9/15TortureSpeech:9/11'Explosives'

[Ned Sonntag]

""For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."" Whose operatives? What explosives? Who put this speech in Dubya's earphone? What is going on behind the scenes? I thought the story was that jet fuel melted the steel girders...

[NYEmtEsq]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...485822-1044926

This will answer many of your questions.....

[Burtimus]

Originally Posted by NYEmtEsq

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...485822-1044926

This will answer many of your questions.....

Hardly a dignified or intelligent response to the question, whether or not you happen to agree.

[NYEmtEsq]

Originally Posted by Burtimus

Hardly a dignified or intelligent response to the question, whether or not you happen to agree.

Some things deserve such cursory treatment. The top post was one.

[Burtimus]

Originally Posted by NYEmtEsq

Some things deserve such cursory treatment. The top post was one.

I'll keep that in mind, NYEmtEsq. It's good to know that some people's opinions are simply not worth the time.

Interesting how you felt the need to respond.

[NYEmtEsq]

Originally Posted by Burtimus

I'll keep that in mind, NYEmtEsq. It's good to know that some people's opinions are simply not worth the time.

Interesting how you felt the need to respond.

As are those of moral relativists who, while stating that they do not support terrorist acts, ask that we rationalize and understand the problems of those who would just as soon kill us, and would have us negotiate with the unpersuadable. We would make the same progress if we were to negotiate with a common infection. Personally, I'll stick to antibiotics.

[Burtimus]

Originally Posted by NYEmtEsq

As are those of moral relativists who, while stating that they do not support terrorist acts, ask that we rationalize and understand the problems of those who would just as soon kill us, and would have us negotiate with the unpersuadable. We would make the same progress if we were to negotiate with a common infection. Personally, I'll stick to antibiotics.

Oy.

How do you make an antibiotic if you don't understand the germ theory of disease?

[NYEmtEsq]

Originally Posted by Burtimus

Oy.

How do you make an antibiotic if you don't understand the germ theory of disease?

I'm not going to be baited into a debate premised on relativism. Contrary to popular belief, there are some issues which are quite black and white. With that, I will allow you the last word, which seems to have some import.

[Miss Vickie]

Originally Posted by NYEmtEsq

I'm not going to be baited into a debate premised on relativism. Contrary to popular belief, there are some issues which are quite black and white. With that, I will allow you the last word, which seems to have some import.

Okay but you're the one who brought of moral relativism, right? You accused people who acknowledge that our actions have consequences of being moral relativists, didn't you? Or did I miss something?

And please tell me how bombing the hell out of someone, or doing whatever the hell it is we're doing in Iraq (or Afghanistan for that matter) helps. Are there less terrorists now? Are they less interested in killing us? Is the world a safer place? Clearly, what we're doing isn't working. Surely (shirley!) you're smart enough to see that.

So.... what IS the answer? Bomb EVERYONE? Spread our troops even more thinly, thus jeopardizing their lives and our safety, not to mention economically crippling us?

I'd love to hear what you think we should be doing, because I've run out of ideas. And clearly, given our administration's responses of late, so have they.

[NYEmtEsq]

Originally Posted by Miss Vickie

Okay but you're the one who brought of moral relativism, right? You accused people who acknowledge that our actions have consequences of being moral relativists, didn't you? Or did I miss something?

And please tell me how bombing the hell out of someone, or doing whatever the hell it is we're doing in Iraq (or Afghanistan for that matter) helps. Are there less terrorists now? Are they less interested in killing us? Is the world a safer place? Clearly, what we're doing isn't working. Surely (shirley!) you're smart enough to see that.

So.... what IS the answer? Bomb EVERYONE? Spread our troops even more thinly, thus jeopardizing their lives and our safety, not to mention economically crippling us?

I'd love to hear what you think we should be doing, because I've run out of ideas. And clearly, given our administration's responses of late, so have they.

I'm not talking about denying that our actions have concequences, I'm talking about those who would nonetheless choose to do nothing (other than talk and engage in useless diplospeak) because doing the right thing is so hard. After we won WWII we engaged in a 10 year campaign of denazification where we recreated the government at all levels, and we scoured the population to root out all vestiges of nazism. It took an enormous troop committment to do that, but 50 years after the Federal Republic of Germany resumed its role in the civilized world of nations, we are all the richer for it.

Now that we are in Iraq and Afghanistan (and without devolving into a debate as to whether we should have been there, because such does not change the reality that WE ARE THERE), we must endeavor to do the same. We cannot simply give up because our populace has grown up in the instant gratification generation, and the results are not coming fast enough.

