I find it very difficult to swallow the idea that blowing up the World Trade Center --an act that took close to a trillion dollars from our economy, and instantly kicked the U.S. economy into a recession, from which it has debatably not recovered yet, with continuing layoffs occurring-- was a conspiracy the U.S. government inflicted on itself.
I do think it's valid to question the possibility of an internal conspiracy IF evidence can be produced to demonstrate with reasonable probability this has occurred.
But the conspiracy theories voiced so far just don't stand up to credibility.
Sometimes they're fun to read, but other times, when they are voiced forcefully and arrogantly enough, they can be frustrating to listen to.
After all, we're talking about blaming the grief and suffering of the U.S. that occurred on September 11th on the very nation that suffered this devastating and unprovoked attack.
Quote: Originally posted by THE Franta:
Dave your first paragraph is REALLY too logical for these folks to figure out
Thanks, Franta.
I'd be more inclined to believe September 11th was a government conspiracy if they just blew up a post office, or a government building like the one Tim McVeigh blew up in 1995, in Oklahoma City.
But blowing up the center of commerce in the free world is just way too big to have been planned or tolerated as a way to rally the nation to war by letting it happen.
And the country STILL isn't unified in the resolve that this war in Afghanistan, and possibly other parts of the Middle East, is necessary.
I wonder if any Americans in December 1941 were saying "Gee, maybe the Imperial Japanese are RIGHT..."
What kind of utter dickheads can say that, in a nation that's suffered such a devastating unprovoked attack, especially when our nation so clearly stands for peace and stability in the world?
And yet incredibly, there actually are sympathetic leftists who say these absurd things. How about some appropriate sympathy for the people of your own homeland, who suffered the attack and the deep economic repercussions?
It scares me, the lack of will to defend the United States, by some of its citizens, despite the clear rightness of our actions, and the clear source of the threat.
It just makes me groan with contempt every time I hear some liberal use the phrase "American imperialism".
You could accuse any prosperous nation in the world with international trade of "imperialism", which to the enemies of America (within and without) means that America has a successful economy, as compared to any given less-prosperous nation who does trade with the U.S. that is not prospering economically. And therefore it MUST be America's fault that the other nation is not prospering, right?
That's very convenient for those who dislike and want to rationalize an attack on America.
I blame bureaucracy, not internal conspiracy, for what happened on September 11th.
And I blame the nations who attack America for NOT blaming their own nations, leaders, government corruption, and repressive cultures, for the misery of their nations. I blame them for their eagerness to attack another nation, rather than look for real solutions in their own nations, making a scapegoat of America, that does nothing to improve their situation.
Am I allowed to be offended? Or do the capitalists want a monopoly on that, too?
quote:And the country STILL isn't unified in the resolve that this war in Afghanistan, and possibly other parts of the Middle East, is necessary.
I wonder if any Americans in December 1941 were saying "Gee, maybe the Imperial Japanese are RIGHT..."
What kind of utter dickheads can say that, in a nation that's suffered such a devastating unprovoked attack, especially when our nation so clearly stands for peace and stability in the world?
And yet incredibly, there actually are sympathetic leftists who say these absurd things. How about some appropriate sympathy for the people of your own homeland, who suffered the attack and the deep economic repercussions?
It scares me, the lack of will to defend the United States, by some of its citizens, despite the clear rightness of our actions, and the clear source of the threat.
Damn, Dave. And I was starting to like you.
How dare you?
I suppose I should take heart. Retreating to that kind of cowardly, fascist logic is a sign that you're starting to waver in your convictions. I'm disappointed, though. You should know better than to think that such a tactic would influence anyone with an IQ over 80.
Still not unified in our resolve to drop bombs on little girls just so the Shrub can build a pipeline? Damn straight we're not.
And your implication that I sympathize with the terrorists is absolutely craven, and you know it. Somebody killed a few thousand people, and you know perfectly fucking well that there isn't a real American alive that can sit still for that. We just want to go after the real terrorists. We aren't interested in running in whatever direction the bastards that probably caused the whole thing want to point us.
I will defend my nation to my dying breath. I'll start by defending it from people like the Shrub, and from you.
I don't remember if you ever told us what country you live in, Dave, but clearly you haven't the slightest clue of what America is really about. You probably think you do, but I think you read the same brochures that the Shrub did before he and his little fraternity decided to take over. You missed the fine print.
We are not suckers.
We are not cowards.
We will not go along.
We will not watch what we say.
We will not surrender our will.
We will not look the other way.
This is my country. It's a beautiful place. It's built on a foundation of Freedom and Justice for All. It is the most precious thing in the world to me, and you just can't have it. I'm sorry, I know how much guys like you would love to turn America into one big shopping mall where you pay the breathe the air and you pay to take a piss and you pay for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but it isn't gonna happen. Maybe if whatever country you belong to had ever had a Founding Father that declared in bold, unwavering handwriting that all of these rights are inalienable and self-evident, you'd know what I'm talking about, but clearly you don't.
I'm disappointed, Dave. I expected better from you.
