Terrorism = America

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:35 pm

Scrat wrote: Boring night Anastrophe? Lets settle our differences in a more entertaining light.

http://www.eve-online.com/

looks like an interesting game, but $20 a month? way too rich for my blood.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:35 am

Scrat wrote: The solution to the problem lies in a 3rd party that is capable of running Israel and Palastine in whatever manner necessary to bring about the condition of peace. Peace is not the absence of war.

Scrat wrote: [...]

I have said it before and I will say it again. The only solution I can see is to remove the governing bodies of Palastine and Israel. Remove everyone from Jerusalem and make it a closed city accessible to no one.

Put an army in the countries of about 1.5 million men with orders that anyone with a gun of any kind is to be shot on the spot. Any violence of any kind what so ever, up to and including simple assault is punishable on the spot by death. This should also be applied retro actively to people who incite violence and hatred through sedition.

Go after the people outside all over the world that incite and profit from this conflict. Kill every one of them.

Terrorize the terrorizers, get rid of the troublemakers. It may take decades but it will not take forever and with time the "body" will heal when the cancer is cut out.When your kids fight over a game, you take it and throw it away, don't you? :rolleyes:

Why is it our problem to solve?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:38 am

Accountable wrote: When your kids fight over a game, you take it and throw it away, don't you?

No, that can lead to bullying and resentment, or a "scorched earth" policy.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:57 am

Scrat wrote: Put an army in the countries of about 1.5 million men with orders that anyone with a gun of any kind is to be shot on the spot. Any violence of any kind what so ever, up to and including simple assault is punishable on the spot by death. This should also be applied retro actively to people who incite violence and hatred through sedition.

Go after the people outside all over the world that incite and profit from this conflict. Kill every one of them.

Terrorize the terrorizers, get rid of the troublemakers. It may take decades but it will not take forever and with time the "body" will heal when the cancer is cut out.

WOW! Wonder if you would support such an extreme policy in Iraq?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:18 am

spot wrote:

Out of interest, how does predicting the civilian casualties to be expected from destroying the Iraqi capacity to provide drinking water to their cities count, considering that the bombing then proceeded with that destruction? That killed tens of thousands of civilians at a lowest estimate, and the predictions were made - as far as I can see - during peacetime planning and before the damage was caused.

so spot, lovey - there are three paths here:

1. post some actual evidence to support your thus far unsupported claim.

2. withdraw your claim, with the appropriate apologies for trying to promulgate what would be - in the absence of compliance with (1) above, a lie. as to your motives - well, i'll happily make my own assumptions on those.

3. remain silent, hoping nobody notices that you made up a story with no basis in fact, again with motives i think are transparent.

my path is:

1. you post evidence, i withdraw my claim that you spun a tale, with my profound apologies.

2. you withdraw your claim, to the everlasting praise of your interlocutor.

3. you continue to skulk in the shadows, hoping the unpleasantness will go away, and - much to your dismay, i'm sure

- my condemnations continue.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:20 am

Scrat wrote: That's why you take their weapons/toys away. Everyone concerned. It is also a good thing to punish children when they refuse to get along in a constructive manner.

a nation is not a child. your considering them thus is nothing more than your western imperialist heritage showing.

In truth we have no interest in solving the problem.

Why not? Because of oil futures and the money laundering service Israel provides our politicians. Amongst other things.

supporting evidence please? this sounds like the typical bigot spewing about the kike conspiracy in controlling world banking.

Suffice to say we are taking sides because of money. IMO.

so the jews are the problem there, eh? not the millions of muslims in surrounding nations who believe the only good jew is a dead jew?

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:29 pm

anastrophe wrote: so spot, lovey - there are three paths here:

1. post some actual evidence to support your thus far unsupported claim.You were, I hope, aware that I was out at Heathrow? I went subsequently (by way of Bristol) to Lancashire (from where I logged in transiently a couple of times to pick up a PM) and only arrived back in Bristol this afternoon. I had thought I'd mentioned that it would be a while before I got back to this, which is why I noted that fact before I left.

You do know in advance that you're going to rubbish this, don't you, regardless of content? You're an apologist, anastrophe. Consider the current global warming thread - you've pushed any number of "facts" into that without (so far as I saw) a single reference to a source. It's been my experience since I arrived on ForumGarden that you have a single stance on any assertion you dislike - go find proof, you say, and bring it back, you say. When you see what's brought back you laugh and say well what a load of biased foolery that is, as though nothing can be factual if it's produced to make a point you regard as biased. Every single bloody time. Go do the work, you say, go spend time ferreting you say. Well, it's interesting what's out there regardless of your personal overweening nationalistic pride. People are dying from that nationalistic pride and it's shameful. The very idea that an occupying force can refuse to evaluate and publish the consequence of their actions is shameful to begin with. The forebears in political chicanery said if you're going to lie do it big, do it loud and do it often and that pretty well defines today's US mass media.

As anyone might expect, you shifted what I said into something I didn't say - here's the expansion of what I did say, I hope that's alright. I have no intention of trying to perform the impossible miracle of proving something you said I said but which I didn't. Another of your commonplace screwing of reasonable discourse, that.

Most of these quotes were first abstracted by Professor Thomas J Nagy, Professor of Expert Systems at George Washington University with a doctoral fellowship in public health, and some were printed in Scotland's Sunday Herald article by Felicity Arbuthnot which I attach as a text document.

Anyway, let's start with that "15 year old paper" we were looking at earlier, the Pre-war Assessment entitled Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities As Of 18 Jan 91 Key Judgments. Sanctions imposed by the US by means of a UN resolution had brought the chief water purification chemical, chlorine, to a "critically low" level:"Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline"

"With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations Sanctions to import these vital commodities. Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease."

The quality of untreated water is "generally is poor," and drinking such water "could result in diarrhea,", Iraq's rivers "contain biological materials, pollutants, and are laden with bacteria. Unless the water is purified with chlorine, epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid could occur."

"Iraq conceivably could truck water from the mountain reservoirs to urban areas. But the capability to gain significant quantities is extremely limited"

"The amount of pipe on hand and the lack of pumping stations would limit laying pipelines to these reservoirs. Moreover, without chlorine purification, the water still would contain biological pollutants. Some affluent Iraqis could obtain their own minimally adequate supply of good quality water from Northern Iraqi sources. If boiled, the water could be safely consumed. Poorer Iraqis and industries requiring large quantities of pure water would not be able to meet their needs."

"Iraq could not rely on rain to provide adequate pure water."

"Iraqi alternatives are not adequate for their national requirements."

