9 1 1

Originally posted by Anthony Goshaunee:
It addresses the main cause (not blame, but cause) of such an attack.

If poverty was the main cause of the attack then we would expect that the perpetrators would be from poor backgrounds. But that isn't the case. All the perpetrators were from upper middle class families and their leader was a multi-millionaire. This has nothing to do with poverty and everything to do with perversion of religious beliefs by a psychotic murderer and the imbeciles who followed him.

Originally posted by Christophe Lee:

What?! Are you implying all cab drivers in downtown NY are either Russian or Arabs? I know you're trying to make a point, but let's not stereotype races here.

You are correct. Some cab drivers are Indians as well.
Christophe, did it not occur to you that my line was a response to "Truth Seeker" and was not meant to be taken seriously?

Hate is not a reason to kill, and the "cause" or "fault" of the murderers' defective way of thinking is nobody's fault but their own. Of course as you can see by the snippet of the Saudi article I showed, I would go further and say that much of the fault in societies that breed such hatred in their children in the name of religion and in the name of maintaining a clear deliniation between the haves and have nots.
As far as Jean Cretan goes, I guess it is safe to assume he won't be vacationing south anytime in the near future.
On another note... arguments along the lines of "If you don't believe this way you have problems...", or "Any reasonable person agrees that....", etc... are just plain bad form and lead to a rapid destabilization of the conversation. Can anybody remember what the technical name for that type of argument is? I learned it once in some class but can't remember and it's been bothering me.
[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

Originally posted by Anthony Goshaunee:
Anyone who is outraged with that statement has problems.

And anyone who makes a statement like that obviously suffers from severe psychological disorders and probably should be removed from society before he harms someone. Of course, anypone who disagrees with anything I say reveals themselves as a sick, demented individual and if I had my way they would be put up against the wall at dawn!!!

{{
Cause? I don't think so. The cause is a bunch of extremists warped view of the world. Much like Charles Manson they are evil. There is no justifiable cause or reason. There are many people in the world that don't like what someone or some country does but do not kill people. To try to find cause or reason is giving them legitimacy. They have none. They are killers pure and simple.
}}
I agree with you that that the 9/11 killers are despicable and should not be given any legitimacy.
But then again how different is their cause from nationalism( read patriotism).
Isnt the message the same? The lives of American citizens means more than yours. Our principles are better than yours.We have the right to use up half of the worlds resources. And we can bomb others to support our cause.

Originally posted by Anthony Goshaunee:

There is much more than that, and America needs to start looking at itself to see why so many people are unhappy (to say the least) with America.

America very well knows why the most of the rest of the world is unhappy with her but it's in her best interest to make them happy. Simple as that.

Prejudicial language -- attaching some value to believing what the speaker has said
Ex: "If you don't agree with me, there's soemthing wrong with you."
Among other logical fallacies we get in no small supply in MD:
ad hominem: attacking a person rather than their argument.
Ex: "I think we all know what we can expect when Jason posts to a topic"
joint effect: two effects produce one cause, but it is argued that one effect was caused by the other.
Ex: Pick any long-standing feud
post hoc: It is argued one event caused another because it came first.
Ex: See example above
Hasty generalization:
Ex: "People hate Microsoft because they are so successful"
False dilemma: An 'either-or' argument that excludes the possibility of other options
Ex: We must attack Iraq now or suffer the consequences
Ex: Only the death of the Infidel will restore Islam to its rightful place.
Straw man: an argument that attacks a weak or implausible opposing argument
Ex: Promoters of open source software think they can solve all the needs of corporate users by making source code free.

Originally posted by <slacker>:
But then again how different is their cause from nationalism( read patriotism).

Huh? Which innocent civilians are being killed in the name of patriotism?

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
Are you reversing Thomas Paul sentence?? He said all cab drivers in downtown NY are Arabs or Russians, and you're saying "not all the arabs and russian are taxi drivers in downtown NY"
Quite confusing.

