This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1geneg
This is to present and discuss evidence that US is becoming a police state. With one percent of our adult population now incarcerated, with innocent victims of police brutality and mistaken identity being murdered in our streets and homes on a near daily basis by those sworn to protect them and with the transition from state run prisons to privately owned and operated prisons making states complicit in feeding our prison system for financial gain rather than providing for our safety through incarceration of bad guys our prisons have become one of the largest social engineering experiments in history.
What is wrong with US?
I've been watching this happen for some time now.
From an NYT story about the incarceration of illegal immigrants in NYC:
Since when do we take shareholders into consideration when determining the nature of justice?
Watch this space. there is tons of this stuff out there and I am going to see to it that all of it I run across will be aired.
What is wrong with US?
I've been watching this happen for some time now.
From an NYT story about the incarceration of illegal immigrants in NYC:
"Any attempt to get support or services for them is stymied because you don't know where they're going to end up," said Lynn M. Kelly, the director of the Justice Center.
When she asked that the lawyers' letters of legal advice be forwarded to detainees who had been transferred from Varick, she said the warden balked, saying he had to consider the financial interests of his private shareholders: 1,200 members of a central Alaskan tribe whose dividends are linked to Varick's profits under a $79 million, three-year federal contract.
Since when do we take shareholders into consideration when determining the nature of justice?
Watch this space. there is tons of this stuff out there and I am going to see to it that all of it I run across will be aired.
2Jesse_wiedinmyer
with innocent victims of police brutality and mistaken identity being murdered in our streets and homes on a near daily basis by those sworn to protect them
Maybe you could start a feed on that... Something like a word-a-day calendar.
Maybe you could start a feed on that... Something like a word-a-day calendar.
3reading_fox
" rather than providing for our safety through incarceration of bad guys "
That's only ever been the last purpose of prison though hasn't it - primarily there as a deterrant; then as a limited duration societal punishment; and only in last resort for individuals unable to conform to society, to be locked away preventing them from inflicting further harm
If the balance has shifted to the latter, maybe it is time to look again at the priorities of the Prison Service.
That's only ever been the last purpose of prison though hasn't it - primarily there as a deterrant; then as a limited duration societal punishment; and only in last resort for individuals unable to conform to society, to be locked away preventing them from inflicting further harm
If the balance has shifted to the latter, maybe it is time to look again at the priorities of the Prison Service.
4geneg
Here's another installment of this tragedy that has become our police system. More to come.
Police murder drunk after tasering him twice.
Police murder drunk after tasering him twice.
5geneg
What did Benj. Franklin say? Something to the effect that "one who would exchange liberty for safety deserves neither" comes to mind in this current abuse of Americans for some misplaced sense of safety.
Civil Disobedience and the TSA.
Civil Disobedience and the TSA.
6geneg
So you think a man's home is his castle? Think again.
8geneg
And of course we have the continuing disaster we call 9/11.
10Jesse_wiedinmyer
#9
Absolutely fucking brilliant.
Absolutely fucking brilliant.
11Doug1943
The judges referenced in #9 should be strung up, for
(1) sending people to jail without proper legal procedures, in order to get money, and
(2) by their actions, making in harder in future to send to jail of people who probably should be there.
But Americans aren't alone. In Europe, you can find yourself being visited by the police for making politically-incorrect statements.
(1) sending people to jail without proper legal procedures, in order to get money, and
(2) by their actions, making in harder in future to send to jail of people who probably should be there.
But Americans aren't alone. In Europe, you can find yourself being visited by the police for making politically-incorrect statements.
12geneg
I didn't know whether to post this in one of cody's interminable race threads or this one.
Driving While Hispanic.
Sheeesh! I love living in Texas.
Driving While Hispanic.
Sheeesh! I love living in Texas.
13geneg
Tasered 19, yup, you read right nineteen times for what?
How many sadists do we have in the sadism friendly local police forces of this country?
How many sadists do we have in the sadism friendly local police forces of this country?
14Essa
geneg, since you've taken an interest in these things, here is one for your annals:
Ark. police officer uses Taser on 10-year-old girl
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – A police officer in a small Arkansas town used a stun gun on an unruly 10-year-old girl after he said her mother gave him permission to do so. Now the town's mayor is calling for an investigation into whether the Taser use was appropriate.
According to a report by Officer Dustin Bradshaw, obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, police were called to the Ozark home Nov. 11 because of a domestic disturbance. When he arrived, the girl was curled up on the floor, screaming, the report said.
Bradshaw's report said the girl screamed, kicked and resisted any time her mother tried to get her in the shower before bed.
"Her mother told me to tase her if I needed to," Bradshaw wrote.
The child was "violently kicking and verbally combative" when Bradshaw tried to take her into custody, and she kicked him in the groin. So he delivered "a very brief drive stun to her back," the report said.
The names of the girl and her mother were redacted in the report.
Ozark Mayor Vernon McDaniel said Wednesday that the girl wasn't injured and is now at the Western Arkansas Youth Shelter in Cecil.
But McDaniel said he wants Arkansas State Police — and if they decline, the FBI — to investigate the incident.
"People here feel like that he made a mistake in using a Taser, and maybe he did, but we will not know until we get an impartial investigation," McDaniel said.
The state police declined his request Tuesday, saying it only gets involved with criminal investigations — if the officer in question was accused of misconduct or targeted in an internal investigation, for example — rather than matters of policy.
Kim Brunell, a spokeswoman with the FBI in Little Rock, said her office neither confirms nor denies when it's involved an investigation and declined to comment Wednesday.
Police Chief Jim Noggle said no disciplinary action was taken against Bradshaw. He said Tasers are a safe way to subdue people who are a danger to themselves or others.
"We didn't use the Taser to punish the child — just to bring the child under control so she wouldn't hurt herself or somebody else," Noggle said.
If the officer tried to forcefully put the girl in handcuffs, he could have accidentally broken her arm or leg, Noggle said.
He said a touch of the stun gun — "less than a second" — stopped the girl from being unruly, and she was handcuffed, he said.
"She got up immediately and they put her in the patrol car," McDaniel said.
Noggle said the girl will face disorderly conduct charges as a juvenile in the incident.
The girl's father, Anthony Medlock, told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that his daughter has emotional problems, but that she didn't have a weapon and shouldn't have been Tasered.
"My daughter does not deserve to be tased and be treated like an animal," said Medlock, who is divorced from the girl's mother and does not have custody.
Steve Tuttle, a spokesman for Taser, said it's up to individual law enforcement agencies to decide when Taser use is appropriate.
In some cases, a Taser "presents the safer response to resistance compared with the alternatives such as fists, kicks, baton strikes, bean bag guns, chemical agents, or canine response," Tuttle said in a statement.
The police chief, who has been Tasered twice himself during training sessions, said his department has never had to Taser a child or elderly person before, but that in some instances, that could be necessary to ensure safety.
"We don't want to do things like this," Noggle said. "This is something we have to do. We're required to maintain order and keep the peace."
Ark. police officer uses Taser on 10-year-old girl
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – A police officer in a small Arkansas town used a stun gun on an unruly 10-year-old girl after he said her mother gave him permission to do so. Now the town's mayor is calling for an investigation into whether the Taser use was appropriate.
According to a report by Officer Dustin Bradshaw, obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, police were called to the Ozark home Nov. 11 because of a domestic disturbance. When he arrived, the girl was curled up on the floor, screaming, the report said.
Bradshaw's report said the girl screamed, kicked and resisted any time her mother tried to get her in the shower before bed.
"Her mother told me to tase her if I needed to," Bradshaw wrote.
The child was "violently kicking and verbally combative" when Bradshaw tried to take her into custody, and she kicked him in the groin. So he delivered "a very brief drive stun to her back," the report said.
The names of the girl and her mother were redacted in the report.
Ozark Mayor Vernon McDaniel said Wednesday that the girl wasn't injured and is now at the Western Arkansas Youth Shelter in Cecil.
But McDaniel said he wants Arkansas State Police — and if they decline, the FBI — to investigate the incident.
"People here feel like that he made a mistake in using a Taser, and maybe he did, but we will not know until we get an impartial investigation," McDaniel said.
