Of course the Islamists are hiding behind civilians!

In the hubbub over Afghan civilian deaths due to a misplaced rocket attack, comes this story from the front page of today’s Philadelphia Inquirer:


Taliban using civilians as shields


As U.S. and Afghan forces try to prevent civilian deaths in Marjah, enemy holdouts are fighting amid its citizens.
By Alfred De Montesquiou and Rahim Faiez, Associated Press

MARJAH, Afghanistan – Taliban fighters holding out in Marjah are increasingly using civilians as human shields, firing from compounds where U.S. and Afghan forces can clearly see women and children on rooftops or in windows, Afghan and U.S. troops said yesterday.

The intermingling of fighters and civilians, they said, is part of a Taliban effort to exploit strict NATO rules against endangering innocent lives to impede the allied advance through the town in Helmand province, 380 miles southwest of Kabul.

Two more NATO service members were killed in the Marjah operation yesterday, the alliance said in a statement without identifying them by nationality.

Their deaths brought to six NATO service members and one Afghan soldier killed since the attack on Marjah, the hub of the Taliban’s southern logistics and drug-smuggling network, began Saturday. About 40 insurgents have been killed, Helmand Gov. Gulab Mangal said.

In five days of fighting, the Taliban has also shown a side not often seen in nearly a decade of American military action in Afghanistan: the use of snipers, both working alone and integrated into guerrilla-style ambushes.

Almost every American and Afghan infantryman present has had frightening close calls. Some of the shooting has apparently been from Kalashnikov machine guns, the Marines say, mixed with sniper fire.

War is hell, and not only for the warriors: civilians die as well. But this is an old tactic: the Palestinian fighters in Gaza and the West Bank use it, the Viet Cong used it, really anybody who wants to hide from a superior, concentrated force can use it, if that force is making efforts to not kill non-combatants. Then, of course, the civilized West will cry about civilian casualties, and many — including some of the commenters here — will say that the civilian deaths are a reason we shouldn’t fight the war at all.

If we surrender to such logic, then it means any group which is willing to hide amongst the civilian population automatically wins.

240 Comments

  1. According to the Economist, we’ve been advertising the Marjah attack for the past month or so. We’ve basically been telling Marjah residents that an attack is coming so that civilians can get the heck out (if Taliban get out, it’s okay – strategically it’s more important to us to control and pacify the Marjah area than to kill Taliban). So my question is this – why the hell are there still civilians in Marjah?

    Though I wouldn’t panic yet. We’ve been making pretty good progress in Afghanistan the past month or so. No need to call our new tactics a failure yet.

  2. Dana: “If we surrender to such logic, then it means any group which is willing to hide amongst the civilian population automatically wins.”

    No, it means that we have to do due diligence to find non-violent/non-lethal means to achieve resolutions/compromises, and we have!

    We have, according to Fareed Zakaria, Conservative CNN commenter, International Editor of Newsweek, in the February 12,2010 issue of Newsweek, his commentary entitled: “The Jihad Against the Jihadis” You can read it right here.

    Here, Zakaria makes the case that moderate Muslims worldwide have been empowered in the last few years. This is fantastic news!!!

  3. Jeff: “…why the hell are there still civilians in Marjah?”

    Can you live off the land? I don’t think I can. Certainly couldn’t in the litter box they call a country. You may brag about your hunting skillz, but if a helicopter sees you running out in the wilderness with a rifle… well, you’ve become a terrorist in their sights.

    The thing about a resistance movement is, not only do they have to hide within the population (just as the Minutemen did,) but they essentially are the population. The degree of anger is the only separation between citizen and terrorist/freedom fighter, and that can change on a daily basis. You can either hunt that by killing every last civilian, or convince them all that you’re not the enemy. Conservatives tend to look at the latter technique as appeasement. That leaves you with only genocide or some aimless, endless killing spree.

    Can you guess how the arms manufacturers would prefer things to go? I’ll give you a hint. It involves money.

  4. You are so right, Nangleator!

    In an attempt to form an opinion about an issue, it is essential, in my view, to examine the perspective of the other side.

    Imagine your reaction if, being a resident in some inner city, you were ordered to leave you home for an indefinite period while the authorities performed some kind of a criminal sweep. Where would you go, what would you do, how could you support your family, ….

    Yet apparently this is what the residents of Marjah were expected to do.

    We (& NATO) are a foreign military, having invaded their space in search of OUR enemies, giving orders to the civilian locals to evacuate their homes, without any guarantee whatsoever that things at home will ever be the same again. What would be our reaction were this to happen right here in River City? Moreover, is it possible that the locals like Taliban rule?

  5. Most probably the Taliban would not let them leave so the Taliban had its ready made news story of the Brutal Americans killing innocent civilians.

  6. If we were not there, then we would not be killing innocent civilians.

    That said, my impression is that we go way out of our way to avoid civilian casualties, putting our own troops in greater danger in the process.

    From the viewpoint of the locals, might it not be better if we were not there at all? Do we know their answer to this question?

  7. If we were not there, then we would not be killing innocent civilians.

    Seems to me, arguing whether we “Should be” there is a bit moot. Point is, we ARE there, and as long as we’re going to BE there, then we should fight to win.

  8. And there we are with the ‘win’ word again. Genocide or convert them to friends? Which is it? Anything in between is just dicking around, earning profits for our corporate overlords.

  9. No, Eric, the fundamental decision is whether or not we should be there.

    What would your position be if a foreign power opted to fight their war on our soil. Your answer is obvious.

    How about looking from the perspective of the Afghan people who must vacate their homes and villages to avoid the clash between the Taliban and the NATO forces? You never consider them, Eric! It’s all about us, correct?

  10. If we leave will the terrorists put down their guns and not want to destroy the US?

    Better yet, if we left the middle east entirely,would the muslim world not hate us?

  11. Maybe we should return Afghanistan back to how it was in 2001? You know when the Taliban was about a backward nation as you can get. Let them let Al-Q revive, restock, and retrain. Let women be treated worst than cattle. Let the stadiums become torture grounds of public games of death sentences. Let the Taliban destroy all the cultures of the past. What a great place to live in. I think it would be the best thing to happen. That way the Taliban will have thousands in their bloodbath who may have helped us, or even perceived. Perry and Nag think it was a great place then. It was if you were a sadist.

  12. h.:

    Our focus should be on defending our borders, not on fighting our wars on the lands of other sovereign nations.

    And yes, I think the Muslim world would be more cooperative with us. Most of the Muslim world is moderate anyway. In spite of our hostilities, the moderate Muslim world has responded in a positive manner in the last four or five years, as you can see right here, in a rather surprising revelation!

  13. Yorkshire:

    Is that really the way it was in Afghanistan?

    The natives have been the target of foreign nation intervention for decades, now us and NATO being the latest, following the Brits, then the Russians.

    I keep saying, it is up to the Afghans to determine what kind of a country they want, just as it has been up to us to do the same. Self-determination: Isn’t that a conservative mantra, Yorkshire?

    From what I read, the Taliban is not very popular, so in our absence, I doubt that there would be the place which you describe.

    And note well, we were not too great the way we treated our women and our blacks times past. What would have been our reaction should a foreign power have intervened back then?

    I am not saying that we should have no role when we see human rights abuses, but to intervene militarily, no, that’s wrong, and even empowers the abusers.

    Again, the point is, that is their choice to make, not ours!

  14. Perry, Nangleator, we’ve set up temporary camps for people who leave Marjah in nearby towns. Think of it as an Afghan version of what the Astrodome became after Katrina. So we’re not just telling them to leave without giving them somewhere to go, which I agree would be foolishness. (In fact, I’d argue that we’ve done better by them than we did by the New Orleanians who had to leave their hometown, but that’s another rant for another day.)

    And Nangleator posed this dialectic:

    You can either hunt that by killing every last civilian, or convince them all that you’re not the enemy.

    Problem is, we have to both a) hunt anti-government insurgents and b) convince the rest of the population to not join said insurgency. That’s the purpose behind the “clear, hold, build” strategy, but you’ll note that the first step is to clear. Civilians will never trust us if insurgents are blowing things up left and right, no matter how much we try to make nice. Why? Because they’re not any safer for our presence.

    If we demonstrate that our presence brings greater stability and a better life to the Afghan people – and if we go out of our way to avoid killing civilians while showing that the Taliban don’t care the way we do (that means no more easily screwed-up drone attacks, people) – they’ll be okay with our temporary presence and begin to support us. It worked in Iraq, it can work in Afghanistan.

  15. No, Eric, the fundamental decision is whether or not we should be there.

    That decision was made 8 years ago, so arguing that point is academic at best. Indeed, I think there was only one or two votes in the entire US Congress against going into Afghanistan, so it’s not like there wasn’t overwhelming support for going in there and hitting the Taliban and Al-Q hard. And of course NATO joined us as well, making it a genuine international effort.

  16. What would your position be if a foreign power opted to fight their war on our soil. Your answer is obvious.

    But that’s moral equivalency again. You seem to have forgotten the reason we went into Afghanistan in the first place. Something about the Taliban hiding and protecting the terror group that attacked us on 9/11? You know, remember that??

  17. Nangleator:
    And there we are with the ‘win’ word again. Genocide or convert them to friends? Which is it? Anything in between is just dicking around, earning profits for our corporate overlords.
    18 February 2010, 11:04 am

    Nang, Nang, you have a wonderful sense of cynicism! I’m sure our ops in Afghanistan have nothing to do with 9/11 and everything to do with propping up the defense industry …

  18. Jeff: don’t count your chickens on Iraq yet. That place is not a done deal, as the Sunni-Shia rivalry persists. There is a lot of bitterness against the Sunni-Baathists for what they did during Saddam. And the Kurds are hardly on board.

    Regarding Afghanistan, even thought we should not be there, we are, and heavily committed to the current government, no matter how illegitimate it actually is. Of all times, now we hardly need the continual drain on our resources, not to mention our troops at risk. Nevertheless, we are there, so to leave now could be chaotic for the Afghans, so we are stuck. My point is, we should never have gone there to begin with, not to Iraq, but that’s all too late now, so we have to make the best of it, which I think we are doing.

    Let us not make similar mistakes in the future, like in Iran for example! Not only is it wrong, we can no longer afford to be the militaristic state that we have become. Our own people are hurting badly now!

  19. Our focus should be on defending our borders, not on fighting our wars on the lands of other sovereign nations.

    You’ve said this tons of times before, and it hasn’t gotten any less silly. Or perhaps a kinder word is “Naive”.

    I’m sorry, but retreating to Fortress America, hunkering down in a bunker mentality, will get us nowhere. It’s like playing football with only the defense. If we had acted that way in WW 2, the Axis would still be running much of the world.

    In short, isolationism is NOT a practical alternative.

  20. For Perry who would not believe the sky was blue if we told him and he checked it on a cloudless day at midnight and doubted it:

    http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html

    The Taliban, under the direction of Mullah Muhammad Omar, brought about this order through the institution of a very strict interpretation of Sharia, or Islamic law. Public executions and punishments (such as floggings) became regular events at Afghan soccer stadiums. Frivolous activities, like kite-flying, were outlawed. In order to root out “non-Islamic” influence, television, music, and the Internet were banned. Men were required to wear beards, and subjected to beatings if they didn’t.

    Most shocking to the West was the Taliban’s treatment of women. When the Taliban took Kabul, they immediately forbade girls to go to school. Moreover, women were barred from working outside the home, precipitating a crisis in healthcare and education. Women were also prohibited from leaving their home without a male relative—those that did so risked being beaten, even shot, by officers of the “ministry for the protection of virtue and prevention of vice.” A woman caught wearing fingernail polish may have had her fingertips chopped off. All this, according to the Taliban, was to safeguard women and their honor.

    In contrast to their strict beliefs, the Taliban profited from smuggling operations (primarily electronics) and opium cultivation. Eventually they bowed to international pressure and cracked down on cultivation and by July 2000 were able to claim that they had cut world opium production by two-thirds. Unfortunately, the crackdown on opium also abruptly deprived thousands of Afghans of their only source of income.

    Although the Taliban managed to re-unite most of Afghanistan, they were unable to end the civil war. Nor did they improve the conditions in cities, where access to food, clean water, and employment actually declined during their rule. A continuing drought and a very harsh winter (2000–2001) brought famine and increased the flow of refugees to Pakistan.

  21. Eric, this is not WWII!

    Again, we have no business fighting our wars on the lands of other sovereign nations. How can you possibly justify that? What would be your reaction be if the tables were turned. You have never addressed that question. You assign to us some sort of a superior position on this planet. Are we Americans some kind of a superior culture? Not only do we not deserve such a designation, it is simply wrong, in my view. Your view is the radical one on this issue!

  22. Perry:
    Yorkshire:
    Is that really the way it was in Afghanistan?

    Pretty much, yes. Even the Iranians thought the Taliban were a bunch of extremist fundamentalist kooks, and believe me, that’s saying something!

  23. Yorkshire:

    I am not questioning any of your information. You totally miss the point.

    It is up to the Afghans to decide, and not any of our business whatsoever. We had slavery. We deprived women of the vote and treated them as second class citizens. It has been our responsibility as a nation to work through these issues, and not the responsibility of any other foreign power to impose a solution on us.

    What is it that compels you to wish to impose on the Afghans our will on what they should or should not do?

    You are calling for more American imperialism.

  24. I am not saying that we should have no role when we see human rights abuses, but to intervene militarily, no, that’s wrong, and even empowers the abusers.
    Again, the point is, that is their choice to make, not ours!