I was responding to the first part of Christophe Lee's post:
"What?! Are you implying all cab drivers in downtown NY are either Russian or Arabs? I know you're trying to make a point, but let's not stereotype races here."
While the formalization of Tom's post as "all cab drivers in downtown NY are either Russian or Arabs" is pretty much correct, the implication that this stereotypes races is not. What constitutes the act of stereotyping from logic viewpoint? Keywords, or formally speaking, universal quantifiers "all" or "any", as opposed to existential quantifiers "there are" or "some". For example, "All Russians are idiots" - stereotyping, "some Russians are idiots" - simply a statement that can be proved true or not. (Note that you need to find only one idiot of documented Russian origin to prove such a sentence, whereas its negation, "no Russians are idiots" would require examination of not only all currently living Russians, but all also dead ones and those who isn't even born, which makes such a sentence essentially nonsensical).
In Tom's variant, a variable bound by the quantifier "all" is "cab drivers", so these are cab drivers who were stereotyped, not races. To stereotype races, Tom had to apply "all" or "any" to "Russians or Arabs", i.e. to say "all Russians and Arabs in the USA work as cab drivers in downtown NY", for example.
Of course, Tom intended his "By the way, I heard a rumor that you couldn't find a cab downtown before the attack because all the Russians and Arab cab drivers were warned by Al Queda before the attack" as an irony targeted at several previous logically fallacious posts, so it cannot serve as a ground to accuse Tom in stereotyping NY cab drivers either.

Thx a lot Mapraputa Is for your long explanation, which confused me more. I understood that Thomas Paul's response, was an irony, that's why I did not react to his post. But still, this kind of rumor is stereotyping races, and it is their only aim. The cab rumor is saying "don't trust arabs and russians, they were part of the conspiracy. They knew people will die and suffer like hell, but they didn't say a thing about it. They are just not like us , they don't have human feelings. Let's treat them like they would treat us."
Sorry Map, that's the only thing I hear when I saw it. Now you may give some others grammatical explanations to it, but you will agree that it is a rumor. And we all know what rumors are done for.
By the way, I was not accusing Thomas Paul. Just saying that you reverse his sentence, which stay true.

Um, it's getting complicated... Younes, I responded to Christophe Lee's reponse to Thomas Paul's response to "Truth Seeker" post. I did not respond to the Tom's post as such, and I didn't say it's Ok to spread rumors which imply that all cab drivers in NY were a part of the conspiracy. I agree that such rumors are very bad thing. I wondered 1) why Tom is apparently being accused in stereotyping races (by Christophe Lee, not by you) while he is making exactly the opposite point and 2) for what reason is such an accusation logically flawed? I reversed Thomas sentence to illustrate the case in which he could be accused in stereotyping races - if he said something like that, which he did not. I did not mean and did not say that the rumor itself is Ok, neither did I mean or say that to spread it is Ok. Perhaps I should, but I believed there aren't too many people who would argue it's a wonderful thing and let's do it.

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Are their own words enough for you? Of course I suppose insane conspiracy theories are easier to believe if you are so predisposed. I'm sure you can come up with some other logical reason Al-Qaeda had intimate knowledge of the events, and intimate knowledge of the hijackers

Ok, thank you Jason, but this all is BS, and I tell you why.
First, if you'd followed long list of terrorist attacks in last 10 years, you'd know that very often there are groups that are suspect, who step up and deny their involvment, and also there are groups who declare that they did it. It happens in random, my guess is mostly depending on the amount of money someone pays them to say what is needed. So what if some Algerian (for example, no offence) extrimist group comes out and says they did it would you believe it?
Second, if you'd read the links I posted, numerous military and intelligence sources from all over the world call this a top class logistics operation, which could only be conducted by high level military personnel with top of the line knowledge. Your so called "leader of al Quaeda logistics", Mr Binalshibh, is only 30 years old, and we both know couldn't POSSIBLY possess high level of knowledge needed to complete this "operation".
Third, I don't know where this al Jaseera tv takes their information, but I highly suspect that it is from the same pond as CNN does, and I wouldn't bet a dollar on its legitimacy.
I have nothing against Israel. I am doing an independent analysis based on data I think I can trust (which is historical data, and some information about past/present issues). For instance, Palestineans terror of Israel is benefiting only one country - Israel itself. Because all they want is take over the whole Palestinean territory, and since world doesn't allow them to do that, why not to present Palestineans as a bunch of poor rouge terrorist? Whould any other country in its right mind want to f@#% with a nuclear power (how long you'd think Mexico be there if they deside to send human bombs into US?) Now, this is based on my analysis only, just tell me where I am wrong, and I back up.
Whoever was taking pictures of twin towers, is of no importance. When (ok, I meant If ) I'll be running security agency, I will produce any piece of information that will siute my "version", like for instance a lie about Arab kid telling his teacher about twin towers, and not getting on the bus...Information like that is of no importance. Because it can be made up. As Bin Laden's videotape. How do you know it wasn't produced by DOD™ or some freakin' Mossad for that matter? What, you never forged your school report?
Shura

