<!--quoteo(post=1640244:date=Jul 22 2007, 06:11 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tjosan @ Jul 22 2007, 06:11 PM) [snapback]1640244[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I constantly see the phrase "finish the job", but I really don't know what job you're talking about, and how a change of tactics would make completing this "job" impossible. Honestly, you can stop a wildfire by digging ditches and then burning what the wildfire could spread to to contain it, but when the new fire you started catches on and jumps the ditch then getting the ###### out of there and starting over or changing methods does not mean the job isn't getting done. Unless you like fire and the job was making more of it. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I honestly don't know of any way to help fix Iraq by leaving and cutting all ties to the nation, but if you do see one, please tell me.
In your forest fire example, what we would be doing by leaving Iraq would be to leave the entire state, expecting the fire to stop just because we left, not just leave the immediate area to try something else. "Popular opinion" on Iraq would have us abandon it entirely.
ShockehIf a packet drops on the web and nobody's near to see it...Join Date: 2002-11-19Member: 9336NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited July 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1640179:date=Jul 22 2007, 03:23 PM:name=Jiriki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jiriki @ Jul 22 2007, 03:23 PM) [snapback]1640179[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> <a href="http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/crashdebris.html" target="_blank">Here</a>'s what happens to F-4 when it flies to a concrete wall. The scale is different but you get the idea.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Every bit as untrustyworthy though really Jiriki, especially after reading the sidebar, where it claims in the 'similar incidents' there were not sizable pieces of wreckage.
There's a tail, right there man. Like, that's now lawn. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
On Topic: I don't believe in any conspiracies regarding the WTC, but I'm sorry, as I was watching every report at the time, I'm fully willing to believe the government shot down that last plane, rather than let it hit something else for real. The lack of debris of ANY variety (the grass in front was still picture perfect, ffs), the fact the stories all changed after the initial report, the conveinient way 'The day was saved by plucky American men fighting off the terrorists!', it basically looks pretty contrived there.
<!--quoteo(post=1640176:date=Jul 22 2007, 08:30 AM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Jul 22 2007, 08:30 AM) [snapback]1640176[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> stuff <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Islamic terrorism is a bit of it's own beast. Like you say, it's facilitated by leadership entities that aren't quite as fanatic as the people they sacrifice, albeit they are still out there to consider making civilians targets a moral idea. That being said, Islamic manifest destiny will always lead to fanaticism even after all the figureheads resign/or are toppled. While appeasement could probably ease the problem in that case, it won't end it, and the men out there seeking power won't be satisfied by just a withdrawl, they want ownerships and positions of power. They want the pose necessary to promote Islamic manifest destiny, and it's not necessarily a good idea to allow that anyways. That being said, if it could be reasonably gaurenteed that they wouldn't promote large scale suicide bombings any more than idealistic pollution would be allowable. I mean, we don't like white supremacists preaching their garbage, but we also don't go out and hunt them down and kill them.
IMO the reality of the situation is that anyone who sends people to their deaths with the intent on murdering as many innocent people as possible doesn't deserve the right to appeasement. Even if it's the cheapest and easiest way of doing things, the current group of ****ers deserves to get shot in the face if it does cost us more tax dollars.
<!--quoteo(post=1640252:date=Jul 22 2007, 05:47 PM:name=Soylent_green)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Soylent_green @ Jul 22 2007, 05:47 PM) [snapback]1640252[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I consider the 9/11 truth movement just as complicit as Fox is. You have similar politcal leanings as most of the people who considered this war illegal and disingenous from the beginning; your dishonesty, intentional or otherwise , makes it much so easier to write off dissenters as crackpots, terrorist loving lefties and other ignorant crap.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> when watching some of all those 9/11 movies i never expected them to be objective or thorough. the reason i mentioned those two details was because they were, according to many of the movies/videos/websites, some of the more notable anomalies about the attacks and i just wanted to test whether they can be rationally explained (conspiracy theories arent always that rational). of course i couldve dug the information out from somewhere myself, but as youve probably noticed i dont really care that much either way.
i cant guess exactly what the political leanings of the people you mention could be, but one i can think of is pacifism
<!--quoteo(post=1640267:date=Jul 22 2007, 08:39 PM:name=TOmekki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TOmekki @ Jul 22 2007, 08:39 PM) [snapback]1640267[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I cant guess exactly what the political leanings of the people you mention could be, but one i can think of is pacifism <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which side of the political spectrum in the US had the most reason to dislike Bush most back when the conspiracy theories were getting started? Which side of the political spectrum in the US tends to be the most in favour of war to solve conflicts?