"Iraq will suffer increasing shortages of purified water because of the lack of required chemicals and desalination membranes. Incidences of disease, including possible epidemics, will become probable unless the population were careful to boil water."

"Iraq's overall water treatment capability will suffer a slow decline, rather than a precipitous halt"

"Although Iraq is already experiencing a loss of water treatment capability [by reason of US-sponsored sanctions], it probably will take at least six months before the system is fully degraded."So, the next snapshot, Disease Outbreaks in Iraq 21 FEB 91 (and it actually is 21 Feb 1991, the 1990 date on the dot mil is a typo and the context makes it obvious that this is after Desert Storm, not before)."Conditions are favorable for communicable disease outbreaks, particularly in major urban areas affected by coalition bombing."

"Infectious disease prevalence in major Iraqi urban areas targeted by coalition bombing (Baghdad, Basrah) undoubtedly has increased since the beginning of Desert Storm ... Current public health problems are attributable to the reduction of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification and distribution, electricity, and the decreased ability to control disease outbreaks."

"most likely diseases during next sixty-ninety days (descending order): diarrheal diseases (particularly children); acute respiratory illnesses (colds and influenza); typhoid; hepatitis A (particularly children); measles, diphtheria, and pertussis (particularly children); meningitis, including meningococcal (particularly children); cholera (possible, but less likely)."A month later, "Medical Problems in Iraq" March 15 1991 describes the continued breakdown of water provision triggered by Desert Storm (or, as the document puts it, "resulting from the war"):"Communicable diseases in Baghdad are more widespread than usually observed during this time of the year and are linked to the poor sanitary conditions (contaminated water supplies and improper sewage disposal) resulting from the war. According to a United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)/World Health Organization report, the quantity of potable water is less than 5 percent of the original supply, there are no operational water and sewage treatment plants, and the reported incidence of diarrhea is four times above normal levels. Additionally, respiratory infections are on the rise. Children particularly have been affected by these diseases."

"Conditions in Baghdad remain favorable for communicable disease outbreaks."You got that bit? "the quantity of potable water is less than 5 percent of the original supply"? "there are no operational water and sewage treatment plants"? "the reported incidence of diarrhea is four times above normal levels"? "resulting from the war"?

That "15 year old paper" describes what was going to happen. The other papers carry snapshots of those consequences, which I (and not the paper, and I didn't claim it was the paper) suggested was "about 60,000 additional deaths that year, most of those children".

So, how do I arrive at a rough estimate of the excess civilian deaths, which I reasonably attribute to disease incident on "the quantity of potable water is less than 5 percent of the original supply". To be quite honest, I guessed, and now you've pushed me to go and look.

Collateral Damage: The Health and Environmental Costs of War on Iraq (at MedAct):Air attacks and sanctions targeted Iraq's oil industry, crippling the country's economy, which had been growing in the previous decades. Roads, communications, electricity, water supply, sewage systems, and healthcare facilities were severely damaged.

This damage severely limited water, food, and other resources. An estimated 1.8 million refugees fled to the borders, with disease and malnutrition. The report states that women, children, and elderly people were affected the worst. Some 47000 excess deaths in children aged under 5 years occurred in January to August 1991 alone.I've seen figures of 40% to 60% for "excess deaths in children aged under 5 years" as a proportion of all disease-related deaths in Iraq 1991 (again from the GulfLink dot mil site). I think I'm fairly close with my 60,000.

Attached files Felicity Arbuthnot.txt (5.2 KB)

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:10 pm

what a fabulous - nay, smashing, over the top dodge, spot old boy! i wouldn't know where to begin! how better to try to avoid actually admitting error, than to bluster on, predicting my response, negating it in the balance, and then spewing lots of information that does not support your claim.

As anyone might expect, you shifted what I said into something I didn't say -

oh, did i? i'm so sorry. i thought that when i quoted your exact words fully in context, that that would do well to eliminate the dodge (which i expected) that 'i didn't say that'.

let's try it again. this i believe is the third time i'll have quoted your words, without elision, within context, fully and 100% - precisely YOUR words:

spot wrote: Out of interest, how does predicting the civilian casualties to be expected from destroying the Iraqi capacity to provide drinking water to their cities count, considering that the bombing then proceeded with that destruction? That killed tens of thousands of civilians at a lowest estimate, and the predictions were made - as far as I can see - during peacetime planning and before the damage was caused.

so, you deny you said that? you're suggesting that my interpretation of your plainly spoken claim is wrong?

how else would one interpret what you've written? i can't think of any other way to interpret it: you are claiming that the US intentionally destroyed drinking water facilities, with the intention of killing civilians. anybody out there think it says something otherwise?

*you* my boy, are the one who is taking information, and warping it to your own needs. let's be clear here - january 1991 may have formally been 'prewar', but it was barely so. it was most certainly, most emphatically not a "peacetime assessment" as you so boldly prevaricate. it was before the US engaged directly with saddam hussein's forces, but hussein had already invaded kuwait and was busily torturing and killing kuwaitis in the interim. but the aggressor is blameless for what befell him, is that right spot? "peacetime" includes the torture and gang rape of kuwaiti women by republican guard 'elites' in the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation?

i find this comment particularly....piquant:

Sanctions imposed by the US by means of a UN resolution

ah, of course, the all powerful US, bullying the UN into sanctions only it wants, and that pathetically fey UN just rolls over for them. darn that US, the UN is such a puppet of them, going along with whatever they want....oh, wait - didn't the UN *not* agree to following through with their own stated objective, to get hussein to stop being an aggressor, violating said sanctions? you know, when we invaded iraq without UN approval? so which is it? you can't have it both ways. UN sanctions and UN resolutions are UN sanctions and UN resolutions. don't go playing the 'it's all the US's fault' card.

but anyway. i'm saddened that you still have absolutely no evidence to support the contention that the US specifically and intentionally destroyed water purification facilities, specifically and intentionally to kill civilians.

and lets be clear: saddam hussein brought all of this on himself and his countrymen. i know you want to shift the blame entirely to the US. and you wish to hold that gentle giant saddam hussein completely without any culpability for his actions - his starving his own people to build more palaces, his activity in trying to create weapons of mass destruction, his genocide against the kurds, his political imprisonments, and torture and murder of dissidents, his suppression of religious freedom, his supression of a free and open press, his suppression of the arts, the delightful 'death penalty for you and your family if you're found with a satellite dish', shall i go on? but no - his bad actions all flow from the US. we *made* him do it. heck, we forced him to invade kuwait! we put him in power! he was specifically bred through artificial insemination by american scientists, all part of a grand scheme to....oh, of course, it's about the oil. so we could keep our flow of cheap oil.