The state police declined his request Tuesday, saying it only gets involved with criminal investigations — if the officer in question was accused of misconduct or targeted in an internal investigation, for example — rather than matters of policy.
Kim Brunell, a spokeswoman with the FBI in Little Rock, said her office neither confirms nor denies when it's involved an investigation and declined to comment Wednesday.
Police Chief Jim Noggle said no disciplinary action was taken against Bradshaw. He said Tasers are a safe way to subdue people who are a danger to themselves or others.
"We didn't use the Taser to punish the child — just to bring the child under control so she wouldn't hurt herself or somebody else," Noggle said.
If the officer tried to forcefully put the girl in handcuffs, he could have accidentally broken her arm or leg, Noggle said.
He said a touch of the stun gun — "less than a second" — stopped the girl from being unruly, and she was handcuffed, he said.
"She got up immediately and they put her in the patrol car," McDaniel said.
Noggle said the girl will face disorderly conduct charges as a juvenile in the incident.
The girl's father, Anthony Medlock, told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that his daughter has emotional problems, but that she didn't have a weapon and shouldn't have been Tasered.
"My daughter does not deserve to be tased and be treated like an animal," said Medlock, who is divorced from the girl's mother and does not have custody.
Steve Tuttle, a spokesman for Taser, said it's up to individual law enforcement agencies to decide when Taser use is appropriate.
In some cases, a Taser "presents the safer response to resistance compared with the alternatives such as fists, kicks, baton strikes, bean bag guns, chemical agents, or canine response," Tuttle said in a statement.
The police chief, who has been Tasered twice himself during training sessions, said his department has never had to Taser a child or elderly person before, but that in some instances, that could be necessary to ensure safety.
"We don't want to do things like this," Noggle said. "This is something we have to do. We're required to maintain order and keep the peace."
15jjwilson61
I think I'm more concerned that the police intervened in a family dispute about whether the girl would take a shower before going to bed or not. And I'm completely flummoxed that they arrested her and put her in handcuffs...A 10 year old?
16codyed
The cool thing about a taser is that it completely eliminates the need for an officer to use his brain. What's the use of complex problem solving ability when all one has to do is electrocute someone? Since the operation of a taser requires very little intelligence, police departments across the country could lower their admission standards and hire individuals with IQs below 100. Of course, wages would plummet because the pool of labor will have expanded. But, come one, police work isn't exactly rocket science these days.
18geneg
More hijinks from our various paramilitary police forces. We really need to have minimum IQ for people in uniform.
19geneg
Arpaioluzer: Giving Birth while Brown.
Every time I read this stuff it makes me want to spit nails. Law and order does not have to be a barbarous activity. Why do we put up with this shit?
Okay, I was able to edit this, but still can't give you the correct URL. The HTML at the site puts "forbidden" where it should say style in /lifestyle/. I can't get around it. If you are interestd go to the lifestyle tab and scroll down about four stories.
Every time I read this stuff it makes me want to spit nails. Law and order does not have to be a barbarous activity. Why do we put up with this shit?
Okay, I was able to edit this, but still can't give you the correct URL. The HTML at the site puts "forbidden" where it should say style in /lifestyle/. I can't get around it. If you are interestd go to the lifestyle tab and scroll down about four stories.
22dchaikin
today's NY Times - not a horror story, but on topic
Title: Right and Left Join Forces on Criminal Justice By ADAM LIPTAK
link : http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/us/24crime.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
It's interesting, although it does include this bewildering comment attributed to Edwin Meese III (Perhaps the quote is somewhat out of context??): the “liberal ideas of extending the power of the state” were to blame for an out-of-control criminal justice system."
But, if it's not out of context...talk about creating your own reality.
Title: Right and Left Join Forces on Criminal Justice By ADAM LIPTAK
link : http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/us/24crime.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
It's interesting, although it does include this bewildering comment attributed to Edwin Meese III (Perhaps the quote is somewhat out of context??): the “liberal ideas of extending the power of the state” were to blame for an out-of-control criminal justice system."
But, if it's not out of context...talk about creating your own reality.
23geneg
Here's an interesting piece on child trafficking in the US. Not operated by slavers but by the local government for money.
Children's lives ruined for nothing.
Children's lives ruined for nothing.
24Doug1943
Is America a "police state"? Or in the process of becoming one?
There will always be abuses of power by people with power. There will always be people with some power who lack judgement or basic intelligence.
But do the occasional abuses they commit justify our calling the US a police state? Or one in becoming?
A question: with respect to individual rights and restraints on the state, have things in America gotten better over the last century, or worse? Or over any period of time in the past you care to name.
Another question: are there any other countries with similar demographics to the US (i.e. big countries with large cities) which are substantially better?
If anyone thinks Bush was a fascist, he's an ignoramus. If anyone thinks Obama is a communist, he's an ignoramus. People who say things like that literally do not know what these words mean. It degrades political discussion to engage in hyperbole like this.
There will always be abuses of power by people with power. There will always be people with some power who lack judgement or basic intelligence.
But do the occasional abuses they commit justify our calling the US a police state? Or one in becoming?
A question: with respect to individual rights and restraints on the state, have things in America gotten better over the last century, or worse? Or over any period of time in the past you care to name.
Another question: are there any other countries with similar demographics to the US (i.e. big countries with large cities) which are substantially better?
If anyone thinks Bush was a fascist, he's an ignoramus. If anyone thinks Obama is a communist, he's an ignoramus. People who say things like that literally do not know what these words mean. It degrades political discussion to engage in hyperbole like this.
25geneg
The answer to your question Doug is yes, America is becoming a police state.
As to Bush being a fascist, what do you call it when the government and business conspire to rob their own people blind?
Fascism, according to Wikipedia is:
As to Bush being a fascist, what do you call it when the government and business conspire to rob their own people blind?
Fascism, according to Wikipedia is:
"Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system, and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.".What do you think has been going on in this country while you've been gone?
26Doug1943
Jeez.. whatever it is, it's not a political system where there is only one ruling party, dissidents are murdered or thrown into prison .. come on!
27geneg
Over the last eight years everything except single party rule that defines fascism was undertaken. What do you think that dumbass war in Iraq was about? Militarism, corporatism, government facilitated corruption, and, yes, people under BushCo were thrown in prison from time to time because of their politics. The 2004 election cycle was notorious for this. However, I will agree that T-Shirts opposed to BushCo were signs of terrorism.
If the Republicans could figure out a way to do it short of violence (and some are working on that) there would only be one effective party, the Republicans. Permanent majority sounds a lot to me like one party rule or thousand year reich. The only problem is the Republicans, by and large, are too stupid to pull something like this off.
You're right, the thugs haven't taken over yet, but watch the Tea Party movement and see what direction it takes. Read and listen to the rhetoric of Sarah Palin, the person most likely at this point to head the 2012 Republican ticket. We're heading toward a governmental crisis in this country and the Fascists hope they have the right line on it.
I do not use Fascist in its usual pejorative name calling sense, but I use it to refer to a political system. The political system Karl Rove and BushCo worked hard to put in place, a militaristic, corporatist structure using fear as a tool of social control. If you don't believe this, read some of your own posts sometime.
If the Republicans could figure out a way to do it short of violence (and some are working on that) there would only be one effective party, the Republicans. Permanent majority sounds a lot to me like one party rule or thousand year reich. The only problem is the Republicans, by and large, are too stupid to pull something like this off.
You're right, the thugs haven't taken over yet, but watch the Tea Party movement and see what direction it takes. Read and listen to the rhetoric of Sarah Palin, the person most likely at this point to head the 2012 Republican ticket. We're heading toward a governmental crisis in this country and the Fascists hope they have the right line on it.
I do not use Fascist in its usual pejorative name calling sense, but I use it to refer to a political system. The political system Karl Rove and BushCo worked hard to put in place, a militaristic, corporatist structure using fear as a tool of social control. If you don't believe this, read some of your own posts sometime.
28dchaikin
#24 Are there any other countries with similar demographics to the US (i.e. big countries with large cities) which are substantially better?
Canada? Australia? New Zealand? - not that I'm an expert on any of these, just ideas. I know England is pretty restrained, but I don't know anything about France, Germany, or Italy. Are they better or worse - no clue.
