| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| floop |
Posted - 06/05/2006 : 18:13:44
why would terrorists want to attack Canada? i thought they were all peaceful and stuff
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5044560.stm
"I don't have any money to buy new clothes and if they paid me to get some I'd probably buy more hoodies." - Mark Wainfur |
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| VoVat |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 14:19:05
As far as 9/11 goes, it seems to me that both conspiracy theorists and "trust the government or else" sheep want the whole thing to be a case where the Good Guys and Bad Guys are clearly defined. Isn't the simplest answer that the attacks WERE perpetrated by a Middle Eastern terrorist organization, AND that unscrupulous American politicians are using the resulting situation to their own advantage?
"If you doze much longer, then life turns to dreaming. If you doze much longer, then dreams turn to nightmares." |
| hammerhands |
Posted - 06/13/2006 : 13:55:45
I've heard all of these arguments for years. I just assumed everyone knew this stuff.
Northwoods II, The Illuminati, Bohemian Grove, it's all very interesting but difficult.
Just like those wild Kennedys. I saw RFK Jr. on TV talking about this article. And just the other day I was watching a documentary in which it was said RFK really thought New Orleans mobster Carlos Marcello was behind his brother's murder. Silly man, everyone knows it was to keep him quiet about recovered alien technology.
This quote, "We highly encourage you to research this information yourselves and come to your own conclusions." is often used with links to reference material that supports the given opinion. There generally is necessarily no counterargument in text to absurdly contrived theories. You'll find that same encouragement in racist propaganda because no one is going to bother to refute such obviously stupid ideas. Like David Suzuki said, it's not worthy to acknowledge it with debate.
I've developed a rigidity to all this in parallel to my own mind as a paranoid hypochondriac, and I suspect this is true for society at large.
For example, this year I've suffered cancer of the liver, alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver, throat cancer, mouth cancer, stomach cancer, ulcers, a broken toe, repetitive stress disorder, necrotizing fasciitis, etc...all without the inconvenience of visiting a doctor. I know I'm a hypochondriac so I never see a doctor.
I call hypochondria the only truly self-diagnosable disease.
And it is just as easy to label everything as conspiracy. "You can find conspiracy in anything."
At what point did government lose its credibility and open the door to paranoia? LSD testing? Mass chemical experiments on populations? Black-Ops?
Was it lost on purpose? Dum-dum-dum!!!
Just as there is a similar mentality to all conspiracy theory there is a generic debunking lexicon. I shall note that all the counterarguments that have been presented in this topic, as with all the theories, I have heard previously (some verbatim). You encounter them like political talking points wherever you hear the theories.
I would like to point out the parallel between The Communist Threat and The Islamic Threat. But don't take my word for it, please do your own research.
Having observed that theory is the folly of an intelligent mind at rest, I imagine a consequence of conspiracy. In front of a global McArthian tribunal, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Cult of Frank?" "No. In fact until recently I did not know that it was a real cult." "Have you, at anytime in the past, donated monies to 'The Friends of FrankBlack.net' or any other subversive group or money laundering front?" "Yes I did donate to FrankBlack.net. I was under the impression it was to support the website." "You are admitting to this panel that you participated in the heart of the den of lies!!!"
For what it is, here's what my theory is:
Neither Erebus nor Dallas are one person. |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 06/13/2006 : 13:44:37
I agree about Iran and the incessant delays, but maybe they'd argue that the brazen path they're taking comes in part out of anti-American sentiment honed from Iraq and the rumour, at least, that the US would have great difficulty going into Iran right now.
Meanwhile, I've looked more into that video and it seems that it doesn't hold up as well further along, though the squibs are interesting. Also, apparently they didn't routinely have bomb-sniffing dogs, they just happened to be on premise those weeks prior due to heightened terrorism threats. Doesn't explain their sudden removal given that there is evidence that the gov't knew something was coming, but nevertheless, could be a coincidence.