yeah. of course. that's why virtually no oil flows out of iraq three years later. before that, during the time of sanctions, of course your own delightful george galloway was conspiring with hussein to trade oil for "food" (which turned out to actually be "more money to pay for more palaces").

yeah, i'm just a flag-waiving nationalistic know-nothing, yep.

when are you going to stop denying your own country's participation in bad actions by simply never bringing them up? where's the topic about the video of british forces beating iraqi civilians? of course. why bring it up? it's not a topic about how evil america is, so it's of no interest to spot, our very own standard bearer - "All that is evil is US".

pathetic.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:22 pm

and, just to be completely transparent on this, here is spots original response, with the text *he* quoted along with it, so we are emphatically in context with the claim - and frankly, it further satisfies for me that your claim was that the bombing of water treatment facilities was intentional. though of course you cleverly posed it as an 'inquiry', one of your most favored rhetorical dodges.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LilacDragon

Ummm. To my knowledge (and I was never a history major, so I could be wrong) the U.S. hasn't ever, intentionally, dropped a bomb on a primarily civilian target during "peace time" with the sole intent of doing as much collateral damage as possible.

spot wrote: Out of interest, how does predicting the civilian casualties to be expected from destroying the Iraqi capacity to provide drinking water to their cities count, considering that the bombing then proceeded with that destruction? That killed tens of thousands of civilians at a lowest estimate, and the predictions were made - as far as I can see - during peacetime planning and before the damage was caused.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:37 pm

anastrophe wrote: let's try it again. this i believe is the third time i'll have quoted your words, without elision, within context, fully and 100% - precisely YOUR words: ... so, you deny you said that? you're suggesting that my interpretation of your plainly spoken claim is wrong?well done, you got what I said right this time. I don't deny I said that, I've expanded on that. I was complaining about your twisted "nowhere in the cited paper does it describe anything of the sort. nor does it describe 'the consequences of what was planned'", and I've not attempted to do anything other than explain that you'd misconceived another notion in your inimitable fashion.

"i'm just a flag-waiving nationalistic know-nothing" is again warped. I'm sure you know lots and, at the risk of appearing pedantic, I'd prefer to see "waving" in that context. I waive flags, you wave flags.

As always, the thread's established, we've each written what we've written, the invisible majority can make up their minds.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:45 pm

spot wrote: well done, you got what I said right this time. I don't deny I said that, I've expanded on that. I was complaining about your twisted "nowhere in the cited paper does it describe anything of the sort. nor does it describe 'the consequences of what was planned'", and I've not attempted to do anything other than explain that you'd misconceived another notion in your inimitable fashion.

indeed. okay, so you reject the plain interpretation of your words, that you were suggesting that the US intentionally bombed water treatment facilities in order to kill civilians? you are not suggesting that the US intentionally bombed water treatment facilities, intentionally to kill civilians?

"i'm just a flag-waiving nationalistic know-nothing" is again warped. I'm sure you know lots and, at the risk of appearing pedantic, I'd prefer to see "waving" in that context. I waive flags, you wave flags.

well done. in point of fact, i don't wave flags either. i see great britain as being an evil empire, in the purest interpretation, based upon its utter trashing of native cultures and peoples the world 'round, before its long, slow decline. said decline having a salutory effect in this regard, of course.

As always, the thread's established, we've each written what we've written, the invisible majority can make up their minds.

just so. i look forward to your topic on the british soldiers beating civilians in iraq of course.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:10 pm

anastrophe wrote: indeed. okay, so you reject the plain interpretation of your words, that you were suggesting that the US intentionally bombed water treatment facilities in order to kill civilians? you are not suggesting that the US intentionally bombed water treatment facilities, intentionally to kill civilians?On the contrary, I think regarding that paper - which you must surely agree must have taken far longer than just January 1991 to prepare and which most emphatically must have been a "peacetime assessment" with a view to imminent warfare - as a recognisable blueprint for debilitating a nation by reducing its drinking water by 95% in two months, noting the prediction that "it probably will take at least six months before the system is fully degraded", conjoined with the reiterated and appalling "Conditions are favorable for communicable disease outbreaks" in the follow-up reports, is unavoidable. What I never said was that I had proof of such intent. What I have provided is considerable implication that it existed. I also never said that the paper carried the figure of 60,000 civilian deaths. You may be "saddened that you still have absolutely no evidence to support the contention that the US specifically and intentionally destroyed water purification facilities, specifically and intentionally to kill civilians", but as I have pointed out repeatedly such "specifically and intentionally to kill civilians" documentation is by its nature, if indeed it ever existed in writing, not going to be in the public domain unless an eventual trial places it there.

Professor Nagy's comment that "Those who saw nothing wrong in producing this plan , those who ordered its production and those who knew about it and have remained silent for 10 years would seem to be in violation of Federal Statute and perhaps have even conspired to commit genocide" suggests that he regards the blueprint in just that light too.

The actual targetting during the air bombing and missile campaign over iraq supports the contention that water provision was a deliberate target: "During allied bombing campaigns on Iraq the country's eight multi-purpose dams had been repeatedly hit, simultaneously wrecking flood control, municipal and industrial water storage, irrigation and hydroelectric power. Four of seven major pumping stations were destroyed, as were 31 municipal water and sewerage facilities - 20 in Baghdad, resulting in sewage pouring into the Tigris. Water purification plants were incapacitated throughout Iraq." Perhaps if you consider that the planning document was distributed to CENTAF, UK STRIKE COMMAND and NAVCENT you'd agree that "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities As Of 18 Jan 91" must be interpreted as a user guide to dismantling the ability of Iraq to provide its civilians with potable water. To suggest that it was a list of places to avoid bombing implies remarkable targetting ineptitude when you consider what actually subsequently went up in flames.

You weasel, as you invariably weasel, in demanding proof of intention, as though any military planner would commit such a criminal purpose to paper. The intention must be read from the blueprint, the destruction and the consequence. Have you any idea how difficult demonstrating "intention" was at Nuremberg, or how thin the trawled paperwork which eventually provided conviction at the trial, and that trawled from secret private files rather than public declassified material? Intention is never likely to be explicitly visible. To demand proof of intention is fine for a criminal prosecution, it's pointless on a forum thread. I have no capability to provide any such thing, as you're fully aware. I merely pull the drawstring around my catch of the day and leave people to consider likelihoods.

