Probably the scariest thing...ever

[foq]

We know that now but what about 2001?

[Alothrysis]

We know that now but what about 2001?

'Terrorists' had nothing to do with 9/11, we attacked our own country to create 'patriotism'...fuckers

Nero did it to Rome, Hitler did it to the Reichstag, and research (the exact name escapes me at the moment) possibly the Marshall Plan? It's been recently declassified and you can read all about it. Kennedy and his cabinet members had devised a plan to orchestrate a naval attack off the coast of Cuba so that we could blame it on Fidel, raise our country to arms, and attack. Apparently, the whole nuclear crisis was resolved about a week before the scheduled date.

If you are trully interested in this deceit then go on the internet, library, whatever; as long as you feel the information is real. (How I got rid of my skepticism) Watch the various news feeds of that day, and if you only choose one, make it the Pentagon attack. The type of plane they said hit it 727, 747, whatever the fuck, the dimensions of the hole in the building don't even match up with the size of the plane. It's off by at least 100 ft or so in width. Then take a look at the ground, where the f*ck is the plane?!? Watch every stations feed and you WILL NOT see plane wreckage anywhere.

Then read the 'official' 911 report and look at any picture related to that crash. The dimensions of the engine remains given in the report do not match up with the type of plane they say hit it. Finally take a look at the photos of the Pentagon site, there are photos of the responding officers holding up the engine?!?! If you have ever seen that type of plane (again, exact model escapes me 747, 727, whatever) as most of us have probably traveled by plane at some point, one person holding that size of an engine...roflmao, the Hulk would probably have a hard time.

I'm no crazy, protest wherever I can, liberal.

Just someone who looked at facts unbiased and formed an opinion.

[Baker]

foq there were no iraqis involved in 9/11. Saddam Hussein's regime was a secular, militaristic regime--ie the opposite of religious terrorists. saddam even fought iran for us for 8 years. but who can afford to make distinctions? 19 muslims bombed us with our own planes--never mind tightening up airport security, lets bomb every muslim! sigh

Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, but 9/11 changed the world.

Two choices in a more dangerous world:

1) Let every dictator do whatever the F they want and we say "yeah, fine".

2) Say, "ok, clean up your act or you get to be the first example of what happens."

When police crack down and get serious about law enforcement in a part of town that has a high murder rate, none of those guys they crack down on did anything before the crack down.

International relations are no different than controlling criminals.

The United States and the UK are largely why the modern world even works.

You probably don't think about this, but the US Navy plays a major role worldwide in protecting international shipments.

It's easy to be ignorant and be "anti-war" and just say "war is bad" without understanding how screwed up the world is. But that's like being a child in a world of wolves, a luxury you have because of the country you live in. Third world countries are ALL corrupt as hell. Corruption is very minor in the wealthiest countries like the US, Europe and Japan.

Unforunately, raw power is the ONLY thing that keeps undemocratic dictatorships in check. Until every country is a democracy, the role of miltary operations will perpetually be very important to keep the world stable.

We are forunate we live in a world where the most powerful militaries are mostly in the hands of the most benign countries.

[Phenom]

We seem to forget Afghanistan.

I don't know why becoming a soldier automatically makes you a good guy. People are not all the same. Motivations vary.

And do they fight for my freedom? Me, personally? Do they know me? Are they all like, "This one's for Gulliver!" ? Should I show my appreciation by not exercising my freedom? What?

Freedom is an illusion. Sure we are allowed to do more stuff then most other countries, but other countries are allowed to do stuff that becomes illegal once they are braught to the USA. Its not Freedom its different views on what people think freedom is.

They ban fireworks even on the 4th of July because of a couple bad apples decided to not practice saftey for self and others now I have to pay the price, Bullshit, wheres the fucking independance and freedom in that? Yet its still a holiday which most people probably don't know what the 4th of July symbolizes.

[Spirit]

It reminds me more and more of Nazi-Germany...
Stand up guys, don't let people like that rule your country.

[scar3crow]

Spirit - Specify which thing particularly does remind you? My first assumptions are the video, and the executive order nullifying due process.

Baker - We are marvelously inconsistent regarding that act of policing, I recall during the protests (1 of 3) of the Iraq war on my own campus, prior to it beginning, an African student stood up and asked a Conservative about this attitude of policing for justice, when we ignore the many butchers in Africa. Saddam was by contrast to many of those guys, a puppy.

When police crack down and get serious about law enforcement in a part of town that has a high murder rate, none of those guys they crack down on did anything before the crack down.

That sounds like a criticism of law enforcement rather than an example. Deter violence yes, but DEFINITELY get those who actively perpetrate such attacks. We went after what we thought was a softer target of Iraq (it hasn't exactly worked out for us, and is draining the nation of money rapidly). The criminals have gotten way, hiding most likely either in Afghanistan where we pretend everything is hunky dory (Men's Health magazine did a better job reporting on Afghanistan than most news outlets do) or in Pakistan, our ally, who has threatened to use nuclear weapons against India, our other ally, who has threatened to use nuclear weapons against our ally Pakistan. It is more than just "its a tough job and has big ramifications", it is the fact that either capturing those responsible is not in our leader's interest, or we are dealing with a unique level of incompetence.