Canada? Australia? New Zealand? - not that I'm an expert on any of these, just ideas. I know England is pretty restrained, but I don't know anything about France, Germany, or Italy. Are they better or worse - no clue.
29geneg
Another sign that technology restricts personal freedom.
I have much more to fear from my own government than any half-baked bunch of crazies. What do you think Dick Cheney would do with this?
I have much more to fear from my own government than any half-baked bunch of crazies. What do you think Dick Cheney would do with this?
30Doug1943
#28: Well, we need some metrics. Let's start with free speech.
Suppose I write something very unpopular with the powers-that-be -- say, something nasty about Jews, or homosexuals, or Muslims.
What state-repressive type actions might I face in the US? In Canada? Australia? New Zealand? France, Germany, Italy?
We can begin with Canada: here.
In the UK, if you say something horrible about Islam, you can end up in court. If a fundamentalist writes a letter to the local newspaper stating the (barbaric) Biblical view of homosexuality, he will get a visit from the police. That's just state repression -- try producing a film like Life of Brian, but with Mohammed as the lampooned character and see what happens to you.
In the US, I'm free to say what I like, except on certain campuses where the ideology of the Left dominates the administration.
The threats to free speech today come from the Left. The stronger the Left is in a country, the more threatened free speech is.
Suppose I write something very unpopular with the powers-that-be -- say, something nasty about Jews, or homosexuals, or Muslims.
What state-repressive type actions might I face in the US? In Canada? Australia? New Zealand? France, Germany, Italy?
We can begin with Canada: here.
In the UK, if you say something horrible about Islam, you can end up in court. If a fundamentalist writes a letter to the local newspaper stating the (barbaric) Biblical view of homosexuality, he will get a visit from the police. That's just state repression -- try producing a film like Life of Brian, but with Mohammed as the lampooned character and see what happens to you.
In the US, I'm free to say what I like, except on certain campuses where the ideology of the Left dominates the administration.
The threats to free speech today come from the Left. The stronger the Left is in a country, the more threatened free speech is.
31dchaikin
"The threats to free speech today come from the Left. The stronger the Left is in a country, the more threatened free speech is."
Sure Doug - and the right and the religious right are perfect in this regard - and the more influential they are the more freedom we will have to say whatever we want - as you say, man.
And please go say whatever you want to the airport security next you fly - anything you want, really.
Anyway - I thought we were discussing the gradations of a "police" state. Freedom of speech is a bit off topic since we more concerned with the methods of law enforcement and the obsession with throwing people in to prison etc. etc.
Sure Doug - and the right and the religious right are perfect in this regard - and the more influential they are the more freedom we will have to say whatever we want - as you say, man.
And please go say whatever you want to the airport security next you fly - anything you want, really.
Anyway - I thought we were discussing the gradations of a "police" state. Freedom of speech is a bit off topic since we more concerned with the methods of law enforcement and the obsession with throwing people in to prison etc. etc.
33Jesse_wiedinmyer
Unconstitutional?
35geneg
Thanks for that, Amtep. You realize this is all due to BushCo's overreaction to Bin Laden and 9/11. We have become who Bin Laden wanted US to be. Just one more way BushCo found to lose to this guy. How many possible ways could BushCo fuck this up??????
36OldSarge
Overreaction to 9/11? We should have done more than just toss a few cruise missiles prior to that. The pieces of the puzzle were there, no one in power wanted to put them together.
38geneg
Who should we have aimed those missiles at? The BushCo jerk-offs who didn't listen when told the biggest problem they faced was Al-Qaeda? Or how about the folks who didn't pay any attention to the information available, specifically concerns from the FBI that some people were reportedly learning to fly jumbo jets, but ignoring the takeoff and landing part? Or at the arrogant asshole who rejected the Hart-Rudman Report on Terror, because BushCo was "going to do their own study" which, of course, never got done.
No, 9/11 didn't have to happen. Let's aim some missiles at the ones who brought this upon US, all of them.
Yes, what BushCo did was overreact. The world didn't change on 9/11, the US was attacked in a perfectly predictable and predicted incident. This was a failure of arrogance and hubris as much as it was a success by OBL and crew. Let's bomb some of those assholes. We can bomb them back to the Constitution.
No, 9/11 didn't have to happen. Let's aim some missiles at the ones who brought this upon US, all of them.
Yes, what BushCo did was overreact. The world didn't change on 9/11, the US was attacked in a perfectly predictable and predicted incident. This was a failure of arrogance and hubris as much as it was a success by OBL and crew. Let's bomb some of those assholes. We can bomb them back to the Constitution.
39DirtPriest
Hey there geneg. I finally had a few minutes to type out a greeting to you after reading who knows how many of your posts both here and in the SciFi area. You would have loved my buddy John who sadly passed this last spring. We had so much fun reaming Bush and his cronies that the only way it could have been better was if he wasn't really in charge of anything and his whole presidency was a horrible yet funny TV show. We should have gotten an intellectual patent on BushCo years ago. That way, we wouldn't have needed jobs and could have charged you a penny to use such an obvious phrase. Ah well, the life of fat lazy stoners in Michigan. I can sum up John in one quick story. A few pals and I had been waiting for John to get home from work at one of the largest beer and liquor stores in Michigan. We finally heard him coming up the stairs to our third floor apartment just fuming into his phone all the way. 'Rick Santorum can eat my blank, F... Denny Hastert and his turtle head...' and so on. His berating of the right wing christian republicans continued as I let him in the door and carried on for at least a half an hour after. Finally he started turning from reddish to purple over Tom DeLay, Bill Frist and their bible thumping. 'I don't care what book whatever verse D and E say, this other book and verse says the opposite! Goddammit Ma you're not listening!!!' He had been going off on his seventy year old churchgoing mother for approaching an hour. She had been trying one last time to convince him that the right wing people are good at heart (even though she refused to vote for them) because they believe in the bible and Jesus and all that jazz, and he was trying to convince her that they all were slimebags who pretend to believe in that stuff just to get the church vote (see Reagan, daddy Bush and junior). Anyhoo, thanks for the entetaining reading over the lat few months and maybe I'll pipe up with some pithy comments at some time. I try to stay away from political arguments anymore because you'll never change anyone's mind and in fact usually make them even more firm in opposition. Plus, I can dissect a week's worth of news stories from two minutes of whatever Fox is pushing as an agenda. No need to watch MSNBC for 2 or 3 hours a day anymore.
40StormRaven
38: You do realize that the FBI puts out dozens, if not hundreds of warnings every day about stuff going on. The fact that one warning about airplane training didn't get reacted to is more a problem relating to the scale of the FBI's job than it is relating to the competence of incompetence of any individual. Sure, its easy to pick out that one in hindsight, but there were probably a dozen other possible threats identified on the same page so picking it out ahead of time would have been much more difficult.
And I don't think Bush didn't think al-Quaeda was a threat prior to 9-11. They just thought al-Quaeda would keep to its then current M.O. of trying to attack U.S. assets in Africa and the Middle-East. They didn't think that al-Quaeda had a sophisticated enough organizational structure to do what they ultimately did, which was a reasonable assumption given how fly-by-night their previous operations had been (take a look at how they organized the Kenyan and Tanzanian embassy bombings if you are curious).
And I don't think Bush didn't think al-Quaeda was a threat prior to 9-11. They just thought al-Quaeda would keep to its then current M.O. of trying to attack U.S. assets in Africa and the Middle-East. They didn't think that al-Quaeda had a sophisticated enough organizational structure to do what they ultimately did, which was a reasonable assumption given how fly-by-night their previous operations had been (take a look at how they organized the Kenyan and Tanzanian embassy bombings if you are curious).
41geneg
Everything BushCo did from the day they got in office until the day Bush finally brought in Gates as SecDef was emblematic of a level of gross arrogance and hubris that could not have ended any other way. The FBI report wasn't a cheap shot, it was the tip of the iceberg. These people had interest in only one thing: the welfare of the Oligarchy. They never had America's interests at heart (insofaras America consists of much more than the 1% they were protecting) they were cheats, thieves, liars, and totally and completely incompetent.
To quote a truly great American, "No brag, just fact".
Hey, dirtpriest, ain't it fun! BushCo excels at one thing in my mind and that is all the opportunities for catharsis.
