“I think your comment is unecessarily vitriolic.”

Yeah you are right that was a little over the top. I was referring more to the abundance of non-methodological criticisms here in this blog, i.e the majority. I have never seen so much hand wringing and lack of solution suggestion to problems on one site.

“Sigh. I’ve already alienated myself to the right wing trolls with that comment.”

Evolution? Nothing wrong with that in the natural realm (only to a point with humans in my opinion) or political.

“But there is information exchange here that interests me and teaches me.”

Based on the number of comments, I would say it’s few and far between.

“Are you including yourself in that broad commentary or just the others on this blog?”

I have had some lazy moments, I will admit. I do however reserve those for responses to the comments which are “non-methodological” criticisms. In that sense I would say it’s quite frequent.

“You sound like a person who is very very certain of his (her?) position.”

Not all of the time. I debate to test my position(s).

“What agenda might I infer from your statements?”

A conservative agenda.

“..shoot logical loopholes in it by the dozens”

It’s more like attempt to shoot ideological looopholes.

“…because bin Laden and company are manipulating the US media.”

And many news sources unfortunately, are complicit in a sense that they will report only on the shortcommings of the U.S. and it’s allies in this was against bin Laden as to further their AGENDA which is to make Bush look bad politically in order to return their liberal friends to power in congress.

“…but I prefer to think that he doesn’t actually believe that al Quida is actually manipulating our media in any significant way, but is spinning what his admirers need to hear.”

Considering news sources like the NY Times and the LA Times are driven in what they write by a liberal political agenda (not just in their op eds), they are complicit with groups like al Qaeda. I quailify that by saying that I don’t think they willingly or consciously help al Qaeda, but when their reporting is so politically driven they do just that.

“…AS IF there is a cause and effect relationship between that war and no further attacks here.”

There is an absolute and direct correlation between the fact the so many of the resources of al Qaeda ARE being diverted from plotting and planning to funding and logistical support for those fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. I sure hope that was just an honest oversight on you part.

“I’m sure we all feel better that it’s ONLY our soldiers that are dying now…”

Now you just went off the deep end. How can you possibly suggest that only U.S. troops are dying vs. the number of Iraqi police and soldiers that die on a daily basis in Iraq. It isn’t even close! Are you kidding?

“Factually speaking, they could commit acts on the scale of 9-11 several times a year, and they would have minimal effect on our way of life–other than the psychological ones–and of course our massive reaction to them.”

That statment isn’t even close to being factual! Did you not see what happened to the stock market and oil prices on September 12, 2001? Again please tell me you are just joking.

“My point was that conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow BECAUSE bin Laden is accomplishing his aims”

If his aim is to get the U.S. to withdrawl from Iraq and Afghanistan, then one has to ask why, other than to eject the infidels from Muslim and Arab land? I think well all know that bin Laden trying to project himself and his organization as freedom fighter is totally bogus and nothing but a front. I think the real answer is obvious. His organization needs a place to operate and train, i.e. Afghanistan and wants to establish a Islamic state, i.e. Iraq, as he HIMSELF has proclaimed. The U.S. invading and disposing of Sadamm provided nothing more than an opportunity for his organization to wield influence in the middle on the Islamic world.

“Nor is there any accurate comparison between the use of the word “pawn” in my quote versus your use of it above.”

The context of the comparison is not the same, but using the term “pawn” is definately usable in order to describe Hitler’s use of Britian and France prior to his invasion of Poland. Hiltler used Chamberlain and the French when he signed the Munich Agreement in order to fool them into backing down so he could invaded Poland.

“In my opinion, the preponderance of the evidence argues the opposite.”

In the short term since 9/11, probably, but in the long term yes the world will be safer.

“I know that you and many others would like to believe that he’s shaking in his boots. That wouldn’t fit his psychological profile.”

I think he most definitely is afraid of being captured. If he was so sure of himself and his organization’s cause then he would have made a stand in Tora Bora and went out as a martyr back then and let one his senior lieutenants take his place and carry on the fight.