Nah, my knowledge isn't perfect. I'm a pretty smart guy, and I know it -- but I'm also smart enough to know that I can make mistakes. Big ones, even. One of my basic philosophies is that there's no such thing as certainty, just a really good guess.
So it's possible that I'm wrong about the Shrub. I'll acknowledge that possibility. But y'know, I think the evidence really stacks up against that likelihood.
Remember your first post on this thread?
quote:... those questions, and hundreds more, just bug me.
and not for the reason that i think they're appropriate, but rather cuz it just pisses me off that people are so fucking conspiracy-sworn and anti-establishment and negative, etc, etc, etc.
Does that sound like America to you?
What you call "conspiracy-sworn" and "anti-establishment" and "negative" is the same ideological force that ended slavery, pushed civil rights, and gave women the right to vote.
There used to be a lot more people that thought the way you do. They were called the FBI, and they spied on Martin Luther King because he was rallying the black laborers upon which our industrialized society was increasingly dependent. This isn't freaky paranoia talking, this is just historical fact.
They were also called the CIA, and they stalled the release of American hostages so that Reagan, not Carter, would receive credit. Again, this isn't paranoia. This is just the way it goes.
You think I love this stuff? You think I'm crazy about conspiracies? Fuck that, man. I hate this shit. I hate having to wonder if my government is my friend or my enemy. I love this place.
And right now, people are fucking it up, hardcore. They're taking away the things that make America great. They're forcing us to join the League of Ordinary Nations.
I believe that everybody isn't like this. I believe that most of the people working for the government, and most of the people in the military, and most of the politicians -- well, okay, maybe not most of the politicians -- are good people. Dumb people sometimes, but good people. I think they're all just trying to make things better for everybody, which is precisely what we're paying them to do.
But there are a few seriously screwed up fuckheads out there who are interested only in amassing power. I don't know what the hell they intend to do with it, but they never seem to have enough.
And ultimately, it isn't gonna be guys like me that end up making a real difference, Rob. It's gonna be guys like you. Halfway-educated professionals with decent skills. All I can do is talk and knock down cops. You, my friend, are part of the infrastructure. You can actually make it stronger in the ways that really matter.
But you gotta decide. Are you gonna march in line, or are you gonna stand up to it?
Guys like you are running out of time. Shit is falling down. We are right back where we were, one nuclear missile away from everything going kablooey.
Are you gonna be like Dave, and try to prop up your house of cards with well-crafted rhetoric? He's a good debater, no doubt about it. Hell, I couldn't even prove that 2 + 2 = 4 ... but it does. Right now, capitalism is collapsing because of events that happened a century ago, and guys like him are burying their heads in the sand because they imagine that system to be their lifesblood.
Are you gonna be like me? Nah, you couldn't be like me any more than I could be like you. And the world doesn't need any more guys like me. Guys like me just break stuff. We aren't great builders. We're quite necessary in the long run, but we aren't the ones that really get shit done.
It's all up to guys like you and (God help us) Britney. There is no other way. For good or bad, the world is in the middle of one of those historical flashpoints where everybody's gotta decide what kind of world they're gonna live in.
See, I know what you're thinking. You're not a dork. You've found yourself wondering now and then what it would be like to wake up one night and hear the sound of jackbooted feet running down the streets.
But that's not the way it works, man. Not often, anyway, and not this time. What actually happens is that you hear the sound of jackbooted feet and then you look down to see that you're the one wearing them, and that the sound you're hearing is the echo of your own footsteps.
It's up to you, man. Ironically, in spite of everything that the bad guys will tell you to the contrary, democracy is real. And so the only way you can give it up is to willingly forsake it. You're the one that has to make that choice, and you're the one that has to live with it, along with everybody else.
So whatchoo gonna do, Rob? Whatchoo gonna do when Shrubmania runs wild on you?
I often like what you have to say. Particularly on the sex threads on the DC boards, you've said some funny, intelligent and creative stuff.
I just think that, pending further evidence, you're wrong on this one.
I'm going to chalk up some of your harsher language to me as anger in the heat of the moment, because I really don't think I said anything warranting that kind of a backlash, and don't wish to push the more personal issue further. I think you responded to some of my points about the general tactics of U.S. liberals, and of anti-American rhetoric from outside the U.S., responding as if all the points were addressed to you personally, and they certainly weren't.
I don't question that you believe, in your chosen way, that you're fighting the good fight against an emerging police state that, from your perspective threatens to take government power from the people and give it to an elite few. And although I think power over the U.S. is in fewer hands than ever, the control of U.S. policy by corporate business and military-industrial elite is nothing new, and is as old as our country. George Washington pressed to build all federal buildings out of granite, and owned the only granite mine in the U.S. And certainly Clinton and Gore have demonstrated themselves to be just as influenced by campaign contributions and corporate lobby as George W. Bush.
I think I made it pretty clear in my earlier posts that I think it's legitimate to question U.S. government action prior to and after September 11th.