To quote a truly great American, "No brag, just fact".
Hey, dirtpriest, ain't it fun! BushCo excels at one thing in my mind and that is all the opportunities for catharsis.
43geneg
this only tangentially belongs here, but it reminded me so much of myself I felt it appropriate. Consider my post at #41, then read this. I'm not the only one around here who sees BushCo for what they were.
44K.J.
40> I have personal experience with the FBI, and my experience with them was that they couldn't find their privates without a road map. Yes, it was a limited experience of a few months, but they were not the brightest bulbs on the tree. Now, the Mossad...
43> I agree with everything you say about BushCo, except the incompetence. They were right on target for ripping everyone off, and they did it just like they wanted. No slip-ups, and no financial losses and they left the whole mess in BO's lap. Seems very competent, when you look at it this way.
43> I agree with everything you say about BushCo, except the incompetence. They were right on target for ripping everyone off, and they did it just like they wanted. No slip-ups, and no financial losses and they left the whole mess in BO's lap. Seems very competent, when you look at it this way.
45K.J.
28> From personal experience, I can say that you would have more personal freedom and civil rights in Germany, as an American, than you currently have in the USA, as a citizen. That alone should scare you some. It does me.
46K.J.
14> I wonder how police in the rest of the world get their job done without pepper spray and tasers? If you taser a kid in Germany it is very likely that any man in the vicinity would assist with the relocation of your family jewels, with his foot. I know I would. When did police in America become so militaristic and unfeeling as to even consider tasering a child?
47K.J.
40> And I don't think Bush didn't think al-Quaeda was a threat prior to 9-11. They just thought al-Quaeda would keep to its then current M.O. of trying to attack U.S. assets in Africa and the Middle-East. They didn't think that al-Quaeda had a sophisticated enough organizational structure to do what they ultimately did, which was a reasonable assumption given how fly-by-night their previous operations had been (take a look at how they organized the Kenyan and Tanzanian embassy bombings if you are curious).
I don't wish to appear to be singling you out in several threads, so please don't take my disagreement personal.
I disagree with your assessment in this way: BushCo was given a briefing and sent documentation by more than one extremely qualified source, that this activity was pending and the perpetrators had every capability to carry out this task. I also disagree with your point that anything about the activities of the terrorists was fly-by-night at that time, given their substantial levels of success with their undertakings up to that date. They did manage to A) Kill people and destroy property, B) Get media attention for their cause, C) Gain support and financial aid for their cause. They lost any resemblance of fly-by-night during the Afghanistan/Russian conflict, thanks to the CIA's training and weapons supplies.
Did they make some mistakes along the way? Yes. Did BushCo make bigger ones subsequent to that time? It would appear that they did, and very expensive ones, in both money and lives.
Of course, this is all ignoring the other elephant in the room, that being the fact that the 'terrorists' of 911 had a bit of inside help. It is also not lost on many of us that several of the Saudis accused of being on the planes are still alive and have presented themselves in public, but that is a whole different kettle of poisson.
I don't wish to appear to be singling you out in several threads, so please don't take my disagreement personal.
I disagree with your assessment in this way: BushCo was given a briefing and sent documentation by more than one extremely qualified source, that this activity was pending and the perpetrators had every capability to carry out this task. I also disagree with your point that anything about the activities of the terrorists was fly-by-night at that time, given their substantial levels of success with their undertakings up to that date. They did manage to A) Kill people and destroy property, B) Get media attention for their cause, C) Gain support and financial aid for their cause. They lost any resemblance of fly-by-night during the Afghanistan/Russian conflict, thanks to the CIA's training and weapons supplies.
Did they make some mistakes along the way? Yes. Did BushCo make bigger ones subsequent to that time? It would appear that they did, and very expensive ones, in both money and lives.
Of course, this is all ignoring the other elephant in the room, that being the fact that the 'terrorists' of 911 had a bit of inside help. It is also not lost on many of us that several of the Saudis accused of being on the planes are still alive and have presented themselves in public, but that is a whole different kettle of poisson.
48K.J.
11> In Europe, you can find yourself being visited by the police for making politically-incorrect statements.
In which country is this the case?
In which country is this the case?
49StormRaven
I disagree with your assessment in this way: BushCo was given a briefing and sent documentation by more than one extremely qualified source, that this activity was pending and the perpetrators had every capability to carry out this task. I also disagree with your point that anything about the activities of the terrorists was fly-by-night at that time, given their substantial levels of success with their undertakings up to that date. They did manage to A) Kill people and destroy property, B) Get media attention for their cause, C) Gain support and financial aid for their cause. They lost any resemblance of fly-by-night during the Afghanistan/Russian conflict, thanks to the CIA's training and weapons supplies.
Just because they were successful doesn't mean their operations were anything more than fly-by-night. The Tanzanian and Kenyan embassy bombings were financed by the cell that did them with the equivalent of a convenience store robbery. One of the participants in the bombing who was supposed to clear the path by shooting guards forgot his gun along the way. If not for the tragic result, the operation would have been comedic in nature. The Cole bombing was done by a motorboat that you would use to go fishing on a weekend with. These are not sophisticated plots, nor are they anything that would rely upon "CIA training and weapons supplies". In point of fact, they relied upon local, homemade products, easy to find out how to make via the internet or any number of easily available books, specifically because they could be made on-site and without the need to be transported.
I've seen the publicly available portions of the briefings people refer to. They were so vague as to be almost useless before the fact. In hindsight you can pull the threads together and see what was going on, but if you cast yourself as someone with these prior to 9-11, I would be hard-pressed to think of anyone who would have come up with the correct answer.
Just because they were successful doesn't mean their operations were anything more than fly-by-night. The Tanzanian and Kenyan embassy bombings were financed by the cell that did them with the equivalent of a convenience store robbery. One of the participants in the bombing who was supposed to clear the path by shooting guards forgot his gun along the way. If not for the tragic result, the operation would have been comedic in nature. The Cole bombing was done by a motorboat that you would use to go fishing on a weekend with. These are not sophisticated plots, nor are they anything that would rely upon "CIA training and weapons supplies". In point of fact, they relied upon local, homemade products, easy to find out how to make via the internet or any number of easily available books, specifically because they could be made on-site and without the need to be transported.
I've seen the publicly available portions of the briefings people refer to. They were so vague as to be almost useless before the fact. In hindsight you can pull the threads together and see what was going on, but if you cast yourself as someone with these prior to 9-11, I would be hard-pressed to think of anyone who would have come up with the correct answer.
50K.J.
49> There were at least two who were eminently qualified and who gave expert advice to the White House, which Rice discounted and ignored. One of the men was an FBI expert in this area, who was subsequently killed on Sept 11, 2001, in one of the WTC towers.
The other was also inside the loop, and was ignored, and I will find his name for you, since you, too, seem to have forgotten about him. He pressed Rice and others to review his report, and they ignored his warnings. He was noted in the press, so I am sure you will recognize his name.
...anything that would rely upon "CIA training and weapons supplies".
I made this point in reference to the Afghanistan/Russian conflict, not in reference to your examples. I had thought that this was clear.
As for 'sophistication' in their attempts, I am sure the British army had the same thoughts about the American revolutionaries, at one time. The outcome was okay for the unsophisticated, though, yes? That's my point: they are being extremely successful, regardless of their lack of sophistication, which has also morphed into a very sophisticated enterprise, over the years.
I've seen the publicly available portions of the briefings people refer to. They were so vague as to be almost useless before the fact.
You don't actually expect BushCo to give us the full reports, and demonstrate that they may have chosen to ignore vitally important information, do you? Would you expect the redacted versions to be any less self-serving? Karl Rove would never have permitted this.
You must also consider the fact that they wanted to ignore the information. It gave them the 'Pearl Harbor' that Zbigniew said was needed, just a few months before 911. Tends to make one think a bit.
The other was also inside the loop, and was ignored, and I will find his name for you, since you, too, seem to have forgotten about him. He pressed Rice and others to review his report, and they ignored his warnings. He was noted in the press, so I am sure you will recognize his name.
...anything that would rely upon "CIA training and weapons supplies".
I made this point in reference to the Afghanistan/Russian conflict, not in reference to your examples. I had thought that this was clear.