    And what if they don’t have a choice? The Taliban aren’t exactly big believers in democracy, the Rights of Man, and all that other Enlightenment stuff. Rebelling against them would have been about as futile as a bunch of medieval serfs rising up against their liege lord.

  25. Perry: @11:53am
    Yorkshire:
    Is that really the way it was in Afghanistan?

    Perry: @12:20pm
    Yorkshire:
    I am not questioning any of your information. You totally miss the point.

    Again, Perry shown to be Wrong, changes the subject. I didn’t miss your point, you Doubted my Info with your constant citation requests. You asked, I answered the Chief Relavitist Progressive on the board. The Taliban are brutal sadistic murderers. And you look it up.

  26. And note well, we were not too great the way we treated our women and our blacks times past. What would have been our reaction should a foreign power have intervened back then?

    Actually, from the perspective of the South, that’s exactly what happened.

    Dana sometimes refers to the Civil War as “The War of Northern Aggression”. I’m not sure if he’s being facetious, but that’s the actual position of many Southerners to this day.

  27. Perry: @11:53am
    Yorkshire:
    Is that really the way it was in Afghanistan?

    Perry: @12:20pm
    Yorkshire:
    I am not questioning any of your information. You totally miss the point.

    And Perry, that’s settled science!

  28. Eric, this is not WWII!

    No, but my point remains. Had we hunkered down in our bunker, adopted a Fortress America mentality, we would have lost. Period. And if we had not agressively gone after the Taliban and especially Al-Q, who knows what sort of attacks they’d have carried out? They already proved they could kill 3,000 Americans, more than were lost at Pearl Harbor, and you suggest we should have taken a pacifist approach??

    Like I said, isolationism is NOT an option.

  29. Again, we have no business fighting our wars on the lands of other sovereign nations.

    Enough with the “Sovereign nations” stuff already! We’ve invaded plenty of sovereign nations in the past, including France, Italy, Germany, the Philippines, Japan (well, almost, except for the atomic bomb), even the Confederacy.

    Honestly, you’re a stuck record on this subject. And your opinions have no basis in historical reality.

  30. What would be your reaction be if the tables were turned. You have never addressed that question.

    Actually, I have. I referred to it as Moral Equivalency. It assumes the USA and Al Qaida and the Taliban are morally equivalent. Which is, of course, ridiculous.

  31. You assign to us some sort of a superior position on this planet. Are we Americans some kind of a superior culture?

    Yes. We are a lion, proud, free, and strong. And we should damned well act like a lion, and not some timid little mouse or rabbit.

  32. Not only do we not deserve such a designation, it is simply wrong, in my view.

    Well, if you want to believe we should abase ourselves, be a nation of cowards and wimps, ever apologizing to the rest of the world, then be my guest.

  33. Your view is the radical one on this issue!

    Actually, it is entirely mainstream. The notion of American exceptionalism goes back to Washington, Jefferson, and the Declaration of Independence. And this tradition continued through to Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, and Reagan.

  34. “You assign to us some sort of a superior position on this planet. Are we Americans some kind of a superior culture? Not only do we not deserve such a designation, it is simply wrong, in my view. Your view is the radical one on this issue!”

    Those few sentences delineate the entire difference between Conservatives and liberals. I absolutely, positively believe in American exceptionalism and that it does make us a superior nation. I believe our culture is superior, our liberty, our government, our outlook and approach to the future and every other aspect of American life. If I didn’t I’d move. An I propose to you that if you think my view is radical then you need to find a nation which is superior and go there because quite honestly, there is nothing to keep you here.

  35. Eric, American exceptionalism shouldn’t mean a belief in infinite superiority, a superiority which trumps all other considerations, such as legality, morality, wisdom, etc. You seem to think our exceptionalism derives only and exclusively from our military might.

    I disagree.

  36. You may brag about your hunting skillz, but if a helicopter sees you running out in the wilderness with a rifle… well, you’ve become a terrorist in their sights.

    As witness the number of wedding parties – which didn’t have Taliban in their midst – who have been bombed by the US.

    Point is, we ARE there, and as long as we’re going to BE there, then we should fight to win.

    Let’s see – you fire at one Taliban, killing him and three bystanders. Those bystanders have, I dunno, sixty relatives, 5 of which are mad enough at their murders to take up arms against you. Yeah, good luck with the winning there.

    Let women be treated worst than cattle.

    Women have it worse under the current regime than under the Taliban. The Taliban, for example, never legislated rape within marriage.

    But that’s moral equivalency again. You seem to have forgotten the reason we went into Afghanistan in the first place. Something about the Taliban hiding and protecting the terror group that attacked us on 9/11? You know, remember that??

    You seem to forget that the civilians you’re murdering now in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan don’t give a shit. You’ve killed way more Muslims than Al Qaeda killed Americans.

    Besides, you show your moral failure here – “Joe hit me last week, therefore I’m allowed to go hit Joe, his neighbours Mike and ROb, and their families, and Mike and Rob should understand that it’s totally fair since Joe started it.”

  37. I believe we have abused our power and our standing wrt ‘American Exceptionalism’, in our post WWII paranoia, grown worse with time.

    We have ruined our exceptionalism, which I agree did exist for a long time. It’s decline continues to accelerate as we become less competitive on the world stage, as our wealth distribution continues to favor the wealthy while the middle is cast aside even though more productive than ever in history, and as our militarism continues to grow, driven by our military-industrialists.

    It is arrogant folks like yourselves who are most responsible for our demise. What ever has happened to your Christian humility?

    The only exceptionalism we have left is in the hands of the many Americans who really care and hope for a change back to what the real American spirit is all about. These are the people who, for example, care about Katrina and Haiti more than fighting unnecessary wars on the lands of other nations.

    You folks do not represent the changes we need, as the unprecedented obstructionist behavior of your party in Congress so well demonstrates your hypocrisy. If it cannot be your way, it will be no way – as the creed of the absolutists reveals itself so prominently, right here on this blog!

  38. Eric, American exceptionalism shouldn’t mean a belief in infinite superiority, a superiority which trumps all other considerations, such as legality, morality, wisdom, etc. You seem to think our exceptionalism derives only and exclusively from our military might.

    Actually, no. If military might alone defined American greatness, then we’d still be ruling Germany, Japan, and most of Europe. It is ideas that make America great. We don’t attack other countries just for the hell of it, we only do so to promote freedom. What interest did we have in Iraq or Kosovo? If we really just wanted oil, it would have been much easier to invade Saudi Arabia.

  39. The plans for a pipeline running through Afghanistan were set up well before 9-11-01. Research it yourself.

  40. Let’s see – you fire at one Taliban, killing him and three bystanders. Those bystanders blah blah blah, yada yada yada etc.

    Yeah Winston. Yeah Franklin. Let’s not fight the Nazis. It might make them mad at us and stuff.

  41. JohnC plays his patriot card: “An I propose to you that if you think my view is radical then you need to find a nation which is superior and go there because quite honestly, there is nothing to keep you here.”

    Thanks, John, for defining for me what an American is, you arrogant fool! Who do you think you are to say such a thing? You, and those like you, are succeeding in further fracturing this nation. You would deprive me of my dissent over current policy. That John, says a lot about your version of Americanism. Yes, it is radical, in the extreme, in my view.

  42. Pffft – the British lived with terrorism for decades without going mad.

    Apparently you haven’t read anything about the British military occupation of Northern Ireland.

  43. Eric: “Yeah Winston. Yeah Franklin. Let’s not fight the Nazis.”

    Apples and oranges, Eric; you do know that, don’t you?

  44. The plans for a pipeline running through Afghanistan were set up well before 9-11-01. Research it yourself.

    Was that pipeline to be run by Space Aliens? Of maybe Bigfoots?

  45. It is arrogant folks like yourselves who are most responsible for our demise. What ever has happened to your Christian humility?

    Except that you are equally arrogant, just more assertive in your wimpiness. You issue these proclamations, yammering on about “Soveriegn nations”, all accented with exclamation points. Jeff, at least, comes off as a moderate and sensible liberal. You, in contrast, are quite militant in your pacifism, strident in your relativism.

  46. Did you ever stop to think that those who promote war are the real cowards, because they send everyone else’s sons and daughters to fight their wars, which is one reason we don’t have a draft?

    Moreover, it takes courage to stand up and attempt to negotiate settlements, fending off the native and enemy war hawks whose guns are in firing position and whose triggers are ready and and fingers itchy.

  47. Eric says: “you are quite militant in your pacifism”. gheesh He’s doing well in discrediting himself. We don’t have to say much.

  48. You folks do not represent the changes we need, as the unprecedented obstructionist behavior of your party in Congress so well demonstrates your hypocrisy. If it cannot be your way, it will be no way – as the creed of the absolutists reveals itself so prominently, right here on this blog!

    Standing up for principle is not the same as obstructionism, no matter how much your side whines about it. We genuinely believe Obama’s plans are a bad idea, and so our side is acting upon it.

    You seem to have a problem with Men of Principle, preferring a sort of militant mush instead.

  49. Eric: “Except that you are equally arrogant, just more assertive in your wimpiness. You issue these proclamations, yammering on about “Soveriegn nations”, all accented with exclamation points. Jeff, at least, comes off as a moderate and sensible liberal. You, in contrast, are quite militant in your pacifism, strident in your relativism.”

    I know you would like to believe your own garbage, because you are often incapable of debating a point without emitting personal attacks, again, a sign of weakness, as usual. You obviously cannot stand it if someone happens to disagree with your own relativism, so your control mechanisms creep in with vengeance.

    The points I made about fighting our wars on the lands of sovereign nations is not even a matter of debate, because it is ‘absolutely’ true, in spite of your attempts disparage them.

  50. Obama does exactly what Bush does, and gets verbally hung from the nearest tree from the CONservatives, while supporting Bush. We on the other side are willing to show our principles and call Obama out. I have started referring to him as Obummer. Has the comprehension of the word hypocrisy ever met one of your brain cells?

  51. Eric: “Yeah Winston. Yeah Franklin. Let’s not fight the Nazis.”
    Apples and oranges, Eric; you do know that, don’t you?

    Same principle applies. Appeasement doesn’t work. Period.

  52. Eric: “Standing up for principle is not the same as obstructionism, no matter how much your side whines about it. We genuinely believe Obama’s plans are a bad idea, and so our side is acting upon it.”

    The other side has principles as well, a point your side does not seem to understand. Moreover, the other side won the election, yet your side would use a supermajority a record number of times to prevent them from governing. And worst of all, your side votes against the stimulus, then goes back home to the district to take credit for it.

    I suppose you are proud of their hypocrisy, as a matter of principle.

    You propose your policies based on your principles. If they don’t carry the day, then you work harder at it, but to negate the will of the people is indeed undemocratic and unamerican. To behave the way your side does is to demonstrate your absolutism; that certainly is not what our framers had in mind, for it was exactly this which propelled them and their ancestors to leave their mother countries. How much of this do you not understand, Eric?

  53. Eric: “Same principle applies. Appeasement doesn’t work. Period.”

    No, the same principle/approach does not apply, because the threats to our security were quite different. The Nazis were not only fully capable of attacking our allies and eventually us, they were doing so on a huge scale when we finally declared war. Certainly the Iraqis nor the Afghans posed no such threat.

    And no one on here has said a word about appeasement. What is working now is that moderate Muslims are opposing al Qaeda and weakening them, as I pointed out here earlier today. Read this and see for yourself.

    Instead of attacking Iraq, Cheney/Bush/Rice should have been working with moderate Muslims in hopes of getting them allied with us. Had we done this, we would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives and at least a couple of trillion dollars. That’s what I recommended in the 2002 build-up to the war in Iraq. That’s not appeasement, Eric!

    Now aren’t you supposed to be working?

  54. Did you ever stop to think that those who promote war are the real cowards, because they send everyone else’s sons and daughters to fight their wars, which is one reason we don’t have a draft?

    No one’s “Sending” anyone off to anything. These people volunteered for military service, witness Dana’s two daughters, or John Hitchcock’s.

    I like the all-volunteer force. It is better than the draft, which is arguably a form of slavery. The draft allowed the Vietnam War to go on so long, since the government could force more troops into the battle against their will. With a volunteer force, troops only go in if they are ready, motivated, and believe in the mission.

  55. Thanks, John, for defining for me what an American is, you arrogant fool!

    Thus with the Militant Mush already! John is not entitled to his opinion, same as you?

  56. Who do you think you are to say such a thing? You, and those like you, are succeeding in further fracturing this nation.

    Yes, we should all be a nation of sheep, marching in perfect lock-step. Let’s all agree with Obama (and Perry) and never a dissenting word be heard!

  57. You would deprive me of my dissent over current policy.

    More paranoia. No one’s depriving you of anything. You’re perfectly free to spout off on this blog and elsewhere, as you do in abundance.

    Methinks you doth protest too much …

  58. Eric:

    Eric, stop your twisting. I did not say he has no right to express his opinion, now did I? However, especially when it involves me personally, I needed to respond, and did. Why not now let John respond, instead of you jumping in?

    Again, aren’t you supposed to be working? If so, your productivity is slipping!

  59. Eric, every time you try using the “Bigfoot” or “UFO” card, you make apparent your inability to offer a counter point to that which was presented to you.

    Uh, no Blu. It’s a way of laughing at your silly Conspiracy Theories. Humor is the best response to nonsense, since reason is impervious to it.

  60. Moreover, it takes courage to stand up and attempt to negotiate settlements

    Neville Chamberlain – Profile in Courage.

    Actually, I don’t fault Chamberlain too much. He simply didn’t know what he was dealing with. He thought Hitler was a reasonable fellow who could be reasoned with. He didn’t know he was facing a new form of evil.