All I question is the abrasiveness with which the issue is raised, as thousands of Americans have friends and family who survived or died on September 11th, and hundreds of thousands more who have lost their jobs from the aftermath recession. Let the issue be raised, yes, but in a way that is respectful of patriotism other Americans feel, and not unnecessarily harsh in its rhetoric. Which I'm paraphrasing from my earlier posts.
I feel it would be easier to take take your ideas more seriously if you weren't so irreverent and contemptuous toward the Bush administration, contemptuously referring to him only as "the Shrub" instead of his proper name and title. All that really conveys to me is that you have a deep hatred for Bush and are eager to believe the worst about him. It comes across as a hippie-brand fashion-chic iconoclasm, an eagerness to believe cynical conspiracies and shout "down with The Man". And while I stress there is a possibility you might be right, that evidence might someday reveal a conspiracy, the evidence just isn't clear or credible at this time, and you should make your case with respect for the fact that most people believe in and are patriotic to the government you're voicing criticism of in the most comtemptful and vociferous terms. You'd find more people willing to acknowledge the possibility of a conspiracy if you eased down your rhetoric to a more respectful choice of words.
quote:Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death: And ultimately, it isn't gonna be guys like me that end up making a real difference, Rob. It's gonna be guys like you. Halfway-educated professionals with decent skills. All I can do is talk and knock down cops. You, my friend, are part of the infrastructure. You can actually make it stronger in the ways that really matter. But you gotta decide. Are you gonna march in line, or are you gonna stand up to it?
halfway?
...
so, i see you've laid out my options, lord vader.
either i join your side, and think the right way ... or i get myself a pair of jackboots (jackboots?) and unwittingly destroy our nation from the inside out?
huh.
i didnt realize i was so pivotal! i might wanna get my agent to bring this to arbitration court.
does your side cover medical? or that cool new eye laser surgery?
quote:Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death: Guys like you are running out of time. Shit is falling down. We are right back where we were, one nuclear missile away from everything going kablooey.
since the dawn of nuclear technology, we've been at that point. only in superman IV were we ever close to escaping that reality, and look what happened there? we got some super powered sun-monster. and, honestly, who the hell wants that?
well... 'the shrub' maybe, but...
quote:Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death: Hell, I couldn't even prove that 2 + 2 = 4 ... but it does.
this is my major fault with yer argument, since post one (even tho, technically, post one was by me, and i dont frequently argue with myself. ... but you know what i mean. .... or do you...).
the fact is, tho the same can not be said (even by you) of your argument, y'can prove 2 and 2 make 4. even i could! and not with much assistance at all!
y'got two apples. yer friend has two apples. y'both bring'em to the baseball field, put them down on the ground, count'em up .... and y'got four.
there y'go.
a newspaper comes along, writes the article with big headlines "WE'VE GOT FOUR!" and the whole world is happy.
...
but then the plot thickens.
someone hears a rumor about how your 'friend' bit one of the apples. perhaps eating most of it on the way to the field. you start thinking about it and realize that this 'friend' is actually a vegetarian, so of course he'd eat the apple. you notice that his way to the baseball field is much shorter ... and yet he took longer. what do you think he was doing that made him take so long?? ... thats right, eating!
so, by the time he got there, he probably didnt have 2 apples. he had 1 and-a-half.
this "buddy" of yours didnt help you discover 4 ... he brought you 3.5! and then let the newspapers run their left-wing stories about how two and two equal four.
but the rumors wont die. and there's got to be a reason for that.
***
the proceding story was a dramatization. but it could have happened. it could be happening now.
i like y'jack. yer good people. yer fighting a pretty frickin difficult fight here with us bastiches and, for the most part, y'keep yer cool. its a good style.
but yer argument is based on TONS of assumption. and, no offense, but... i hardly believe that the universe's greatest conspiracy of all time is going to be uncovered by someone we know from the superman message boards.
im in the forrest. i see the trees. i dunno which one is a pine tree and which one is a palm tree, and i think i have some pretty bad poison oak all over my left thigh ... and its really itchy ... but i can still see the trees. i dont know diddly about'em, but, from the little knowledge i have of them, i can identify them, and tell ya what they're doin (standin).
is there more going on than i know of? obviously -- i dont hear and/or know everything about them. but its a pretty safe bet that they're not part of an evil plant empire (or "shrub" empire ... get it??)
Oh, for crying out loud, Britney, just look through the damn pages already. Bad enough you need me to explain the obvious to you, but then you ask me to repeat myself.
It's interesting reading, about a Unocal representative's business assessment of the oil resources for central Asia. The expert testifies that developing the oil resources and creating political and economic stability in the region would allow economic development in Central Asia, that would vastly benefit people in the region, and in the process provide exports to Europe and the U.S. Which is basically a win-win-win situation for Central Asia, Europe and the U.S.
So how does this support the idea of an underhanded conspiracy to exploit people in Central Asia and/or hoodwink the American people by letting September 11th happen? If the 19 terrorists had been arrested beforehand, the potential terrorism would have outraged thge American public just as much, without the huge loss to our economy.
