Tawasakm

AARRGHHH! I addressed that point earlier caesar. So did KK. The body count comment was a quote from General Franks and DID NOT REPRESENT the views of the INDEPENDENT researchers involved in the project. Read my post and KK's please. You may not be so quick to dismiss them when you know who they are. Also, the latest information is from the 17th November 2004 which is NOT, I'm sure you'll agree, one year old!

Well thats conjecture. You can't base a count on, "we dropped lots of missiles so alot of people must be dead". There are credible grounds to object to the validity of the Lancet report. You do not seem to have followed the link that Argus provided. Which, if you wish to refute him, you owe him the courtesy of reading. Since that appears to be the case I will quote some of the objections. Please refute them (please also feel free to read the entire article). Which means the researchers are 95% certain that the actual number is somewhere in that range. Vast range there. It goes on to say what was wrong with calculation used: Second: A credible death count can be found here. Again this link has been provided earlier in the thread. If you want to disagree thats fine but please take into account what has already been posted and respond to that,

'They' are following orders. They don't establish US foreign policy. Regardless of the net effect of their actions I see no reason to believe they are not, individually, well intentioned. Your contention against the troops on all those grounds are actually issues to take up with the government not the troops. Not analagous. US soldiers, broadly speaking, are perceived to have joined in order to serve their nations and risk their lives doing it. That can hardly be perceived in the same way as an individual committing murder. I agree with you on this point. Patriotism has been used as a tool to manipulate. This figure is bogus. It has been discredited in another thread which you can read here Be cautious making assertions regarding the illegality of the war. There are some posters here who will rip into that claim. I agree with that. War is a terrible thing. It marks, ultimately, a failure in humanity to evolve. It doesn't have to be that black and white. You can oppose their cause without opposing them. Which Iraqi's are those? There are several factions with different views and goals.

The situations aren't exactly analagous. Theres been alot of work by now in developing a response to this kind of threat (biological and nuclear). People would know how to respond to a known and well analysed threat. The problem that was highlighted by the 9/11 attack was lack of preparation for that kind of attack. Which may still well be the case. The President has other lines of communication and intelligence. They don't necessarily work the same way. I doubt you knew what was happening when watching tellie either. Bear in mind the intelligence being fed to him can't constitute a live feed - it needs to be a summation of real information. Again the information he receives can't be a live feed. It needs to be sorted before it gets to him not by him. As to Bush's inactivity you don't know that he wasn't told, "We don't have intel yet we'll let you know when we do." or some such thing. Bush may have just known how long it would take them to get things put together and to get ready. In addition I don't want you to think that I am arguing this position as the truth of what happened. I was offering it as a reasonable alternative explanation to your conspiracy theory. He may also have been incompetent, in shock, thinking things through while reading to the kids. Or too scared to move. Hard to say. These explanations are as, or more, viable then your conspiracy theory. They are conjecture. The lines of conjecture (pro and con) that existed in this thread prior to your posting certainly aligned with the actual facts more easily. Yours is the only theory that involves a large presupposition lacking any evidence - that Bush participated in the 9/11 attacks. There is merit in alot of what you are saying but the evidence doesn't support the ultimate direction you are taking - that Bush participated in the terrorist attacks. I will stop responding to you in this and all other threads on the topic of "Bush as 9/11 terrorist" until you come up with real proof. For what its worth I agree with you concerning some of your points (as I have detailed elsewhere) but I feel that we are moving outside the realms of 'reasoned debate' and I am afraid we'll just end up creating an endless series of posts which are largely meaningless. If you can come up with REAL evidence (not conjecture) linking Bush to participation in the 9/11 attacks I will join in again.

I'm going to leave it for KK to defend his own argument but I would like to make one point. The two jobs (firefighter and president) are not analagous. Nor are those two situations analagous. When the fire bell rang your Dad knew what was going on and what to do about it - as he had many times before. The President did not know exactly what was going on - nobody did. Nor was it a situation he'd responded to many times before. Aside from that the two could be viewed as micro and macroscopic examples and therefore incompatible. Anyway I really should just shut up and let KK have his say. Thankyou for following the link to read the thread however.