“If I had to speculate however, it would be because of the withdrawal of the Soviet, since you are referring to a drop in support which was high in the 1980’s rather than stating the drop occurred subsequent to our entry into “the war on terrorism”.”

Well according to the Taliban’s leaders and statements make by al-Zawahri they think that they will drive the U.S. forces out just like they did with the Soviets. With this propaganda, the ranks of those fighting the allies in Afghanistan should have grown to the order in which the Mujahadeen had against the Soviets in the 1980s…not REDUCE prior to what it was before the U.S. invasion.

“Bombing (or whatever) people into submission might work in conventional warfare, not fanatical terrorism.”

The U.S. isn’t trying to bomb the Iraqis or the Afghans into submission. The terrorists in those two places ARE trying to do just that…bomb people into submission.

“…And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”

The abyss is only an abyss is nothing is done to counter it’s expansion.

“Because that is the EASY and LAZY way to vent frustration.”

I think your comment is unecessarily vitriolic. It is true that people are here–and on blogs all over the net–to vent frustration. Something necessary and healthy. On this blog, it’s probably safe to say that the majority of people commenting are clearly unhappy with the current admistration, and obviously the war. I’m unhappy with them too. But with respect to why I’m here, it’s mainly because I like to learn. What I frequently learn is that people are clearly domesticated (barely) primates. And that stupidity is highly contageous. But there is information exchange here that interests me and teaches me. I guess I’ve revealed myself as a subscriber to the theory of evolution. Sigh. I’ve already alienated myself to the right wing trolls with that comment. (I think of myself as largely apolitical btw).

I’m not sure that “lazy” applies. Are you including yourself in that broad commentary or just the others on this blog?

>“I tend to agree with the majority of persons on this blog that in the case of the original subject post, we are dealing with stupid ineffectual.”

“Would that be better than the majority here, i.e. ineffectural…period?”

I don’t think that you (or I) are able to comment meaningfully on whether the people who post here are ineffectual. You sound like a person who is very very certain of his (her?) position.

>“His statements serve his agenda. Can any of us say anything else?”

“Everyone’s statements serve THEIR agenda or LACK there of.”

What agenda might I infer from your statements? :)

But of course. I didn’t mean to take it to the trivial. I meant that many politicians, and others in positions of leadership, will often make absurdly stupid comments, like the one that started this post session. It’s not because Rummy is stupid, but because spin is everything. And while large numbers of his detractors (which include me) will rail against the absurdity of his statements, and shoot logical loopholes in it by the dozens–as we have seen in these posts–the True Believers will feel reassured that they need to be extra careful (paranoid?) because bin Laden and company are manipulating the US media. Heck you can’t even be certain of the posters on this blog who criticize the actions of our politicians can you? Shades of Joseph Stalin….

I can’t claim to read Rumsfeld’s mind, but I prefer to think that he doesn’t actually believe that al Quida is actually manipulating our media in any significant way, but is spinning what his admirers need to hear. It’s always been very effective to yell “it’s them bastards over there, and if you don’t agree with me, then you’re obviously one of them bastards.” Now whether Limbaugh on the other hand is a spin doctor or actually believes….

>> “If anyone is bin Laden’s pawn it has to be the Bush administration itself.” (quoted from post #286)

” That depends on your perspective. Hitler thought the British and the French to be the same pawns leading up to WW2, nothing was done untill it was too late, then we had to WASTE millions of lives to correct a huge ineffectual, not to mention just about non existant policy of prevention. I pitty the ones who thought that these people, i.e. bin Laden, Saddam, Ahmadinejad, or Kim Jong-Il could be “contained”.

While I quoted post 286, it isn’t the terminology I personally would have used. I quoted it because you (and others–not on THIS blog of coursse!) state that we’ve had no further attacks on American soil since the war with Iraq, AS IF there is a cause and effect relationship between that war and no further attacks here. I’m sure we all feel better that it’s ONLY our soldiers that are dying now… My point was that conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow BECAUSE bin Laden is accomplishing his aims–as poster 286 pointed out. Bringing us down by the methods already discussed. Factually speaking, they could commit acts on the scale of 9-11 several times a year, and they would have minimal effect on our way of life–other than the psychological ones–and of course our massive reaction to them. Tens of thousands die annually on highways in this country and we don’t stop driving. Nor do we spend a hundred billion or so trying to improve highway safety.