 "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/13/2006 : 12:26:07
Poll: U.S. in Iraq greater threat than Iran
By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer 51 minutes ago
June 13, 2006
The presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is considered a greater threat to Mideast stability than the current government in Iran, according to a new poll of European and Muslim countries. [snip]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060613/ap_on_re_us/america_s_image_2
I really don’t get this at all. I mean, yes, I can see that Bush America threatens to alter the status quo, but what “Mideast stability” is it that the world’s populations want to retain? Meanwhile the West plays out the tired song-and-dance with Iran, when any sane persion knows where Iran is headed with the nukes. Thank you very much BBC, Reuters, CNN, etc. for delivering the sheep that poll just the way you want them to. Frustrating.
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/13/2006 : 11:03:39
Wow, CoF, you really can be open-minded and disciplined. It has long been an intellectual failing of mine that I have little patience for gaining an understanding of that with which I fundamentally disagree. If the conclusions of an argument are inconsistent with my core beliefs, my mind glazes over and closes to the details and steps of the argument itself. It’s not an uncommon failing, and can be seen daily in every population, for example when religious fundamentalists refuse to listen to Darwinian arguments because of how deeply they threaten their basic assumptions about the nature of human existence.
I agree that the film does a good job toward its ends. It hits one squarely in the face and doesn’t let up. I did find myself muttering “yes, but ....”, but by then the narrative is on to the next punch. The rational approach is something like what you have done: slow it down and look closely into this or that point, but that requires the patience I mentioned lacking. That’s why I mentioned wanting to see a complete transcript, which seems to exist, with commentary, here: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/introduction.html
I will need to read this carefully, when I can find the time. I have questions about the apparent prior concern over and focus on the date Sept 11. It’s not inconceivable that interceptions of underground communications highlighted that date and that this leaked out into the broader military/intelligence community, so generals cancelled flights, Brown received a warning, put options spiked. I need to look into the bomb sniffing dogs thing. Here’s a page on the war games that day: http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/defense/wargames.html I don’t know what to make of that, meaning just how exceptional that was, or how extreme the defensive depletion actually was relative to normal coverage. The narrative from the film doesn’t connect the dots very well. I’m still scrolling through the transcript. There’s a lot there, too much to do it justice now, and probably not much that will alter my skepticism.
The power of something like the Loose Change documentary makes me think of how powerful oratory, from somebody like Hitler (not to make any accusations that anybody is a Nazi), or how a film from somebody like Michael Moore, can induce an almost hypnotic state in listeners and viewers. I know my mind went numb.
I agree that the film convincingly get across the idea that the truth about that day goes beyond the story that is commonly accepted. But that makes me think of what some skeptics say about those “biblical code” advocates. The skeptics say it would be surprising to not find suggestive counter readings of a text as complicated as the Bible. They say that if one subjects any complex text to analysis for diagonal or reverse patterns or whatever, all kinds of things will pop out. So, given 9/11, and given the complexity of the US government and military, perhaps any such series of events would in hindsight reveal suspicious patterns. Hunter S. Thompson says we should look at who benefitted from 9/11, but the same point can be made for any event large or small. All significant events benefit somebody, but most such events are hardly by forward-looking design.
I thank you for bringing this film to our attention, and for prodding me into examining it. Otherwise I would not have given it time of day.
|
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 06/13/2006 : 08:11:32
The conclusions are, to me, the weakest part of the documentary, I don't dispute that, nor even say that I agree. But, putting aside left vs. right, since I don't see the film in that light, and looking at what it talks about is an interesting exercise. I did some looking into the documents, people, places referenced and it all seems to check out. One notable exception is I didn't see Cheney's name anywhere listed as a member of New American Century, nor Jeb's. Can't remember if I've seen it before or just heard about it. The document itself contains is a treatise on restoring military and power through force and contains only one line I find surprising, which is the whole revelation that America is unlikely to back a bigger and more prominent military role absent "some catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbour". Which, of course, is in the documentary.