Map, I think you might've made a great career in law...
Jason, so that you wouldn't think I've been drinking - which I have - I will throw in a bone. I do think that guys we are catching are legitimate terrorists. Now, whether they really have any connection to 9/11...let's just say, the true source is out there
Shura
[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: Shura Balaganov ]

- They've said they did it.
- They have demonstrated intimate knowledge that only the perpetrators would have.
- They have demonstrated foreknowledge of the events.
- There is an overwhelming abundance of physical evidence linking them to these acts.
So in the face of overwhelming and (I'm sorry if you don't agree but it's true) almost irrefutable proof of who was behind the attacks, you choose to ignore all of it because it doesn't fit in with your conspiracy theories? I don't think there would be any proof that could convince you and those who share your beliefs in these wild conspiracy theories, Shura.
My advice: lay off the alcohol. :roll:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/15/powell.aziz.iraq/index.html
I am just laughing...if it wouldn't be so sad...
"Powell says it's too late for Iraq to negotiate"
"If they have no weapons, what are they hiding?"
"Bush also said if the world body did not act, he was prepared to take matters into his own hands."
I rest my case, folks. It is never too late to negotiate, and any nation that lived through war on their territory will tell you that (oh, WW2 went through my birthplace twice, East and West, and 25% of people died, so believe me, it's in my blood). If they are not criminals, why they look like ones? :roll: Ever heard of "innocent, until found guilty"? Yeah, he is probably guilty. So Bush's main cause for war is that Saddam kicked UN inspectors out? How long it's been since they played same trick on Russia? Take action into his hands my arse, your small street bullie. Try fighting your own size, you'd wet your pants.
Poor young Bush, guy'll never know what hit him. Get suckered into WW3... I know, I know, he's just not smart enough to recognize the obvious, let the old man alone... Why, or why will I have to pay for this :roll:
On the other note folks...since everyone is busy watching this go down and missed it...Brasil almost defaulted in August, US has to bail them out (actially, not them, but Citigroup and JPMorgan) with $30Billion of my hard earned tax money. Argentina defaulted, Uruguay almost did, Brasil is going down...Here's your american way in your face, poor South America learned it the hard way, and now is bankrupt. There's only one way to deal with IMF and folks, and I admire Russia for walking it... ah, well, there going to be another day tomorrow for all ya hardworking bunch...
Shura

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
- They've said they did it.
- They have demonstrated intimate knowledge that only the perpetrators would have.
- They have demonstrated foreknowledge of the events.
- There is an overwhelming abundance of physical evidence linking them to these acts.

Dude, CIA has learned this freom KGB days...You can make anyone say anything
Conspiracy, shmonspiracy... Maybe I am a little on the left, and you are a lot on the right, with your "believe everything CNN says" I take being in my boat any day against yours. Dude, this is "world domintation" we are talking here, not some home-grown arab terrorists. A domination of the world. It is a f@#%ing ultimate drug, you think killing 4000 people will stop them? Heck, they put countries out of business. They traffic drugs. They sell trillions worth of guns. Go back to your Rosie and Who Wants to Be Millionaire, it's a wild world out there.
Plese, don't take any offence in my outcry...
I am tired. Does asnyone here want to do an analysis, or should I call it quits?
Shura

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
Dude, this is "world domintation" we are talking here, not some home-grown arab terrorists. A domination of the world. It is a f@#%ing ultimate drug, you think killing 4000 people will stop them? Heck, they put countries out of business. They traffic drugs. They sell trillions worth of guns. Go back to your Rosie and Who Wants to Be Millionaire, it's a wild world out there.

Okay, now you are becoming incoherent and very Dennis Hopper-esque. Sleep it off and try again in the morning.

Sorry for monopolizing this thread, my only excuse is that I started it...
Anyway, here's one more fact to analyse. When economy goes bust, one of the mechanismsis of recovery is to increase military spending. Order new airplanes, open defense contracts, etc. It both generates workplaces and helps economy. Now, you can't just simply poor money into defense - you run out really quick. So what you need is to increase revenue. And how do you do that? How about by starting a war? Imagine, without war, say, Israel, would buy, say, 10 helilcopters a year. Now, if we make their helicopters fall out of the sky shot down at some war, imagine how many more we can sell/"give away"?
As it turns out, we might need this war after all... :roll:
Dennis Hopper-incoherent? If you mean "Apocalypse Now" Dennis Hopper? That was totally coherent. It was probably only Hopper movie I saw (can't say for sure, I am bad with names).
Shura
[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: Shura Balaganov ]

Shura, it was boring here without you anyway!