    Same with Al-Q and the Taliban. They are evil, and cannot be reasoned with. Like the Nazis, they must simply be defeated.

  61. I know you would like to believe your own garbage, because you are often incapable of debating a point without emitting personal attacks, again, a sign of weakness, as usual.

    Oh, quit whining Perry. You sound like a complete weiner.

    Still, I must admire your assertive wimpiness. Most wimps would just be wimps, but you are a militant wimp!

  62. The other side has principles as well, a point your side does not seem to understand.

    We understand it. We just don’t agree with it.

  63. Moreover, the other side won the election, yet your side would use a supermajority a record number of times to prevent them from governing.

    Oh quit whining. The filibuster is a legitimate Senate technique, and the Dems weren’t shy about using it against Bush. Now the shoe’s on the other foot.

    If your side can’t maintain enough Party discipline to get stuff passed, and our side can maintain our discipline, well, that’s just democracy in action. That’s the system set up 200 years ago, and if you don’t like it, well, go live under the Taliban.

  64. No, the same principle/approach does not apply, because the threats to our security were quite different. The Nazis were not only fully capable of attacking our allies and eventually us

    Well, the Nazis were never really a threat to us. Sure, their U-boats could sink our ships, but the idea of a German invasion fleet attacking and conquering America was quite remote. Ditto for the Japanese, who, if they tried real hard, might have taken Hawaii, but were never a threat to the American mainland.

    Al Qaida was a direct threat to America. They killed more people on 9/11 than the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor. And the threat would have continued had we not taken action. Our response to the Japanese was far more severe than our response to Al-Q. We fought them all the way across the Pacific, and eventually nuked two of their cities into rubble, that after firebombing a number of others. In short, we attacked a sovereign nation, and totally beat them into submission.

  65. Eric, you can rationalize, twist, and spin all you want, it is not convincing. Your revisionist and inaccurate references to past history are actually comical, you are that far off the mark. Your justifications for waging our wars on other lands does not stand up to the test of reciprocity, meaning wearing the other man’s shoe, or put better, applying the golden rule. And then you have the audacity to talk about morals/ethics, when your position is clearly pro-war/anti-life. To you, American life is somehow a higher life form than, for example, an Iraqi or an Afghan. Sorry, Eric, but no way can you claim the moral high ground with positions like yours! As a Christian, you are failing. As an empathetic human, you are failing. As an honest broker, you are failing.

    Aren’t you supposed to be working? You may be failing today at that as well!

  66. Eric, you can rationalize, twist, and spin all you want, it is not convincing. Your revisionist and inaccurate references to past history are actually comical, you are that far off the mark.

    Actually, my responses on history regarding our wars against the Germans and Japanese is entirely on the mark. Ditto the War against the Confederency. I’m not defending any of these countries, merely pointing out that we did wage war on sovereign nations.

  67. Your justifications for waging our wars on other lands does not stand up to the test of reciprocity, meaning wearing the other man’s shoe, or put better, applying the golden rule. And then you have the audacity to talk about morals/ethics, when your position is clearly pro-war/anti-life.

    Well, my position is clearly anti-pacifist, anti-appeasement. As for “The other shoe”, since when did Iraq or Afghanistan assure freedom for its people?

  68. Eric, how many times are we going to go around on this issue. I am saying that the circumstances surrounding each war have to be taken into consideration before a judgment can be made. For example, Iraq did not represent an immediate threat whatsoever to us or our allies, whereas the Nazis did, as did the Japanese. We had no choice but to defend our allies and ourselves in WWII. Re Iraq, there was a choice made on other issues other than a direct, immediate threat. Yes, we did wage wars on sovereign countries in the past, with justifications just given. Such justifications did not exist for Iraq, for Korea, or for Vietnam. For Afghanistan, if justified against the Taliban, of which I am not convinced, then why did Cheney/Bush desert the place, permitting the Taliban to resurge. I don’t get it!

  69. Didn’t think I’d get 71 comments since I posted this this morning!

    Perry wrote:

    From the viewpoint of the locals, might it not be better if we were not there at all? Do we know their answer to this question?

    Actually, we do know their answer: they wish we weren’t there! And if the Islamists weren’t our enemies, enemies who have demonstrated a willingness and ability to strike out at us, and harbor others who will, we could afford to leave them alone.

  70. Perry wrote:

    No, Eric, the fundamental decision is whether or not we should be there.

    To which Eric responded:

    That decision was made 8 years ago, so arguing that point is academic at best.

    The initial decision was taken eight years ago, but I’d point out that that decision was reaffirmed several months ago. Eight years ago, it was President Bush, a Republican House and a Democratic Senate who took the decision, after we were attacked; a few months ago, it was entirely new leadership, under President Obama, which took the decision to stay, to continue to fight, and to increase troop strength to try to achieve victory.

  71. Perry wrote:

    Again, we have no business fighting our wars on the lands of other sovereign nations. How can you possibly justify that? What would be your reaction be if the tables were turned.

    Well, that’s the whole idea: it’s better to fight them there, where the collateral damage is to their land, than fight them here, where the collateral damage would be to ours.

    Of course, we’re in Afghanistan because al Qaeda launched an attack on our country. We’re fighting in their country because al Qaeda chose to fight us in our country.

    Perhaps you think that, following Pearl Harbor, we shouldn’t have fought the Japanese unless they had hit the beaches in California?

    And, of course, Germany never attacked us!

  72. Perry wrote:

    Eric: “Yeah Winston. Yeah Franklin. Let’s not fight the Nazis.”

    Apples and oranges, Eric; you do know that, don’t you?

    In a way, yes. The Islamists attacked us directly, but the Third Reich did not attack the United Kingdom; the UK declared war on Germany. It’s true that the Third Reich did declare war on the US, but, prior to Pearl Harbor, though we were not at war with Germany, we were sending massive amounts of aid to countries which were.

  73. Perry wrote:

    Moreover, it takes courage to stand up and attempt to negotiate settlements, fending off the native and enemy war hawks whose guns are in firing position and whose triggers are ready and and fingers itchy.

    Sometimes, a picture really is worth a thousand words!

  74. The Phoenician brings up a silly old canard:

    Women have it worse under the current regime than under the Taliban. The Taliban, for example, never legislated rape within marriage.

    Of course, under the Taliban, a woman could not leave her house to go to the police station to file a rape complaint unless she was accompanied by an adult male relative, who would normally be her husband. And under the Taliban, a male’s word was simply worth more than a woman’s. So, a woman couldn’t get to the police to make a rape complaint, and if she somehow could, her word wasn’t good enough anyway.

  75. Perry wrote:

    No, the same principle/approach does not apply, because the threats to our security were quite different. The Nazis were not only fully capable of attacking our allies and eventually us, they were doing so on a huge scale when we finally declared war.

    Thing is, Adolf Hitler did not want war with the British, and probably not the French, either, though he’d have loved to reverse the loss of Alsace-Lorraine. Der Führer’s aims were toward the East, not the West. The Germans probably assumed that the milquetoast Prime Minister Chamberlain was just bluffing with the utterly absurd guarantee he gave to Poland, a guarantee he was unable to back up; the British were not the liberators of Poland. If the Nazis were attacking our allies on a huge scale, it was because the UK declared war on Germany, not the other way around!

  76. Perry wrote:

    For Afghanistan, if justified against the Taliban, of which I am not convinced, then why did Cheney/Bush desert the place, permitting the Taliban to resurge. I don’t get it!

    That’s a complaint about how the war was waged, not whether it should have been waged. If you are complaining that the Bush Administration didn’t do enough in Afghanistan, then you should at least be pleased with President Obama’s renewed commitment to the war there, and him taking more aggressive action.

  77. Such justifications did not exist for Iraq, for Korea, or for Vietnam.

    Actually, they did exist in Korea and Vietnam. In both cases, we were responding to foreign aggression.

    I know you adopt a Man of Mush appeasement policy where America is always wrong, but in these cases, America was right.

  78. Well, the Nazis were never really a threat to us. Sure, their U-boats could sink our ships, but the idea of a German invasion fleet attacking and conquering America was quite remote. Ditto for the Japanese, who, if they tried real hard, might have taken Hawaii, but were never a threat to the American mainland.

    Al Qaida was a direct threat to America.

    Fuck me gently with a chainsaw – is this idiot actually stating that Al Qaeda are a bigger threat than were Nazi Germany and the Imperial Japanese?

  79. Let’s see:

    Women in Afghanistan:

    In the first report, a 2009 human rights assessment prepared by Canada’s Foreign Affairs Department, obtained by The Canadian Press and reported at CBC News, revealed a skyrocketing suicide rate among Afghan women
    [...]
    Even its vaunted aim of improving the lives of Afghan women is proven to be a lie. As a statement by the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) reported recently:

    The US “War on terrorism” removed the Taliban regime in October 2001, but it has not removed religious fundamentalism which is the main cause of all our miseries. In fact, by reinstalling the warlords in power in Afghanistan, the US administration is replacing one fundamentalist regime with another. The US government and Mr. Karzai mostly rely on Northern Alliance criminal leaders who are as brutal and misogynist as the Taliban….

    Last month, Malalai Joya, a former member of the Afghan parliament, told Michelle Goldberg of the Daily Beast that the situation for Afghan women is every bit as bad under Karzai as it was under the Taliban. Joya is also concerned that civilian casualties are fueling popular support for the Taliban.

    Of course, the wingnuts will probably dismiss RAWA as “leftist”.

    And on appeasement – if we agree that aggressive countries shouldn’t be appeased, that means the US shouldn’t have been allowed to occupy Iraq after it attacked and invaded it. This was, after all, as much a violation of international law as Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, or Hitler’s invasion of Poland.

  80. Fuck me gently with a chainsaw – is this idiot actually stating that Al Qaeda are a bigger threat than were Nazi Germany and the Imperial Japanese?

    Well, let’s see.

    The Germans never attacked us directly, and the Japanese killed less people at Pearl Harbor than Al Qaida did on 9/11.

    Does that answer your question?

  81. Last month, Malalai Joya, a former member of the Afghan parliament, told Michelle Goldberg of the Daily Beast

    The Daily Beast. A reliable source of information [eye roll]

  82. This was, after all, as much a violation of international law as Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, or Hitler’s invasion of Poland.

    Not quite. It was more like Clinton/Blair’s incursion into Kosovo. Or maybe our non-involvement in Rwanda. Should we ever oppose evil?

  83. Sorry Perry. I had to run out after my last post because I had a heat problem at the restaurant. Then, I got stuck there till now (10:30pm). I need sleep but I will address your statements tomorrow. Good night.

  84. Eric said: The Germans never attacked us directly, and the Japanese killed less people at Pearl Harbor than Al Qaida did on 9/11.

    Well, I know this is going to seem so “kooooky” and Eric,requiring you to bring up Big foot and UFOs, and John Hitchcock to bring the “They’re coming to take me away..ha) but we have two different schools of scientific thought, # 1..the engineers that the politicians hired, the ones that are directly profiting off of the war, Carlyle Group (Bush family, and other old money GOP) and the Halliburton (Cheney connections and profiting very very VERY well), and then…#2… we have the other groups of scientists and engineers, you know the independent scientists and engineers that have risked their careers, and are relying on donations to the cause for them to continue, with a peer reviewed paper in a prestigous Physics Journal…Bentham, recognizing the substance, of nano-thermite, a military grades explosives material throughout the city, as well as ALL 10 CHARACTERISTICS IN VIDEO DOCUMENTATION OF CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS IN ALL THREE TOWERS.

    Incidentally, in 47 cities internationally will be the announcement of over 1000 architects and engineers calling FICTION on the government version of that day. Actually 1041, now. Their field requires them to know the structural capacity of buildings, when built, what they should or can withstand. The government story DEFIES LAWS OF PHYSICS. Our numbers continue to grow calling FICTION on the official government version of that day.

    Of course, LINCOLN, MADISON, EISENHOWER, SMEDLEY BUTLER, MACARTHUR, and many others warned of the military industrial complex and their power. WHEN did they have the most power? Well, they own the media. They owned the Whitehouse, and they have bought up the majority of politicians in Wa.D.C. Oh how silly. SQUIRM, WHY DON’T YA. THEN SCREAM “KOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKY!!!” Don’t be so naive and ignorant. Look at the science on both side. Who has the most evidence?

    For those that have the capacity to use independent discernment, are not afraid to be honest with themselves, and realize the anomalies of the day that scream for recognition, if you are gutsy enough to connect the dots, this is for you. I’m not expecting Conservatives to be able to get beyond their fears, or expanding beyond their comfort zone, or use objectivity though. For others, take note…

    http://www.ae911truth.org/info/160

    Many of our forefathers have said it before….WAR IS A RACKET, VICIOUS. AND DECEPTION IS PART OF IT. Believe me, killing people is part of the game. The lives lost on that day…not a problem for them.

  85. Phoenician:“And on appeasement – if we agree that aggressive countries shouldn’t be appeased, that means the US shouldn’t have been allowed to occupy Iraq after it attacked and invaded it. This was, after all, as much a violation of international law as Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, or Hitler’s invasion of Poland.”

    Eric, you need to think hard about this statement, because it puts in perspective what we did in Iraq, which you so readily support. Moreover, you easily forget about our newly built $600 million embassy in Baghdad, yes, $600 million, and the 15 military bases scattered throughout Iraq. This is occupation, occupation of a sovereign nation, by us. That was wrong! And, there may well be grounds for our commission of war crimes. But of course, Bush had already, in early 2001, suspended our recognition of the International Court. We felt, still feel, we are above the law, with our torture, renditions, suspension of Habeas Corpus, and invasion of a sovereign nation. This is ‘American Exceptionalism’ of which I am not proud, instead, ashamed. However, I am proud of how we stepped up to help the Haitians!