<!--quoteo(post=1640179:date=Jul 22 2007, 09:23 AM:name=Jiriki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jiriki @ Jul 22 2007, 09:23 AM) [snapback]1640179[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What I'm more interested about is WTC7. It just caught on fire and went down in free fall. Even the firemen heard series of explosions. No casuallties. The building had lots of government offices such as CIA's, tax office and something like that. Then I ask why would they take their own building down. :?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Many of the firemen reported extensive damage to the side of the building facing the WTC; there is some photographic evidence, pictures of an 15-20 story gash on one corner, but no images of the front of the facade.
Lots of things sound like explosions. Even a short in a power line (e.g. see <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHSBph71GX8)" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHSBph71GX8)</a> or a transformer fire(e.g. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FA6LDkNc4Qo)" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FA6LDkNc4Qo)</a> . Is a CO2 fire exstinguisher thick enough to survive a fire without exploding? What does it sound like if a large slab of floor collapses?
a decent chunk of the "a missile hit the pentagon" argument from the loose change video is a bunch of random people from the street claiming that the whine was "too high to be an airplane" and that it "sounded like a missile." something tells me that none of these people have ever been screeched by a jet with open throttles.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited July 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1640408:date=Jul 24 2007, 08:40 AM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Jul 24 2007, 08:40 AM) [snapback]1640408[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> a decent chunk of the "a missile hit the pentagon" argument from the loose change video is a bunch of random people from the street claiming that the whine was "too high to be an airplane" and that it "sounded like a missile." something tells me that none of these people have ever been screeched by a jet with open throttles. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As is most of the evidence for the "bomb on the underside of one of the planes that hit WTC". It's all crazy speculation built on very unreliable witness testimony. With the 9/11 conspiracies I think the saying "never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence" should be applied to all observations.
Anyway, back on topic. As Timmythemoonpig has already referred to, we lived through a period in Irish history rife with terrorist activity. Although Britain made plenty of mistakes that added to the problem, the most significant one was the introduction of internment.
Yeah, sure they caught and locked up many of the perpetrators, but they also locked up many innocents and cemented the opinion that there was deep anti-catholic prejudice within the institutions of Northern Ireland.
Internment resulted in some fairly nasty terrorist leaders being confined with a lot of young men now highly motivated to seek revenge and [a warped sense of] justice. Some of the men went on Hunger strike and garnered a lot of sympathy from the population at large, especially in the south where the problems were largely ignored, and to a much larger degree after some of them died on hunger strike.
The result was a massive growth in support for Sinn Fein and IRA from many places, most noteably, the USA. It is estimated that up to 3/4 of the IRA's funds came from the pockets of American citizens.
Throughout all of this, the majority of our country opposed the IRA and held deep resentment towards them for the damage they inflicted on Britain in our name, but the actions of Britain were enough to ensure a constant stream of new recruits and funds into what was euphemistically called 'the cause'.
It should be noted that the peace that has now been forged gives *a lot* more to the Catholics of Northern Ireland than the original civil rights movement asked for. A mass call for equity resulted in 30 years of conflict, the worst of which was against a dogmatic leadership that would not concede compromise under any circumstances ( i.e. Margaret Thatcher ). It was only when a rational and less arrogant Tony Blair took up residency in Number 10 that the path to peace was made available to the citizens of Northern Ireland. The great thing is that, to a large degree, both sides of the divide are reasonably happy with what was brokered.
The lesson of Northern Ireland is that if you stamp on a just civil movement you risk inviting terrorist retaliation. I remember when London was being bombed and our whole family constantly worried for our many relations living over there. Once such a cause starts they feed themselves via hate and suffering and become almost unstoppable forces. We can only be thankful that relationships between Ireland and the UK were strong enough that Britain never seriously considered escalating the problem to an official international dispute.
Terrorism cannot be fought. A terrorist can be fought and beaten, but terrorism is an idea, a belief even. Ideas cannot be fought, beliefs cannot be beaten. No matter where America's troops are the will be attacked, no matter how many good will missions they're sent out on they are still infidels.
Over the last ten years I seem to always turn on the news after a suicide bombing. So, before September 11th they were fighting each other. Now that there are troops down there they have new targets. These people have been at war with one another for a long time. The idea that we can just walk in and change all that is a dream. As far as foreign policy goes, I would remove myself from all diplomatic or military actions in the middle east. If they're gonna fight, let them fight each other. Better than the sons of the poor.
aeroripperJoin Date: 2005-02-25Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
Our current oil consumption level, and our dwindling supply to stable oil sources limits our ability to self-sustain ourselves without importing it from the middle east. As time goes on, it is likely this will only worsen. If we were to cut ties entirely from Saudia Arabia, Iraq (including future oil when the country stabilizes), Qatar, and various other middle eastern countries, we would have to dramatically cut our oil consumption down to self-sustaining levels. Seeing as how our local oil reserves (excluding the difficult\expensive shale) are unable to keep up with demand, we really don't have any other choice. It's not just our country, but most of the western world needs the oil in the middle east, if not now, increasingly in the future as well.
