paradox:
I think you are living in an ideal world where there are no wars. That has not happened yet and will not happen till there are people who have an ideology that they want to force on everybody. If these people are using voilence against innocent people, there is no other way then to go to war against them. Remember these people cannot be reasoned with.
Look at what they did in Mumbai (India). They killed 170 innocent people under the notion of Jihad against people who do not follow their ideology.
I think we should finish what we started in Afhanistan by eliminating Taleban and Al-queda. Consider it as fight against "CANCER" to the peaceful coexistance in the world.
Posted by suresh at December 10, 2008 10:01 AMIf we want to combat terrorism, Why not start here at home?
We've got survivalists, cultists and drug swat teams. Lots of terrorists right here in what we boast is the biggest, bestest, freeist, and most above criticism in the universe.
--ml
Eliminate the Taleban and Al Qaeda? With the same brilliant and total success as the elimination of the Vietcong? The USA (and Britain)helped create the Taleban, for the noble purpose of countering the Soviet Union, who in fact had just about as much right to be in Afghanistan as we have now. And the development of Al Qaeda was greatly helped by Clinton's bombings in Sudan and Afghanistan.
Since Al Qaeda is not a specific nation in a known geographical location, but a loose network, there is about as much chance of eliminating it as there is of winning the war on drugs, so-called. We don't hear so much about that war now, perhaps because of the irony that Afghan drug production has soared since the invasion.
I think losing 100 or so supply trucks every other day is going to eventually ease even the most delusional neocon mind into a little reality.
Posted by Sharkbabe at December 10, 2008 11:49 AMYou got to look at the bigger picture. It's not only about creating a state in our image (wont happen), but it's about getting a foothold in that part of the world.
Aggressive American foreign policy dictates that military bases are needed in that part of the world in order to further the empire.
Call it what you will, war on drugs, spreading Democracy, whatever...it's all about getting access and control….same as in Iraq.
Those responsible for 911 were from Afghanistan? Look further up the food chain into the ISI and their shady connections with certain intelligence agencies.
The Taliban offered to turn over OBL to the US if they could provide evidence that he was responsible for the 911 atrocity. No evidence was offered because none is available...as admitted by the FBI. What we have are confessions by others obtained under torture and threats to and/or mistreatment of family members (including children). Now that's evidence you can count on.
With the turmoil in Pakistan, I would expect a number of Pakistani insiders to come forward with knowledge concerning 911 that has yet to see the light of day. Whether their testimony will get media play is doubtful.
When the BBC can report and explain the total collapse to the Solomon Building on 9-11-01, a full twenty-three minutes before it happened and no "news organization" investigates the decemination of an obvious cover story, there is no truth in media.
Try not to base your reasoning on contrived narratives...it undermines your otherwise excellent points.
Posted by brisa at December 10, 2008 12:07 PMWhen the BBC can report and explain the total collapse to the Solomon Building on 9-11-01, a full twenty-three minutes before it happened and no "news organization" investigates the decemination of an obvious cover story, there is no truth in media.
I told Cheney not to send the script out to those damn incompetent BBC reporters! They're imbeciles who couldn't be trusted to not blow the cover on the most tightly controlled massive conspiracy to secretly demolish an office building under the guise of a terrorist attack in the history of the world!
Seriously, it's regurgitating utter bullshit like this that completly destroys people's credibility. Let me ask you a simple question brisa. Why would those responsible for the alleged controlled demolition of a building that they went to impossible lengths to keep secret and make look like an accidental collapse GIVE A SCRIPT TO A BBB REPORTER to read about the collapse, thereby bringing this BBC reporter (and presumably the entire BBC news room) in on the conspiracy, rather than just demolishing the building and allowing the reporters to report it after the fact as they most certainly would have? Do you really believe that this lowly BBC reporter somehow had some inside info that WTC 7 was going to be demolished and made to look like a collapse? Do you think those responsible for the demolition were worried that the event wouldn't get enough media coverage so they brought the media in on the conspiracy to make sure it would get coverage? Maybe it was Cheney, Rumsfeld, a team of professional demolition experts and a BBC reporter who cooked the whole thing up? It defies any sort of logic whatsoever. And really makes the rest of what you write rather suspect as well.