  86. Eric, you need to think hard about this statement, because it puts in perspective what we did in Iraq, which you so readily support.

    I noticed Pho ducked my point about Kosovo and Rwanda. We intervened in the first, and probably should have in the second. Should Clinton and Blair been charged with war crimes? Is it ever OK for civilized nations to intevene to stop evil around the globe?

    In that context, comparing us to what Hitler and Saddam did is just plain silly.

  87. This is occupation, occupation of a sovereign nation, by us. That was wrong!

    C’mon Perry, enough of the “Sovereign nation” stuff already. That nation (Iraq) was arguably one of the most evil in the world. I don’t think fighting evil is something to be ashamed of, not on the least.

  88. . But of course, Bush had already, in early 2001, suspended our recognition of the International Court.

    And well he should have. In this country, the Constitution is the supreme authority in the land, not some arbitrary international institution we did not either appoint nor elect. The whole notion of an “Intrrnational Court” is dubious in any event, since it has no national legal authority to back it up, and if a court can put itself above the laws of individual nations, then what happens to that national sovereignty you’re always going on about?

  89. Well, I know this is going to seem so “kooooky” and Eric,requiring you to bring up Big foot and UFOs, and John Hitchcock to bring the “They’re coming to take me away..ha) but we have two different schools of scientific thought, # 1..the engineers that the politicians hired, the ones that are directly profiting off of the war, Carlyle Group (Bush family, and other old money GOP) and the Halliburton (Cheney connections and profiting very very VERY well), and then…#2… we have the other groups of scientists and engineers, you know the independent scientists and engineers that have risked their careers, and are relying on donations to the cause for them to continue, with a peer reviewed paper in a prestigous Physics Journal…Bentham, recognizing the substance, of nano-thermite, a military grades explosives material throughout the city, as well as ALL 10 CHARACTERISTICS IN VIDEO DOCUMENTATION OF CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS IN ALL THREE TOWERS.

    I know you seem to sincerely believe this stuff, so I’m
    not going to try to talk you out of it. But one reason I bring up the Bigfoot/UFO comparisons is that these people also sincerely believe in these things, but does that mean everyone else has to take it seriously as well?

    Anyway, one final point. You’ve been posting this stuff for years now, and have yet to find a single convert, not even Pho, who is about as rabidly anti-America, anti-Bush, as you can get. In short, you’re fishing in a pond with no fish. Or, more accurately, where the fish ain’t biting. Ever. At some point, the sensible person takes his pole and tackle box and simply goes home.

  90. Eric: “C’mon Perry, enough of the “Sovereign nation” stuff already. That nation (Iraq) was arguably one of the most evil in the world.”

    In other words, Eric, sovereignty is something you can just dismiss whenever you feel like it. Isn’t that kind of ‘mushy’ of you, sort of relative morality? ‘Absolutely’, it is!

    And if Iraq was “arguably one of the most evil in the world”, why did Reagan have us allied with Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I guess Iran was even more evil. That’s kind of ‘relatively mushy’ too, isn’t it Eric.

    You are a hypocrite, Eric, just like the Congress people on your side of the aisle, who vote against Obama’s stimulus, then go back to their states and districts and take credit for bringing home the pork.

    And then there are those Repubs who sponsor a bill, then vote against the bill they sponsored.

    Is this the duplicity that Americans will get if these people become the majority in Congress again. Well yes, of course, because the character flaws are on display again now, and have been for years. They don’t go away, unless the people throw them out!

  91. Eric: “… not even Pho, who is about as rabidly anti-America, anti-Bush, as you can get.”

    Being anti-Bush is not necessarily being anti-America, as much as you would wish to make it so. On the contrary, I think Phoenician is pro-America, in terms of his high expectations for our behavior. You folks ought to take it as a compliment that he would be interested enough to gives us his insight into our sometimes very strange behavior.

    Your problem, Eric, as well as several others on here, is that you cannot take constructive criticism. Instead, you have a knee-jerk reaction against most any critique of right wing policies and ideologies, an anti-intellectual approach to the issues, based on your own ‘mushy’ version of cherry picked absolutes, which would turn out to be a joke but for the fact that some of our national policy derives from this very idiocy!

    The extreme occurred again just two days ago when some lunatic set his own house on fire, boarded his own plane, and flew it into the IRS building in Austin, TX. To hell with all the people working in that building, and their families, his act of terror bespeaks. Is it possible that certain ideological extremists set fire to this man’s brain? I’m just askin’!

  92. You seem to forget that the civilians you’re murdering now in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan don’t give a shit. You’ve killed way more Muslims than Al Qaeda killed Americans.

    It would be interesting to see some stats on that. If by “Muslims”, you mean civilians, then it’s a fair bet far more were killed by Al-Q and other Islamic terrorists than the US military. They, after all, were big on using suicide bombers against schools, hospitals, and so forth.

  93. And if Iraq was “arguably one of the most evil in the world”, why did Reagan have us allied with Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I guess Iran was even more evil. That’s kind of ‘relatively mushy’ too, isn’t it Eric.

    Actually, if memory serves, we helped both sides, hence the “Iran” part of the Iran-Contra scandal.

    I think Kissinger said it best. The ideal outcome of the Iran-Iraq War was for both sides to lose. A bit cynical, perhaps, but a realistic sentiment given the general scumminess of both countries.

  94. In other words, Eric, sovereignty is something you can just dismiss whenever you feel like it. Isn’t that kind of ‘mushy’ of you, sort of relative morality? ‘Absolutely’, it is!

    Not at all. If that “Sovereignty” is evil, then what should we do about it? You never did answer my point about Kosovo and Rwanda. After the Holocaust, the world said “Never again”. The idea is that there are regimes so evil that the civilized world has a right to step in and stop them. We did that with Milosevic in the former Yugoslavia. We probably should have done it in Cambodia, Rwanda, and the Sudan.

    You spoke of the International Court. Well, while I disagree that the US should submit its own sovereignty to its authority, the idea itself wasn’t bad. It was based on the notion that some regimes are so evil, their abuses so widespread, that they cannot just hide behind the notion of “Sovereignty”, and must be held accountable to a higher moral authority.

  95. Your problem, Eric, as well as several others on here, is that you cannot take constructive criticism.

    I have yet to see much that is “Constructive” about Pho’s criticism. Mostly he just sneers, calling names, attacking just about everyone here from Dana to John C and John H.

    And I don’t think he cares what’s best for America, either. Indeed, just a couple years ago (before you joined this blog), he was actively cheering for America to lose in Iraq.

    Maybe it was harsh for me to have suggested you want to “Suck his dick”. Perhaps a more polite suggestion is you want to kiss his behind. Really, you should be better than that!

  96. Instead, you have a knee-jerk reaction against most any critique of right wing policies and ideologies, an anti-intellectual approach to the issues

    Sticking up for our principles is not “Knee jerk”, nor is it anti-intellectual.

    You seem to want us all to behave like sheep, to just agree with Obama and the Left Wing, and roll over and accept their agenda. Dissent and opposition from conservatives seems to offend you personally. Well, that is just plain silly.

  97. The extreme occurred again just two days ago when some lunatic set his own house on fire, boarded his own plane, and flew it into the IRS building in Austin, TX. To hell with all the people working in that building, and their families, his act of terror bespeaks. Is it possible that certain ideological extremists set fire to this man’s brain? I’m just askin’!

    His screed had plenty of hate for GWB, plenty of hate for capitalism, hate for various tax cuts, hate for the Catholic Church among all his other hates. Which ideologial extremists identify with that? But your question was a thinly-veiled political attack on the TEA Party movement by using this nut-job’s heinous actions. Remind me again, who was it who screamed in moral outrage when I pointed out Amy Bishop is far-left?

  98. “American exceptionalism,” says Eric, well we all like to think that, but along came George W. Bush, and our idea of American exceptionalism was severely wounded. But, “Bush derangement syndrome” you scream, and you overlook that our idea of our “beacon of democracy” disappeared. Maybe our love for our country, and Bush being the one bringing us down to such barbaric levels, is more about what it is.

    Many think it is inappropriate to use Hitler as a means of comparison, but the facts are, there wasn’t much we didn’t do, that Hitler did. Start waking up. Look at the reality!

    http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqatrocities.html

  99. “In other words, Eric, sovereignty is something you can just dismiss whenever you feel like it. Isn’t that kind of ‘mushy’ of you, sort of relative morality? ‘Absolutely’, it is!”

    Are you using the term sovereignty in some moral sense, as opposed to a purely political or legalistic sense?

    What you should do, is to thoroughly familiarize yourself with the notion of sovereignty and its historical development if you are going to go around brandishing the term as if it were part of sacred scripture.

  100. “Being anti-Bush is not necessarily being anti-America, as much as you would wish to make it so…”

    Ok, then, assuming for the sake fo argument that that is the case; is being anti-Islam the same as being anti-Arab?

  101. “To behave the way your side does is to demonstrate your absolutism; that certainly is not what our framers had in mind, for it was exactly this which propelled them and their ancestors to leave their mother countries. How much of this do you not understand, Eric?”

    He probably understands that John Dewey, the closet Hegelian, was not one of the founders.

  102. YOU are anti-American, if for the sake of allegiance to your party, you condone acts that only despotic, backwards, barbaric nations participate in, and if your CONSERVATIVE leaders’ propose and put into action, these things, their MOs are fine with you. YOU are part of America’s demise, and we are her supporters, for all she has stood for. YOU all are the anti-American folks around here.

    I’m quite sure if it was a Dem who brought about these things, You’d be screaming. You have NOT the capacity the be uniformly principled “protecting our honor” with either party bringing despotic acts into our operations.

    I declare ANTI-AMERICAN whoever initiates, or condones these horrific acts. I also have lost respect and “hope” for Obummer.


  103. …the British lived with terrorism for decades without going mad.”

    Hahahahah they’ve obviously gone over now.

    Cameras on street corners, take your hat off so your face can be seen please, privacy is just a concern of the privileged bourgeoise, speech code violation arrests and dragnets …

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/a-chilling-proposal-for-a-universal-dna-database-401503.html

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jan/15/identity-cards-act

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jan/19/counter-terrorism-act

  104. “American exceptionalism,” says Eric, well we all like to think that, but along came George W. Bush, and our idea of American exceptionalism was severely wounded. But, “Bush derangement syndrome” you scream, and you overlook that our idea of our “beacon of democracy” disappeared. Maybe our love for our country, and Bush being the one bringing us down to such barbaric levels, is more about what it is.

    You are a kook, Blu. Bush didn’t do anything that Clinton and Blair didn’t do in Kosovo.

  105. I declare ANTI-AMERICAN whoever initiates, or condones these horrific acts.

    I declare pigs can fly! I declare there are UFOs at Roswell! I declare 2 + 2 = 5! I declare Blu is a nut!

  106. Are you using the term sovereignty in some moral sense, as opposed to a purely political or legalistic sense?

    Or, more like an ideological sense? As in, the Left Wing ideology of moral relativism, that asserts that all countries are basically morally the same, and that the US has no right to declare superiority to a dictatorship such as Iraq.

  107. Of course, LINCOLN, MADISON, EISENHOWER, SMEDLEY BUTLER, MACARTHUR, and many others warned of the military industrial complex and their power. WHEN did they have the most power? Well, they own the media.

    Well, if the CIA/defense industry control all media, then why hasn’t your e mail account been blocked? Why haven’t the kook-sites been hacked and shut down? If the CIA/defense industry control everything, they seem to be doing a rather poor job of it.

  108. Re: http://www.ae911truth.org/info/160

    From that site:

    • Open to all AE911Truth petition signers, volunteers, and qualified members of the press
    • Reservations required (RSVP below) Note: We must have your choice of Salmon or Beef by Monday Feb 15th please RSVP now to 1000@AE911Truth.org
    • Cost per person: $50 if paying by Feb. 16, $75 if after Feb. 16

    Sounds like a money making scam to me.

  109. Well, the State and Defense Departments just tied one hand behind our fighters’ back. They can not fire unless they see a weapon. Of course we announced this to the world so the Taliban and Al-Q know to keep their weapons well hidden. What Jackass thought this up? Has no clue.

  110. You’re the person arguing that Al Qaeda is more of a threat than WWII Germany and Japan.

    And, let’s see. Germany killed how many American civilians?

  111. Ever notice how each of the many times Eric has no reasonable response to the points I throw at him, he screams “koooook”?

    You Eric, will probably one of the last people on the planet to catch on.

  112. Eric said: Well, if the CIA/defense industry control all media, then why hasn’t your e mail account been blocked? Why haven’t the kook-sites been hacked and shut down? If the CIA/defense industry control everything, they seem to be doing a rather poor job of it.

    Believe me, internet control is on their agenda. Start doing some research, chump.

  113. Today, The press conference announcing the 1000+ architects and engineers calling out the government version, was held concurrently in 19 states + Washington DC, 3 continents, 6 countries, 38 cities and 48 locations on 2/19/10. New Zealand included, by the way, because NZ governments officials, one at least has taken note of the science.

    Gee, where was the “Liberal media” ?

    Were you all entrenched in the Tiger Woods story? THAT is where the media was.

  114. blubonnet:
    Today, The press conference announcing the 1000+ architects and engineers calling out the government version, was held concurrently in 19 states + Washington DC, 3 continents, 6 countries, 38 cities and 48 locations on 2/19/10. New Zealand included, by the way, because NZ governments officials, one at least has taken note of the science.