Lets give a new turn to this discussion ....
How many of you have read Orwell's 1984 ?

Shura would you like to buy a clue. It is obvious you don't have one.

btw Shura you have Jason all wrong. If he was as far right as you say he would watch Fox and not CNN. You also say you are only slightly left. But you imply CNN is right leaning. You must be so far left that you no longer no where the center even is.

To Javed:
Flat earth
Just because someone somewhere wrote something, does not make it ture

All those people who saw the plane crash into the Pentagon are either liars or in the pay of the CIA, right Javed?

I know for a fact that a plane crashed into the Pentagon. Aside from the overwhelming abundance of physical information and eyewitness accounts, I know people who were there, I have a friend who's a firefighter who stopped to assist with the efforts, and my friends grandfather was killed in the Pentagon along with three schoolchildren from our area and their teacher as well as others who live in my neck of the woods who were on the plane or in the Pentagon. No site you can produce from some ignorant ass who wasn't there, and doesn't live anywhere near the area, will serve any purpose other than to suck in the clueless and the ignorant who feed off of such tripe.
[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
Shura would you like to buy a clue. It is obvious you don't have one.
btw Shura you have Jason all wrong. If he was as far right as you say he would watch Fox and not CNN. You also say you are only slightly left. But you imply CNN is right leaning. You must be so far left that you no longer no where the center even is.

Left, right...Ok, so in my previous statement, let's say I am left and he is right. Paul, my naive friend, it makes no difference. The left-right argument is of no importance, not to me anyway. Apparently, you've got so much clue you clued yourself for life. Watching CNN and such, I guess. Taking all this typical Soviet-era propaganda to your heart. Good luck, man, stick with writing Java code, at least computers don't lie.
Give me a darn PROOF. I want to see ONE secret document, one that doesn't come out of CNN, "Al Quaeda officials" :roll: or this mysterious Al Jaseera. There must be one. They freakin' left flight manuals on a plane, how can they hide so darn well? :roll:
Jason, that guy is just ignorant
Map: Shura, it was boring here without you anyway!
Thank you, dear. I too for a while had no desire of posting here. These folks got so much clue and wisdom apparently, it is so hard to resist worshiping them. But then I figured I miss your insightful comments...
Shura
[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Shura Balaganov ]

What on earth are you people talking about?

And if you say ONE secret document, you wouldn't believe it either. You would claim it came from the CIA or FBI. How silly of us not to bow down to your reasoning. You offer some easily discredited rumors yet you want to see secret documents. You say all information comes from CNN is automatically wrong yet you use internet rumors as your proof. If a source says something you want to hear, you won't hesitate to use that as your proof. If they don't, it is all lies.
By the way, you are the one who brought up left and right as some type of issue. Somehow it made a difference when you used it against Jason but now it makes none. Then why bring it up to start with.

Shura reminds me of those people who believed the CIA killed President Kennedy. No amount of evidence will ever convince them otherwise. The idea that a conspiracy of such reach and scope could be hidden for 40 years is only further proof to these people of the power of the CIA. So the abscence of proof becomes proof!
Shura, I think you need to get your head out of all the Soviet-KGB inspired anti-American crap you apparently still believe.
[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]

Interestingly enough, out of all the sources I offered, only one came from CNN. The others were BBC, although their sources were Al-Jazeera in some cases.
Something else interesting that I found, is that following the arrest of this individual, I couldn't find a single Arab news site (English version at least) that made any mention of our aprehension of this individual. Not one. Not any from Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, nor any that consider themselves Pan-Arab news sites (see Shura, I do read things other than CNN ). Sometimes you just have to wonder.