Sorry if this comment causes you any pain.
Posted by snark at December 10, 2008 01:03 PMSorry if this comment causes you any pain.
Are you sorry? Really? It pains me to do this, but I'll have to call in the Pain Police for a ruling.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 10, 2008 02:25 PMThe pain is unbearable...where is the censor when you need him the most?
Posted by headxray at December 10, 2008 05:32 PMOh Snark...your so Inspector Lestrade.
Posted by brisa at December 10, 2008 10:19 PMOh Snark...your so Inspector Lestrade
Sadly, that's the response I expected.
But you stick with your reasoning based on contrived narratives. You do it so well.
Again, no pain infliction intended. Sometimes reality is just tough medicine.
Posted by snark at December 11, 2008 04:16 AMIf anyone is interested in a critique of the final NIST report on the collapse of WTC seven (just released....took a while), it can be viewed at this link
Snark...we've been round this topic in the past. My belief is that a freefall rate of decent demands that all supporting structures be eliminated ahead of the collapse wave. That position is supported by the known laws of physics that govern movement through space. I can live with you holding on to your beliefs. Actually, I wish I could adopt them.
Posted by brisa at December 11, 2008 07:15 AMthe final NIST report on the collapse of WTC seven (just released....took a while)
Of course, we wouldn't want them to be thorough. And if they'd said "case closed" 6 weeks after the fact you'd be asking why they were in such a rush.
My belief is that a freefall rate of decent demands that all supporting structures be eliminated ahead of the collapse wave.
The report assumes a period of freefall. So during the collapse there was a point in time when the collapsing structure below offered essentially no resistance to the structure above. Stunning. Clearly there must have been explosives planted.
That position is supported by the known laws of physics that govern movement through space.
So the NIST said that for 2.5 seconds the collapsing WTC7 experienced conditions that were essentially equivilant to an object falling through space with no resistance. Again, stunning.
I can live with you holding on to your beliefs.
So can I.
Actually, I wish I could adopt them.
I'm not holding my breath.
Of course none of this changes the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of controlled demolition of the building.
And it certainly does nothing to explain why the geniuses who allegedly managed to pull this off without leaving any physical evidence of demolition would feel the need to give a script outlining the timeline of the plot to a BBC reporter so that she would know what calamitious events she was going to be reporting before they actually happened. Ya see, all the thousands of people actually on hand in NYC were kept completely in the dark but they just couldn't pull it off without ensuring that the BBC was going to report the collapse of a 47 story building. I mean, they went to all that trouble. It'd be a disaster if they made WTC7 fall down and the BBC didn't report it. So they told the BBC what was going to happen.
I really feel for people like you. You exemplify everything you criticize others for. You have a world view around which you shaped a narrative and it has now totally clouded your thinking.
A final point. These people who allegedly managed to rig the two towers of thw world trade center with enough explosives to completely demolish them for some reason didn't think that totally destrying the two tallest buildings on the eastern seaboard of the US would be grand enough? So they figured while they were at it they'd also rig another building to add that finishing touch? And they worked it all out so that the third building would catch on fire and allow it to burn for several hours before finally pulling the trigger on it. Again, all without leaving behind a single shred of physical evidence. Other than a dumb BBC reporter who, for some unknown reason, was let in on the big secret.
That or the building was heavily damaged in the original collapses, burned for several hours further weakening the stucture and ultimately suffered a global collapse, partly due to several unique features of it's structural design, during some portion of which collapse the structure was falling at an essentially unresisted rate. And the BBC reporter, unfamiliar with what was the actual WTC7 building was simply confused or misinformed and reported talk of an impending collapse as if such a collapse had already occured.
Hmmmmmmm????