As for 'sophistication' in their attempts, I am sure the British army had the same thoughts about the American revolutionaries, at one time. The outcome was okay for the unsophisticated, though, yes? That's my point: they are being extremely successful, regardless of their lack of sophistication, which has also morphed into a very sophisticated enterprise, over the years.
I've seen the publicly available portions of the briefings people refer to. They were so vague as to be almost useless before the fact.
You don't actually expect BushCo to give us the full reports, and demonstrate that they may have chosen to ignore vitally important information, do you? Would you expect the redacted versions to be any less self-serving? Karl Rove would never have permitted this.
You must also consider the fact that they wanted to ignore the information. It gave them the 'Pearl Harbor' that Zbigniew said was needed, just a few months before 911. Tends to make one think a bit.
51StormRaven
There were at least two who were eminently qualified and who gave expert advice to the White House, which Rice discounted and ignored. One of the men was an FBI expert in this area, who was subsequently killed on Sept 11, 2001, in one of the WTC towers.
The other was also inside the loop, and was ignored, and I will find his name for you, since you, too, seem to have forgotten about him. He pressed Rice and others to review his report, and they ignored his warnings. He was noted in the press, so I am sure you will recognize his name.
I note you didn't produce their names now.
I made this point in reference to the Afghanistan/Russian conflict, not in reference to your examples. I had thought that this was clear.
No, you were not, since your claim was made in response to the two examples I gave. I noted that the reasonable assumption a priori was that al-Quaeda would operate in a similar fashion to how it had done so to that point, and that their operations had demonstrated a fly-by-night character that made them seem less than serious as a threat, especially outside the middle-eastern region in which they had primarily been operating to that point.
You don't actually expect BushCo to give us the full reports, and demonstrate that they may have chosen to ignore vitally important information, do you? Would you expect the redacted versions to be any less self-serving? Karl Rove would never have permitted this.
Yes, and "BushCo" isn't in charge any more. I wonder how effective their powers at keeping things hidden still is? Oh wait, there's no new information pouring out of the government now? Hmm, I guess "BushCo" is controlling the Obama adminsitration too!
You must also consider the fact that they wanted to ignore the information. It gave them the 'Pearl Harbor' that Zbigniew said was needed, just a few months before 911. Tends to make one think a bit.
If one was a nutty conspiracy theorist I suppose. Which you have now outed yourself as. Which means you aren't worth bothering with.
The other was also inside the loop, and was ignored, and I will find his name for you, since you, too, seem to have forgotten about him. He pressed Rice and others to review his report, and they ignored his warnings. He was noted in the press, so I am sure you will recognize his name.
I note you didn't produce their names now.
I made this point in reference to the Afghanistan/Russian conflict, not in reference to your examples. I had thought that this was clear.
No, you were not, since your claim was made in response to the two examples I gave. I noted that the reasonable assumption a priori was that al-Quaeda would operate in a similar fashion to how it had done so to that point, and that their operations had demonstrated a fly-by-night character that made them seem less than serious as a threat, especially outside the middle-eastern region in which they had primarily been operating to that point.
You don't actually expect BushCo to give us the full reports, and demonstrate that they may have chosen to ignore vitally important information, do you? Would you expect the redacted versions to be any less self-serving? Karl Rove would never have permitted this.
Yes, and "BushCo" isn't in charge any more. I wonder how effective their powers at keeping things hidden still is? Oh wait, there's no new information pouring out of the government now? Hmm, I guess "BushCo" is controlling the Obama adminsitration too!
You must also consider the fact that they wanted to ignore the information. It gave them the 'Pearl Harbor' that Zbigniew said was needed, just a few months before 911. Tends to make one think a bit.
If one was a nutty conspiracy theorist I suppose. Which you have now outed yourself as. Which means you aren't worth bothering with.
52StormRaven
Of course, this is all ignoring the other elephant in the room, that being the fact that the 'terrorists' of 911 had a bit of inside help. It is also not lost on many of us that several of the Saudis accused of being on the planes are still alive and have presented themselves in public, but that is a whole different kettle of poisson.
And watch as all your credibility drains right away. None of the Saudis accused of being on the planes are alive. There were some cases of mistaken identity early, when several hijackers with common names were identified, but once their pictures were released, this cleared up immediately. And by "immediately", I mean eight years ago. That you still cling to this, and the "9-11 was an inside job" crap demonstrates that you really have no idea what you are talking about on any of this. And your opinions shouldn't matter to anyone who still has a brain in their head.
And watch as all your credibility drains right away. None of the Saudis accused of being on the planes are alive. There were some cases of mistaken identity early, when several hijackers with common names were identified, but once their pictures were released, this cleared up immediately. And by "immediately", I mean eight years ago. That you still cling to this, and the "9-11 was an inside job" crap demonstrates that you really have no idea what you are talking about on any of this. And your opinions shouldn't matter to anyone who still has a brain in their head.
53K.J.
52> I will suggest that you pull back from the personal attacks, if you wish to engage me in conversation. I haven't insulted you, and I will refrain from doing so, even in the face of your rudeness. It still amazes me that people will be so aggressive on the internet, when I know that in a face-to-face situation they would never dare to do so. Ease up, and try exhibiting some semblance of good manners.
You may find it hard to believe, which is evident from your rant, that 911 was an inside job. It was, and the proof is substantial. There is a great film about it, and I suggest that you watch it. I would even be willing to send you a copy, at my expense. If you can do more than just wave your hand in the air - one can only assume to whisk the bad thoughts away - then I suggest that you show us where they are wrong. In other words, prove your assertions. Popular Mechanics tried, and only came off looking foolish.
There is also an organization of credentialed men and women bringing this to question, as well: http://www.ae911truth.org/ . You can only join this group if you hold credentials for specific professions, so it will be difficult for you to dismiss them as wingnuts, although I have a sense that you will try to do so. After all, the Simon Wiesenthal Center portrayed this group as an 'online terrorist organization,' during a presentation to a congressional committee, thereby losing their credibility with many intelligent people.
I have a quote on one of my sites, and it seems pertinent to this discussion, now: "Sticking one's head in the sand does not prevent the tide from coming in."
PS - I loved the news mention of the passport of a terrorist that was found in the rubble of the WTC. That was surreal.
You may find it hard to believe, which is evident from your rant, that 911 was an inside job. It was, and the proof is substantial. There is a great film about it, and I suggest that you watch it. I would even be willing to send you a copy, at my expense. If you can do more than just wave your hand in the air - one can only assume to whisk the bad thoughts away - then I suggest that you show us where they are wrong. In other words, prove your assertions. Popular Mechanics tried, and only came off looking foolish.
There is also an organization of credentialed men and women bringing this to question, as well: http://www.ae911truth.org/ . You can only join this group if you hold credentials for specific professions, so it will be difficult for you to dismiss them as wingnuts, although I have a sense that you will try to do so. After all, the Simon Wiesenthal Center portrayed this group as an 'online terrorist organization,' during a presentation to a congressional committee, thereby losing their credibility with many intelligent people.
I have a quote on one of my sites, and it seems pertinent to this discussion, now: "Sticking one's head in the sand does not prevent the tide from coming in."
PS - I loved the news mention of the passport of a terrorist that was found in the rubble of the WTC. That was surreal.
54StormRaven
I will suggest that you pull back from the personal attacks, if you wish to engage me in conversation.
Why would one want to engage in a conversation with a 911 conspiracy theory wingnut?
You may find it hard to believe, which is evident from your rant, that 911 was an inside job. It was, and the proof is substantial. There is a great film about it, and I suggest that you watch it. I would even be willing to send you a copy, at my expense. If you can do more than just wave your hand in the air - one can only assume to whisk the bad thoughts away - then I suggest that you show us where they are wrong. In other words, prove your assertions. Popular Mechanics tried, and only came off looking foolish.
Popular Mechanics made the conspiracy theorists look like they had their heads up their asses. Which they do. Which film do you think gives "substantial" proof? Thus far, no proof has been produced.
There is also an organization of credentialed men and women bringing this to question, as well: http://www.ae911truth.org/ . You can only join this group if you hold credentials for specific professions, so it will be difficult for you to dismiss them as wingnuts, although I have a sense that you will try to do so. After all, the Simon Wiesenthal Center portrayed this group as an 'online terrorist organization,' during a presentation to a congressional committee, thereby losing their credibility with many intelligent people.