    Gee, where was the “Liberal media” ?

    Were you all entrenched in the Tiger Woods story? THAT is where the media was.

    Now you understand the frustration with the media! I had my radio on at work. Tiger came on, the radio went off. It’s not news. It’s Tabloid Gossip.

  115. blubonnet:

    Believe me, internet control is on their agenda. Start doing some research, chump.

    I think it’s on BO’s agenda as well. It’s one place he can’t control the message.

  116. blubonnet:
    I declare ANTI-AMERICAN whoever initiates, or condones these horrific acts. I also have lost respect and “hope” for Obummer.

    Welcome to the dark side! :-)

  117. Ever notice how each of the many times Eric has no reasonable response to the points I throw at him, he screams “koooook”?
    You Eric, will probably one of the last people on the planet to catch on.

    To catch on to what? Kook-nuttery? Bigfoots? UFOs?

    You’re fishing in an empty pond, Blu. Nobody’s buying your exreme nut-kookery. You are an extremist nut-whacko. End of story.

  118. So, Eric, what do 2/3rds of NYC think?

    So, Eric, you choose the side of engineers paid by the government politicians that have consistently shown to mislead, over and over and over, AND profit obscenely off of the war, ? You’ve got some catching up to do.

    The 1044 architects and engineers are the ones, who only get enough money to continue their journey around the world, presenting to other mainstream media around the world, who are taking notice. Donations to the cause, is what they live on only.

    But, you haven’t honestly looked at material I’ve brought here, which is why you continue to sound so asinine. You are oblivious to the consistent progress made by the movement. Your brain is wobbling, from the high pitch of your screaming “koooky”. Asshole!

    Why does the movement just continue to get larger?

    Go listen to what the families think.

    Go read some of the many peer reviewed papers by scientists.

    Be appreciative that there are those out there that are risking more than you ever would or could imagine.

    With the guts to speak out, with credentials that give their perspective weight, these gutsy professionals, risking all, are doing for the American people, you included.

    But, go ahead, believe the politicians boys. They wouldn’t lie to you, would they?

    I think you are avoiding my material like the plague, because you are scared shitless to realize what people with more objectivity, integrity, and honesty have brought forth.

    Why is it that Bush and his boys won’t travel to Europe? Look it up yourself. Asswipe!

  119. Blu, it doesn’t matter how many times you link to twoofer sites. It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat your bovine byproduct. None of it is worthy of a reasoned response, especially since you’ve shoved your bovine byproduct for so long on so many threads (whether it was germane or not). It is not cowardice that causes people to laugh at you; it’s that you are only worthy of “point and laugh”. You are a fool and a joke. In fact, fools point at you as proof they’re not fools.

    Repeating the same idiotic thing time after time, thread after thread, month after month, year after year and expecting a different result? That’s the definition of insanity. And that’s what you’re doing. People don’t take your twoofer garbage seriously because your twoofer garbage isn’t worth taking seriously. I would tell you to give it up here, but too many already have too many times. It would be useless to tell you to give it up because you are totally insane about it and you can’t go find somewhere else with other insane people to play with. But, so I don’t let you down:

    **Back to ignoring Blubonnet**

  120. John Hitchcock,

    Real nice of you to spit on the 9-11 families wishes for the public to take a real look at these things. I’m trying to do that. You attempt at every opportunity to block it.

    Real nice of you to spit on the wishes of firefighters.

  121. Brian Smith – Brother of Firefighter Kevin Smith. Charter member of the FDNY hazardous materials unit. On 9/11 served on the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management.

    * Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 1,000 Architects and Engineers:

    “On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 – specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7.” http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php

    * Editor’s note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission’s “full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.” Watch the collapse video here. And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.

    Allan L. Rosenzweig
    No photo available

    Allan L. Rosenzweig – Brother of Philip M. Rosenzweig, Vice President of Sun Microsystems and passenger on American Airlines Flight 11.

    * Review of Debunking 9/11 Debunking by David Ray Griffin: “I have been studying 9/11 data since the day it occurred due to the loss of my brother who was a passenger on AA FLT 11. I truly believe 9/11 was an inside job and since I didn’t receive any money to keep my mouth shut like my brother’s wife did, I have no agenda except to receive the truth. I believe the evidence shows we Americans were lied to by an extremely corrupt government. I hope one day, ALL of the players responsible for this will be punished.” http://www.amazon.com

    JoAnn and Tom Meehan
    No photo available

    JoAnn and Tom Meehan – Parents of Colleen Ann Barkow, Cantor Fitzgerald, WTC North Tower, 105th floor.

    * Statement in support of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth petition:

    “We lost our daughter Colleen Ann Barkow on 9-11 tower one Cantor Fitzgerald. I would like to know the truth about 9-11 and how those towers fell. Also why those fires burned for so long, Where are most of the bodies? Why isn’t something being done at Freshkills landfill? Is there something buried there that we are not allowed to see? The Firefighters we are truly grateful too. And I will help them get this bill passed to aid in their health care.”

    * Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 300 Firefighters for 9-11 Truth and affiliates:

    “On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Firefighters for 9-11 Truth and affiliates are deeply troubled with the “official” story concerning 9/11 and the way the rescue workers from Ground Zero are being “forgotten.”

    We believe there is overwhelming evidence of obstruction of justice, and destruction of evidence voiced even by numerous 9/11 Commissioners themselves. Senator Cleland resigned from the Commission stating, “This investigation is now compromised.”

    NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) 921, which is the National Standard for Fire and Explosion Investigations, very clearly indicates in numerous sections that the possibility of explosives should have been thoroughly investigated. … Specifically, the use of “exotic accelerants” should have been investigated. In NFPA 921 19.2.4 -“Exotic Accelerants,” three indicators were clearly met that should have led to a thorough investigation into the possible use of “exotic accelerants,” specifically as stated in the guideline, “Thermite mixtures.”

    So, why was the possibility of explosives, controlled demolition, or the use of “exotic accelerants” not thoroughly investigated, or even mentioned in the 9-11 Commission Report?

    We, the undersigned, demand the following:

    1) A truly independent investigation with Subpoena and Contempt Powers to uncover the complete truth of the events related to 9/11/2001 – specifically the collapse of WTC Tower 7 and the possibility of explosive demolition. …” http://firefightersfor911truth.org

    * Editor’s note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission’s “full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.” Watch the collapse video here. And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.

  122. Captain Dennis Tardio – WTC survivor. Engine 7 FDNY

    Firefighter Patrick Zoda – WTC survivor. Engine 7 FDNY

    * Documentary film, 9/11 by Jules and Gedeon Naudet recorded 9/11/01:

    Tardio: What do we do? We made it outside. We made it about a block.

    Zoda: We made it at least two blocks.

    Tardio: Two blocks.

    Zoda: And we started running

    Tardio: Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop.

    Zoda: Floor by floor, it started poppin’ out.

    Tardio: It was like, it was if, it was as if they had detonators.

    Zoda: Yeah, detonators.

    Tardio: You know, as if they were plannin’ to take down a building. Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.

    Zoda: All the way down. I was watchin’ it and running. And then you just saw this cloud of s**t chasing, chasing you down.” video segment at 47:35 of the 89 minute version of Loose Change 2nd Edition.

    * Editor’s note: Despite hundreds of eyewitness reports of explosions throughout the Twin Towers by doomed victims, survivors, emergency service personnel, reporters, and bystanders, the 9/11 Commission Report contains virtually no mention of them and entirely ignores them in its conclusions. Graeme MacQueen’s analysis of oral histories of 9/11 taken from 503 FDNY survivors reveals more than 100 FDNY personnel reported explosions in the Twin Towers.

    Bill Walsh

    Capt. William Walsh

  123. Perry wrote:

    And if Iraq was “arguably one of the most evil in the world”, why did Reagan have us allied with Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I guess Iran was even more evil. That’s kind of ‘relatively mushy’ too, isn’t it Eric?

    “If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.” — Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

    If the enemy of our enemy isn’t necessarily our friend, he may well be, at the least, an ally. It can hardly be said that we admired and respected Josef Stalin or the Soviet Union, yet they were a mighty and useful ally against what was seen as a far worse, far more immediate enemy in the Third Reich.

    Following the hostage crisis, which at least had the beneficial effect of limiting Jimmy Carter to one term as our President, Iran was seen as a far greater enemy, and a far bigger threat to peace and stability in the Middle East than Iraq. More, we had been dealing with Iraq for years, in efforts to counter Soviet attempts to gain better relations with Iraq. That Iraq wasn’t a great place, nor ruled by a good man or government, it was still more useful to us as a sort-of friend, because we faced worse problems.

    Nor was Iraq’s invasion of Iran something we found totally bad: we were more interested in weakening Iran than we were in containing Iraq.

  124. Dana:

    Your rationalizations are not impressive, the Stalin/WWII being the exception. It was not valid, in my view, to use WWII era tactics in the Cold War period, which was a time of stalemate. And now look at the result of our Middle East policies then, 9/11 being the culmination of hatred for America and the West.

    You also conveniently ignore the Iran-Contra affair, where Oliver North & Co. attempted to thwart the will of Congress, by selling arms to the Iranians in order to fund a counter-insurgency in Nicaragua. I suppose you will now argue that the Contras were a “far greater enemy” than the Iranians.

    You on the Right continue to act out of an overwhelming paranoia which then clouds your thinking in terms of peaceful resolutions to these threats. The threats will always be there, meaning that we will be in perpetual wars, during times when we have been in a position to incorporate peaceful strategies. As nuclear power holders proliferate, we are losing our advantages, not to mention the weakening of our economy, spearheaded by you ideologues on the right. Your ascendancy since Reagan has been the worst development ever to happen to our country, in my view.

    You on the right have now managed to successfully demonize those working for change in this country, with your unequivocal opposition to governance by the majority which, in my view, will continue the decline of this great nation, to the benefit only of those who hold the wealth and the power. You folks are your/our own worst enemy, worse even than the terrible Iranian leaders and the wicked al-Qaeda, for the long term, in my view, because you are bringing our country down from the inside, like an insidious invasive virus!

  125. I’m sad to say that I’ve gotten to the point where when I see “blubonnet” at the top of any entry here I read the first five words and if the numbers “9/11″ appear I skip the entire thing. Her obsession is now at the level of insanity. It seems that almost every thread develops into a 10-column inch rant about the so-called 9/11 conspiracy. At what point will she realize that after saying they same thing 1000 times saying it 1001 won’t change anyone’s mind?

    Please blubonnet, I’m begging you, talk about the issue at hand. I’ve seen threads where you began on the issues but somewhere your meds kicked in and BOOM you were off once again on 9/11. Please, try and focus baby, please.

    Your constant paranoia and conspiracy propaganda has painted a picture of you in my mind. I see a fiftyish lady in a little house somewhere in West Texas sitting at her computer. A wire leading from her neighbor’s house for internet connection because she refuses to pay Boosh to use the internet. A small TV sits directly across from her and a Betamax plays “Farenheight 911″ on a continuous loop. Occasionally, she takes a pee break then returns while eating light tuna out of a can while shooing her cats off her seat to check her email for the latest new revelations of her fellow conspiracy buffs. Very scary indeed.

  126. I’m only back briefly as I need to be at work by 11:30 but I wanted to address this previous posting:

    “JohnC plays his patriot card: “And I propose to you that if you think my view is radical then you need to find a nation which is superior and go there because quite honestly, there is nothing to keep you here.”

    Thanks, John, for defining for me what an American is, you arrogant fool! Who do you think you are to say such a thing? You, and those like you, are succeeding in further fracturing this nation. You would deprive me of my dissent over current policy. That John, says a lot about your version of Americanism. Yes, it is radical, in the extreme, in my view.

    18 February 2010, 2:01 pm

    Apparently, Perry and I disagree on American exceptionalism and the resulting superiority of that exceptionalism. That’s okay. But I think what really pissed him off was my “there’s really nothing keeping you here” comment. Let me explain. When a man does not like his situation he changes that situation if he can. Don’t like your house, move. Hate your car, buy a new one. Your wife’s a bitch, divorce her. No man tolerates things he doesn’t like. Your ancesters and mine came to America because they thought it was superior to where they were. Should you or I ever think America is no longer superior it is our duty to ourselves and our families to seek out what is.

    I have never stated that America is perfect, just better than everywhere else. Patriotism notwithstanding, it is paramont that one has love of country in order to want to improve one’s country. Be it Pho in New Zealand, my wife in Korea or you and I in America, we must love our contry, culture and most of all it’s promise or we will fail as good citizens.

    Furthermore, I have no desire nor if I had the power to would I “deprive you of your dissent over current policy”. Now honestly Perry, wouldn’t that be just about the last thing any real American would want to do?

    I appologise if my statement offended you in any way. Please attribute it to poor delivery and not meant in any way to disparrage your love of country.

  127. Perry wrote:

    Your rationalizations are not impressive, the Stalin/WWII being the exception. It was not valid, in my view, to use WWII era tactics in the Cold War period, which was a time of stalemate. And now look at the result of our Middle East policies then, 9/11 being the culmination of hatred for America and the West.

    They aren’t rationalizations, but accurate descriptions of our policies. Whether you believe it was “valid” to use World War II tactics during the Cold War matters little: they were used, by our elected leadership, by both parties. We responded to the North Korean invasion of the South with force, under a Democratic president. We took over in Vietnam under a Republican president, then expanded our role under two Democratic presidents, then finally surrendered achieved Peace With Honor™ under a Republican. The Cold War was finally won under a Republican president, though he had a lot of help.