Again, I'm not saying I believe the conclusions, but if we look at everything else objectively, just, is this true or not, does x logically follow y, I think this film does alright. They also urge people, on their website (http://www.loosechange911.com) to look into things themselves, which is a good message regardless of what is being pushed:
"Also, take nothing we say at face value. We highly encourage you to research this information yourselves and come to your own conclusions."
In brief, here's what the video covers (though bear with my hazy memory, I did only watch once):
1) A US Military report from the 1960s, recently declassified, suggesting creating terrorist events "in and around Florida and maybe even Washington" to provide an international pretext for war against Cuba. They also talk about taking a plane full of "passengers", secretly dropping them somewhere, and then remotely detonating and blaming on Cuba and terrorism. This plan was, thankfully, rejected, but a person wonders, had it been accepted, would we know?
2) Boeing's jet fuel burning test flight. Not important at this point, I don't think.
3) FEMA's Emergency Response to Terrorism has a cover with the WTC on it in crosshairs. Meaningless to me, though I suppose they were trying to highlight that it was quite conceivable that 9/11 would happen. I don't buy this. The WTCs were frequently targets of bomb threats, etc.
4) New American Century. This, to me, parallels the Cuban document from the 60s in terms of problem and solution, although more subtle, equally frightening.
5) The pilot who supposedly flew into the Pentagon was said to have flown the same mission a year before when in the Navy before retiring and joining American Airlines. I don't see what this points at since they later claim that the Pentagon was hit by a missle, unless they're implying that he was transferred to American as a military op so they had a credible person that was willing to disappear as though dead.
6) Larry Silverstein gets some insurance with specific anti-terrorism clauses. As stated, WTC was a frequent target and this is not surprising even if only taken out a month and a half before 9/11. Probably coincidence.
7) Bomb sniffing dogs pulled from WTC. Why? What possible motive could this have? Surely, as I've pointed out several times, the WTC was a frequent target. Why would they ever just pull these dogs?
8) Unusually high 5x/11x put options (i.e. banking on stocks crashing) placed on Boeing and American Airlines Sept 7th and Sept 10th. Also, many top Pentagon brass cancel flights for Sept 11th the day prior. Hmmm.
9) Condoleeza Rice calls San Francisco mayor Willie Brown warning him not to fly on Sept 11.
Now, before I go on, this points at the very least to the gov't knowing SOMETHING is planned for Sept 11 and would be on high alert. Not necessarily knowing what, but they are aware that there is some reason not to be in the air that next day. Which is what makes, which otherwise is circumstantial at best, the next bit interesting.
10) US Military planes are dispatched all over the place on NORAD missions, and far from Washington and New York. This leaves only 14 planes covering the whole of the US.
Now I'll leave it at that for now, but next it goes on to the Pentagon. As for a transcript, if you go onto the Loose Change website, go to Evidence, and at the bottom they have the film divided into parts with mostly active links to what they reference. That's about as close as you'll get.
Regarding the 'beef' of the show, as you say, a lot of inconsistencies that make up the bulk of conspiracy theories everywhere. They endeavour to place doubt in the minds of those who, like yourself, and even myself, are so certain that no government in its right mind would allow nor conspire to bring down the twin towers. Has it swayed me? I don't think so. But there are a lot more unanswered questions than I admit to being aware of. I disagree with lonely that it never answers/endeavours to answer a question, but might I ask, since you say it "looks crap" if you've watched it?
Do I believe the story, hook, line, and sinker, that the Bush admin brought down the towers? No. Perhaps wishful thinking but no. But do I think there is more to this story than commonly accepted? Yes. And that's why I liked this film, I guess. We have to be consistent on whether the Bush administration is incompetent or merely plays that role. Though I suppose it's possible to be competent and misguided. I'm not sure I'd argue that the people who would be executing this maneouver as stupid, and I suppose the argument would be made that Bush is merely a figurehead and that this plot would've been in planning long before he arrived on the scene.