Although many draw the parallel to Hitler, the only accuracy of comparison is fanaticism. Nor is there any accurate comparison between the use of the word “pawn” in my quote versus your use of it above. Hitler hoped that he could hold off an effective alliance by telling whatever lies he needed to, until he had consolidated his power. Bin Laden executed a strike, to which our response was predictable, and desired.

We’re talking about the putative head of a guerilla organization that is “terrorist” because they don’t have what Hitler had. A huge stockpile of weapons and the technology and resources to take on the rest of the world. Kim Jong-il comes closer to a Hitler, but we’ve had a ceasefire with North Korea for over 50 years. Is it the lack of oil or the reality of nuclear weapons and the stalemate that they produce? China as a friend?

As far as I know (and I freely admit that there are a million opinions on the subject) we don’t really have any data that clearly support that somehow our “war on terror” has made the world safer than it was 5 years ago. In my opinion, the preponderance of the evidence argues the opposite. Certainly the data are very clear that the cost is high in many ways.

>“Bin Ladin must laugh his head off everyday”

” In between waking up in the middle of the night from every little sound that could be the last time he hears anything? He’s not laughing, he’s wondering where he will sleep tomorrow night. ”

I know that you and many others would like to believe that he’s shaking in his boots. That wouldn’t fit his psychological profile. Look at the recent trial of Moussaoui. This fanatic typifies the genre. Death will only assure his entry to heaven (in his cosmology). Members of his organization seem to have supreme assurance that they will be victorious. And of course its only members on THEIR side who seem to have that supreme assurance….

>BTW where is that MASSIVE support that bin Laden once had with the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan? His support in that country isn’t even close to what it once was back in the 1980s.

I’m not in touch with the Mujahadeen to be able to comment on this. I doubt whether you are either. If I had to speculate however, it would be because of the withdrawal of the Soviet, since you are referring to a drop in support which was high in the 1980’s rather than stating the drop occurred subsequent to our entry into “the war on terrorism”.

But even if Mujahadeen support for bin Laden has decreased, every time another Moslem in the middle East (and elsewhere I’m sure) rightly or wrongly views another Moslem civilian death as the result of Imperialist Christian/Zionist meddling, they start looking for an al Quida cell to join. Bombing (or whatever) people into submission might work in conventional warfare, not fanatical terrorism.

At the risk of repeating myself…

“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

Because that is the EASY and LAZY way to vent frustration.

“I tend to agree with the majority of persons on this blog that in the case of the original subject post, we are dealing with stupid ineffectual.”

Would that be better than the majority here, i.e. ineffectural…period?

“His statements serve his agenda. Can any of us say anything else?”

Everyone’s statements serve THEIR agenda or LACK there of.

“If anyone is bin Laden’s pawn it has to be the Bush administration itself.”

That depends on your perspective. Hitler thought the British and the French to be the same pawns leading up to WW2, nothing was done untill it was too late, then we had to WASTE millions of lives to correct a huge ineffectual, not to mention just about non existant policy of prevention. I pitty the ones who thought that these people, i.e. bin Laden, Saddam, Ahmadinejad, or Kim Jong-Il could be “contained”.

“Bin Ladin must laugh his head off everyday”

In between waking up in the middle of the night from every little sound that could be the last time he hears anything? He’s not laughing, he’s wondering where he will sleep tomorrow night. BTW where is that MASSIVE support that bin Laden once had with the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan? His support in that country isn’t even close to what it once was back in the 1980s.

“If anyone is bin Laden’s pawn it has to be the Bush administration itself. A huge , economically straining, Arab – US war is exactly what Bin Laden wanted and still wants.”

“His philosophy has always been linked to the Soviet – Afgahnistan war. He believes the Soviet Union was brought down by the mujahadeen and the same can be done to the US. All he had to do was get us to do was spend billions on a war and at the same time disrupt our oil supply, which is exactly what he is accomplishing.”