Also, terrorism is a tactic and has been around for quite some time. Islamic fundamentalism is an idea and belief.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As far as foreign policy goes, I would remove myself from all diplomatic or military actions in the middle east. If they're gonna fight, let them fight each other. Better than the sons of the poor.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Militarily, yes (although very unlikely after such investments have been made), diplomatically no. We have many military bases in middle eastern countries (all of them I believe, except for Iran, Pakistan, and now Saudia Arabia). A retreat into isolationism isn't going to solve our problems. Although I believe the war on terror would be better fought with a minimal of military force. Now we're helping to breed a new generation of jihadists by our military adventures. FWIW, the country stayed away from heavy handed military retaliation for some time until 9\11. Outside of the first gulf war, which helped throw gas on the fire for Al-Queda's cause.
Comments
I constantly see the phrase "finish the job", but I really don't know what job you're talking about, and how a change of tactics would make completing this "job" impossible. Honestly, you can stop a wildfire by digging ditches and then burning what the wildfire could spread to to contain it, but when the new fire you started catches on and jumps the ditch then getting the ###### out of there and starting over or changing methods does not mean the job isn't getting done. Unless you like fire and the job was making more of it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I honestly don't know of any way to help fix Iraq by leaving and cutting all ties to the nation, but if you do see one, please tell me.
In your forest fire example, what we would be doing by leaving Iraq would be to leave the entire state, expecting the fire to stop just because we left, not just leave the immediate area to try something else. "Popular opinion" on Iraq would have us abandon it entirely.
<a href="http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/crashdebris.html" target="_blank">Here</a>'s what happens to F-4 when it flies to a concrete wall. The scale is different but you get the idea.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Every bit as untrustyworthy though really Jiriki, especially after reading the sidebar, where it claims in the 'similar incidents' there were not sizable pieces of wreckage.
<img src="http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/tupolev_154m_jul401.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
There's a tail, right there man. Like, that's now lawn. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
On Topic: I don't believe in any conspiracies regarding the WTC, but I'm sorry, as I was watching every report at the time, I'm fully willing to believe the government shot down that last plane, rather than let it hit something else for real. The lack of debris of ANY variety (the grass in front was still picture perfect, ffs), the fact the stories all changed after the initial report, the conveinient way 'The day was saved by plucky American men fighting off the terrorists!', it basically looks pretty contrived there.
<img src="http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/images/pelouse.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
Seriously, no plane.
- Shockwave
stuff
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Islamic terrorism is a bit of it's own beast. Like you say, it's facilitated by leadership entities that aren't quite as fanatic as the people they sacrifice, albeit they are still out there to consider making civilians targets a moral idea. That being said, Islamic manifest destiny will always lead to fanaticism even after all the figureheads resign/or are toppled. While appeasement could probably ease the problem in that case, it won't end it, and the men out there seeking power won't be satisfied by just a withdrawl, they want ownerships and positions of power. They want the pose necessary to promote Islamic manifest destiny, and it's not necessarily a good idea to allow that anyways. That being said, if it could be reasonably gaurenteed that they wouldn't promote large scale suicide bombings any more than idealistic pollution would be allowable. I mean, we don't like white supremacists preaching their garbage, but we also don't go out and hunt them down and kill them.
IMO the reality of the situation is that anyone who sends people to their deaths with the intent on murdering as many innocent people as possible doesn't deserve the right to appeasement. Even if it's the cheapest and easiest way of doing things, the current group of ****ers deserves to get shot in the face if it does cost us more tax dollars.
I consider the 9/11 truth movement just as complicit as Fox is. You have similar politcal leanings as most of the people who considered this war illegal and disingenous from the beginning; your dishonesty, intentional or otherwise , makes it much so easier to write off dissenters as crackpots, terrorist loving lefties and other ignorant crap.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
when watching some of all those 9/11 movies i never expected them to be objective or thorough. the reason i mentioned those two details was because they were, according to many of the movies/videos/websites, some of the more notable anomalies about the attacks and i just wanted to test whether they can be rationally explained (conspiracy theories arent always that rational). of course i couldve dug the information out from somewhere myself, but as youve probably noticed i dont really care that much either way.
i cant guess exactly what the political leanings of the people you mention could be, but one i can think of is pacifism
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which side of the political spectrum in the US had the most reason to dislike Bush most back when the conspiracy theories were getting started? Which side of the political spectrum in the US tends to be the most in favour of war to solve conflicts?