Finally, as to your final sentence, "Why is it so difficult to believe that a cult of murderous, religious fascists did this?" remember that many people feel this way about the present US government. In conclusion, I don't argue that it was the US, but simply that there is more to this than meets the eye and it deserves scrutiny from educated people regardless of philosophy, such as yourself.
PS I didn't know there were suspicions about Pearl Harbour. Pearl Harbour, Cuba, 9/11, ...
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." |
| lonely persuader |
Posted - 06/13/2006 : 02:44:49
I also dislike yer 2 party system. Left or right (one set of ridiculous values vs another set of ridiculous values)
Religion + death penalty + Guns + social injustice = republican
Abortion + anti-family + pseudo-science justification = Democrats
I am aware that my mathematics here may be classified in "pseudo-science justification".
|
| lonely persuader |
Posted - 06/13/2006 : 02:38:47
To be honest (and I don't like agreeing with Erebus) but the documentary looks crap and never answers a question. No science there at all, sorry. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/13/2006 : 00:08:11
OK. I watched most of it. Man, I hate video propaganda, of any stripe. Oliver Stone, Michael Moore, and Joseph Goebbels must be proud! Endured the first hour or so and then had to skip forward to the conclusions. Must say that the narrator should offer himself up for public flagellation in a thousand town squares across America. Not for his opinions, just simply for being what he is. No more of that whimpy, whiny Kos-Kid voice. Fuck!
That said, I cannot refute it. Is there a transcript anywhere? That might be more palatable, and more digestible. I took notes over the first twenty minutes or so but soon fatigued. To those who may be persuaded: where's the beef? I mean, as somebody who feels overwhelmed by the details, what do you see as the blows fatal to the Man? Or is this more of the “death by a thousand cuts” strategy? Is there a simple syllogistic argument to be found here? Or just a bunch of those “inconsistencies” that make up the body of most conspiracy “theories”?
Do people really believe that the notoriously incompetent Bush administration, months old, could actually successfully execute such a fantastically complex plot? And for what, to get us into what exactly? Iraq? Doesn’t it seem there might have been a simpler way? Why not ONE plane into ONE tower? And where, if not into the wall of the Pentagon, DID Barbara Olson disappear?
Do people really believe that the notoriously incompetent Bush administration could actually keep silent the hundreds if not thousands of people that would necessarily be involved in such an operation? It defies belief. As is the case with most conspiracy bullshit, I think this too runs afoul of Occam’s razor: the truth, in the realms of both science and men, is usually frustratingly simple and direct. Why is it so difficult to believe that a cult of murderous, religious fascists did this? For that matter, if the neo-cons wanted to get us into a global war on the side of Israel and the loathsome venture capitalists, wouldn’t it have been easier to simply lower the guard to what the terrorists had long identified as their target, the towers? It’s not like they needed any help in regard to motivation.
Despite the tone I’ve taken, I’m not angry at any of us fb.netters, let alone you CoF. I know I’m just another guy who spends most of his time angry. But, Man, I HATE this constant left-wing assault on everything that makes civilized life possible. I actually DO believe that FDR knowingly allowed Pearl Harbor to go down, and I do mourn the thousands of sailors who died there, but in the final and not so deep or complex analysis I know we needed to get into WWII. So I accept it. It’s not what I think about when I remember either the war against the Nazis or the war in the Pacific. So, Bush is both dumb fuck and son of oil. Granted. Stipulated. But if that is so obvious, can’t we all also agree that there is a powerful, insidious, globally-connected coalition of able and motivated fanatics whose stated goal is to either convert us to intellectual dirt or slit our throats for refusing to submit to same? What is so hard about that? Oh, I know, some of us think we still have time to wait, and talk, and consult the UN, and ....
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/12/2006 : 17:02:21
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
Erebus, have you seen the video in question above? I'd be interested in your views.