I read an article in The Guardian in the week or so after September 11th, where it was reported that the Bush administration was planning an invasion well prior to September 11th, due to the multiple acts of terrorism orchestrated from Al Qaida, from bases inside Afghanistan, since 1996. Even whithout letting September 11th happen the U.S. government had more than enough justification to go into Afghanistan and clean house (the U.S.S. Cole bombing, the Kenya and Tanzania bombings in Africa, bombing U.S. military apartments in Riyadh, aiding terror in Somalia.) The invasion was going to happen regardless.
If the invasion frees the Afghans from a repressive government, promotes economic prosperity and peace in the region, then where is the deceit and malevolence?
And why was letting 9/11 happen (presumably) necessary, essentially blowing up one sixth of the U.S. economy, for the Afghan invasion we were going to do regardless?
[ 07-12-2002, 03:06 AM: Message edited by: Dave the Wonder Boy ]
The problem, Dave, is that the American public would not have allowed for the removal of the Taliban based on the capture of nineteen terrorists, none of whom were Afghani.
It explicitly states that they needed to get rid of the Taliban to push ahead with the pipeline -- not because the Taliban are evil, but because they didn't have enough control over the region.
The American public isn't really into the idea of sending troops overseas. Look at how intensely unpopular Bosnia was (you wouldn't know it to watch the news these days but it was a pretty heated topic back in the day). Regis-friggin'-Philben even took the time to preach about how important it was to get our troops out of there.
They needed a successful terrorist attack to produce the blind faith required for the American public to cheer on the troops as they paved the way for the pipeline. So they produced one. It's as simple as that.
And plenty of "conspiracy theories" have been proven over the years, Zod. It's just that once they're proven, you guys stop calling them that and start acting like you knew it all along.
Face it. You guys are the ones who would've insisted that Nixon was innocent, that Roosevelt couldn't possibly have allowed Pearl Harbor to be attacked unprepared, and that Operation: Northwood was just the product of someone's imagination. And yet ... you'd be wrong.
Now, I shall patiently wait for Dave to explain to me why the world really is flat ... darn those Copernicans.
Oh, but how do you know that Nixon was guilty? All the sources that pointed to his guilt came from government and mainstream news sources, the type you tell us not to trust. Maybe Nixon was on the trail of revealing a bigger conspiracy and the hidden agenda came up with those tapes to get him out of the picture! Never thought of that, did you Jackie boy? So you're the one who'll believe the mainstream when it suits YOUR interests.
Okay, you actually have a point, and it deserves a better answer than that. :)
No, I never take the mainstream press at face-value. Not when it comes to Nixon, not when it comes to Abraham Lincoln.
If you've any evidence of Nixon being ready to uncover a big conspiracy, I'd love to hear it. I keep hearing the funniest things about Clinton, too, and while most of it doesn't click, my gut tells me that something funny was going on there that had nothing to do with blowjobs or real estate.
Ha! You guys would've been wrong about Reagan having Alzheimer's, too.
Anyway, I have a question. At what point does a conspiracy theory stop being a conspiracy theory and become a valid theory? When it appears on CNN? Is it a numbers thing? If a certain amount of people in the United States believe it (if the rest of the world counts then my theory is already valid), does it suddenly become a realistic theory when it was crackpot the day before?
I'm curious. What is your criteria? What would actually make you guys take this theory seriously?
(I've sort of made a hobby out of this theory at this point -- and I need the practice at convincing people of things anyway.) :)
Quote: Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death: Anyway, I have a question. At what point does a conspiracy theory stop being a conspiracy theory and become a valid theory?
I'd say it's no longer a theory when you can prove it, with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don't think you've met your burden of proof yet.
There are those who keep the spectre alive, even after the burden of proof has been met that a conspiracy did NOT take place. I believe that's what you'll continue to do here, in your unwarranted self-righteous zeal, no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary.
Similar to how so many newspapers investigated the November 2000 Presidential election, and found after months of investigation that if the Supreme Court ruling had not ended the election, that G.W Bush would have actually won by even more votes.
But Democrats continue to whine about Bush "stealing" the election, and make slanderous allegations about Bush, despite investigations published in even the most liberal newspapers, that numerous recounts prove Bush won fairly by the electoral system. ( I voted for Ralph Nader, but I still accept George W. Bush as our legally elected President).
And similarly, the PLO's (and Arafat's) direct involvement in suicide bombings and terrorism, even though they claimed these charges by Israel were false. But Israel found documents that prove this PLO involvement absolutely, documents confiscated when Israeli troops invaded the Jenin and Ramallah offices of the PLO. And now, in a last ditch of spin-control, the PLO says that this proof was falsified by Israel.
(Lesson: When caught at a lie, continue to lie about your accuser.
Looking at your unprovoked venom toward me above, it seems you've learned that lesson pretty well, Jack.)
So even when there's absolute proof, those who wish to perpetuate the lie will allege the proof is false.
Your comments remind me of what I was once told about legal defense tactics:
When the facts are on your side, pound the facts.