Seriously, no plane.
- Shockwave
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seriously, plane.
<a href="http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html" target="_blank">http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html</a>
Many of the firemen reported extensive damage to the side of the building facing the WTC; there is some photographic evidence, pictures of an 15-20 story gash on one corner, but no images of the front of the facade.
Lots of things sound like explosions. Even a short in a power line (e.g. see <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHSBph71GX8)" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHSBph71GX8)</a> or a transformer fire(e.g. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FA6LDkNc4Qo)" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FA6LDkNc4Qo)</a> . Is a CO2 fire exstinguisher thick enough to survive a fire without exploding? What does it sound like if a large slab of floor collapses?
a decent chunk of the "a missile hit the pentagon" argument from the loose change video is a bunch of random people from the street claiming that the whine was "too high to be an airplane" and that it "sounded like a missile." something tells me that none of these people have ever been screeched by a jet with open throttles.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As is most of the evidence for the "bomb on the underside of one of the planes that hit WTC". It's all crazy speculation built on very unreliable witness testimony. With the 9/11 conspiracies I think the saying "never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence" should be applied to all observations.
Anyway, back on topic. As Timmythemoonpig has already referred to, we lived through a period in Irish history rife with terrorist activity. Although Britain made plenty of mistakes that added to the problem, the most significant one was the introduction of internment.
Yeah, sure they caught and locked up many of the perpetrators, but they also locked up many innocents and cemented the opinion that there was deep anti-catholic prejudice within the institutions of Northern Ireland.
Internment resulted in some fairly nasty terrorist leaders being confined with a lot of young men now highly motivated to seek revenge and [a warped sense of] justice. Some of the men went on Hunger strike and garnered a lot of sympathy from the population at large, especially in the south where the problems were largely ignored, and to a much larger degree after some of them died on hunger strike.
The result was a massive growth in support for Sinn Fein and IRA from many places, most noteably, the USA. It is estimated that up to 3/4 of the IRA's funds came from the pockets of American citizens.
Throughout all of this, the majority of our country opposed the IRA and held deep resentment towards them for the damage they inflicted on Britain in our name, but the actions of Britain were enough to ensure a constant stream of new recruits and funds into what was euphemistically called 'the cause'.
It should be noted that the peace that has now been forged gives *a lot* more to the Catholics of Northern Ireland than the original civil rights movement asked for. A mass call for equity resulted in 30 years of conflict, the worst of which was against a dogmatic leadership that would not concede compromise under any circumstances ( i.e. Margaret Thatcher ). It was only when a rational and less arrogant Tony Blair took up residency in Number 10 that the path to peace was made available to the citizens of Northern Ireland. The great thing is that, to a large degree, both sides of the divide are reasonably happy with what was brokered.
The lesson of Northern Ireland is that if you stamp on a just civil movement you risk inviting terrorist retaliation. I remember when London was being bombed and our whole family constantly worried for our many relations living over there. Once such a cause starts they feed themselves via hate and suffering and become almost unstoppable forces. We can only be thankful that relationships between Ireland and the UK were strong enough that Britain never seriously considered escalating the problem to an official international dispute.
Over the last ten years I seem to always turn on the news after a suicide bombing. So, before September 11th they were fighting each other. Now that there are troops down there they have new targets. These people have been at war with one another for a long time. The idea that we can just walk in and change all that is a dream. As far as foreign policy goes, I would remove myself from all diplomatic or military actions in the middle east. If they're gonna fight, let them fight each other. Better than the sons of the poor.
Also, terrorism is a tactic and has been around for quite some time. Islamic fundamentalism is an idea and belief.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As far as foreign policy goes, I would remove myself from all diplomatic or military actions in the middle east. If they're gonna fight, let them fight each other. Better than the sons of the poor.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Militarily, yes (although very unlikely after such investments have been made), diplomatically no. We have many military bases in middle eastern countries (all of them I believe, except for Iran, Pakistan, and now Saudia Arabia). A retreat into isolationism isn't going to solve our problems. Although I believe the war on terror would be better fought with a minimal of military force. Now we're helping to breed a new generation of jihadists by our military adventures. FWIW, the country stayed away from heavy handed military retaliation for some time until 9\11. Outside of the first gulf war, which helped throw gas on the fire for Al-Queda's cause.