No, but I guess I'm gonna have to. I generally avoid online video, but in the interest of fairness, I will oblige. Thanks for asking. Report forthcoming.
|
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 06/12/2006 : 15:41:56
Erebus, have you seen the video in question above? I'd be interested in your views.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." |
| darwin |
Posted - 06/12/2006 : 13:24:49
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
Insightful essay elucidating how many, including myself, view conventional leftists, meaning in America those who consistently vote Democrat:
Recent polls show more people headed in the other direction. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/12/2006 : 13:15:16
Insightful essay elucidating how many, including myself, view conventional leftists, meaning in America those who consistently vote Democrat:
Why I Left the Left
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-swirsky/why-i-left-the-left_b_22666.html
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/12/2006 : 12:44:42
Not sure I’d go as far as this guy, but I’m glad somebody’s thinking along such lines:
The Sunday Times
June 11, 2006
Beware: the new goths are coming
Peter Almond
ONE of Britain’s most senior military strategists has warned that western civilisation faces a threat on a par with the barbarian invasions that destroyed the Roman empire.
In an apocalyptic vision of security dangers, Rear Admiral Chris Parry said future migrations would be comparable to the Goths and Vandals while north African "barbary" pirates could be attacking yachts and beaches in the Mediterranean within 10 years.
Europe, including Britain, could be undermined by large immigrant groups with little allegiance to their host countries — a "reverse colonisation" as Parry described it. These groups would stay connected to their homelands by the internet and cheap flights. The idea of assimilation was becoming redundant, he said. [snip]
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2220267,00.html
|
| misleadtheworld |
Posted - 06/11/2006 : 15:53:47
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
quote:
Originally posted by misleadtheworld
I've seen that video before. Interesting. Funny they think a B-52 hit the Empire State Building in the 30's. Surely if they've done all this research about aviation and whatnot they'd know that it was in fact a B-25 that hit the building, and secondly, that B-52s didn't exist in the 30s.
Actually, that wasn't the only case of dyslexia in the film. I forget what the number was relevant to, but it was spoken as 3.8 and written as 3.08. Which, granted, isn't dyslexic now that I write it out, but it's hardly a perfect documentary by any means...
Yeah, I think I noticed a couple more little mistakes, like showing a picture of the Empire State Building when specifically talking about the Sears tower in Chicago... bit weird. It's certainly not perfect, but for what it is and whomever has made it, it's very good. I'm certainly very glad it exists and that people are questioning things, which, although I don't really want to decide where I stand with the subject, pleases me. I like to hear different sides to these sorts of things, and Lord knows we sometimes quite need them when it comes to Governments telling us what's what.
|
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 06/11/2006 : 14:18:28
quote:
Originally posted by starmekitten
I was pretty painfully disappointed when I met Dean and he didn't say aboot. Not once, sure, he talks funny but not funny enough. TV lied to me and it still hurts.
forum ebook: end of miles
I know, and I'm sorry for my part of it. I could've tossed you some pity aboots, surely. Also, I'm quite confident that nobody knows how to use the word 'eh' properly when making fun of us. Though I suppose if they did, it wouldn't be as funny, so...
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 06/11/2006 : 14:14:17
quote:
Originally posted by misleadtheworld
I've seen that video before. Interesting. Funny they think a B-52 hit the Empire State Building in the 30's. Surely if they've done all this research about aviation and whatnot they'd know that it was in fact a B-25 that hit the building, and secondly, that B-52s didn't exist in the 30s.
Actually, that wasn't the only case of dyslexia in the film. I forget what the number was relevant to, but it was spoken as 3.8 and written as 3.08. Which, granted, isn't dyslexic now that I write it out, but it's hardly a perfect documentary by any means...