When the facts are NOT on your side, POUND THE TABLE !
Snottily charicaturing me as a goose-stepping enemy of American freedom is just a diversion from the fact that: You haven't been able to prove your conspiracy theory.
Quote: Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death: posted 07-10-2002 05:18 AM Retreating to that kind of cowardly, fascist logic is a sign that you're starting to waver in your convictions. I'm disappointed, though. You should know better than to think that such a tactic would influence anyone with an IQ over 80.
...And your implication that I sympathize with the terrorists is absolutely craven...
I will defend my nation to my dying breath. I'll start by defending it from people like the Shrub, and from you.
I don't remember if you ever told us what country you live in, Dave, but clearly you haven't the slightest clue of what America is really about. You probably think you do, but I think you read the same brochures that the Shrub did before he and his little fraternity decided to take over. You missed the fine print.
This is my country. It's a beautiful place. ...I'm sorry, I know how much guys like you would love to turn America into one big shopping mall where you pay [to] breathe the air and you pay to take a piss and you pay for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but it isn't gonna happen. Maybe if whatever country you belong to had ever had a Founding Father that declared in bold, unwavering handwriting that all of these rights are inalienable and self-evident, you'd know what I'm talking about, but clearly you don't.
I'm disappointed, Dave. I expected better from you.
I frankly expected better from you than unprovoked name-calling, venomous caricatures and slander.
Forcing others to accept your paranoid conspiracies, or be labelled with all kinds right wing fascist labels, is your own form of fascism, that liberals like yourself impose on the rest of us, and dare to call yourselves superior, when it is in truth YOU who are forcing your ideas on US. And branding us jackbooted thugs if we don't.
[ And by the way regarding my national origin, I'm an American whose lived almost my entire life in Florida. If you were less rash and more observant, you would notice that my home state appears on the lower left of each of my posts, and on my user-I.D. screen on both this (since Sept 11) and the DC Boards (since July 2000). ]
I tried to be gracious the first round, despite the unprovoked rancorousness of your post.
But it's difficult to remain polite when you consistently remain such a prick to me. And needlessly so:
Quote: Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death: posted 07-14-2002 06:35 PM <strong>
Now, I shall patiently wait for Dave to explain to me why the world really is flat ... darn those Copernicans.
Oh yeah, that was really necessary...
A typical liberal charicature of anyone whose views are one millimeter to the right of yours. Talk about cowardly and craven...
Quote: Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death: posted 07-14-2002 06:32 PM
The problem, Dave, is that the American public would not have allowed for the removal of the Taliban based on the capture of nineteen terrorists, none of whom were Afghani.
I don't buy that for a second.
We went to South Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, Kosovo, Haiti, and other places in the last five decades, without a massive terrorist act that was "allowed to happen" by some governmant conspiracy, to create "a successful terrorist attack to produce the blind faith required for the American public to cheer on the troops" .
And the nineteen Al Qaida may not have been Afghani, but they were trained in camps for repeated attacks on the U.S. since 1996, with the full blessing and complicity of the Taliban. I have no doubt that you fully understand that, and fail to understand why you would attempt to omit such obvious facts. But for the fact that it instantly broadens the issue truthfully, beyond your narrow conspiracy theory.
Quote: Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death: posted 07-14-2002 06:32 PM
It explicitly states that they needed to get rid of the Taliban to push ahead with the pipeline -- not because the Taliban are evil, but because they didn't have enough control over the region.
Funny, how I read the same report without a predisposed belief in conspiracy, and didn't come to the same conclusion.
All it clearly says is that there are great oil resources to be developed in central Asia, and that developing it would benefit the region.
And the U.S. and Europe as well.
It doesn't specifically advocate the U.S. wiping out the Taliban (although the pre-9/11 Al Qaida terrorism against the U.S. from Afghanistan warrants invasion regardless).
The report also said that the current (1998, Taliban) Afghan leadership was agreeable to the pipeline and seeing the obvious benefit to their country, had already agreed, at the time of Unocal's study, to cooperate in its construction.
And at the current time of that Unocal report (again, 1998), the report says Unocal had done studies of various other possible routes through the Caspian and Black seas to the east, through Iran, west to China, and while other routes were possible, the Afghan route was simply the easiest and most cost effective.
There's nothing in the report you can look at and say: this advocates the U.S. military conquest of Afghanistan.
Quote: Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death: posted 07-14-2002 06:32 PM
The American public isn't really into the idea of sending troops overseas. Look at how intensely unpopular Bosnia was (you wouldn't know it to watch the news these days but it was a pretty heated topic back in the day). Regis-friggin'-Philben even took the time to preach about how important it was to get our troops out of there.
They needed a successful terrorist attack to produce the blind faith required for the American public to cheer on the troops as they paved the way for the pipeline. So they produced one. It's as simple as that.
It's as OVERsimplified as that.
As I said just a paragraph or two above, the U.S. has been involved in a number of previous police actions without requiring an allegedly staged bit of terrorism to whip the masses behind supporting it.