"The country's health ministry said that more than 10,000 people died in July of embargo-related causes - 7457 were children, with diarrhoeal diseases one of the prime conditions. In July 1989, the figure was 378. Unicef does not dispute the figures".

I am, to be quite clear, suggesting that the US intentionally bombed water treatment facilities, intentionally to kill civilians, yes. I think anyone reading those declassified reports would find reason to think just that too. As for motive, the US wanted regime change and this was yet further pressure in that direction.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:50 pm

spot wrote: On the contrary, I think the existence of that paper - which you must surely recognise must have taken far longer than just January 1991 to prepare and which most emphatically must have been a "peacetime assessment" with a view to imminent warfare - as a recognisable blueprint for debilitating a nation by reducing its drinking water by 95% in two months, noting the prediction that "it probably will take at least six months before the system is fully degraded", conjoined with the reiterated and appalling "Conditions are favorable for communicable disease outbreaks"

see, that's where we'll never agree. i've read exactly that same assessment with regard to conditions far afield of impending war. you read into 'favorable' a value judgement - that it would be good to have disease. there's another plain interpretation that can read that as an objective assessment.

i read the plan as an assessment of potential consequences of a military invasion. inevitable consequences. the collateral damage that always occurs in war. i don't see it as laying out a 'blueprint' for how to kill civilians in the bargain. saddam was accomplishing that in spades without our help whatsoever.

but as I have pointed out repeatedly such "specifically and intentionally to kill civilians" documentation is by its nature, if indeed it ever existed in writing, not going to be in the public domain unless an eventual trial places it there.

i guess it's a matter of sophistication then. suicide bombers leave behind no proof that they intended to kill civilians either, but they do a much better job of ensuring no actual evidence remains. 'remains' being the operative word.

but i'm dodging your point of course. you may have something. there may have been intent to kill civilians. i don't think there was, that should be apparent. primarily because i don't see anything that would be considered a 'positive outcome' within the context of the war that would result. what would the military gain be? civilians aren't the enemy, for the most part. most of the bombings in the second, most recent gulf war were highly targeted at military facilities, communications facilities etc - and that was successful primarily due to enhancements in weaponry, which weren't available back in the first gulf war (the beginnings were though, with the first use of cruise missiles).

you assume intent. i assume no intent. not much middle ground to be found.

Professor Nagy's comment that "Those who saw nothing wrong in producing this plan , those who ordered its production and those who knew about it and have remained silent for 10 years would seem to be in violation of Federal Statute and perhaps have even conspired to commit genocide" suggests that he regards the blueprint in just that light too.

indeed. depends upon how you interpret it. that's what all this hangs on. fighting war in a desert country with an already broken infrastructure (and no, not all the doing of sanctions, hopefully you realize that), without assessing the availability of fresh water, without assessing the likely degree to which soldiers might be exposed to dysentery, cholera, etc - well, doing so is just increasing the likelyhood of your own collateral damage on your fighting forces. that's a reasonable thing to plan for.

The actual targetting during the air bombing and missile campaign over iraq supports the contention that water provision was a deliberate target: "During allied bombing campaigns on Iraq the country's eight multi-purpose dams had been repeatedly hit, simultaneously wrecking flood control, municipal and industrial water storage, irrigation and hydroelectric power. Four of seven major pumping stations were destroyed, as were 31 municipal water and sewerage facilities - 20 in Baghdad, resulting in sewage pouring into the Tigris. Water purification plants were incapacitated throughout Iraq." Perhaps if you consider that the planning document was distributed to CENTAF, UK STRIKE COMMAND and NAVCENT you'd agree that "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities As Of 18 Jan 91" must be interpreted as a user guide to dismantling the ability of Iraq to provide its civilians with potable water. To suggest that it was a list of places to avoid bombing implies remarkable planning ineptitude when you consider what actually subsequently went up in flames.

heh. nice try. i've certainly never suggested that it was a 'list of places to avoid bombing'. i've never suggested, implied, alluded, winked-and-nudged.

i can flip that right round back at you actually. if you consider it a guide to how to dismantle it, then it implies remarkable ineptitude that only four of seven major pumping stations were destroyed. what - they missed the other three the first time around, and just skipped return trips to really hit the targets?

You weasel, as you invariably weasel, in demanding proof of intention, as though any military planner would commit such a criminal purpose to paper.

and you assume, at every turn, that it *must be* criminal intent.

The intention must be read from the blueprint, the destruction and the consequence. Have you any idea how difficult demonstrating "intention" was at Nuremberg, or how thin the trawled paperwork which eventually provided conviction at the trial, and that trawled from secret private files rather than public declassified material? Intention is never likely to be explicitly visible. To demand proof of intention is fine for a criminal prosecution, it's pointless on a forum thread. I have no capability to provide any such thing, as you're fully aware. I merely pull the drawstring around my catch of the day and leave people to consider likelihoods.

fair enough. you believe there was intent. i don't find your 'evidence' nearly as convincing as you do. for you, evil intent on the part of the US is a priori. so, whatever you'll find, it will be with the guilt of the US always as the desired result.

"The country's health ministry said that more than 10,000 people died in July of embargo-related causes - 7457 were children, with diarrhoeal diseases one of the prime conditions. In July 1989, the figure was 378. Unicef does not dispute the figures".

i hope you've written a stern letter to the home office regarding the UK's complicity in those UN sanctioned embargoes.

I am, to be quite clear, suggesting that the US intentionally bombed water treatment facilities, intentionally to kill civilians, yes. I think anyone reading those declassified reports would find reason to think just that too. As for motive, the US wanted regime change and this was yet further pressure in that direction.

you don't win the hearts and minds of the civilian population by killing them.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:02 pm

anastrophe wrote: primarily because i don't see anything that would be considered a 'positive outcome' within the context of the war that would result.

badly worded. better:

primarily because i don't see anything that would be considered a 'positive outcome' that would result, within the context of the war.

maybe not better. hmmm.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:13 pm

anastrophe wrote: badly worded. better:

primarily because i don't see anything that would be considered a 'positive outcome' that would result, within the context of the war.

maybe not better. hmmm.An increased pressure to achieve regime change wouldn't be a 'positive outcome', in your opinion? I recall that regime change was an expressed desire of the US in 1991. I suggest that a collapse in public health across Iraq could at least conceivably add to such pressure - I'd go further and suggest that it would be reasonable before the war to think that such an increased pressure would be a probable outcome. Perhaps if you don't see anything it's because you refuse to consider certain possibilities simply because they're not nice to contemplate. To suggest that the survival of three major pumping stations refutes the possibility that the water system was deliberately targetted as a whole seems to me to be grasping at straws. I suggest that reducing Iraq's actual provision of potable water to a mere 5% of existing prewar capacity was scarcely accidental (especially considering that distribution list) or unanticipated. What else, after all, in the context of that title, does "Vulnerabilities" convey to you?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:33 pm

spot wrote: An increased pressure to achieve regime change wouldn't be a 'positive outcome', in your opinion? I recall that regime change was an expressed desire of the US in 1991.
once again, it's all heaped on the US. regime change was the stated desire and policy of the UN. perhaps it was just a slip of the keyboard, so i'll let that slide.