Oh good. Cite an internet wingut site, and then try to claim they have "professional credentials so they aren't internet wingnuts". Real convincing. I shoudl refer you to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, where you can find some actual experts who find the guys you cite to be idiots. Every conspiracy theory relies upon faulty science, imagined orders that cannot be substantiated, or which are contradicted in testimony, and out and out goofyness. The controlled demolition theory, which your website clings to is about the silliest one out there, there is no evidence that it was done, there was no evidence of any controlled explosions, the towers certainly didn't fall in a manner consistent with a controlled demolition (I've been to the site, the idea that the towers fell straight down is simply laughable, they fell and damaged most of the buildings around them by falling onto them). Every conspiracy theory on 9-11 has been debunked over and over, and yet uts on the internet still try to cling to them.
And no, the "professional credentials" of the site you posted don't really hold much sway. The Discovery Institute managed to get 500 "scientists" to sign a letter saying evolution was false. That doesn't make their position any less looney. Nor does the fact that few hundred "engineering professionals" and a few thousand "engineering students" (how do they determine that) singed a wacky internet site make 9-11 conspiracy theory less looney.
Basically, you're a non-serious person. And not worth any more time.
Why would one want to engage in a conversation with a 911 conspiracy theory wingnut?
You may find it hard to believe, which is evident from your rant, that 911 was an inside job. It was, and the proof is substantial. There is a great film about it, and I suggest that you watch it. I would even be willing to send you a copy, at my expense. If you can do more than just wave your hand in the air - one can only assume to whisk the bad thoughts away - then I suggest that you show us where they are wrong. In other words, prove your assertions. Popular Mechanics tried, and only came off looking foolish.
Popular Mechanics made the conspiracy theorists look like they had their heads up their asses. Which they do. Which film do you think gives "substantial" proof? Thus far, no proof has been produced.
There is also an organization of credentialed men and women bringing this to question, as well: http://www.ae911truth.org/ . You can only join this group if you hold credentials for specific professions, so it will be difficult for you to dismiss them as wingnuts, although I have a sense that you will try to do so. After all, the Simon Wiesenthal Center portrayed this group as an 'online terrorist organization,' during a presentation to a congressional committee, thereby losing their credibility with many intelligent people.
Oh good. Cite an internet wingut site, and then try to claim they have "professional credentials so they aren't internet wingnuts". Real convincing. I shoudl refer you to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, where you can find some actual experts who find the guys you cite to be idiots. Every conspiracy theory relies upon faulty science, imagined orders that cannot be substantiated, or which are contradicted in testimony, and out and out goofyness. The controlled demolition theory, which your website clings to is about the silliest one out there, there is no evidence that it was done, there was no evidence of any controlled explosions, the towers certainly didn't fall in a manner consistent with a controlled demolition (I've been to the site, the idea that the towers fell straight down is simply laughable, they fell and damaged most of the buildings around them by falling onto them). Every conspiracy theory on 9-11 has been debunked over and over, and yet uts on the internet still try to cling to them.
And no, the "professional credentials" of the site you posted don't really hold much sway. The Discovery Institute managed to get 500 "scientists" to sign a letter saying evolution was false. That doesn't make their position any less looney. Nor does the fact that few hundred "engineering professionals" and a few thousand "engineering students" (how do they determine that) singed a wacky internet site make 9-11 conspiracy theory less looney.
Basically, you're a non-serious person. And not worth any more time.
55K.J.
54> Your lack of understanding the facts of the events of 911 is overwhelming. There is a section of dialogue in my second book, The Other Lamb to be published later this year that seems suitable, here:
The man paused in front of Kristophe, and while looking into his eyes, he spoke clearly and with a touch of anger in his tone:
"I do not believe in this god you speak of."
Zach waited for Kristophe to reply, but the boy remained silent and held the man's gaze until he turned and walked away from them.
"Why did you say nothing?" he asked, when the man was out of earshot.
Kristophe turned to him and asked:
"What would you say to a man who told you there was no sky?"
The man paused in front of Kristophe, and while looking into his eyes, he spoke clearly and with a touch of anger in his tone:
"I do not believe in this god you speak of."
Zach waited for Kristophe to reply, but the boy remained silent and held the man's gaze until he turned and walked away from them.
"Why did you say nothing?" he asked, when the man was out of earshot.
Kristophe turned to him and asked:
"What would you say to a man who told you there was no sky?"
56StormRaven
Your lack of understanding the facts of the events of 911 is overwhelming.
Which facts? You mean the ones conspiracy theorist made up? The ones that have been shown time and agin to be complete and utter bullshit? The stuff you think is real? I suppose you think fairies are real too. There's as much evidence for them as for the "9-11 was an inside job" silliness.
Let's see you substantiate your "people who were supposed to be terrorists on the plane have been seen alive after the fact" claim. That's been bandied about for a while, but it was shown to be false almost immediately. That you cling to it shows me that you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
Which facts? You mean the ones conspiracy theorist made up? The ones that have been shown time and agin to be complete and utter bullshit? The stuff you think is real? I suppose you think fairies are real too. There's as much evidence for them as for the "9-11 was an inside job" silliness.
Let's see you substantiate your "people who were supposed to be terrorists on the plane have been seen alive after the fact" claim. That's been bandied about for a while, but it was shown to be false almost immediately. That you cling to it shows me that you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
57K.J.
56> I'm done, here, SR. There is no more for me to say. Give it a rest, and take my suggestion. Au revoir.
58StormRaven
I'm done, here, SR. There is no more for me to say.
In other words, when asked to provide evidence to support one of the most thoroughly debunked theories going, you run away. How typical.
9-11 conspiracy theorists occupy the same intellectual ground as birthers, moon landing hoax theorists, Creationists, and Holocaust deniers. Enjoy the nutty crowd you've chosen. Not that K.J. will care, but here is a run down of the responses to the nutty "9-11 truthers" (courtesy of Wikipedia):
Neither of the "debunking Popular Mechanics" articles makes much sense, by the way.
In other words, when asked to provide evidence to support one of the most thoroughly debunked theories going, you run away. How typical.
9-11 conspiracy theorists occupy the same intellectual ground as birthers, moon landing hoax theorists, Creationists, and Holocaust deniers. Enjoy the nutty crowd you've chosen. Not that K.J. will care, but here is a run down of the responses to the nutty "9-11 truthers" (courtesy of Wikipedia):
Critics of these conspiracy theories say they are a form of conspiracism common throughout history after a traumatic event in which conspiracy theories emerge as a mythic form of explanation. A related criticism addresses the form of research on which the theories are based. Thomas W. Eagar, an engineering professor at MIT, suggested they "use the 'reverse scientific method'. They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion." Eagar's criticisms also exemplify a common stance that the theories are best ignored. "I've told people that if the argument gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." This, he continues, happened when Steve Jones took up the issue.
Michael Shermer, writing in Scientific American, said: "The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking. All the evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."
Scientific American, Popular Mechanics, and The Skeptic's Dictionary have published articles that rebut various 9/11 conspiracy theories. Proponents of these conspiracy theories have attacked the contribution to the Popular Mechanics article by senior researcher Ben Chertoff, who they say is a cousin of Michael Chertoff — former head of Homeland Security. However, U.S. News says no actual connection has been revealed and Ben Chertoff has denied the allegation. Popular Mechanics has published a book entitled Debunking 9/11 Myths that expands upon the research first presented in the article. In the foreword for the book Senator John McCain wrote that blaming the U.S. government for the events "mars the memories of all those lost on that day" and "exploits the public's anger and sadness. It shakes Americans' faith in their government at a time when that faith is already near an all-time low. It trafficks in ugly, unfounded accusations of extraordinary evil against fellow Americans." Der Spiegel dismissed 9/11 conspiracy theories as a "panoply of the absurd", stating "as diverse as these theories and their adherents may be, they share a basic thought pattern: great tragedies must have great reasons." David Ray Griffin has published a book entitled Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory, and Jim Hoffman has written an article called "popular mechanics assault on 9/11 truth" where he attacks the methods Popular Mechanics uses in forming their arguments.