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." |
| hammerhands |
Posted - 06/11/2006 : 11:18:22
You want to hear Newfoundlander's (Neufie's, affectionately) and Maritimers. They'll say, "I gaught in my cahr and drove to the bahr. We fought 'aard dat night, buoy." |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 06/11/2006 : 06:53:20
I was pretty painfully disappointed when I met Dean and he didn't say aboot. Not once, sure, he talks funny but not funny enough. TV lied to me and it still hurts.
forum ebook: end of miles |
| misleadtheworld |
Posted - 06/11/2006 : 06:44:39
I've seen that video before. Interesting. Funny they think a B-52 hit the Empire State Building in the 30's. Surely if they've done all this research about aviation and whatnot they'd know that it was in fact a B-25 that hit the building, and secondly, that B-52s didn't exist in the 30s.
|
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 06/11/2006 : 05:11:39
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
I actually watched this rather interesting documentary on 9/11, free courtesy Google Video. It's an interesting collection of contradictions. Does it add up, I don't know, but:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
an MP in the UK is trying to get a screening in the house of commons
FAST_MAN RAIDER_MAN - June 19th |
| kathryn |
Posted - 06/10/2006 : 21:20:51
quote:
Originally posted by a guy in a rover
On a lighter note the other day I was on the train and there was this guy sat there with a Canadian tattoo (Canadian B) with his girlfriend (Canadian C). Then this fella who looks like Bill Hicks goes over too them (Canadian A). It went like this.
Canadian A: 'Where are you from, eh?'
Canadian B: 'Regina, eh.'
Canadian A: 'Im from Victoria, eh.'
Canadian C: 'Me too!'
Canadian A: 'Well how aboot that. Have a nice day' {walks off}
I thought to myself 'fucking canucks'.
Funny story or mild racism?
I'll let u decide on that one.
A pig or a goat well, they wouldn’t let you be mistreated
I almost fell out of my chair the first time I heard someone pronounce the city "Regina." I was expecting it to rhyme with Orangina, not a female body part.
I’m the only one who can say that this light is mine
|
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 06/10/2006 : 16:29:11
I actually watched this rather interesting documentary on 9/11, free courtesy Google Video. It's an interesting collection of contradictions. Does it add up, I don't know, but:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." |
| floop |
Posted - 06/10/2006 : 15:53:19
are Canadians a race?
"I don't have any money to buy new clothes and if they paid me to get some I'd probably buy more hoodies." - Mark Wainfur |
| a guy in a rover |
Posted - 06/10/2006 : 15:32:34
On a lighter note the other day I was on the train and there was this guy sat there with a Canadian tattoo (Canadian B) with his girlfriend (Canadian C). Then this fella who looks like Bill Hicks goes over too them (Canadian A). It went like this.
Canadian A: 'Where are you from, eh?'
Canadian B: 'Regina, eh.'
Canadian A: 'Im from Victoria, eh.'
Canadian C: 'Me too!'
Canadian A: 'Well how aboot that. Have a nice day' {walks off}
I thought to myself 'fucking canucks'.
Funny story or mild racism?
I'll let u decide on that one.
A pig or a goat well, they wouldn’t let you be mistreated
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/08/2006 : 11:35:50
I did take the "stoop" comment with a smile, and I congratulate myself for my "doubts". So often I've constructed a paragraph, realizing I might better let it ferment for a day, but then said "dammit" and posted anyway. It takes little courage to stick the neck out knowing the online machete cannot reach.
|
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 06/08/2006 : 10:43:13
If you appreciated how much I hate that bitch, you'd see that I mean it as a compliment to you. See my signature.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/08/2006 : 09:41:21
What, no smiley face? As Charlie once said to me: "Sometimes it's difficult to be your friend."
|
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 06/08/2006 : 08:12:34
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
... Call it an Ann Coulter moment.
I would never stoop so low as to say that to you!
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/08/2006 : 07:32:43
After a night's sleep, the only clause I would change is the one regarding the Mosques, not because of atrocity but rather due to doubts it would be a productive tactic. Call it an Ann Coulter moment. Today the question is the significance of the elimination of al-Zarqawi. Will there be an overall decline in Iraq terrorism after the initial round of retaliatory blasts? How will it impact the flow of money required for recruiting "martyrs" and restocking their arsenal?
