipe out the human race.


(sacrasm mode off)


Idiot.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2006,13:45   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 16 2006,12:16)
A wee bit like the British empire then?



Yes.

Ironic, isn't it.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2006,21:32   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 16 2006,18:45)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 16 2006,12:16)
A wee bit like the British empire then?



Yes.

Ironic, isn't it.

LOL!

Yes, I guess it is.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2006,19:54   

Absolute Power = Absolute corruption.

War is a Racket.

We have some folks out there who do not notice the carnage in their wake. They should not be in power perhaps.

The new constitutional ammendments could say that all campaigns are public funded and corporations can have their charter's revoked by vote of the state where they are incorporated. ??

Problem we have now is that it is pure thieving and it's not even covered up. Borrow the money, put the bill on others and take the money. Just take it. That's it.

That is what we have now and it is the weakness in our system. None of the framers had heard of Freud. You can sell people their own sex appeal and they roll over for you.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

I think Lenny's right. It's not a conspiracy. It's all out in the open.  ???

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Seizure Salad



Posts: 60
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2006,13:31   

For Skeptic's sake, it's worth mentioning that the imperialist ideology contained in PNAC is more or less regurgitated as official policy in the National Security Strategy 2002, also available publically. This was the standard interpretation in foreign policy circles both at home (check Foreign Affairs) and abroad. You can also see identical language in leaked portions of the policy statement "Defense Planning Guidance" that Wolfowitz prepared for the Defense Department in 1992.

Nevertheless, I would argue that there is nothing fundamentally new or radical about the policies of the Bush II administration. For one thing, we've already seen this exact circus before; keep in mind that these are essentially reactionary extremists left over from the Reagan administration--the same people who created the "war on terror" 20 years ago. I would argue that America's imperialistic tendencies have been common to all administrations since Truman, possibly farther back; I think the historical and documentary record overwhelmingly supports this interpretation.

I think Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Perle & Co. are just more open about it.

As far as 9/11 being a conspiracy: I find it very unlikely. It's almost certain that something would have leaked. Bits of classified documents leak constantly--it's always been that way, and there's not much a government can do about it. Secrets are extremely hard to keep, and if something had gotten out they all would have been in front of firing squads and it would be the end of the Republican party forever. To take a chance on that is just insane.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2006,14:06   

Quote (Seizure Salad @ Sep. 18 2006,18:31)
Secrets are extremely hard to keep, and if something had gotten out they all would have been in front of firing squads and it would be the end of the Republican party forever. To take a chance on that is just insane.

Why? This administration has found itself in what one would assume would be an extremely dangerous position: having been accused of, and almost certainly guilty of, war crimes. The invasion of Iraq was a war crime. The torture of "enemy combatants" is a war crime. There is little to no doubt that senior officials in the Bush administration are guilty of war crimes.

But are any of them facing the firing squad (war crimes do carry the death penalty under Federal law)? Are any of them facing impeachment? dismissal? demotion? disciplinary action? A few of them have received medals.

If the 9-11 attacks were in fact the results of a government conspiracy, repercussions would have been the last thing any of the conspirators would have been worried about. Look at what they've gotten away with that we know they've done, any one of which should spelled the extinction of the Republican party.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Seizure Salad



Posts: 60
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2006,14:43   

Well, yeah. I agree. I mean, every administration since WW2 has commited hideous war cimes/crimes against humanity. This current one is no different. In fact, if the Nuremberg laws were taken seriously, there isn't a president in the last 60 years who wouldn't be hanged. The US can get away with this because it is was for a time the overwhelming economic power in the world, and remains the overwhelming military power in the world--who, exactly, is going to stand up against it?

The answer, of course, is that the US public should. But the truth of the matter is that many are confused/indoctrinated/apathetic when it comes to international affairs. That's not to say there isn't a massive and heroic anti-war movement going on--there is now and there have been many throughout history. But they have always been in protest of atrocities carried out against other civilian populations--never has the US government orchestrated terror against its own population, deliberately planned the mass killing of its own innocent civilians, etc. I mean, maybe you can look at things like COINTELPRO, but 9/11 is a very different matter. If it were true, can you imagine the effect it would have on the domestic population (not to mention abroad)? Can you imagine the massive popular uprising it would ignite? I think such a concession would certainly amount to firing squads and the destruction of the Republican party.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2006,14:52   

Quote (Seizure Salad @ Sep. 18 2006,18:31)
Nevertheless, I would argue that there is nothing fundamentally new or radical about the policies of the Bush II administration. For one thing, we've already seen this exact circus before; keep in mind that these are essentially reactionary extremists left over from the Reagan administration--the same people who created the "war on terror" 20 years ago. I would argue that America's imperialistic tendencies have been common to all administrations since Truman, possibly farther back; I think the historical and documentary record overwhelmingly supports this interpretation.

I think Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Perle & Co. are just more open about it.

Well, the real difference is that, pre-1991, the US was always constrained in its actions by the existence of a counter-power, the USSR.  Once the USSR collapsed (and before Skeptic gets his panties all in a bunch, let me say out loud that I applaud its collapse), the USA was entirely free to do, well, whatever it wanted.  Twenty years ago, the Reaganites may well have WANTED to rule the world as they saw fit, but as a matter of practicality, they could not do it -- the USSR was there to oppose all their efforts and counter them.  

That is not true any more.

We have become the first "superpower" in history to have no counterbalancing power.  Rome had Carthage and then Parthia.  Spain had England.  England had France.  

We have nobody.  We can quite literally do whatever we want, wherever we want, and nobody can stop us.  We have, quite literally, absolute power.

That kind of unchecked power will corrupt us.

It already has.

And it will not stop.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
  122 replies since Sep. 06 2006,20:07 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (5) < [1] 2 3 4 5 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]