[Baker]

Baker - We are marvelously inconsistent regarding that act of policing, I recall during the protests (1 of 3) of the Iraq war on my own campus, prior to it beginning, an African student stood up and asked a Conservative about this attitude of policing for justice, when we ignore the many butchers in Africa. Saddam was by contrast to many of those guys, a puppy.

Terrible stuff goes on in Africa, for sure. I think 2 things that make Africa different:

1. I don't think anyone really feels anyone can make a difference other than vaccination programs and other acts of goodwill. It's going to be a while before Africa emerges but I hope it happens this century.

2. Although some of the things that happen in those countries are amazing (Uganda), those are all civil wars that don't impact outside the bordering countries.

That sounds like a criticism of law enforcement rather than an example. Deter violence yes, but DEFINITELY get those who actively perpetrate such attacks. We went after what we thought was a softer target of Iraq (it hasn't exactly worked out for us, and is draining the nation of money rapidly).

Since few of the countries in the Middle East are democracies, most of the governments are run not by those qualified, but by those that managed to get power and keep power.

Pretty similar to organized crime really, just like medieval Europe. They can do whatever they want within their borders largely without limitation.

A common tactic by dictatorships is to blame an external power for their problems (like Hitler did with Jews, for example) to draw the attention of the populace away from corruption/how poorly run the government is/etc.

While this works, in the Middle East this went out of control and led to the 9/11 attitude where the West was somehow magically the source of everyone's misery in the Middle East.

These countries DO have the ability to control those activities because they are police states and in many cases these anti-American/anti-West sentiments were state sponsored.

It's all fun and games until it gets real. Since those countries are not run in the best interest of their people -- no dictatorship is -- you have to make it real for them.

I'm not a Bush fan. I imagine a democrat will be elected president in 2008, and assuming that's Hillary I guarantee she won't withdraw the troops quickly either (John Kerry wasn't going to).

[scar3crow]

1. I don't think anyone really feels anyone can make a difference other than vaccination programs and other acts of goodwill. It's going to be a while before Africa emerges but I hope it happens this century.

That sounds massively subjective, "I don't think we can help, so we wont." Basically its giving up before trying.

2. Although some of the things that happen in those countries are amazing (Uganda), those are all civil wars that don't impact outside the bordering countries.

Then it isn't for the sake of policing the world, for spreading democracy, deposing dictators, it is just taking care of our business. We aren't interested in Africa currently on a financial level, so who gives a fuck if they slaughter people whole sale, on a personal level?

So in short, Africa is the region of the world where we simply can't be arsed? Nice.

Since few of the countries in the Middle East are democracies, most of the governments are run not by those qualified, but by those that managed to get power and keep power.

Do not presume that being democratically elected means that you are qualified, within America, both parties have refuted that pipe dream. Regarding the get power and keep power, that reminds me of incumbent senators.

A common tactic by dictatorships is to blame an external power for their problems (like Hitler did with Jews, for example) to draw the attention of the populace away from corruption/how poorly run the government is/etc.

Well, the Jews were internal and external, also his political opponents could be argued to be responsible for the poor management, and it was to his advantage to harm them because it gained public support. Jews were already unpopular in Germany and throughout Europe, aggression towards them was a focal point for their anger, the existing administration was labeled stagnation and other nation's legislating Germany's fate was labeled as the cause for the inadequacy of recent administrations, and an excuse to be fine with hostility in regards to the external world. Bring back an aggressive concept of national pride and a sense of "what is rightfully ours", and you have a ticket to start a domino effect. Hitler's corruption wasn't so much as an administrator, but as a human being. He did whip the economy back into shape, massive wars do that, WW2 gave us a massive kick in the ass in regards to our economy (and it can be argued, pushed forward women's position in the workplace as well). Hitler wasn't simply "Hate Jews ra ra ra." Plenty of people around the world were saying that already.

While this works, in the Middle East this went out of control and led to the 9/11 attitude where the West was somehow magically the source of everyone's misery in the Middle East.

Kind of like how 9-11 made us so much more suspicious as a nation of any one who is brown? 9-11 was not a surprise in the large scale, they had been gradually attacking us, we knew they were a threat, they didn't hide their goals in general, and we were told by them it was reactions to our actions in the middle east. We are trading blows with them.

These countries DO have the ability to control those activities because they are police states and in many cases these anti-American/anti-West sentiments were state sponsored.