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/08/2006 : 00:04:09
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
Erebus, sometimes we agree. Sometimes we disagree. This, I have no words for.
Perhaps I should stop there before I scare myself as well.
I admit to being hyperbolic, but only in service of the obvious. Please do scare thyself. The chorus of eventual reason needs you. Lord knows they're not going to listen to the likes of me.
|
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 06/07/2006 : 23:23:53
Erebus, sometimes we agree. Sometimes we disagree. This, I have no words for.
If we behave as they do then not only do we have to ask who we are, but what are we fighting for? It then becomes either racial warfare or religious warfare on OUR part. And I don't think that every single Muslim in Cairo or anywhere else is cheering "Allah Akbar" when terrorists strike.
However, I'm all for tactical teams/missles/whatever blowing apart known terrorist rings, hideouts, etc. I just think it would be barbaric to resort to bombing these countries. Also, I admit I don't have the qualms that many do about torture for KNOWN terrorists. I'm not saying it's the ideal way to go, but if it gives a better chance of getting information that may save others, fine. When I say known, I don't mean people suspected of being terrorists, I mean the ones who have either admitted to it or wear it like a badge of honour.
Perhaps I should stop there before I scare myself as well.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/07/2006 : 23:14:04
quote:
Originally posted by ScottP
The "old war" ways of invading a chosen country do nothing to stop it- actually promote it. Sending hit squads out to eliminate them seems like a better idea, but how would you police that? There seems to be no way to crack this nut. Lots of talking, very few solid ideas.
Not that a West which cherishes its illusions of itself as enlightened could ever do it, "hit squads" could "crack this nut", forget "policing". There's an old saying that over time enemies become more like one another. Maybe the allegedly more evolved West could do with some of that: fight fire with fire, eye for an eye, and I'm not talking decades of anything along the lines of Israeli retaliation for Palestinian attacks. More like "OK, so suicide bombers killed fifty civilians in the market today, then tomorrow GPS targetting takes out five hundred in the center of Cairo, with Mosques as prize targets." It's not like the jihadists treat Mosques with respect. Yes, that would create more terrorists. Good. "Bring 'em on." It's convenient that the fly rushes to the flypaper. Just keep upping the ante till the little guys can't afford to play. After all, the cold war was won by bankrupting the politburo. End this folly of using stacks of greenbacks to bring the parties to the table as a short respite from years of mindless bloodshed. For all their bravado and jihad, these bombers do have their limits and they can be forced to deal. The point is hardly to simply kill their innocents. Rather, it is to play their game better than they do. We have the firepower, and its not like killing innocents is against their rules. Forget Geneva and the Western code of war. If they want Geneva, let them wear uniforms. Play by their rules. Lower ourselves to their level. Speak a language they understand, that other universal language. Terrorize them for a change. Barbaric? Of course. With the irony that had the West gone hyper-murderous years ago, so many lives, both Western and Muslim, would have been saved. It's really rather simple once one thinks the unthinkable, and it's not as if we aren't headed there already. Those who think with the impotent subtlety of the second half of the twentieth century might consider another old saying: don't let the best be the enemy of the good.
"Projectile management is the essence of the quality of life" - Ted Nugent |
| floop |
Posted - 06/07/2006 : 21:04:34
quote:
Originally posted by ScottP
There seems to be no way to crack this nut. Lots of talking, very few solid ideas.
i agree Scott. it's a tought problem to solve. and there's also the question of "what do we do about the Canadians?"
"I don't have any money to buy new clothes and if they paid me to get some I'd probably buy more hoodies." - Mark Wainfur |
| ScottP |
Posted - 06/07/2006 : 20:37:10
Most people don't want terrorism to succeed. The "old war" ways of invading a chosen country do nothing to stop it- actually promote it. Sending hit squads out to eliminate them seems like a better idea, but how would you police that? There seems to be no way to crack this nut. Lots of talking, very few solid ideas. Frank rules. Ha!
|
|
|