I do believe that what we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is working, it's just not going to be an instant solution. With the exception of the aborted embassy bombing in Damascus, there have been no successful terrorist attacks on American soil in 5 years (and that includes embassies and warships). And, the fact that the Syrians were largely responsible for thwarting that embassy bombing, I would say that this is evidence that things ARE beginning to work well, definately much better than before when we had state sponsors of terrorism such as Libya, Afghanistan, and yes, Iraq (remember us finding Abu Nidal--of Achille Lauro fame--holed up in a Saddam safehouse?). The terrorists are much more fragmented, and much less organized than before. (And, before you mention London or Madrid, there is no question that a group of guys strapping explosive vests can knock the hell out of an urban subway system, with devastating results, it doesn't take much to do that, but the ability to pull off a coordinated, 9/11 style attack is much less now than before).

[bigdog]

Agrees with the Emergency Medical Shyster.

[Miss Vickie]

Originally Posted by NYEmtEsq

I'm not talking about denying that our actions have concequences, I'm talking about those who would nonetheless choose to do nothing (other than talk and engage in useless diplospeak) because doing the right thing is so hard.

How can you assume that none of us are doing nothing? Do you know our lives? Do you know what we do on a daily basis to support democracy and freedom? No, you don't. Just because we talk about it here -- which is, after all, as good a place as any to talk about it -- doesn't mean that's ALL we do. Many of us are politically active, which is a good use of passion. So I think it's unfair to assume that we're "choosing" to do nothing.

Besides, I think using the freedom of speech granted to us by our Constitution and allowed (for now) is a great tool for change. Getting people whupped and out of their apathy and hopelessness is a great start.

After we won WWII we engaged in a 10 year campaign of denazification where we recreated the government at all levels, and we scoured the population to root out all vestiges of nazism. It took an enormous troop committment to do that, but 50 years after the Federal Republic of Germany resumed its role in the civilized world of nations, we are all the richer for it.

Hey, if we could make that happen in the Middle East, that would be bomb diggity (so to speak). But I'm not sure it's possible, given that many of the conflicts there are thousands of years old and we so poorly understand their culture that it's like we're on different planets sometimes.

We cannot simply give up because our populace has grown up in the instant gratification generation, and the results are not coming fast enough.

There's an expression I love, which I believe fits this scenario: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, only expecting different results." I don't need instant gratification, but the fact is that things are WORSE now for the Iraqi people than before, there is MORE violence, LESS freedom, so it's not as though it's not happening fast enough, but whatever we're doing is making it worse. Afghanistan is getting worse again as well, because we don't have the troop capability to have the presence we need there. If we're going to do this thing, as you suggest, then we obviously need to invest MORE troops (or something) because I don't think it's working.

I do believe that what we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is working, it's just not going to be an instant solution.

Can you give me any evidence -- please, throw me a bone! -- that things are better in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the people there. Because that's what I care about -- the quality of life for the people in those war torn, bombed out, countries. All I hear about are suicide bombings on a daily basis which, say what you will about that bastard Saddam Hussein, at least people could go and buy gas without getting killed. Every day there is a new attack. How is that improving?

With the exception of the aborted embassy bombing in Damascus, there have been no successful terrorist attacks on American soil in 5 years (and that includes embassies and warships).

That's all well and good, but it doesn't mean there won't be one tomorrow, and in a world where we can't carry toothpaste on a plane, I'm not sure it's really better. Our cargo is still not safe, and while I think it's great that there hasn't been an attack here, there have been attacks elsewhere, to our allies, so I don't see it quite the success that you do.

And yeah, I will bring up London, because it was still an attack on our allies and so it still gives evidence that the terrorists are alive and well.

[bigdog]

Originally Posted by Miss Vickie

and in a world where we can't carry toothpaste on a plane

Here's to focusing on what's important. The terrorists have won because we can't have toothpaste on the plane! I think I'd give up taking toothpaste with me when I travelled it it meant being about to stop an attack that cost three hundred lives, or three thousand lives. So, I'll buy toothpaste at my destination. Big deal.

[Wagimawr]

Originally Posted by Miss Vickie

(moderated)

easy on the personal attack, there.

Originally Posted by Miss Vickie

moderated

bigdog, she's right - don't just pick something out of her post to mock - she's making good points that need to be responded to.

[bigdog]

You know what they say about arguing on the Internet, don't you?

[missaf]

Originally Posted by bigdog

You know what they say about arguing on the Internet, don't you?

Arguing here will get you banned, if you dont' do it with respect and decorum.

[Sandie S-R]

Originally Posted by missaf

Arguing here will get you banned, if you dont' do it with respect and decorum.

What she said.

[Echoes]

Originally Posted by bigdog

I think I'd give up taking toothpaste with me when I travelled it it meant being about to stop an attack that cost three hundred lives, or three thousand lives.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08...t_terror_labs/