I suggest that a collapse in public health across Iraq could at least conceivably add to such pressure - I'd go further and suggest that it would be reasonable before the war to think that such an increased pressure would be a probable outcome. Perhaps if you don't see anything it's because you refuse to consider certain possibilities simply because they're not nice to contemplate. To suggest that the survival of three major pumping stations refutes the possibility that the water system was deliberately targetted as a whole seems to me to be grasping at straws. I suggest that reducing Iraq's actual provision of potable water to a mere 5% of existing prewar capacity was scarcely accidental (especially considering that distribution list) or unanticipated. What else, after all, in the context of that title, does "Vulnerabilities" convey to you?

purposely killing the civilian population of a country, as i said before, is probably the last thing anyone would think of that would win their hearts and minds. purposely killing civilians tends to get people there saying "they're killing us, death to america".

we went into iraq this second time round, and we were indeed greeted as liberators by a not insignificant portion of the population. the war has gone badly, primarily because it seemed nobody anticipated sectarian division in a country of religious people newly able to express their religion. talk about botched prewar planning. the sunnis and shiites are not known historically for getting along well.

did you miss that there have been 6,000 civilian deaths in iraq in the last two months - and they're not being killed by american troops, not even a tiny fraction of that. they are iraqi civilians killing iraqi civilians. no longer under the thumb of a ruthless dictator, they now kill each other in religious fervor.

i certainly can't say that that's better than it was under saddam hussein. but neither can i say it's worse.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:07 pm

anastrophe wrote: once again, it's all heaped on the US. regime change was the stated desire and policy of the UN. perhaps it was just a slip of the keyboard, so i'll let that slide.I'm surprised to hear you suggest that this was UN policy any time around 1991 and I can find no evidence of it myself - perhaps you could expand on the idea. Newspapers of the time refer only to it becoming US policy, in the following terms:The New York Times August 23, 1990 - If the U.S., with or without the allies and the United Nations, removes Saddam Hussein's missile, nuclear and chemical warfare bases, Iraqis will remove Saddam Hussein. It is one more Middle Eastern fairy tale to believe that Iraqis are stupid enough to cling forever to a man who marched them into eight years of hideous war with Iran, surrendered the land, booty and promises for which their sons died and then led them into a war with much of the rest of the world.

Financial Times (London,England) August 20, 1990 - There is a growing view that President Bush cannot afford a long drawn-out confrontation and long-term US troop deployments on a vast scale in Saudi Arabia, which would test the levels of both domestic and international support. This is tied with in what is widely seen as the implicit US aim of removing President Saddam from power.The only references to regime change prior to that relate to the end of the Iraq-Iran War in 1998, where I find the following:Manchester Guardian Weekly July 24, 1988

Mr Hashemi Rafsanjani, Speaker of the Iranian parliament and the newly appointed commander-in-chief of the armed forces, told Iranians in a television broadcast that the decision to accept a ceasefire had been endorsed by Ayatollah Khomeini. The Iranian turnabout was not prompted by weakness, but by the recent shooting down of an Iranian airliner by a US warship.

"The watershed was the crash of our passenger plane that, whichever way we looked at it, came across as America's declaration that it might commit huge crimes if Iran continued the war," he said.

In fact, however, a considerable question mark still hangs over the position of Ayatollah Khomeini, who, according to the constitution, has supreme responsibility for war and peace. He, more than anyone, has stood out against any compromise, insisting that the war go on until Iran achieves at least its minimum aim of removing President Saddam Hussein.So, no there was no such UN policy that I can see, there was a slowly growing US policy toward Iraqi regime change, and there was a long-standing Iranian one which was compromised by the captain and crew of the USS Vincennes blowing an Iranian Airbus A300 out of the clear blue sky. How ironic can events get?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:05 pm

Scrat wrote: Iraq is a different story/subject but yes now that we are there that is the way to do it. The object of the exercise is to minimize the the conditions that perpetuate the conflict.
Scrat, any agreement between you and I will likely be coincidental. You clearly value security over freedom, and order over happiness.

Peace is not simply the absense of war.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:07 pm

anastrophe wrote: i certainly can't say that that's better than it was under saddam hussein. but neither can i say it's worse.To be honest, I think you know the answer to that and my opinion is that Iraq's not going to go back to the good old days, either. I can't imagine you'll find this even slightly contentious, for example:From "Women's rights suffer in Iraq", by Emily Powers in The Rebel Yell.

In the 1970s, under the secular Baath Party, the constitution declared that all women and men were equal under the law. For 30 years, women were not legally required to wear veils. Many maintained prosperous careers as scientists, technicians, judges, doctors and politicians. They could be married and divorced in civil courts and were able to retain custody of their children.

Also contrary to public conjecture, women in Iraq once enjoyed relative egalitarianism, both contributing to and benefiting from Iraq's largely secular economy. Iraqi women, before the U.S. invasion, held 20 percent of the country's parliamentary seats, which is ironic when you consider that American women only hold 15 percent of our nation's congressional seats. They had a voice and they weren't afraid to use it. Presently, there are only a few women who remain in the parliament. Now, if a woman speaks out in Iraq, she will be shot, as demonstrated by the assassination of Assemblywoman Sheika Lamea abed Khaddouri [in April 2004].

In an interview with Women's Human Rights Net in October 2004, Yanar Mohammed, chair of the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq, claimed that nothing had improved for women since the United States invaded. Mohammed declared, "The reality here is that the implementation of these backward, Islamic policies has persecuted women and taken away even more of their rights than when Saddam Hussein was in power."

Women once led fairly independent and productive lives, but now, with a war raging on both outside and inside their homes, their voices have been silenced and their liberties have been depleted.

According to Mitchell Prothero's article "Under the Clerics' Thumbs," Azam Kamguian, coordinator of the Committee to Defend Women's Rights in the Middle East, acknowledged that by stating, "Previously, women, although at times politically oppressed, had their minimal rights, could marry whom they wanted, would not be killed for the honor of men, and weren't forced to wear a hijab."