There was some public apprehension about our initially sending troops into Bosnia (and Kosovo, and Somalia, and Rwanda, and Haiti...) but once the decision was made, the public was behind it.
In the case of Somalia, where troops were quickly withdrawn, I think it was more Clinton's perceiving that bailing out would be more popular with the public, and withdrawing troops pre-emptively before there was any potential for a public outcry, than any widespread outcry to get our troops out.
Vietnam is the only war where there was widespread public rally to get our troops out.
And I don't look to Regis Philbin for the best information on foreign issues. That's like basing foreign policy on Jay Leno's monologue. Or the spiritual quotations of Homer Simpson.
Just for fun, I'm gonna try one of those "quote the other guy" formats that people like to use so much. I'm not sure why, but I've never liked that approach ... but what the heck.
quote:There are those who whimper and whine even after the burden of proof has been met that a conspiracy did NOT take place. I believe that's what you'll continue to do here, in your unwarranted self-righteous zeal, no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary.
You're applying a far stricter burden of proof to yourself than you are to me. I'm not sure what you think you've proven, but I haven't read a convincing statement from you yet. Most of the time, I read your posts and I find myself flabbergasted. I don't know which flaw to point out first. It's a remarkable debate tactic, but it certainly doesn't make you right.
So far, all you've done is respond to "the world is round," with "no, it isn't."
quote:Similar to how so many newspapers investigated the November 2000 Presidential election, and found after months of investigation that if the Supreme Court ruling had not ended the election, that G.W Bush would have actually won by even more votes.
Conservatives remain their own best argument against vouchers for private schools. Lots of them went to private schools, and they still can't read. Only the headlines on those articles claimed that the Shrub had the majority of votes in Florida. Toward the end of the article -- almost universally contained in the third paragraph from the last for some reason -- it was made clear that the Shrub only had the most votes if only the recounts that Gore had asked for had been counted. Had every vote been counted, or had the normal counting prodedures for the state been followed, Florida would've gone to Gore.
quote:And similarly, the PLO's (and Arafat's) direct involvement in suicide bombings and terrorism, even though they claimed these charges by Israel were false. But Israel found documents that prove this PLO involvement absolutely, documents confiscated when Israeli troops invaded the Jenin and Ramallah offices of the PLO. And now, in a last ditch of spin-control, the PLO says that this proof was falsified by Israel.
See, this is what I'm talking about. You assume out of hand that the documents found by Israel were genuine. This is Israel we're talking about, here. I don't exactly favor the PLO, but let's get real. Israel is pretty under-handed. Then again, you probably think that photo floating around of a baby-bomber is genuine, too.
quote:I tried to be gracious the first round, despite the unprovoked rancorousness of your post.
No, you tried to be condescending during the first round, but I can understand how you have difficulty knowing the difference.
quote:It doesn't specifically advocate the U.S. wiping out the Taliban (although the pre-9/11 Al Qaida terrorism against the U.S. from Afghanistan warrants invasion regardless). The report also said that the current (1998, Taliban) Afghan leadership was agreeable to the pipeline and seeing the obvious benefit to their country, had already agreed, at the time of Unocal's study, to cooperate in its construction.
Yes, it does state that the Taliban was agreeable to the pipeline, but it then goes on to state that the Taliban couldn't be trusted with the responsibility because they didn't have a firm enough grasp on the area. That pesky Northern Alliance, y'know? And all those tribes ... all of which would want a piece of the pie, especially the ones whose territory the pipeline would go through. Guess the Taliban wasn't quite dictatorial enough for the Oil Boys.
quote:There's nothing in the report you can look at and say this advocates the U.S. military conquest of Afghanistan.
No, it just says, "We can't do it until the Taliban is gone." And then they talk about their plans for doing it anyway. You know another way they were planning to oust the Taliban? Maybe that military planning that the Shrub was doing, the stuff you mentioned yourself ... maybe that was just for show?
quote:As I said just a paragraph or two above, the U.S. has been involved in a number of previous police actions without requiring an allegedly staged bit of terrorism to whip the masses behind supporting it.
There was some public apprehension about our initially sending troops into Bosnia (and Kosovo, and Somalia, and Rwanda, and Haiti...) but once the decision was made, the public was behind it. In the case of Somalia, where troops were quickly withdrawn, I think it was more Clinton's perceiving that bailing out would be more popular with the public, and withdrawing troops pre-emptively before there was any potential for a public outcry, than any widespread outcry to get our troops out.
Vietnam is the only war where there was widespread public rally to get our troops out.
Okay, now you must know you're full of it. There were demonstrations and marches. It was a heated topic on every single news channel. Maybe you missed them in Republican brown-nosing class?
Seriously, you guys need to work on your attention spans. It's hard to get you to remember anything from five months ago, let alone five years ago.
There has not been a popular war in America since World War II. Technically, there hasn't even been a war in American since World War II.
quote:I wonder if any Americans in December 1941 were saying "Gee, maybe the Imperial Japanese are RIGHT..."
quote:It scares me, the lack of will to defend the United States, by some of its citizens, despite the clear rightness of our actions, and the clear source of the threat.