Substantively true. And when this philosophy can be neatly tied into religious dogma, you’ve got the perfect tools to bankrupt our country.

Why bother with another attack? Any damage they could inflict would be trivial compared to the damage that we are inflicting ourselves (e.g., soldiers and civilian lives, massive debt, erosion of civil liberties, ignoring or minimizing other massive problems, increased fear and paranoia, political and other polarizations) in response to “terrorism”. Bin Laden appears to be a student of history and something of a social psychologist. Our goverment’s response (typical of domesticated primates running on a fairly primitive circuit of consciousness) was and will always be highly predictable. Bin Ladin must laugh his head off everyday. His organization set the wheels in motion. Now they can sit back and watch the results.

It remains an open question whether our actions since 9/11 have in any way deterred al Quida’s agenda. As a psychologist with a keen interest in history it appears patently obvious to me that our “solutions” to terrorism are predictable and exactly what bin Laden hoped for.

Left and Right wing solutions at the level of consciousness that the majority of us operate at will be ineffectual. One can always of course always argue the merits of stupid ineffectual vs. less stupid ineffectual. I tend to agree with the majority of persons on this blog that in the case of the original subject post, we are dealing with stupid ineffectual. But I personally believe that Rummy is stupid like a fox. His statements serve his agenda. Can any of us say anything else?

My collection of quotes below punctuate the paragraph above. Alas, solutions are much more difficult than methodological criticisms, which is mainly what we blog about.

“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

“History is the nightmare from which I am trying to awaken…” Stephen Dedalus (James Joyce).

“We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.” George Bernard Shaw

“What experience and history teach is this — that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles” Hegel

“Patriotism ruins history” Goethe.

How about the fact that there hasn’t been a single international terrorist attack on U.S. interests since 9/11.

If it overwhelms you to consider that cancer is more than just a tumour, that to target it and remove it is not good enough, maybe you should go back to using oil and blaming bushites. No, instead this problem starts with you and i. This problem starts in our homes, in our schools, in our parents, in our children, in everything and everyone we know. Nothing will get better until we start working on ourselves. Look in the mirror more, be aware of the pumping of your heart.

Again, removing the tumour alone is like hacking at the branches of evil.

LOOK IN THE MIRROR PEOPLE! THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT STARTS WITH US.

What happens? It grows back.

Where does it all start? I think it starts with us. We have to make this change happen.

If we don’t like what Bush is doing, all we can do is what we know to be best. What happens when you blame someone or somethign else too much is you become dependent on this. You get locked into a corner of the room and soon you’re going to feel more powerless than an ant.

I’m not trying to wipe out your ego or to tell you you’re liberal slime. I’m saying that this nation IS STILL OF THE PEOPLE. What happens here, what it amounts to, is our collective ability to act and influence the environment around us. Bush and others like him do something very well. They ACT, and they do so with the best of their knowledge/ability. We can blame them no more than we can blame ourselves. All we can do is act to the best of our knowledge and ability. This is what Bush and others like him are doing, and it is what you, I, and everyone else should be doing. If this is a country of the people, lets prove it.

If you think Bush is in Iraq, for oil, FIND A DAMN ALTERNATIVE.

Don’t get fricken stuck in the corner, feeling weak and abused..

When you have the ability to make a positive change towards our future! If we don’t fight for our rights, we will lose them. That is not because of hitler or bush. That is because this nation is of the people. And if the people aren’t willing to be responsible, nor will the country be.

Blame Bush not for his actions, bot for his faults. And we all have faults. Everyone.

Noeone is blameless in the end. Not a single soul.

I think we would all be better off looking in the mirror. A lot more get done faster.

Comment by Tracy

Yes, ignore the fact that even the 9/11 Commission, led by a Republican, has given the Bush administration most failing grades on its (lack of) response to the committee’s recommendations; ignore the fact that virtual nothing has been spent to beef up border security (thus possibly allowing potential terrorists to slip in); ignore the fact that 4 1/2 years after 9/11 the Bush administration still has done nothing to increase the number of intelligence agents competent in Arabic, Farsi, or other languages the terrorists are likely to speak; but blame everything on the media for being supposedly used by the terrorists. Absolute rubbish! I suppose this will launch some attacks on me, but the truth is that while the Bush administration is big on swagger, it is in reality very weak on terror, and nothing you have posted so far can convince me otherwise.