MapleBear, I have not been ignoring your posts. You 'evidence' does not indicate that George Bush participated in the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The evidence you are using indicated mishandling of intelligence, falsifying of some intelligence, use of a tragedy to push pre-existing agendas, and possible misconduct by George Bush. Not one shred of it provided any kind of real evidence that George Bush was involved in the planning or execution of the terrorist attacks. Until you learn the difference between conjecture and real evidence I refuse to debate further with you.

Actually I'll quote some of it. I was hoping to avoid duplication but I somehow think you won't read it. This is from Krusty Kidd: Hi, welcome! Not a Bush Bot but can probably add some light. See, Bush has aides and people all over himk thatdo their individual jobs. He has pilots waiting here and there, bodyguards, advisors, communications guys, the guy that carrries the 'foot ball', the guy that has his schedule, the guys that decide where he is to go in case this goes wrong and whatever else. On that day, scince nobody knew exactly what was going on, where was he to go? Would you have preffered him to run out of the classroom and take charge by .............doing what? And doing that what where? Even nonw we know there was no clear place to go. Sure, while his guys figured out as much as they could, they got Airforce Once wound up and took the most powerful man in the free world (the guy with the nuclear football) to what his security people figured would be the safest place they could get him to in the shortest amount of time - remote airspace. While they were getting their act together, what was he to do? Whip them? Whip the kids? Wring his hands and go 'Oh me, oh my?' No, he showedf remarkable steel and did what any good president wourld, carry on with the task at hand until it was time to act, then he allowed his people to do their jobs. I would expect that of every senior statesman. To think that he should have flown to NYC or Washington is laughable, in time of war, when there is enemy activity and an unknown numer of them at work you do not take you most importent player and throw him in harms way unessesarily. Once you can access the threat and the action to be taken you can act, until then, you protect. This is a further post of his from the same thread (Posted: Jul 30 2004, 01:23 AM) Hope that makes things easier for you. Incidentally don't make the mistake of thinking that KK and I come from the same side of the political fence - because we don't. This is simply a rational argument which I find compelling.

MapleBear, Look these things can all be explained in different ways. They can mostly be explained by the administration taking advantage of the tragic events of 9/11 to promote their own agenda. They don't want that investigated because of the lack of a real link between actions and reactions. Its not hard to imagine someone in the Bush camp had been dreaming of the way he'd like things arranged so he could act the way he wanted. Or several people. Hence the speed of the Patriot Act. There were those who had already put alot of thought into such an act. They don't have to have been abetting terrorists to have been thinking of it. And so on and so forth. What your argument boils down to is conjecture. You are producing real actions as evidence but then you are attributing motive without evidence to those actions. The motives you are attributing, moreover, presuppose other actions (that Bush was involved in the terrorist attacks) again without evidence. They acted like they were unprepared. That is not the same as being guilty. Still not reasonable to suppose they would take the risk considering the MASSIVE amount of scrutiny which would follow such an attack. That first paragraph, again, is pure conjecture without benefit of evidence. As to the second paragraph I encourage you, again, to read that discussion on this forum. Krusty Kidd made some excellent arguments as to why the President staid put. Even if you accept that he shouldn't have stayed put there it still no evidence that it was part of a conspiracy. Again here is the link. If you can't prove it then don't assert it as fact but as opinion.

Thankyou for your reply Willy. Now, I am curious (hope you have an answer) as to wether this is recorded anywhere outside of the bible? Did anyone who was not a christian (although followers of christ weren't yet called that were they?) record anything? Well thats the million dollar 'if'. While there is alot of evidence that Jesus existed I would contend that the integrity of all his claims is very much open to question. I have thought that the hypothetical people may be able to accept that some of the things he claimed, like how humans should interact, are true (because they are verifiable elsewhere) while still discarding other claims on the basis of lack of evidence. By its nature this society is not likely to make a 'leap of faith'. Actually it seems to me that they probably wouldn't focus much on him for that simple fact. The fields of psychology and psychiatry have produced large bodies of research into human nature/relationships/interactions and these would serve them as a far more reliable guide since they are predicated on quantitative evidence. The philosophies of 'love thy neighbour' and of peace can be arrived at without reference to the teachings of christ. You never expanded on the role of religion in bereavement and drug dependency etc. Do you think you could provide an argument that religion provides unique, necessary and irreplaceable roles in these areas?