Many male political figures in Iraq now claim that females are only "half-minded" and incapable of thinking, that they are undeserving of equal rights in light of the Quran's teachings.

Iraq was never perfect, it is not perfect today and it will not be perfect tomorrow. If it is to ever be democratic, however, it is imperative for the female population to play an active role in the restoration of the nation, it is essential that they enjoy equal rights and it is vital that their voices are heard.Can you imagine the Occupying Powers sorting that out before they leave? Neither can I.

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:48 pm

In answer to the "I'm sick of hearing..." rant, I have my own complaint:

I can't get over this concept of morally comparing oneself/country to one's enemy. Are we to believe that America is content to say "we are better than Saddam Hussein" ? I would think that comparing oneself/country to admirable leaders would be far more truthful and productive when claiming to be leaders of the free world.

If there are no good examples to follow then look to political theory and aspire to something better. To declare someone evil then hold them as your justifying comparison is...self-deprecating.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:07 pm

the only people here who have employed the argument that 'we're better than saddam hussein' have done so only in response to the slurs of those who have suggested that we are as bad, or worse than, saddam hussein.

perhaps if those who suggest so (present company included) would consider how offensive such claims are, and contemplate not doing so at every possible opportunity, then we could all go pick daisies together.

i shall defer holding my breath in anticipation.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:09 pm

Scrat wrote:

There is only 4 times I know of in the history of mankind when genocides were attempted.

which sadly goes only to show just how poorly informed you are about history.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:42 am

anastrophe wrote: the only people here who have employed the argument that 'we're better than saddam hussein' have done so only in response to the slurs of those who have suggested that we are as bad, or worse than, saddam hussein.

perhaps if those who suggest so (present company included) would consider how offensive such claims are, and contemplate not doing so at every possible opportunity, then we could all go pick daisies together.

i shall defer holding my breath in anticipation.There are at least two issues here. Firstly, it partly comes down to who you call "we", doesn't it. I have no issue with the American people (as I have said before). I have issues with your current administration, which I regard as a collective criminal enterprise of some magnitude. The American people in general have my sympathy, they are paying a price for being hijacked by the opportunistic liars from PNAC who seem now to form the core of Republicanism in the USA. I can remember a time when Republicanism wasn't even identified (in contrast with the Democratic Party) with Conservatism - a sense which only became settled with Barry Goldwater, frozen permanently into place with Ronald Reagan and perverted into the current foolishness under the Bushes. Other nations have had transparent and honest right-wing government. What America now suffers under is an antidemocratic right-wing White House administration which (in my opinion) long ago crossed the Rubicon of criminal adventurism. I'm aware that much of what's been done may have been "legalized" by closed Presidential executive orders and I'm aware that bringing Cabinet-level politicians to justice rarely happens. I hope matters pass the stage where those issues stand in the way of a thorough Augean cleansing of the US body politic.

Secondly, you haven't asked my opinion about Gulf 1, which is strange. I have no particular problem with Gulf 1 at all, though I'd prefer on balance and in retrospect that it hadn't happened (which was also my position at the time). The question at issue in this thread, my since-expanded three-line post of whether US military planning broke a US-signed Geneva Convention protocol by deliberately destroying Iraq's capacity to distribute potable water nationally (and you still haven't addressed that matter of the first document being labelled "vulnerabilities" and its distribution list), is a minor side-issue. Was Gulf 1 desirable? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps it was based on diplomatic misdirection but it wasn't based (in the sense that Gulf 2 was) on a huge lie to the American public. I can conceive arguments both for and against Gulf 1, though not for the subsequent sanctions imposed by way of the UN.

What has been utterly, totally and permanently destroyed by your current administration is the worldwide admiration, sympathy and regard in which the US was formerly held around the world, and I can think of no solution to that. On the scale of that problem, Saddam Hussein was a minor pinprick to the world at large and (compared to the current prospect for Iraq) a positive asset to his countrymen who would in any case have likely replaced him from within had he not been shored up by an all-too-real external enemy of the State. The question of Iraq is dwarfed into insignificance by the colossal question of how to disempower the implementors of PNAC currently occupying the seats of US power. Perhaps the American people will effect that disempowerment. That wouldn't be impossible, though I believe we'll all have to endure a third term of these crooks if it's to become an option.

Personalizing the issue into 'we're better than saddam hussein' is meaningless. Discrediting PNAC and exposing the damage that has been enacted by them against the American people is far more important. Reversing the harm they've already done is, frankly, impossible.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:55 am

Scrat wrote: Security has never and will never be attainable by mankind. It's kind of like curing cancer. When we finally do find a cure, something else will pop up in its place to menace us. Even immortality will not give us security so I place next to no "value" on security. The only way I value security (of a kind) is in my ability to take care of and provide for the people and things I have in my life. On the contrary. You clearly see it as the ideal, based on your first sentence here.

Scrat wrote: I do not value freedom because it does not exist (for the living at least) and to think otherwise, no matter how hard you wish or what you convince yourself of will not change that. Just stop eating and try not paying your taxes, lets see how free you are then. I will agree that there are degrees of the condition called freedom but then I emphasize "degrees of".
Freedom balances with responsibility. Imagine yourself paralyzed, completely dependent on others for everything - food, shelter, etc - someone else makes decisions for you, dresses you, cleans you ... keeps you secure. You have no freedom and no responsibility, but you have security. Not pleasant, is it?

Any degree of movement from that state grants some freedom and an equal portion of responsibility. You can't choose what to hear, for instance, so you have no responsibility there; but you have the freedom to choose where to look, and are responsible for focusing on your nurse' eyes or breasts.

Too much freedom scares some people, because of the responsibility attached. They would rather give up their own rather than risk that someone else might use their freedom irresponsibly. That's sad, to me.

Scrat wrote: Order and happiness are close kin. If the cat is crapping in my wheaties and being generally "disorderly" then I am unhappy. If I walk out of the house and find the local gang rifling my truck and being disorderly I tend to be unhappy.

I have never found myself wanting one more than the other, you cannot have one without the other in a meaningful way. Doesn't wash. The absence of the cat crapping in one's wheaties does not make one happy, only neutral.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:31 pm

for scrat's edification, a list of genocides just in the 20th century.

note well: it's one man's tabulation, one man's opinion. he outlines his criteria, but many are widely debated and disputed. nevertheless, even if only ten percent were somehow determined to have actually been genocides, it rather far outstrip's scrat's (patently ludicrous, in my opinion) suggestion that there have only been four genocides in all of recorded human history.