These would be the lines that pissed me off and made me realize that I wasn't conversing with a rational person ... I was conversing with just another goose-stepper. And yes, as a matter of fact, I do use that term quite deliberately. You seem to know your history reasonably well. What color is your shirt these days, Dave? I'm thinking brown.
Excuses. You're nothing but a child trying to make excuses. You're like the mob in an old monster-movie, chasing the monster with torches into the castle, not really caring whether or not the monster has actually done anything. You just want to hurt something, to make yourself feel a little safer. You aren't interested in justice, or even vengeance. You're just interested in a parade. A long, bloody, freedom-ending, kid-killing, bomb-dropping parade.
Meanwhile, the real evil gets away ... and assures you that it'll do everything in its power to keep that bad, nasty monster from you.
I'm embarassed that I was starting to think you were an okay guy, Dave. But I guess I should've known ... after all, look at the general level of intelligence displayed by the people on your side. Is Britney helping your cause, or is he just demonstrating the intellect required to march in rhythm?
[ 07-16-2002, 05:14 AM: Message edited by: Jack, the Little Death ]
i never thought that jack could actually be right...
until yesterday.
i was watching CNN, and they kept showing george bush giving this speech at the pentagon. and, i dunno... i just saw something in him that i had never seen before.
and, honestly, it made me think that, really, he DID sacrefice the lives of thousands of innocents, on our soil and others, so that he could get gas for a $1.20 instead of $1.40.
i took a few screen captures of the interview...
maybe you could see what jack, and now i, see, too:
quote:Originally posted by kassandra: no, that would be you.
quote:Originally posted by Drzsmith: Jack,you are whats wrong with America.
I'll admit that I'm a miserable human being,but I dont suck on America's teat and then try to give it a total upper masecotomy will its not looking! Where else do you post Kassandra cause I'd like to see what make you anti-Americans tick?
Funny, Rob. Okay, I forgive you for that "last warning" I got in my email box today. :)
I'm what's wrong with America? Funny ... in spite of all the accusations to the contrary, that would actually make you the first person in here to say anything bad about America. :)
quote:Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death: Funny, Rob. Okay, I forgive you for that "last warning" I got in my email box today. :)
I'm what's wrong with America? Funny ... in spite of all the accusations to the contrary, that would actually make you the first person in here to say anything bad about America. :)
quote:Dave the Wonder Boy: I wonder if any Americans in December 1941 were saying "Gee, maybe the Imperial Japanese are RIGHT..."
quote:Dave the Wonder Boy: It scares me, the lack of will to defend the United States, by some of its citizens, despite the clear rightness of our actions, and the clear source of the threat.
quote:Jack: These would be the lines that pissed me off and made me realize that I wasn't conversing with a rational person ... I was conversing with just another goose-stepper. And yes, as a matter of fact, I do use that term quite deliberately. You seem to know your history reasonably well. What color is your shirt these days, Dave? I'm thinking brown.
Excuses. You're nothing but a child trying to make excuses. You're like the mob in an old monster-movie, chasing the monster with torches into the castle, not really caring whether or not the monster has actually done anything. You just want to hurt something, to make yourself feel a little safer. You aren't interested in justice, or even vengeance. You're just interested in a parade. A long, bloody, freedom-ending, kid-killing, bomb-dropping parade.
Meanwhile, the real evil gets away ... and assures you that it'll do everything in its power to keep that bad, nasty monster from you.
I'm embarassed that I was starting to think you were an okay guy, Dave. But I guess I should've known ... after all, look at the general level of intelligence displayed by the people on your side. Is Britney helping your cause, or is she just demonstrating the intellect required to march in rhythm?
Jack,
If you had any evidence beyond name-calling, jackbooted charicatures, and highly speculative interpretation of the facts, I might take your ideas and your insults seriously.
But your opinion is so emotionally skewed, I really can't take you seriously.
You call me a child, but YOU'RE the one resorting to childish namecalling and insults. I don't know why, of everyone posting in dissent to you here, you singled me out for such personal venom. But your own tactics more closely resemble " the mob in an old monster-movie, chasing the monster with torches into the castle, not really caring whether or not the monster has actually done anything. You just want to hurt something, to make yourself feel a little safer."
And once again, your mean-spirited personal insults have made your skewed logic abundantly manifest.
And your need to go there, in what is essentially just a discussion of issues, of whether or not there's a conspiracy, makes me think you're probably reacting with anger that I didn't provoke.
[ 07-28-2002, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Dave the Wonder Boy ]
I gave you evidence ... and you responded with nothing more than conversation, and then called that "proof" that I was wrong.
In the end, you're basically just like Britney. Just more literate.
And yes, I'm sick of it. I've had it up to here with guys like you. If I ask a question of my government, I'm unpatriotic. If I demand an answer, I'm a lunatic. If I doubt their word, I'm not realistic. If I don't believe in their convictions, I'm a hindrance to freedom. If I don't take their every word as gospel, I'm a heretic. If I don't bow to their every whim, I'm what's wrong with America.