Journalist Matt Taibbi, in his book The Great Derangement, discusses 9/11 conspiracy theories as symptomatic of what he calls the "derangement" of American society; a disconnection from reality due to widespread "disgust with our political system". Drawing a parallel with the Charismatic movement, he argues that both "chose to battle bugbears that were completely idiotic, fanciful, and imaginary," instead of taking control of their own lives. While critical, Taibbi explains that 9/11 conspiracy theories are different from "Clinton-era black-helicopter paranoia", and constitute more than "a small, scattered group of nutcases they really were, just as they claim to be, almost everyone you meet.". Taibbi also argued that 9/11 conspiracy theorists form "completely and utterly retarded" narratives to explain the attacks because of "defiant unfamiliarity with the actual character of America's ruling class".
Historian Kenneth J. Dillon argues that 9/11 conspiracy theories represent an overly easy target for skeptics and that their criticisms obfuscate the underlying issue of what actually happened if there wasn't a conspiracy. He suggests that the answer is criminal negligence on the part of the president and vice president, who were repeatedly warned, followed by a cover-up conspiracy after 9/11. This was expanded upon by columnist Matt Mankelow writing for the Socialist Workers Online. He concludes that 9/11 truthers while "desperately trying to legitimately question a version of events" end up playing into the hands of the neoconservatives they are trying to take down by creating a diversion. Mankelow noted that this has irritated many people who are politically left wing.
British historian Antony Beevor wrote in January 2009 that "studies of internet sites reveal an unholy alliance between left-wing 9/11 conspiracy theorists, right-wing Holocaust deniers and Islamic fundamentalists". He claimed that 9/11 and other conspiracy theories are a result of a "Wikipedia age" phenomenon that author Damian Thompson dubbed "counterknowledge". It allegedly involves people "seizing upon one or two minor discrepancies in a government report, then joining up all the wrong dots to create a monstrous fable". He believes "counterknowledge" is potentially greater threat to liberal democracy than Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.
David Aaronovitch, a columnist for The Times, in his book entitled The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History that was published in May 2009, claimed that the theories strain credulity. Aaronovitch also charged that 9/11 conspiracy theorists have exaggerated the expertise of those supporting their theories, and noted that 9/11 conspiracy theorists including David Ray Griffin cross cite each other."
Neither of the "debunking Popular Mechanics" articles makes much sense, by the way.
59Doug1943
#48:
Here.
And here.
And here.
And here.
And here.
And here.
Unfortunately, Europeans (and Canadians) don't have the robust attitude to free speech that Americans do. Of course, the American Left would love to bring in laws against speech they don't like, and have had some success on campuses where they have power.
So far, though, even in Europe, although if you say politically-incorrect things you may get a visit from the police, or even brought to court, juries have generally acquitted the accused.
But the chilling effect is real. (Of course, if you were to make a film attacking Islam, you might want to be under police protection ... but hardly anyone will dare do that now. There won't be an Islamic Life of Brian produced in Europe. And even Yale University Press has decided to censor itself where something that might offend Muslims is concerned.)
Here.
And here.
And here.
And here.
And here.
And here.
Unfortunately, Europeans (and Canadians) don't have the robust attitude to free speech that Americans do. Of course, the American Left would love to bring in laws against speech they don't like, and have had some success on campuses where they have power.
So far, though, even in Europe, although if you say politically-incorrect things you may get a visit from the police, or even brought to court, juries have generally acquitted the accused.
But the chilling effect is real. (Of course, if you were to make a film attacking Islam, you might want to be under police protection ... but hardly anyone will dare do that now. There won't be an Islamic Life of Brian produced in Europe. And even Yale University Press has decided to censor itself where something that might offend Muslims is concerned.)
60K.J.
59> I see you included Canada and the UK in the examples, although only two are directly related to religion.
I have no issue with people making jokes about transgendered people, or anything else, as long as they are not denigrated. Humour is humour, and we all get a chuckle out of many different things. To laugh at the image of a black man hanging from a tree would be reprehensible, to me, so we do have to have some boundaries. Good manners should be the determining factor.
I have no issue with people making jokes about transgendered people, or anything else, as long as they are not denigrated. Humour is humour, and we all get a chuckle out of many different things. To laugh at the image of a black man hanging from a tree would be reprehensible, to me, so we do have to have some boundaries. Good manners should be the determining factor.
61K.J.
58> I hadn't really wanted to get into a discussion about 911, and this isn't really the forum for that, so either you can set up a new forum for it, or you can just let this disappear, but I will not be continuing with it in this forum, after this post.
My response to your note: I am not surprised by your selection of articles to post in rebuttal, but they are weak. My offer to send you a copy of the film stands, and I suggest you begin with the link to the Architects and Engineers page for technical information. However, I would caution you to keep your comments civil, over there. Those guys build things, and they know how to tear them down, if you get my drift.
My response to your note: I am not surprised by your selection of articles to post in rebuttal, but they are weak. My offer to send you a copy of the film stands, and I suggest you begin with the link to the Architects and Engineers page for technical information. However, I would caution you to keep your comments civil, over there. Those guys build things, and they know how to tear them down, if you get my drift.
62Doug1943
KJ: I suspect all of the people who were visited by the police, or even brought to trial, were/are unpleasant people, and the things that they said/wrote were silly, reprehensible, wicked, etc.
But Europeans generally believe that it is okay to imprison someone for saying/writing wicked things -- i.e. things the Authorities say are wicked -- and Americans generally do not. This is why Europeans consider themselves more civilized than us. That, plus Universal Health Care.
But Europeans generally believe that it is okay to imprison someone for saying/writing wicked things -- i.e. things the Authorities say are wicked -- and Americans generally do not. This is why Europeans consider themselves more civilized than us. That, plus Universal Health Care.
63K.J.
62> I tend to agree with you about Europe governing speech to some degree, and I think in some ways they do not want to see a repeat of a segment of society being singled out and demonized. The memories of the past have not faded, yet.
The positive from that is that persons like myself can live more freely here, and during my time in Europe I have never encountered a negative comment nor any other uncomfortable situation because of my lifestyle. I share a studio for my work in a small, country village, and even the locals have never exhibited anything that was not just normal everyday behaviour - which in Deutschland can be rather interesting for anyone not used to the normal behaviour.
Universal Health care: I cannot tell you what a difference that has made in my life. I only hope you folks can convince the powers that be to give you the same option. Our system is not perfect, but after several ambulance rides, three surgeries, two visits to a klinik for two-week stretches of rehab (read: spa) and numerous other surprises, I can tell you that I did not have to sell the car and hock the jewels, nor am I bankrupt.
The negative from this is you cannot 'shoot the bird' to idiot motorists who haven't yet grasped the concept of sharing the road. If they report your license tag, you get a ticket in the mail for doing this. Yeah, that sucks, and no, they have not caught me, yet.
The positive from that is that persons like myself can live more freely here, and during my time in Europe I have never encountered a negative comment nor any other uncomfortable situation because of my lifestyle. I share a studio for my work in a small, country village, and even the locals have never exhibited anything that was not just normal everyday behaviour - which in Deutschland can be rather interesting for anyone not used to the normal behaviour.
Universal Health care: I cannot tell you what a difference that has made in my life. I only hope you folks can convince the powers that be to give you the same option. Our system is not perfect, but after several ambulance rides, three surgeries, two visits to a klinik for two-week stretches of rehab (read: spa) and numerous other surprises, I can tell you that I did not have to sell the car and hock the jewels, nor am I bankrupt.
The negative from this is you cannot 'shoot the bird' to idiot motorists who haven't yet grasped the concept of sharing the road. If they report your license tag, you get a ticket in the mail for doing this. Yeah, that sucks, and no, they have not caught me, yet.
64StormRaven
My response to your note: I am not surprised by your selection of articles to post in rebuttal, but they are weak. My offer to send you a copy of the film stands, and I suggest you begin with the link to the Architects and Engineers page for technical information. However, I would caution you to keep your comments civil, over there. Those guys build things, and they know how to tear them down, if you get my drift.