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

i mean, even eliminating the 'big names' from the list, and even the lesser known - surely you've heard of pol pot's killing fields? idi amin? milosevic's ethnic cleansings? the armenian holocaust?

i'm baffled how anyone could suggest with a straight face that there have only been four genocides in history. utterly baffled.

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:11 pm

Interesting and testament to the fact that the human race never learns from history.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:21 am

anastrophe wrote: http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

i mean, even eliminating the 'big names' from the list, and even the lesser known - surely you've heard of pol pot's killing fields? idi amin? milosevic's ethnic cleansings? the armenian holocaust?You stopped reading rather curiously early down his list. Your cited authority announces in advance that "When American presidents decided to bomb the rice fields in North Vietnam, knowing that they would only kill women and children, those are counted as genocide", and he profiles both both Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson as presiding over genocides worse than... Ayatollah Khomeini's? Osama Bin Laden's? Genocides?

You're braver in your choice of sources than I'd dare to be, anastrophe. My own opinion is that the author of the webpage needs a better dictionary and that you need a long rest.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:48 am

spot wrote: You stopped reading rather curiously early down his list.

you stopped thinking critically when you assumed i didn't.

Your cited authority announces in advance that "When American presidents decided to bomb the rice fields in North Vietnam, knowing that they would only kill women and children, those are counted as genocide", and he profiles both both Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson as presiding over genocides worse than... Ayatollah Khomeini's? Osama Bin Laden's? Genocides?

what's your point? oh - bloody hell, how could i have forgotten!

ALL DISCUSSION MUST INEVITABLY POINT TO THE EVIL OF AMERICA.

you are pathological spot. you are incapable - absolutely, unequivocally, incapable of not pointing out that america is bad, at Every Single Opportunity - even when it is acknowledged in advance that we are capable of being bad. why do you think i would post the link to the list, man? i could just as easily have cut and pasted, and elided the listings for the US or simply truncated it to avoid the mention.

you fell headlong into the trap.

You're braver in your choice of sources than I'd dare to be, anastrophe. My own opinion is that the author of the webpage needs a better dictionary and that you need a long rest.

your choice of words is poor. i haven't the slightest fraction of bravery in me. i am a mouse of man. my father, on the other hand, was brave. and, may he rest in peace, i'll never live up to his example.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:14 am

anastrophe wrote: why do you think i would post the link to the list, man?I assumed it was the best list of "genocides" you could find, of course. My post was the very reverse of an attack on the USA, it was a criticism of an obviously misleading webpage. The need for a dictionary was a comment on the utterly inappropriate use of the word "genocide" in connection with either Richard Nixon or Lyndon Johnson, as anyone prepared to read what I wrote would have gathered. You have a bee in your bonnet, anastrophe, and all you can hear is the buzz. I am not at all as you describe me.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:20 am

while I offer you sympathy for the loss of an obviously well loved family member, anastrophe, I wonder at how his inclusion in this thread is helpful.

In regards to the genocide list; that two American presidents were listed before Bin Laden on the level of damage is hardly consistent with the point your previous posts on this thread have strived to make.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:55 am

koan wrote: while I offer you sympathy for the loss of an obviously well loved family member, anastrophe, I wonder at how his inclusion in this thread is helpful.

In regards to the genocide list; that two American presidents were listed before Bin Laden on the level of damage is hardly consistent with the point your previous posts on this thread have strived to make.You lost me, sorry.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:15 am

Accountable wrote: You lost me, sorry.

If you follow the link refered to there should be no confusion.

Two American presidents, Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson, are credited with 70 000 and 30 000 deaths described as genocidal actions while Bin Laden is only at 3 000. This comes from the link anastrophe posted.

The title of the page is "The worst genocides of the 20th Century" and he describes his list as: "Here is a tentative list of modern dictators (and assorted mass murderers) and the estimated number of people killed by their orders (excluding armies they were formally at war with)" According to the author, are Nixon and Johnson dictators or just mass murderers?

Being that Saddam Hussein is above Nixon and and Johnson the link is not an entire disaster for the counter argument in this thread but it is not a link I would recommend using to fight the concept of America=Terrorism. Finding a list that doesn't place two past presidents above al-Quaeda's leader would be more useful for that purpose.

He also doesn't include nuclear bombs in his consideration of genocide as he thinks the use of them is more humane than regular warfare. His actual words were "Hiroshima probably saved a lot of Japanese lives, because a long protracted invasion like the one that took place in Germany would have killed a lot more people" I've not heard this idea presented before. It is interesting.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:20 am

koan wrote: while I offer you sympathy for the loss of an obviously well loved family member, anastrophe, I wonder at how his inclusion in this thread is helpful.

since we are not robots, we do occasionally tread into areas not rigidly connected to the topic at hand. at least i'm not a robot. nor apparently is spot, who elicited the comment with his flowery prose.

In regards to the genocide list; that two American presidents were listed before Bin Laden on the level of damage is hardly consistent with the point your previous posts on this thread have strived to make.

oh really? do tell. we're in a numbers game now, are we? so because more civilians were killed under the watch of two american presidents than by bin laden (the numbers which are certainly disputable - bin laden's that is, as al zarqawi was implicitly working in concert with a shared ideology and some would suggest at his pleasure - as well, the total listed is five years out of date, but nevermind all that piffle)......

let me guess. if i were to turn around and use your same hideous measure, it would then mitigate your argument, because surely compared to the many millions who were slaughtered as 'bandits' under chairman mao's ironically named "cultural revolution", those under the american presidents are a tiny fraction of that? you wouldn't let me get away with arguing that that comparison is exculpatory for one minute.

i have never, not once, claimed that america has not committed wrongs in the world, on the contrary. the carpet bombing in vietnam was a foul measure, justified (wrongly) as a means of dealing with combatants woven into the civilian population and countryside, as the military back then had no clue how to deal with guerrilla warfare. incursions into cambodia and laos were illegal and criminal by any measure, regardless of intent. the logical and tragic outcome of that frustrated mentality was the massacre at my lai. have i somehow lead you to believe that i think that lt. calley is some sort of hero? that america is righteous under God in all things it does? that every action we've taken around the world has been implicitly justified, because God is on our side, and we are incapable of wrongdoing?

if so, my sincere apologies for not expressing myself clearly.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:29 am

koan wrote: If you follow the link refered to there should be no confusion.

Two American presidents, Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson, are credited with 70 000 and 30 000 deaths described as genocidal actions while Bin Laden is only at 3 000. This comes from the link anastrophe posted.