Maybe you don't even realize what you said. I suppose that's possible. Maybe you wrote those words, thinking them impersonal, because you don't know what it's like to really believe in what America is all about.
Please, Britney, by all means -- chime in. I know you never realized it, but you've done my side of this argument a great service. You've shown that your side -- and Dave's side -- is filled with rank upon rank of people who know how to wave a flag but couldn't spell "Constitution" because they've never read it.
Jack, here's my initial post from July 8th to this topic:
Quote: Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy: I find it very difficult to swallow the idea that blowing up the World Trade Center --an act that took close to a trillion dollars from our economy, and instantly kicked the U.S. economy into a recession, from which it has debatably not recovered yet, with continuing layoffs occurring-- was a conspiracy the U.S. government inflicted on itself.
I do think it's valid to question the possibility of an internal conspiracy IF evidence can be produced to demonstrate with reasonable probability this has occurred.
But the conspiracy theories voiced so far just don't stand up to credibility.
Sometimes they're fun to read, but other times, when they are voiced forcefully and arrogantly enough, they can be frustrating to listen to.
After all, we're talking about blaming the grief and suffering of the U.S. that occurred on September 11th on the very nation that suffered this devastating and unprovoked attack.
It adds insult to injury.
It's a far cry from screaming treason at every question of a possible conspiracy, as you allege.
I do, however, condemn your expressing your dissent in the most insulting and venomous language you can possibly summon.
You ALLEGE that you've presented the evidence, but all I've seen is your speculative interpretation.
If you mean the Unocal oil pipeline study for central Asia, that is FAR from conclusive, except in your own mind.
The report (written in 1998) proposes possible alternate pipeline routes in every direction, North, South, East, and West, not just through Afghanistan. The suggestion in the report "to create stability" is something the U.S. has done in many other parts of the world, for example the financial bailout of Mexico in the Clinton years, and Indonesia ongoing since the Asian financial meltdown five years ago. Financial stability is not an invasion.
Troops stationed in Germany, South Korea, Bosnia, Saudi Arabia and other places create stability without an invasion or a war.
You can believe what you like, but I'm convinced that the pre-planned invasion of Afghanistan is due to ongoing terrorism orchestrated from camps in Afghanistan, not because of some oil conspiracy.
The U.S. military conducts war games for every conceivable enemy.
What if? How many men would it take? Are there less costly ways to eliminate a threat, without going to war? Plans and preparation for any forseeable enemy.
Russia, China, Taiwan, Iraq, Iran, Libya... that's what they're paid to do, be prepared to deal with any forseeable threat if it arises.
And now that forseeable threat includes terrorism.
I'm confident that the military of every industrialized nation conducts the same kind of studies, of threats to their national interests.
quote:Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death: I gave you evidence ... and you responded with nothing more than conversation, and then called that "proof" that I was wrong.
In the end, you're basically just like Britney. Just more literate.
And yes, I'm sick of it. I've had it up to here with guys like you. If I ask a question of my government, I'm unpatriotic. If I demand an answer, I'm a lunatic. If I doubt their word, I'm not realistic. If I don't believe in their convictions, I'm a hindrance to freedom. If I don't take their every word as gospel, I'm a heretic. If I don't bow to their every whim, I'm what's wrong with America.
Maybe you don't even realize what you said. I suppose that's possible. Maybe you wrote those words, thinking them impersonal, because you don't know what it's like to really believe in what America is all about.
Please, Britney, by all means -- chime in. I know you never realized it, but you've done my side of this argument a great service. You've shown that your side -- and Dave's side -- is filled with rank upon rank of people who know how to wave a flag but couldn't spell "Constitution" because they've never read it.
soo what you're saying is it really wasnt Bill's juice on Monica's dress........
no, really, the bottom line is that jack is amazed that we cant see what he can see so easily and so clearly.
('we' being the posters here, and the billions of people on 'earth')
we're blind to the concept that he (and, of course, a few french) has, more or less, single-handedly uncovered the absolute greatest and most convoluted scheme that our planet has ever experienced.
and even tho there are, literally, millions of people out there, with MUCH more firsthand information about any of that day's events, or any of the thousands of events leading up to it... its everyone's favorite RKMB poster "Jack, the Little Death" who has outsmarted the complexities of society, the evil american government/empire, and the global problem known as warfare. (from 'the jackcave,' no doubt)
yes, there are geniuses with unequaled IQs and thought processes and massive think-tanks working 24/7 on the issue. yes, there are countless reporters who have spent lifetimes learning to gather info and sources working 24/7 on the issue. yes, there are entire government agencies and their thousands of drones from countries all over the globe working 24/7 on the issue.
but its jack, with the street fighter II 'ryu' icon, who has solved the riddle no one else seems to have been able to.
![[um.... uh huh! ... ]](graemlins/umuhhuh001.gif)
![[biiiig grin]](images/icons/grin.gif){kind=icon}
![[mwah hwah haa]](graemlins/devil.gif)