The poor are already well represented. They have greater incentive to join the army - pay, education, improved prospects etc. If you are prepared to have the government pay money to train "the poor on the streets" as soldiers to get them off the street then why not have the government draft them into the workforce? Building roads and infrastructure or what have you. Its been done before to some effect. With the bonus that they won't get shot at.

KK, I'm left wing and I've never said that. I know that some people hate the US as a result of recent actions. Which I regard as sloppy thinking. Hatred does not hone the mental processes. I think that dispproval (call it hatred I guess) of the US is centred disproportianately around certain idealogical groups - such as fundamentalist Islam. My objection to your assertion arises from the fact that it seems to indicate, universally, an emotionalism at the heart of leftist thought. I contend that many on the left of the political divide think logically and factually and are not driven by strong emotion. Emotionalism, which I think leads to clouded thinking, exists on both sides of the political spectrum. You also seem to be trying to create a link between the left and anti-us sentiment. I can assure you that I do not wish for the US to fail. Its just that my ideas of how to achieve success are different from yours. I think you should be careful about drawing broad conclusions from such a questionable assertion. I think that governments do act largely from self interest. However I still believe that governments possess value systems. Loose value systems but still there.

Theloniusfleabag (you'll have to explain that name to me sometime), You are correct. I should have checked over my post. I meant to ask for something more concrete. Let me say this then; the attriubution of motive is tenuous. There is a strong case that he had a motive to use the incidence of the attacks to further his own agenda but not that he had a motive to orchestrate the attacks. It is difficult for me to imagine that he would not have been caught out and there would have been hell to pay. I will also add that the attribution of motive is not a strong argument in favour of his participation in those attacks. I'm asking for some hard evidence to back up what I find to be an extraordinary claim.

Very interesting test. Much more insightful then simply looking at a left/right scale. Economic Left/Right: -3.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.72 Looking at the graph I don't really seem to be sitting too far off centre. Thanks for the link August1991

Caesar, you are correct that I took you out of context. For that I apologise. I'm still not sure how I managed to to interpret you two different ways in the one post. I must have been tired and more then usually dense.

There is quantitative evidence that he was resurrected? What you say is true. I'm not going to ask you to represent any religion but your own. I was making sure that nobody thought this debate was restricted to christian religions. I know thats what you believe but can you prove that the people in my secular society need religion for real hope. You need something more then the assertion you are currently making. I'm certain that you can provide it. When you do we can start going back and forth with it. Following religion often does since churches have often advocated violence. Before answering, though, stop and consider the nature of this society. They accept that which is quantifiable. There is a body of historical evidence to support the exist of Jesus. So the people of this society are free to examine this mans life and test it for 'truth' even if christian religion has been disbanded. So perhaps this rational society would still end up accepting part of the teachings of christ even without the organised religion. This hadn't occurred to me before and I need to think it through more. Does anybody else have any thoughts on this?

That still does not indicate culpability. If I need some dental work and I'm short of cash it doesn't mean I'll rob a bank. The fact that the neo-conservatives had a pre-existing agenda which they used the attacks to push only indicated that they took advantage of the situation - not that they created the situation. MapleBear It is, at best, circumstantial evidence. The way you are looking at everything is only on interpretation and, seemingly, lacks hard evidence. Knock me about with it - if you have it. The link I provided was to a discussion on THIS forum. I was attempting to avoid duplication. Did you read it or do you want me to quote some of the relevant parts for you? Saves you the trouble of having to read it. I will when I get time. Since you brought them up, though, as part of your argument the least you could do is provide links to some of those you feel make the best argument.

Typical internationalist point of view. Like they are not supposed to worry about their own? Well from context he seems to be saying that Americans need to worry about others aswell as themselves. Hence the use of 'only'. I know Caesar can (and will) speak for himself but I personally can't interpret anything he has said to mean that he believes Americans should not care about American deaths. I sympathise with his point of view. If we could somehow come to see ourselves as a "global community" and view all lives as equal things might be different. How far is this practicable though? When cultures are so different in be very hard to incorporate 'them' into our idea of 'us'. While I am ideologically inclined to view all human life as equal I am also realistic enough to know that isn't the way I watch the news. When Australian forces entered East Timor I was, rightly or wrongly, more concerned about Australian then Timorese deaths (which is not to say I was not concerned about the East Timorese). Given that this is true I can hardly judge Americans harshly for being more concerned about their own citizens. The true difficulty arises if what caesar postulates is true: which is that Americans ONLY care about Americans. Whilst this is often a popular notion my personal experience of American people contradicts this.