See, now it became personal :roll: It only did when Paul Stevens desided to call me clueless instead of contributing to discussion.
Paul, I brought left-right issue only to point out that me and Jason were far apart (how about this: "I am far East and he's West").
Jason, it makes sence, because this guy is probably a true terrorist. He's probably also an al Quaeda's top official. And he's probably taking the blame. Who else in their right mind would want to take the blame, you tell me? What I am questioning is that Al Quaeda did it, or did it alone.
Paul Stevens: And if you say ONE secret document, you wouldn't believe it either...You say all information comes from CNN is automatically wrong
What, do I act like an ignorant or a moron? I do change my judgement based on facts. I also don't say everything CNN is showing is wrong. No, but the definitely blow the wrong horn. Like, for instance, I personally saw information posted on CNN web site on 9/11 that plane in Pennsylvania was shot down. There were also reports of journalists seeing fighter planes speeding into that direction. Then, an hour or so later, that information disappeared, and now it is all heroic effort of American heroes :roll: I guess it was uncool to shoot down a plane.
What is a news agency that publishes one lie? It is now longer a news agency.
Shura
[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Shura Balaganov ]

Well Tony Blair (Bush's shadow) said that he will show us evidence on 24th September, evidence that Iraq still have Mass weapons. This declaration came while, Hans Blix said that there is NO proof that Iraq has such weapons. Well it's a problem. We can say that after such declarations, Tony Blair lose some of his credibility. He lost already much when he show us evidence of Ben Laden guilt (I'm not saying Ben Laden is not guilty, I really don't know, but those evidence were anything but not evidence). Let's see what those brave guys will invent to fool us, again.

Shura, a lot of things that were reported early on in the story weren't true. The news networks said when they reported these stories that they might not be accurate. CNN also reported that 16 other planes might have been hijacked at the same time but that turned out not to be true.
Do you remember Flight 800 that crashed off of Long Island a few years ago? Some of the networks reported that a missile was fired at the plane but that wasn't true.
Why do you believe a story reported within minutes of the crash with no investigation behind it and then refuse to believe reports that follow up this story and involve actual research? Do you think everyone at CNN, FoxNews, BBC, MSNCB, etc is on the CIA's payroll?
Shura, you do act like an ignorant person. You make the evidence fit your preconceived belifs and then ignore anything that diagrees with that. You claim, "I do change my judgement based on facts" but I haven't seen any evidence of that. It seems to me that you change the facts to fit your judgement.

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
Well Tony Blair (Bush's shadow) said that he will show us evidence on 24th September, evidence that Iraq still have Mass weapons. This declaration came while, Hans Blix said that there is NO proof that Iraq has such weapons.

And do you think that the US and Great Britian hand over to the UN every secret document from Iraqi defectors that they get? Do you really think that Hans Blix has a team of undercover operatives and spy planes that keep him informed with what is going on in Iraq?

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
How do you know it wasn't produced by DOD™ or some freakin' Mossad for that matter?

And here is exactly the problem. Anything that goes against your belief is made up by the CIA. Bin Laden could come to your house and confess the whole thing and you would claim he was under the control of the CIA. So why don't you go make yourself an aluminum hat? I hear the CIA is beaming signals into your head.

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
...and then refuse to believe reports that follow up this story and involve actual research? Do you think everyone at CNN, FoxNews, BBC, MSNCB, etc is on the CIA's payroll?

Because there was every day a meeting for journalist at the White House, at that meeting journalists were shown what to say and what they can't write. They were also asked to show US as a united and good country, and asked not to embarrass Mr Bush with question that he can't answer (quite hard to find question he can answer). So what kind of credibilty can we give to information coming from such media?

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
And do you think that the US and Great Britian hand over to the UN every secret document from Iraqi defectors that they get?

Yes I think so, since they are trying to have the most allies as possible. Having the UN by your side will be a good thing. Other thing is that UN inspectors are at training for 16 months now, what for again??? To inspect Iraq. Since they are the ones, who will attest the truthness of US declarations, why wouldn't you share information with them.It would ease their works. Maybe, because you just have no information.

Do you really think that Hans Blix has a team of undercover operatives and spy planes that keep him informed with what is going on in Iraq?

Surely not, but last UN chief Inspector complained that US made pressure to know where Saddam was. Maybe that your government (like you) don't know what a UN inspector is and what a spy is. So maybe US gave them some spy plane, who knows

And you would know this is taking place...how?

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
Because there was every day a meeting for journalist at the White House, at that meeting journalists were shown what to say and what they can't write. They were also asked to show US as a united and good country, and asked not to embarrass Mr Bush with question that he can't answer (quite hard to find question he can answer).

ROFLMAO! The anti-American propoganda machine does its job well. These "meetings" are called daily press conferences btw. They are televised. Have you ever watched them?
If I may paraphrase from a popular movie: Conspiracy theories and propoganda can have a strong influence on the weak minded.