    You also conveniently ignore the Iran-Contra affair, where Oliver North & Co. attempted to thwart the will of Congress, by selling arms to the Iranians in order to fund a counter-insurgency in Nicaragua. I suppose you will now argue that the Contras were a “far greater enemy” than the Iranians.

    I don’t think very highly of the Reagan Administration’s policies in Iran-Contra. Yes, it was absolutely the right thing to do to help the Contras, as it will always be the right thing to do to subvert a Communist government, but the notion that we could sell arms to Iran and deal with Iranian “moderates” was wholly wrong. We got a few hostages released due to the arms sales, but once we put a tangible value on the lives of those hostages, it simply encouraged the taking of new hostages, something which continued long after the Iran-Contra affair was exposed. Nor did we somehow win any moderating changes in the Iranian government with this. The idea that the profits from the arms sales could be diverted for use to help the Contras was a clever one, but there should never have been the arms sales in the first place from which to make profits; the Reagan Administration should have found another way around the repugnant Boland Amendment to fund the Contras.

  128. Perry wrote:

    You on the right have now managed to successfully demonize those working for change in this country, with your unequivocal opposition to governance by the majority which, in my view, will continue the decline of this great nation, to the benefit only of those who hold the wealth and the power. You folks are your/our own worst enemy, worse even than the terrible Iranian leaders and the wicked al-Qaeda, for the long term, in my view, because you are bringing our country down from the inside, like an insidious invasive virus!

    Are we to conclude, then, that the attempts by the Democrats to unseat the Republicans who controlled the Congress, and to defeat President Bush in 2004, would be described by you as “You on the left have now managed to successfully demonize those working for change in this country, with your unequivocal opposition to governance by the majority?”

    Very unfortunately, the Democrats won the 2006 and 2008 elections; this country is worse off for that having happened, which is a statement which you would make, in the reverse, about the Republican victories previously.

    Yes, we on the right believe that the policies that the Democrats would put in place will harm us as individuals and this country in general, and yes, we are working, very diligently, by every legal means, to change the results of the 2006 and 2008 elections at the ballot box in 2010 and 2012. Do you somehow believe we do not have that right?

    I would hope that you understand that we on the right believe that the policies of the Democrats “are bringing our country down from the inside, like an insidious invasive virus.” To us, or at least to me — I’ll let the others speak for themselves — the policies you would emplace would unjustly seize our productivity and our wealth to fund cockamamie schemes which would make our country economically poorer, our poor more dependent than ever on government, and attack our rights as individuals through the increasingly socialistic nature of our government.

    Just as one example: the current health care legislation would, for the first time, use the mandatory filing of income taxes to the Infernal revenue Service as the verification mechanism for compliance with other laws, to use our Forms 1040 to verify that we had health insurance coverage. I’m sure that you would think that is only reasonable, the most efficient method available for the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and the Geheime Staatspolizei to enforce compliance with the legislation, but some of us see that as both the misuse of the IRS and the taxing authority, and a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination.

  129. You also conveniently ignore the Iran-Contra affair, where Oliver North & Co. attempted to thwart the will of Congress, by selling arms to the Iranians in order to fund a counter-insurgency in Nicaragua.

    “Thwarting the will of Congress” as if the Congress has sole power to determine what course the government goes? Totally incorrect. While North and co. surely acted illegally in certain instances, the Boland Amendment which was the “will of Congress” in this instance certainly may NOT have withstood a Supreme Court challenge had the exec branch decided to go that route. After all, the Constitution provides that the EXECUTIVE branch MAKES foreign policy, not the legislative. Now, while certainly Congress can (and did) cut off funds for whatever foreign policy the exec branch may wish to establish, the issue is whether then the exec branch can lobby other (foreign) governments to [then] fund what they wish.

  130. You folks are your/our own worst enemy, worse even than the terrible Iranian leaders and the wicked al-Qaeda, for the long term, in my view, because you are bringing our country down from the inside, like an insidious invasive virus!

    Did I once say that a different statement by fossilized Perry was enough to prove his insanity? Scratch that …

  131. Dana: “Are we to conclude, then, that the attempts by the Democrats to unseat the Republicans who controlled the Congress, and to defeat President Bush in 2004, would be described by you as “You on the left have now managed to successfully demonize those working for change in this country, with your unequivocal opposition to governance by the majority?””

    No, Dana, but you divert. Obviously, I am talking about the use of the filibuster to prevent the majority, by election, to govern.

    I am talking about a party, the Republicans, who will sponsor legislation, then vote against it because Obama and the Dems agree and favor its passage.

    I am talking about Republicans who voted against the stimulus, then go back to their states and districts to claim credit.

    Do you approve of this behavior, Dana?

    Do you have confidence of this ‘party over country’ mantra of your party, to be a party that is prepared to govern, were they to regain power?

  132. Dana: “Just as one example: the current health care legislation would, for the first time, use the mandatory filing of income taxes to the Infernal revenue Service as the verification mechanism for compliance with other laws, to use our Forms 1040 to verify that we had health insurance coverage.”

    This is the first I’ve heard of this. Which bill is it in? I doubt if it is in the Senate Bill. Why has this not been in the news? I view it as a rather extreme departure, something like Nixon using the IRS to cull out information about his enemies.

  133. Hube: “After all, the Constitution provides that the EXECUTIVE branch MAKES foreign policy, not the legislative.”

    This was a funding issue, in which Congress voted not to fund the Contras in Nicaragua by means of the Boland Amendments.

    Reagan claimed he did not know about this scheme, as underlings like Oliver North took the matter into their own hands. And irony of all ironies, Israel was the middle man in the scheme, actually shipping the arms to Iran.

    PS: Seems like anyone who disagrees with Hube is fossilized and insane. Your view is insane, Hube!

    Sounds like you support subverting the will of Congress by the Executive Branch, Hube. Wow!

  134. Sounds like you support subverting the will of Congress by the Executive Branch, Hube. Wow!

    It sounds that way b/c you did not READ what I actually wrote, old man. Try again.

  135. Hube forgot that he wrote this: ““Thwarting the will of Congress” as if the Congress has sole power to determine what course the government goes? Totally incorrect.”

    That was your opening comment on this Iran-Contra issue, Hube!

    What North & company did can hardly be considered “lobby[ing] other (foreign) governments to [then] fund what they wish”.

    Your position on the matter was made crystal clear, that you support Iran-Contra type activities.

    Did you give thought to what you did write, Hube, or are you being duplicitous?

  136. And since we have been arguing everything about what this thread is, you all missed the biggest headline that is sure to get more American and NATO Forces killed in Afghanistan.

    Yorkshire:
    Well, the State and Defense Departments just tied one hand behind our fighters’ back. They can not fire unless they see a weapon. Of course we announced this to the world so the Taliban and Al-Q know to keep their weapons well hidden. What Jackass thought this up? Has no clue.
    19 February 2010, 7:08 pm | Edit

  137. Perry — forget your Geritol today, old man?

    1. I said some of the things North et. al. were indeed criminal.
    2. There was an issue with the Boland Amendment that may not have withstood constitutional muster. Like it or not, the exec branch DOES make foreign policy. The issue? Can Congress tell the exec branch what it can do in terms of making foreign policy — ie, could Congress dictate to the Reagan admin. whether it could lobby other governments to assist their efforts in Nicaragua. This is BESIDE the issue of what North and co. actually DID in various instances.
    3. My “insane” remark was in regards to your asinine comment that the Right in th US is as dangerous as al Qaeda and Iran. Again, your Geritol potency should be upped.

    It’s only a matter of time, I suppose, before you begin blaming Israel for the whole IRan-Contra affair, I suppose. You just can’t help it.

  138. Dana: “… we are working, very diligently, by every legal means, ….”

    Sure you are, though your party seems to have forgotten the importance of morality and ethics, as your lying and hypocrisy reveal your party’s character for what it is right now. And you, Dana, are in full support of any means to overthrow your opposition.

    And it was largely your party’s policies that produced the conditions that took your party from power in 2006 and 2008, and worse, brought our economy down. And you want your policies to be reimplemented? Now that really is insane, in that it is a denial of the past! You people are overdue for rehabilitation; you need to use the Tiger Woods example!

  139. Hube, your weakness shows when you turn, as usual, to your insults and personal attacks. Why cannot you be satisfied with debating and discussion?

  140. Perry:
    Yorkshire: ]

    Citation please!

    Find it yourself. You wouldn’t believe it and change the subject anyway. I’m tired of doing your work.

  141. Yorkshire:

    Tune in to Meet the Press on Sunday, when General Petraeus will be the guest. I’m sure Afghanistan will be the main topic, and the question of our rules of engagement may well come up.

    I still would like to see your citation on your comment.

  142. Perry:
    Yorkshire:
    You made the comment, now back it up!

    Perry, remember this?

    Yorkshire:
    Perry: @11:53am
    Yorkshire:
    Is that really the way it was in Afghanistan?

    Perry: @12:20pm
    Yorkshire:
    I am not questioning any of your information. You totally miss the point.

    Again, Perry shown to be Wrong, changes the subject. I didn’t miss your point, you Doubted my Info with your constant citation requests. You asked, I answered the Chief Relavitist Progressive on the board. The Taliban are brutal sadistic murderers. And you look it up.
    18 February 2010, 12:28 pm | Edit

    You find it.

  143. Hube, your weakness shows when you turn, as usual, to your insults and personal attacks. Why cannot you be satisfied with debating and discussion?

    No one here cares one whit about your complaints, old man. Why? Because your credibility is at zero in that regard, and your hypocrisy is at 100%. So, why not spare us all? All anyone does anymore is guffaw at such whining.

    Perhaps when you actually start reading people’s comments and not retorting to what you WANT them to be, folks like me will begin to give you just a smidgen of respect.

  144. Hube continues his personal vendetta:

    Hube, I quoted two of your comments, which you ignore. Instead, you prolong your personal attack. That’s all you have going here, and like I said, it demonstrates your weakness, your immaturity, and your lack of self discipline.

  145. Yeah, you quoted what I wrote, then completely ignored it in your own comments!! As I said, grow the f*** up a bit, then you may get some respect. As it is, you’re like an 80 year-old toddler.

  146. Yorkshire starts to yell!:

    I guess there is something wrong about asking for a citation, in your view.

    There is so much exaggeration and making stuff up on here, and with your party, that a citation becomes necessary. Then you tell me to look it up. That’s ridiculous!

    Consider this report today from the Huffington Post:

    In a speech at the opening session of the Afghan parliament, Karzai also repeated his call to Taliban fighters to renounce al-Qaida and join with the government – an appeal that may have more resonance after recent arrests of Taliban leaders in Pakistan.

    Karzai held up a picture of an 8-year-old girl who he said was the only one left to recover the bodies of her 12 relatives, all killed when two NATO rockets struck their home during the offensive in the southern town of Marjah. He called the incident a tragedy for all Afghanistan.

    Karzai said NATO has made progress in reducing civilian casualties and air bombardments – which have been responsible for some of the largest incidents of civilian deaths. And he thanked NATO commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who attended the speech, for “standing with us honestly in this effort.”

    However, Karzai stressed that the effort is not sufficient.

    Does it bother you, Yorktown, when Afghan civilians are killed by our war making apparatus? Would it surprise you that the survivors of the dead Afghans would consider us as being “brutal murderers”, as you just called the Taliban?

    You need to make an effort to look at both sides of the equation, something you fail to do on a daily basis!

  147. Perry, you have on numerous occasions gone the personal attack route. Don’t pretend your hands are clean. Your hands are dirty up to your armpits. You are also into this passive-aggressive “victim” approach, as can be seen all over your commenting. You claim people cherry-pick information. You have shown yourself to be the ultimate cherry-picker by your constant refusal to acknowledge all the sourcing given you after you adamantly demanded that sourcing. And you constantly refuse to answer to that undeniable fact.

    On the personal integrity front, I got your number there, too. Want me to dial that number? And you do know what I mean.

  148. John H.:

    No, John, I don’t know what you mean, and I don’t take kindly to your threats.

    When I cherry pick, call me out. It is as simple as that.

    Instead of that, you generate your personal rants with no factual basis.

    Let us discuss individual issues of interest, state our case, then understand that often we will not agree because our core beliefs are different.

    The stuff you have come out with lately crosses a line, in my view, so I would ask you to stop.

  149. Now folks, we are getting nowhere with this degenerate exchange, therefore, I choose not to continue with it.

    Carry on as you wish!

  150. Perry opins:
    “No, Dana, but you divert. Obviously, I am talking about the use of the filibuster to prevent the majority, by election, to govern.”

    “I am talking about a party, the Republicans, who will sponsor legislation, then vote against it because Obama and the Dems agree and favor its passage.”

    “I am talking about Republicans who voted against the stimulus, then go back to their states and districts to claim credit.”

    Citations please !!!!!

  151. Perry: John’s 11:55 is 100% accurate and you know it. Your MO is widely known, yet, like a typical holier-than-thou “progressive,” you’re somehow “above it all” as evidenced by your 12:02.

    But the plain fact of the matter is that you’re a pathetic, hypocritical JOKE. End of story.

  152. Believe me, internet control is on their agenda. Start doing some research, chump.

    If “Internet control” was on their agenda, they’d have done it by now. I’m sure it would not be hard for the CIA to hack into the kook sites and shut them down.

  153. John C and John H are right, Blu. You’ve posted the same junk hundreds of times, and no one’s buying it.

    Time to just give the kookery a rest.