The banner contains a quote from General Franks, “We don’t do body counts." Since the principal researcher is a freelancer working out of London I fail to see the point of your obection. It would appear that they are trying to do what General Franks is not. Other militaries with different protocols have less friendly fire incidents. For instance in Vietnam Australian soldiers had less friendly fire incidents then US forces. They were not allowed to fire at a target before identifying it and were only allowed to fire three rounds before re-aquiring the target. There may well be room for improvement in this area for the US military (and I understand that they learned alot from Vietnam and instituted changes). Nevertheless I believe you are overstating the case. I don't think they are shooting at "everything that moves". They may well be scared but they are more then just a "Bunch of scared kids". Your summation seems to evoke the image of an undisciplined rabble of frightened adolescents running around shooting at things.

I think it matters. As to whether or not anyone is being greedy we really don't have enough information to know. And you are operating from a presupposition of what is 'decent' that may need some work. I don't think you are taking into account the wide variety of options that may lead to a successful outcome for both parties.

Looking back at the topic I think some of us (including myself) are getting off-topic. Perhaps we should start a new thread.

Bush has made, to my view, a mess of his foreign policy and of his reaction to 9/11. He should have focused on Bin Laden until he had him. Iraq, assuming invasion was necessary, could have waited. Things aren't so bright domestically either. Not a great president. But how you can make that comparison between Bush and Suddam is beyond me... Suddam is NOT in the bush leagues. He was a ruthless and sadistic dictator who caused a great deal of suffering and loss. Regardless of how you see Bush's actions it is a mistake to make light of Suddam's. Bush will not be in power in another four years. He is not a dictator. He will not torture his own citizens to maintain his grip on power. Lets keep this realistic.

MapleBear, Thats been adressed in another thread - one of those about Farenheit 9/11. Look for answers there. I've edited this post to add a link to that discussion: Farenheit 9/11 Discussion That does not indicate culpability in the terrorist attacks. His reactions to the attack (even taking advantage of them to advance his own agenda) are not evidence that he contributed to them. I don't personally agree with many of his reactions but I cannot see the link you are trying to establish. Who are these "Many people"? Please let me know who they are and provide me with a link to their arguments. Even if it was written up as a contingency, or just in hopes of a chance to use it, that still does not forge the link that you are aiming for since it does not indicate, in any way, that Bush participated in the terrorist attacks. You are making the standard argument that he has mishandled things. I don't see you making a case for him as an actual deliberate perpetrator of those attacks. The links you are trying to establish are tenuous at best. How about some evidence?

Reminds me of my days delivering pizza. I remember once taking a delivery, knocking on the front door, then being attacked by a dog when the owner opened the front door (the dog shot out like it was fired from a cannon). I was furious at the owner more then the dog. After all he had ordered the pizza; did he think we delivered by transmat beams? I think the issue of dog safety comes in two parts. The first is the problem of vicious breeds. Some breeds are naturally more aggressive then others. I agree they should be banned. The second problem is dog owners. Many dog owners do not care for their pets or supervise their pets properly and therefore create danger. Children can unwittingly provoke dogs into attacks - it is up to the owners of those dogs to supervise. Neglected or maltreated dogs can also develop 'antisocial' behaviour. If a labrador bites, for instance, it quite unlikely to be the result of natural aggression on the dogs part. So I think we need to come at this from two sides; educate dog owners and the general public about dog treatment and safety etc, and ban those breeds that are demonstrably more aggressive (such as pitbulls).

Funnily enough my first attempt to reply to this failed because of flood control. I was going to make the suggestion that perhaps flood control would be more bearable if it was renamed. If it was "Gather Your Thoughts" control we might be more paitent. Or perhaps "We Cannot Process So Much Genius So Quickly" control. Seriously though, while I can see your point I can also see the practical purpose of flood control and thirty seconds isn't really that long to wait. And it is extra time to gather your thoughts.

MapleBear: That still seems an extraordinary take to me. The MOTIVE to allow a terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre? OK so I guess I didn't misunderstand you in your previous post after all. You have made your position plain. Now can you back it up with actual evidence? Its hard to take your position seriously without a reasoned argument backed up by research. I am more then happy to listen.