Conservatives, you suck..

3rd parties, you suck..

You all suck!

We all suck!

Noeone is right!

Everyone is dumb!

Do we all feel better now?

The only thing that ever makes me feel good is science anymore. All else sucks balls. I don’t even trust liberals anymore. I used to. Not anymore. They’re in the same sack as the ‘conservatives’. You’re all in the same damn sack, and you’re screwing for virginity. I am starting to believe that the only good in this world is what we can do ourselves. The only thing worth knowing is that which you can derive through carefull observation and so forth.

What do I mean by carefull observation and so forth? First of all, try to figure out on your own whether the earth circles the sun or the sun circles the earth. You cannot use a science book, and noeone else can offer any help. This is your own experiment. Have fun!

I’m willing to bet that, if you’re not a seasoned science major, this will stump you…

If not, then isn’t it great that we have the mental faculty to summon this? If so, then..

Maybe this is an eye opener. This is how smart we really are. What do we do then when we want to know something? We log on, we watch TV, we read a magazine, we go to school, etc. So just remember, as I do every day, we’re each the equivalent of a child and most of our knowledge base is derived from what? And what is a liberal, what is a conservative? Hmm?

We’re children, get rid of the labels. Put a face on it, please. Bush has a face too.

And liberals, quit being so fake? You blame the oil, but you still use it. A guilt trip?

Where are the alternatives you say exist? Where are the answers?

Atleast the conservatives shoot for what they believe in, and get the job done.

So, if you’re liberal and want to stand for something, offer a real alternative.

Get off your collective arses before there is no planet left to garden and care for.

Unless you prefer enriched uranium salad? Maybe some toxic tuna? What else is there?

Don’t blame the conservatives. Don’t blame bush either. They’re doing their job. What are you doing? Complaining about what others are doing, and not about what you’re not doing?

I’m sorry, if i have to give you the raw end of the stick, but maybe liberals ARE fake.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change

“…but about how they misrepresented the articles as not being written by soldiers.”

I must have missed this part. Who did they U.S. say that these pro-American articles were written by?

“I already posted evidence that, unlike what you claimed, inspections were on the ground in Iraq prior to the invasion, in compliance with the UN resolution 1441.”

You haven’t given any evidence that Iraq was in FULL compliance. I never said that Iraq was denying inspections on the ground in Iraq. Read my post again.

“Although the resolution demanded immediate disarmament, what was needed was time to ensure that Iraq, indeed, had no WMDs:”

What the resolution demanded was what Iraq was suppose to do. You can’t change what the resolution says to fit what you THINK it should have said.

“The head inspector himself was asking for more time.”

I got new for you, the head inspector doesn’t trump what was demanded in the resolution. The resolution said “immediate” disarmament, not “gradual” disarmament.

“Clinton did not order the invasion of Iraq on fabricated “intelligence”.”

The 9/11 panel concluded that the pre-war intelligence was NOT fabricated….just wrong.

AGAIN, if Clinton was calling for regime change prior to 2000, which he was, there must have been good evidence to make such a case. What was his evidence for calling for the SAME thing Bush actually executed in light of the fact the Bush had more intelligence (said to be correct at the time by the CIA and the NSA) that supported BOTH Clinton’s and Bush’s call for a regime change? Please answer this question and not attempt to side step it by bring up another talking point that the 9/11 commission didn’t proclaim.

“With that philosophy I would have supported a full set of sanctions against Germany for the illegal annexation of Austria in 1938″

And just how would that have stopped Hilter from invading Poland and starting WW2?

“I would have supported -no, demanded- France and the UK live up to their promise to provide Poland with military assistance in case of attack -which eventually happened in 1939.”

So WW2 would have started with the Germans immediately fighting with the French and the British? This wouldn’t have stopped Hilter from invading nor discouraged him from implimenting his grand plan for the total domination of Europe.