  154. Perry:
    Yorkshire starts to yell!:

    I guess there is something wrong about asking for a citation, in your view.

    It’s as simple as this. You are given links, then ignore them. You have been asked for links, and given none. You are given links and change the subject. So, after this last go round and one before it when I and others have proven you wrong, or have given you the straight scoop, you ignore it. Like I said a few weeks ago, don’t ever ask for a link again. Perry, your well known, and that my friend, Is Settled Science.

  155. Yorkshire, Perry’s dishonesty is indeed well-known. But the depth of his dishonesty is not yet well-known. Of course, his dishonesty caused me to lay out some math to show how deep it goes. If necessary, I’ll do the math I laid out.

  156. No, Dana, but you divert. Obviously, I am talking about the use of the filibuster to prevent the majority, by election, to govern.

    You’ve been whining compaining about this forever, but you just can’t accept that the filibuster is a legitimate Senate tactic, one used by both sides.

    The Senate, BTW, wasn’t meant to be purely democratic, nor provide pure majority rule. That’s why small states get two senators, same as large states. The Senate was set up, among other things, to be a voice of restraint on government action, a body where moderation could prevail over the passions of the mob.

  157. Instead of that, you generate your personal rants with no factual basis.

    Actually, John H has a point about this passive-aggressive stuff. And so does York about the way you always demand sources and “Citations”, then ignore them when presented. And you do seem rather thin skinned at times.

    And it would help to develop a sense of humor. Hube’s crack about behaving like an 80 year old toddler was funny as hell! As Rush Limbaugh says – if you can’t laugh at yourself, then laugh along with us as we laugh at you.

  158. Oh, and I’d like to remind everyone that Perry adamantly refused to give sourcing, claiming we are too elitist to consider his sourcing and if we didn’t believe him that was our problem. At the same time, he cries like a 4-year-old girl when his foes refuse to give him the sourcing he demands.

    Did you think I’d forget that, Perry?

  159. Perry rants:

    You folks are your/our own worst enemy, worse even than the terrible Iranian leaders and the wicked al-Qaeda, for the long term, in my view, because you are bringing our country down from the inside, like an insidious invasive virus!

    I can just about hear all the cuckoo clocks going off at Perry’s place!

  160. The Boland Amendment took the form of prohibiting the use of any funds appropriated by Congress for the CIA, other intelligence agencies, and the Department of Defense, from being used to aid the Contras. The Reagan Administration exploited a loophole, in that the National Security Council, for which Admiral John Poindexter and Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North worked, was not listed as an intelligence agency, and thus they could, while working for the NSC, look for funding outside of congressional appropriations to help the Contras. LTC North solicited funds from several sources, including the Saudis, to help the Contras.

    President Reagan argued that the Boland Amendment was an unconstitutional restriction on his powers as President. However, the Constitution restricts all monies spent by the federal government to appropriations by Congress; it seems to me that the Congress can place a restriction like the Boland Amendment, legitimately, on appropriated funds. It was never tested in court, but my guess is that it would be constitutional.

  161. Yes, Mr Pico, I read your new article regarding flame wars. It doesn’t change my total lack of respect for or distrust of Perry as he has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt he cannot be trusted or respected. As I wrote you in my email,

    I got a serious problem with this. A serious problem.

    http://commonsensepoliticalthought.com/?p=8754#comment-575143

    Perry’s comment:

    Except, John, nothing that you said is accurate!

    Moreover, you, at $10K per year, are paying a much higher percentage in taxes than Dana and DNW are, I’m pretty sure. Add them all up, then calculate the percentage, then let us know!

    When I responded to his comment, “moreover” and everything that followed DID NOT EXIST. So, he very clearly used his editing ability to fraudulently make it appear that he said something totally different than what he said, which made my response look ignorant and out of place.

    PERRY IS DISHONEST and I am highly offended.

    And there is my threat fulfilled. I have to wonder how many other comments he changed to make other people’s responses look out of place. I have to wonder how anyone who values integrity would ever respect or trust anything he says or stealth-edits.

  162. Before we go any further in this thread, will everyone please read On Courtesy and Flame Wars?

    Good point. I’ve gotten a bit “Hot under the collar” at times, but the last few days have worked to tone it down.

    From now on, if I do have something negative to say about another poster, I’ll at least try to keep it light and humorous!

  163. I agree with Eric: “Good point.” And I agree to give more attention to the way I express myself with regard to any personal comments. We should be debating positions on issues, not personal attacks. As usual, Dana sets the example, which is why the quality of his blog is at the highest level most of the time.

    Now John, let me correct a misconception of yours and admit to an inadvertent mistake of mine. You will notice, John, that 3 minutes elapsed between my post and yours in response, on the post you are questioning. As I do sometimes, when rereading a post just posted, I go back in to correct or add something, which I believe happened in this case, although I cannot specifically recall. I have never knowingly changed something to make someone appear foolish.

    The solution for me is to double check my post before pressing the submit button.

  164. Perry, for the sake of decorum, I will currently accept your explanation on this point, and this point only. My personality profile and the various explanations I posted on this site and linked to explains me quite well on issues of integrity (which is far more important than making friends). Again, for decorum’s sake, I will currently accept your explanation on this point.

  165. Thanks for the citation.

    Rules of engagement become very touchy when civilian lives are at stake, especially when President Karzai continuously calls attention to them.

    The Taliban, of course, take advantage of them, which makes it that more challenging for the NATO forces. We faced/face the same problem in Iraq.

    It should be interesting to see what Petreaus has to say on Meet the Press tomorrow.

    In Afghanistan, what began as a search for bin Laden, has turned into a nation building exercise, while NATO assumes the responsibility of providing security and attacking the Taliban, with Afghan troops also involved.

    I am hoping that Petreaus can give us an exit strategy that will have played out in just one more year.

  166. I think you are avoiding my material like the plague, because you are scared shitless to realize what people with more objectivity, integrity, and honesty have brought forth.

    It’s not fear, Blu, but rather laughter. And laughter is still the best response to silliness, and the “Truther” movement is (I’m trying to be kind here) silly. A handful of screwballs and crackpots think the government blew up those buildings, and we’re supposed to take it seriously??

  167. But, you haven’t honestly looked at material I’ve brought here

    Oh, I’ve looked at your “material”, because God knows you’ve posted it enough times. But I just don’t buy it, nor, apparently, does anyone else. But you can’t accept that, so you just post the same stuff over and over ad nauseum. John and I have both pointed out that insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting a different result.

  168. I get slammed by being called a TWOOFER, in an attempt to discredit me, each time I engage in a discussion on any subject in particular. So, I respond, as to why I believe these things. All facts having validity, but the ones in denial, are obviously going to hang on to their denial for dear life. I’d thought that there were those here that could use objectivity, despite the outrageousness of what I have showed you. Not so. I’ve lost hope for many as far as character.

    The information continues to make itself available, and there is no shortage of it. That is what is really amazing, the consistent denial, when it is more and more obvious that government story is bogus.

    There are other countries looking at what has taken place from our own government in this last decade, from wars of aggression, torture, and false flag terrorism. The same way a parent will seldom believe their child would do something horrific, I see, many citizens can’t honestly see what has taken place. No matter how many scientists, government people, pilots, NORAD, and on and on, with nothing to gain, and everything to risk, state what has taken place, the denial around here can’t broken.

    Our numbers continue to grow, and I’m sorry you all are going to overlook the evidence that far exceeds the government’s computer generated version. Video documentation on our side, with demolition experts seeing what took place, still hold no weight. I’m sorry that when you finally do realize it, you’ll have to deal with the realization that you were part of its support system, preventing others from looking by your consistent, often violently verbal denial.

    You’ll be glad to know I’m gone.

  169. Blu, when you first started posting this stuff several years ago, people here tried to engage it seriously, using facts, logic, evidence and reason. Dana and York know construction, I have some expertise in aviation and aerospace, and Art has long experience in the defense industry. The jokes and humor only came later, as it became obvious you didn’t want to listen to anything we said. You are, of course, free to believe anything you want, but I’m not going to believe the gov’t caused 9/11 because a handful of Internet sites say so. I’m not buying that they, and they alone, somehow know the Real Truth, magically have the “inside scoop” that has somehow eluded everyone else.

  170. blubonnet:
    I get slammed by being called a TWOOFER, in an attempt to discredit me, each time I engage in a discussion on any subject in particular. So, I respond, as to why I believe these things. All facts having validity, but the ones in denial, are obviously going to hang on to their denial for dear life. I’d thought that there were those here that could use objectivity, despite the outrageousness of what I have showed you. Not so. I’ve lost hope for many as far as character.

    Personally Blu, don’t go. The problems people have with the arguments you bring are they are not germain to the subject. This thread is about the battle in Marjah and how we are doing against the Taliban. It has nothing to do with 9/11 except for the tangent of how we got there. That’s it. I think if a thread was started to air out what went wrong on 9/11 you would have a lot to add since it’s apparent you have researched more than everyone combined on this blog. It was why after about 100 posts I tried to bring it back to where we started. It would be great for you to add to that discussion, as well as any other topic. When I have posted pictures, and especially the squirrel, you added a great piece of kmowledge of squirrels marking their territory like cats.

  171. Why does no one care what the 9-11-01 victims’ family members think?

    What New York City thinks?

    No one cares what the firefighters there think.

    Or former CIA officials?

    Or over one thousand engineers and architects, mostly engineers though?

    Or several hundred aviation professionals, pilots galore?

    Or military intelligence officials.?

    Miltiary officers who study plane wrecks, a general, I might add.

    Many scientists?

    It is astonishing to me, that despite the expertise, and even visual documentation, with scientific explanations, even confronting the NIST people in public, and NIST even conceding, and all the warnings of those of our forefathers of the military industrial complex, York, and they happened to be in the Whitehouse, the military industrial complex profiting off the scale, and the Pentagon (with the Bush declared Presidential secrecy privilege, they won’t tell us what or how much is being spent or spent on). It is denial, plain and simple.

    There are the war profiteers’ appointed engineers and there are the independent ones who are risking their livlihoods daring to speak out, and why so many believe the war profiteering politicians ones? Surely you all would know better. I’ll believe the independent ones.

    In HITLER’s horrific mind, there was an evil genius, and one of his pieces of knowledge was this…”There is always a source of credibility in the big lie, because the average people of a nation are always more easily manipulated in their emotional nature, than consciously or voluntarily; thus since they themselves often tell small lies. It would never come into average peoples’ heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have that impudence to distort truths so infamously.”

    WINSTON CHURCHILL said, “One thing we learn from history, is that we don’t learn from history.”

    I like you, York, you are gentleman always, bringing a lighter side to this world we all feel passionate about. Thank you for being the way you are. I adore Dana as well, as you choose to let me share my knowledge, knowing that insulting me, confronting me is of no value. I thank you for that. And of course, my Leftie fellow debaters I also appreciate.

    Like I mentioned, when I do end up defending my perspective on it, it is more often due to the fact that some who are left without a response to a comment of mine, throw the word “TWOOOFER” “LOOOOON” etc. Then, it starts all over again. Yes, I’ll tell you why what I know is right. Freaks people out though.

    True, I bring it up often, besides, because these things I bring are proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and another country will be the one to bring charges, not our own, investigating itself. But, one quote I will leave you with is one by LINCOLN: “To sin by silence, when we should protest, makes cowards of men.” It is because I feel a responsibility as a citizen, having scrutinized both sides, and see who and where the evidence exists. There are millions of us now, and many have awakened.

    When revulsion between people exist, and I know, you know who all I mean, my towards them and them towards me, there is no value to discussion anymore. And apparently I am sending others into the other direction as well. I don’t want to undermine Dana’s site.

    And thanks to Dana for his allowances of discussion and links made available to share information. I’m not so sure he would be willing to do that anymore anyway though. But, the facts are, mere words don’t convince, I assumed that video documentation would. Apparently though that is not even worthy of consideration to many.

    I’ve really enjoyed debating, and the challenges presented to me, to make my points. You’re a doll, York! Later.

  172. blubonnet:
    Why does no one care what the 9-11-01 victims’ family members think?
    What New York City thinks?
    No one cares what the firefighters there think.
    Or former CIA officials?
    Or over one thousand engineers and architects, mostly engineers though?
    Or several hundred aviation professionals, pilots galore?
    Or military intelligence officials.?
    Miltiary officers who study plane wrecks, a general, I might add.
    Many scientists?

    I really believe all of us here care about the well being of all the people involved in 9/11 from the survivors, the victims and families and everyone who worked on that day and the year or so afterwards to clean-up. It was a horrid day and everyone approaches how they wish to remember it. Some have moved on, some will never forget, some are fighting an elusive enemy, some study the why, some condemn for selfish partisan reasons, some see more at work than others. But I do believe most accept what their eyes and minds saw that day, two planes hitting the WTC 1 & 2, one plane hitting the Pentagon, and one crashing in a field in western PA. For most they will never forget, and for some it’s painful to bring up.

  173. Well, every one buys the government story without looking at the evidence of the other side. Like I said, I’m not going to continue this discussion anymore, but if you remember, for one, that WTC7 was not hit by a plane, and that weapons grade material was found all throughout the city, with all ten characteristics of controlled demolitions, confirmed by demoltions experts, just watch, at least the first 10 or 20 minutes of this. This is the end of my trying to convince anyone though. I’m doubting you guys are emotionally ready to acknowledge it, well meaning as those like yourself are. Just watch for a while. This documentary is called 911Revisited.

    http://www.911revisited.com/video.html

  174. Why does no one care what the 9-11-01 victims’ family members think?

    Most 9/11 victims families think Al-Q attacked America on 9/11. So quit exploiting a handful of kooks who believe otherwise.