Please. The guys "over there" wouldn't know their asses from a hole in the ground. The NIST has demonstrated that they haven't got a clue what they are talking about. As have actual experts in the structural engineering field. Seriously, if you are going to cite wingut theories, you should have better evidence than a bunch of discredited crackpots.
I also note that you haven't substantiated the specific claim you made in this thread that several of the hijackers identified by the FBI are still alive. Instead, you've gone on a tangent about a movie that has no credibility (because all of its claims have been debunked) and a crackpot organization that is only amazing for the paltry number of members. The American Society of Civil Engineers has 144,000 members. The group you cited has a couple hundred. Yeah, that's a convincing bunch.
Please. The guys "over there" wouldn't know their asses from a hole in the ground. The NIST has demonstrated that they haven't got a clue what they are talking about. As have actual experts in the structural engineering field. Seriously, if you are going to cite wingut theories, you should have better evidence than a bunch of discredited crackpots.
I also note that you haven't substantiated the specific claim you made in this thread that several of the hijackers identified by the FBI are still alive. Instead, you've gone on a tangent about a movie that has no credibility (because all of its claims have been debunked) and a crackpot organization that is only amazing for the paltry number of members. The American Society of Civil Engineers has 144,000 members. The group you cited has a couple hundred. Yeah, that's a convincing bunch.
66K.J.
65> I think you will find that there are protections in place to prevent that from happening, here.
I would find the possibility that one man can remove my rights as a citizen much more disturbing, merely by calling me an 'enemy combatant,' and without presenting immediate evidence to back up such a claim.
I would find the possibility that one man can remove my rights as a citizen much more disturbing, merely by calling me an 'enemy combatant,' and without presenting immediate evidence to back up such a claim.
67Doug1943
Ultimately, if the state is so corrupt, so rotten, so full of dishonest men, that it can just ignore its own laws and regulations, then it doesn't matter very much what those laws are. This is more or less the state of affairs in much of the Third World, where the general mass of the population is too downtrodden and ignorant to enforce honest behavior on their rulers.
But as wealth and the increased education that goes along with it spread, then the people who run the state have to be more accountable. It also becomes possible to do well in life without getting a government sinecure. Modern communications also make it harder for wicked people to get away with doing wicked things.
If the American state were peopled by the kind of men who run Iran or North Korea or Cuba, then we would indeed be in trouble. Perceived enemies of the state could be tried for treason, and the actual facts of the case wouldn't make much difference.
If it were peopled by Japanese, or New Zealanders, or Frenchmen, it would be a different story. We could expect the laws to be upheld, and generally -- not always! -- for the innocent to go free.
For the demagogues and logic-choppers, I hasten to add: there is not a binary divide between states with the rule of law, and states without it. The rule of law has been growing stronger in the US over the last few decades, and it is growing stronger in most countries around the world.
The people who get hysterical about perceived, or real, miscarriages of justice in the US, or who discern a looming threat which will extinguish our freedom, are actually hampering the growth of the rule of law, because they reinforce the idea that it doesn't exist anywhere, e.g. there is no difference between a democracy and a police state. And at least some of the hysterics are secret admirers of certain police states, which is their real motivation for denigrating the democracies.
But as wealth and the increased education that goes along with it spread, then the people who run the state have to be more accountable. It also becomes possible to do well in life without getting a government sinecure. Modern communications also make it harder for wicked people to get away with doing wicked things.
If the American state were peopled by the kind of men who run Iran or North Korea or Cuba, then we would indeed be in trouble. Perceived enemies of the state could be tried for treason, and the actual facts of the case wouldn't make much difference.
If it were peopled by Japanese, or New Zealanders, or Frenchmen, it would be a different story. We could expect the laws to be upheld, and generally -- not always! -- for the innocent to go free.
For the demagogues and logic-choppers, I hasten to add: there is not a binary divide between states with the rule of law, and states without it. The rule of law has been growing stronger in the US over the last few decades, and it is growing stronger in most countries around the world.
The people who get hysterical about perceived, or real, miscarriages of justice in the US, or who discern a looming threat which will extinguish our freedom, are actually hampering the growth of the rule of law, because they reinforce the idea that it doesn't exist anywhere, e.g. there is no difference between a democracy and a police state. And at least some of the hysterics are secret admirers of certain police states, which is their real motivation for denigrating the democracies.
69readafew
When we start giving someone the power to pick and choose who gets to be protected by law and who does not, I think that is opening up a dangerous can of worms. Sooner or later someone WILL use it for nefarious purposes under the guise of "National Security". We most likely won't even know it's happened because once declared an enemy combatant they have no rights and can 'disappear'.
Maybe I missed it, is the president required to inform anyone group of people other than the arresting body that someone has been deemed an 'enemy combatant'? As much as I am against the whole thing that would make me feel a little better knowing that we can find out who has been classified such and make a big stink if it is obviously being abused.
Maybe I missed it, is the president required to inform anyone group of people other than the arresting body that someone has been deemed an 'enemy combatant'? As much as I am against the whole thing that would make me feel a little better knowing that we can find out who has been classified such and make a big stink if it is obviously being abused.
70K.J.
69> I would have to refer you to the Military Commissions Act, of 2006 for that answer, and the findings of the Supreme Court of about two weeks ago, last Monday, when they upheld the President's right declare a citizen an 'enemy combatant,' and incarcerate him/her for an indefinite period, while hindering access to legal counsel.
My understanding of it is that even if someone were to be informed, and I do not believe the government is under any obligation to notify a next of kin that you are being detained, they would not find it easy to locate you, nor to get visiting privileges.
(edited, typo)
My understanding of it is that even if someone were to be informed, and I do not believe the government is under any obligation to notify a next of kin that you are being detained, they would not find it easy to locate you, nor to get visiting privileges.
(edited, typo)
71K.J.
68> The USA did not just ban minarets. Switzerland did.
I think you would find that Switzerland is rather different than the rest of Europe in many ways.
There is some censorship and although I don't like censorship in any form, I have examined what I perceive as the motivation for the censorship I witness in Germany, and I get that it is more a 'forced good manners' attitude with most things. They do not take for granted that people will always do the right thing, so they tell them to do so. It goes along with the 'Good Samaritan' rule here, where you must stop when you encounter an accident, and provide whatever relief you can. All cars are required to have an up to date medical emergency kit in their car (those of you in the States who have a Benz will be familiar with this accessory) and you must take a lifesaving course to get your license. Some rules are good, and it is not as if our speech was being totally censored. At least our print and television news is real, and that is a blessing not to be ignored.
I think you would find that Switzerland is rather different than the rest of Europe in many ways.
There is some censorship and although I don't like censorship in any form, I have examined what I perceive as the motivation for the censorship I witness in Germany, and I get that it is more a 'forced good manners' attitude with most things. They do not take for granted that people will always do the right thing, so they tell them to do so. It goes along with the 'Good Samaritan' rule here, where you must stop when you encounter an accident, and provide whatever relief you can. All cars are required to have an up to date medical emergency kit in their car (those of you in the States who have a Benz will be familiar with this accessory) and you must take a lifesaving course to get your license. Some rules are good, and it is not as if our speech was being totally censored. At least our print and television news is real, and that is a blessing not to be ignored.
72readafew
70 > I knew the damn thing existed. I guess I was unclear, though what you wrote implies what I thought. The president doesn't have to tell anyone except your jailers that you are an enemy combatant.
ETA: I guess my whole point is, if a law allows something (no matter how much people think "No one will ever use it for that") some one WILL use it for "that".
ETA: I guess my whole point is, if a law allows something (no matter how much people think "No one will ever use it for that") some one WILL use it for "that".
75Mr.Durick
How one man reacted virtuously:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012202273_...
Robert
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012202273_...
Robert
76prehencil_pencil
@13
And they say porn is obscene. I can't believe the level of anger and outright hatred rising in me. I'm literally shaking with rage. Those Oregon monsters (even the word pigs would be too nice of a derrogetory word for what they are) killed that burned and injured man for no reason.
edit: I had to stop watching after that..............
And they say porn is obscene. I can't believe the level of anger and outright hatred rising in me. I'm literally shaking with rage. Those Oregon monsters (even the word pigs would be too nice of a derrogetory word for what they are) killed that burned and injured man for no reason.
edit: I had to stop watching after that..............