The 9-11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Lebanon I believe, the majority of these being the first two. Saudi Arabia and UAE are good buddies of ours. Egypt, well, they do our dirty laundry, along with Uzbekistan, and Lebanon seems to be on a more generic relation. The majority of the hi-jackers who were willing to kill themselves to harm America came from nations that we are considered allies with, whom the government would not benefit from their citizens resenting, let alone hating America, because they would turn against them harshly for their dealings with America. This suggests that the sentiment against America did not originate from the government, as they only stand to lose ground for that.

It's all fun and games until it gets real. Since those countries are not run in the best interest of their people -- no dictatorship is -- you have to make it real for them.

Black people aren't real?

If I remember correctly, Gravel is the only democratic candidate who has said Iraq was a mistake.

All I am saying, is that we have not been consistent in applying the reasoning we declare in our foreign policy. The only path that seems to find a consistency in the application of our military power, is to follow the money.

[spooker]

about not catching bin laden, i'd like to share my experiences in pakistan, which might help explain why we've been unable to find him. there's a region in pakistan bordering afghanistan called the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, which are run by tribal custom, without police, taxes, organized government, etc. People carry guns with them when they go out to pick the crops. (see photo below) I went to one shop in the tribal areas and I bought a small gun (there were much bigger available, or an rpg), counterfeit american currency (i spent one here and it worked), and was offered huge chunks of drugs--heroine, hash, coke. i've heard from many sources that if you have enough money you can buy a tank--there's many old soviet tanks littered around afghanistan, and they rehab them and bring them to pakistan. when the pakistani federal government comes into the tribal areas, they are viewed as invaders. every household has a watch tower, to make sure the neighboring clan doesnt invade. so, this region is the perfect place for bin laden--fractured, chaotic, lawless, poor, illiterate. i have no doubt he is there, it is a match made in heaven. that said, i think the federal government is doing everything it can to fight extremism, and i am glad somebody in this world has some balls (musharraf)

about ideals, from what i gather, the general view around the world is that we only support democracy when it serves our interests. we supported elections in palestine then boycotted hamas when it won. however, in the middle east it's interesting to notice that all of the democratic countries have some kind of war, civil or external, or are teetering on the edge--iraq, palestine, lebanon. whenever democratic space is made in middle eastern countries, the islamists always take the victory. therefore, democracy seems a silly answer to terrorism and internal strife



house with a watchtower:



working conditions in the tribal areas: kids making sticker decorations for trucks:

[scar3crow]

spooker - Righto, that region is a great place to hide if you can get by in it. I wasn't aware it had a formal name however. That does seem the most likely place for him to be at this point, though I can't help but think of the line from Family Guy "Turns out he was hiding in the cast of MadTV, who would have looked there?"

It would not surprise me if you could buy a tank there, it wouldn't surprise me if you could get your hands on an older helicopter or bomb as well. And yeah, you're right on the money regarding the "Supporting democracy when it serves our interests". Thats something we are let to learn, when we give people the power to choose, we have to acknowledge that they might make a different choice than we would... ...such as instituting sharia law, or electing someone who opposes us or we in general just don't like.

[foq]

I want a tank >_>

[spooker]

Thats something we are let to learn, when we give people the power to choose, we have to acknowledge that they might make a different choice than we would... ...such as instituting sharia law, or electing someone who opposes us or we in general just don't like.

what you said gave me this thought: if you view the pax americana as 100% legitimate and perfect (which few do), it may bear some resemblance to the conflict between free will and happiness: democracy being free will and peace being happiness--having free will means having the freedom to make choices that make you miserable, not just ones that make you happy

foqer--you want tank? 1,800,000 rupees, pakistani plz. to my paypal

[foq]

/gives spooker 1.8M Pakistani Rupees

I'll PM you my adress, have them airdrop it in the parking lot.

[Baker]

And yeah, you're right on the money regarding the "Supporting democracy when it serves our interests". Thats something we are let to learn, when we give people the power to choose, we have to acknowledge that they might make a different choice than we would... ...such as instituting sharia law, or electing someone who opposes us or we in general just don't like.

Wasn't Hitler elected?

I don't think things are so simple as "democracy solves all."

Hugo Chavez was elected and he's said some things about either abolishing elections or maybe he is limited to 2 terms and wants to remove that limitation. I'd have to do more homework on that to find the specifics.

In Russia, Putin has scaled back freedoms and democracy and I think it will be interesting to see what he does near the end of this term. He has been rolling back Russia more towards a police state and imprisoning political opponents and seizing corporations.

I think any particular democratic government will only be a product of how educated their people are. This is why the USA had a lot of very bizarre state governors/presidents in the first 100 years (Aaron Burr comes to mind).

In a poor country, a leader is more likely to be elected via populism and stoking emotion than leadership capabilities. It's nice we have term limits in the USA for president; too bad their aren't term limits of some sort of all elected offices.

/edit = I guess Hitler wasn't elected, he was appointed by someone who was elected.

[foq]

I thought Hitler was elected and turned it into a dictatorship... I should know I just had that last year in school