  175. You are wrong, Eric, but you won’t look to see if you are right or wrong, you will just declare ‘kook’. 66% of New Yorkers disbelieve the government, and the family members have been paying more attention than most with the growing confirmation of nano-thermite throughout the many inches of pulverized buildings. Did you see the documentary, the first 20 minutes at least, like I suggested to York? No, I didn’t think so. I’m talking to York, not you. So, don’t start. Unless you have the willingness to research it as thoroughly as I have on both sides, you haven’t a leg to stand on in discussion. Screaming kook does nothing to confirm anything but your disbelief and anger. We already know you believe the government and think I’m wrong, so this is between York and I. We also know you haven’t looked at all I’ve brought here, Eric.

  176. Like I mentioned, when I do end up defending my perspective on it, it is more often due to the fact that some who are left without a response to a comment of mine, throw the word “TWOOOFER” “LOOOOON” etc. Then, it starts all over again. Yes, I’ll tell you why what I know is right. Freaks people out though.

    Problem is, you don’t listen to anyone else. You just post the same kookery over and over, and can’t accept that no one believes your nut-whackery.

    The 9/11 Twoofer movement is evil. It seeks to smear decent people like George W Bush. It seeks to smear normal Americans as dupes. It is run by kooks, whackoes, and nuts. It is driven by hate, hate of America, and of our values. Twoofers should rightly be scorned and laughed at by all normal people.

  177. I won’t discuss anything with children that will not look at the steady NEW INFORMATION disproving the government story. Bye Eric.

  178. What is in it for you,Eric? Why are you so invested in taking down my sources of evidence? While not looking at them by the way. If you looked it would be obvious. The film offered are from television footage that day. Look at it again. Or are you going to get mad? Civil discussion doesn’t seem to be possible with you. Insults fly, because you don’t like the information I bring. That’s it. You successfully closed down this discussion. That was your agenda, wasn’t it? It isn’t about studying for the good of all information. You just don’t want to EVER see that you are wrong. Otherwise, you wouldn’t work so hard at taking it down, while not daring to look at it.

  179. Emotional maturity is required to grasp this. It takes some steel objectivity. I need to go elsewhere.

  180. I’m doubting you guys are emotionally ready to acknowledge it

    Problem is, we are not willing to acknowlege hate and evil, which the Twoofer movement is. It is extremism and hate. It is run by kooks who hate America. Why should normal people aknowlege hate and evil?

  181. Unless you have the willingness to research it as thoroughly as I have on both sides

    Problem is, you haven’t listened to both sides. You only believe the kook-nut-haters of the Twoofer movement. These haters hate America, and blame America for 9/11. They are evil and insane. These haters should be rightly rejected by normal Americans.

  182. Well, every one buys the government story without looking at the evidence of the other side. Like I said, I’m not going to continue this discussion anymore, but if you remember, for one, that WTC7 was not hit by a plane, and that weapons grade material was found all throughout the city, with all ten characteristics of controlled demolitions, confirmed by demoltions experts, just watch, at least the first 10 or 20 minutes of this. This is the end of my trying to convince anyone though. I’m doubting you guys are emotionally ready to acknowledge it, well meaning as those like yourself are. Just watch for a while. This documentary is called 911Revisited.
    http://www.911revisited.com/video.html

    Another kook-nut video posted by a kook-nut. Why should we believe the evil Twoofer movement? It is consisted of psychos and nuts. They are evil, and hate America.

  183. You work hard at destroying any doubts haunting you, I see. You haven’t the strength of character to look honestly. You aren’t really worth conversing with. Name calling ensues.

  184. I know you wish desperately I would go away and not let your mind go there. It’s quite obvious.

  185. Blu, it’s easy enough for you to dismiss the conservatives here as not wanting to look at the “Truther” evidence, because we’re just protecting George Bush! But the fact you can’t seem to explain is why your views have no traction among the left, either. All of the journalistic sources which were so opposed to the Republicans, the major papers like The New York Times and The Boston Globe, none of them give your position any credence. Democratic politicians who absolutely loathe the Republicans, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, the idiotic demagogue congressman from Harlem whose name escapes me at the moment, Barack Obama, none of them take the Truther movement seriously.

    And let’s face facts: it would be to their advantage for the Truthers to be right. If it could be established that the Republicans were engaged in some sort of conspiracy on September 11th, that’s it, the Republican Party would be destroyed, slain, killed, dismembered, and we’d have 100 Democrats in the Senate and 435 Democrats in the House. Yet none of these people pursues such an obvious advantage. Why is that?

  186. From all that blubonnet has documented here, I think there is enough evidence for a formal investigation. My suspicion is that there were more terrorists than the 19 who flew in the 3 planes. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that there was a coordinated attack involving explosives being placed at the base some of the buildings in the twin towers complex by more terrorists. I find it highly questionable that further formal investigation has not been initiated by Congress. Is it possible that we fear the truth, the possibility being how poor our security really was at that time? We need to have the answers!

  187. Perry there was a formal investigation, The 9/11 Report. It’s a thick and sleepy book but I believe you can read it on line. Blu has shown zero “documentation”, she has only shown conspiracy theories and in some cases the “possibility” of what “might” have occured. As Dana Pico pointed out, had it actually occured don’t you think it would be used for political gain? A hundred million Americans watched the Towers fall. Are we all blind and stupid? This type of consiracy thing has been around forever; who REALLY killed JFK? We never REALLY landed on the moon. FDR knew days in advance the Japs were going to hit Pearl Harbor. Come on, there are better topics than these nut jobs. Hell, I’ve seen in my own life that if two people know a secret it ain’t a secret any more. How can thousands know a secret and keep it? I’ll go with impossible. Especially when there is political power to be gained.

  188. Dana is right. The liberals, indeed, even far left organizations like The Nation magazine, don’t take any of this “Truther” stuff seriously, even though it would be to their political advantage if there was even a hint of evidence it was true. No major newspapers or TV news networks have given it any credence, either. Of course, the standard Conspiracy Theory answer is that they’re all part of the “Conspiracy”, but that’s just paranoia.

    And Perry, John C is right, too. 9/11 HAS been investigated, and quite thoroughly. Quite simply, I trust the media on this, especially the New York media, which has a vested interest in getting out the truth about 9/11. Of course, according to Blu, they’re all wrong, everybody is wrong except for a handful of self-proclaimed “Experts” who post on the Internet. Like religious cultists, these people somehow believe they, and only they, know the Real Truth. Given the choice between believing common sense versus some oddballs on the ‘Net, I’ll go with common sense.

  189. I’ve mentioned it before, but no one seems to pay attention to what I say, but the 911 Commissioners DO
    N”T believe the government. Start clicking.

  190. Eric, how did I hear about it? Guess what. It was the NATION magazine who happened to have a book review written by the former CIA agent by the name of Robert Baer, regarding David Ray Griffin’s book A NEW PEARL HARBOR.

  191. Engineers paid by war profiteering politicians

    or

    1044 independent Engineers who rely on donations and are risking it all, careers, etc.

  192. Eric, the founder of Architects and Engineers was a Reagan Republican. I’m not holding it against him though.

  193. You work hard at destroying any doubts haunting you, I see. You haven’t the strength of character to look honestly. You aren’t really worth conversing with. Name calling ensues.

    Problem is, you can’t accept the fact that no one here believes this stuff. No one takes it seriously. Yet you keep posting it over and over and over and you wonder why people get annoyed? Almost every thread you participate in turns into another Twoofer rant. We get it already. We “Got” it years ago. We just don’t buy it. Accept it. Live with it. Move on. You’re like a religious nut who keeps banging on prople’s doors, handing out pamphlets, and all they see you as is a pest. It’s rude. Grown-ups don’t behave this way. They don’t keep constantly imposing their views on people who don’t share them. It’s called having respect for others. But, if you haven’t figured that out by now, you never will.

  194. Perry wrote:

    From all that blubonnet has documented here, I think there is enough evidence for a formal investigation. My suspicion is that there were more terrorists than the 19 who flew in the 3 planes. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that there was a coordinated attack involving explosives being placed at the base some of the buildings in the twin towers complex by more terrorists. I find it highly questionable that further formal investigation has not been initiated by Congress. Is it possible that we fear the truth, the possibility being how poor our security really was at that time? We need to have the answers!

    You’re forgetting: the Congress did authorize a formal investigation of the September 11th attacks, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States, and you can download their report here.

    I’m not sure what another investigation could find: the original commission, with both Republicans and Democrats at the helm, and a large technical staff working for them, had all of the resources needed. A congressional investigation itself would simply put politicians without any expertise trying to do detective work, hardly an efficient thing, though if it kept the members too busy to vote on legislation, it might actually be a net positive.

    I doubt that the 9/11 Commission Report is perfect, given that no human endeavor ever is. But I rather doubt that there’s enough new information out there that is significant enough to justify a new investigation. In the end, you’d wind up with a new commission hiring the same people who did the original investigation, because they are the ones with the expertise in the subject.

  195. Dana, you’ve completely ignored what I’ve brought here. I respect you, but you really don’t even look. Look.

  196. blubonnet:
    Dana, you’ve completely ignored what I’ve brought here. I respect you, but you really don’t even look. Look.

    It’s the same stuff you’ve been posting for years. We’ve been through it a billion times already. Just give it a rest.

  197. NO IT IS NOT, ERIC. However your violent resistance to my words shows your fear, I’m right. Because you not only have to rethink this, you have to alter much more of your reality. You haven’t that much flex in your spirit or your nervous system. It scares the hell out of you. Grow a spine.

  198. Eric, are you the delusion policeman? Protecting the “reality” you’ve come to know and love?

    Here you are again turning a conversation into a verbal holocaust. You have brain explosions, and splatter all over the screen. We’d really like to have simple exchanges of information, not name calling.

  199. We’d really like to have simple exchanges of information, not name calling.

    Putting aside the fact that accusing president Bush of killing 3,000 civilians is “Name calling” of the highest order, the “Exchange of information” is hopelessly old and stale by now. It’s the same old stuff, over and over, round and round, with nobody convincing anyone of anything. It’s long since become a complete waste of time.

    As I said before, you just need to accept the fact that none of us buy any of this “Truther” stuff. Period. You can repeat it a thousand more times, and it won’t make a difference. At best, it’s like trying to push your religious views on someone who doesn’t share them. At some point, a reasonable person gives it a rest.

  200. It scares the hell out of you.

    No, quite frankly, it bores the hell out of me. Like I said, this issue has long since become a complete waste of time. And, speaking of which, that’s the last time I’m going to waste on it.

    Believe whatever you want. Post it a million more times. I simply don’t care any more.

  201. Dana: “You’re forgetting:”

    Dana, what I said was: “I find it highly questionable that further formal investigation has not been initiated by Congress.”

    Having thumbed through the evidence and speculation that blubonnet has presented, there is good reason to believe that there was more to the attack than two airplanes, the implication being that there were additional terrorists involved on the ground, who may even have been American terrorists.

    Added: I find it very far fetched to implicate Bush & Co. in any kind of a conspiracy re 9/11.

    Again, I think there are grounds here for further formal investigation.

  202. Added: I find it very far fetched to implicate Bush & Co. in any kind of a conspiracy re 9/11.

    Yeah, but try telling the “Truthers” that!

  203. Having thumbed through the evidence and speculation that blubonnet has presented, there is good reason to believe that there was more to the attack than two airplanes, the implication being that there were additional terrorists involved on the ground, who may even have been American terrorists.

    Perrry, I’m guessing that if there are some details left to be uncovered about 9/11, they are just that – details. I don’t think a new investigation is likely to uncover anything groundbreaking. For example, I don’t think there were any additional terrorists involved, after all, simply flying those planes into the Twin Towers was horrific enough for them to send their “Message”.

    One reason I refuse to give the “Truther” stuff any credence is that, if there was a shred of genuine evidence to support it, some enterprising reporter would have gotten on it by now. Much as we conservatives complain about the “Liberal” media, when it comes to reporting on factual events (as opposed to political issues) their track record is pretty damned good. Such a story would indeed be the Scoop of the Century, making Watergate look like a two-bit “Dog bites man” story.

  204. Wow, Eric just makes stuff up when something bothers him…”not a shred of evidence” he says. He wishes. I wish also. I think Eric also wishes the National bird was an ostrich instead of an eagle.

  205. Ignoring the fact that the 911 Commissioners said there was a cover up doesn’t register with Eric. The book Kean and Hamilton wrote still hasn’t registered. The twoofer word, if he says it enough, he thinks will make all these things go away. There IS TONS OF EVIDENCE, CONFIRMED BY SCIENCE, ENGINEERS OF EVERY SORT, FAR OUTWEIGHING THE GOVERNMENT VERSION. BACKED BY VIDEO DOCUMENTATION. But his denial and the reality haven’t yet made friends. It’s kind of funny to see him work so hard at making me go away.

  206. Circles, nothing but circles. These arguments have no beginning and have no end. Circles, nothing but circles. This is my last visit to this thread since it is not discussing the topic, but it’s less fun than watching a dog chase its own tail.

  207. I agree. Cement will never turn to brain tissue. But, he really really tries to counter it, as aggressively as possible. I actually was having a conversation with you. I asked him to leave it be, because we already knew how he felt. He just wants desperately for none of this to exist at all.

    York, I asked you to please watch the first 20 minutes or so of the link, the documentary I left the link for, the film called 911 Revisited. After watching it, do you still think that no explosives were there? Firefighters think they were there. I thought you were going to do that for me.

Comments are closed.