The title of the page is "The worst genocides of the 20th Century" and he describes his list as: "Here is a tentative list of modern dictators (and assorted mass murderers) and the estimated number of people killed by their orders (excluding armies they were formally at war with)" According to the author, are Nixon and Johnson dictators or just mass murderers?

Being that Saddam Hussein is above Nixon and and Johnson the link is not an entire disaster for the counter argument in this thread but it is not a link I would recommend using to fight the concept of America=Terrorism. Finding a list that doesn't place two past presidents above al-Quaeda's leader would be more useful for that purpose.

thank you for confirming what i thought. it's a numbers game for you. bigger numbers, badder people. therefore, bin laden's no big deal by that measure.

He also doesn't include nuclear bombs in his consideration of genocide as he thinks the use of them is more humane than regular warfare. His actual words were "Hiroshima probably saved a lot of Japanese lives, because a long protracted invasion like the one that took place in Germany would have killed a lot more people" I've not heard this idea presented before. It is interesting.

i'm very surprised you haven't heard that before, as it was truman's primary motivation in doing so. there was no question that an assault on mainland japan would have magnitudes more civilians and soldiers than the civilian losses at hiroshima and nagasaki.

while it would probably be salutory for your sake here on forumgarden, i'm quite sure i would not exist today had the bomb not been dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki. my father was on a month long furlough in the US when the bombs were dropped. he was going to be deployed in the pacific theatre after the furlough. having beaten the odds by being the one in ten from his company of 100 men who didn't die in europe, i cannot believe his luck would not have run out.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:40 am

anastrophe wrote: if so, my sincere apologies for not expressing myself clearly.Your apology would be welcome, but not for that. You might apologise for consistently failing to grasp that nobody here believes that the word "genocide" is applicable to either of the US Presidents listed, and that my criticism, at least, relates solely to your choice of source material. It's been said in a number of ways, but you continue to accuse us of treating that list as authentic (so that, for example, we're described as being "in a numbers game now"). Koan's suggestion that you find another list matches my "criticism of an obviously misleading webpage" and "the author of the webpage needs a better dictionary".

I try hard not to misinterpret you. You do have these spasms where you seem incapable of reading what's in front of you though. I have not now, nor have I ever, described those two US Presidents as genocidal. I don't for a moment believe they were. They arise in that context solely because you brought them into this thread with a card labelled "genociders" round their necks - as a trap for me, if I read you right: "why do you think i would post the link to the list, man? [...] you fell headlong into the trap".

It's your data, I've now refused to give credence to it three times as far as the US entries go. Is that enough to finally engage your belief?

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:43 am

My neck hurts from watching this tennis match.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:01 pm

spot wrote: Your apology would be welcome, but not for that. You might apologise for consistently failing to grasp that nobody here believes that the word "genocide" is applicable to either of the US Presidents listed, and that my criticism, at least, relates solely to your choice of source material. It's been said in a number of ways, but you continue to accuse us of treating that list as authentic (so that, for example, we're described as being "in a numbers game now"). Koan's suggestion that you find another list matches my "criticism of an obviously misleading webpage" and "the author of the webpage needs a better dictionary".

bollocks. you speak for koan now? your interpretation is patent nonsense. koan was gleefully gloating that i had posted a list that included mention that the US has done bad things. that's evidenced by her vile statement that "Finding a list that doesn't place two past presidents above al-Quaeda's leader would be more useful for that purpose." ('that purpose' being exculpating the US).

I try hard not to misinterpret you. You do have these spasms where you seem incapable of reading what's in front of you though. I have not now, nor have I ever, described those two US Presidents as genocidal. I don't for a moment believe they were. They arise in that context solely because you brought them into this thread with a card labelled "genociders" round their necks - as a trap for me, if I read you right: "why do you think i would post the link to the list, man? [...] you fell headlong into the trap".

well at least one of us is capable of reading what's in front of him, thank goodness.

It's your data, I've now refused to give credence to it three times as far as the US entries go. Is that enough to finally engage your belief?

admittedly, there was an ancillary purpose to posting that list that was a devious experiment on my part. mea culpa. i was curious whether you could restrain from mentioning the US - one way or another - in a followup to that post. i directed the list however specifically to scrat, without having you in mind principally. scrat's suggestion was preposterous. the list is by no means indisputable or implicitly accurate - nobody could ever produce one that is.

yes, i have a bee in my bonnet. no, i do not always read clearly. i was 'ready' for you to mention the US, and jumped on it. had you written perhaps a little more plainly, perhaps along the lines of "johnson and nixon did not commit genocide, so i question the overall validity of the list", perhaps in my vexed state i'd have grasped it a little more swiftly.

on the other hand, i'm not convinced that the list is wrong. underscore, not convinced. not "i think it was genocide" or "i don't think it was genocide". i don't know if it was.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:37 pm

Scrat wrote: Sorry to hear of your loss. Godspeed to him.

thanks, it's been three years, so it's become a part of the fabric of my life history at this point. he was one hell of a man though. he bottled up his memories of the horrors of war for fifty years, before they began flowing out when the alzheimers took over. it was very sad.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:14 pm

spot wrote: Perhaps we could consider the reasonable question of why no disciplinary investigations seem to have been held into the apparent inability of Norad to intercept any of the planes? I'm still baffled why nobody seems interested in having light shone on that period of the New Pearl Harbor events. It's just too easy not to ask, it would seem.

Did Norad never intercept any planes on previous occasions when they left their flightpaths? I thought they were famed for scrambling fighter escorts under such circumstances. I thought they had a track record of rapid interceptions.

http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01

Post by **spot** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 1:14 am

Well done, I've been waiting for that sort of summary to appear in a mainstream journal.

What's glossed over is the frequency of such a Norad exercise. It's made to sound like a daily event. This was, on the contrary, the one occasion in the year when the Global Guardian exercise could have been used as an excuse for confusion. I don't suggest that the exercise was arranged in order to provide confusion - it's an annual event. But picking the right day to attack, to provide a plausible reason for incompetence, is a different matter. Picking the day which has an excuse doesn't mean you don't also finagle the process as well, it just means you can camouflage what went on with a ready-made excuse.

Do we add that one-in-a-thousand coincidence (combining the number of days between such exercises and the time of day things started) to all the other unlikelihoods of the official tale? Why would the alleged Saudi hijack teams have timed the attack alongside a Norad exercise? They'd have no reason to expect confusion of such a professional body. As an excuse for confusion it's reasonable to incorporate into the timing. As a methodology for striking buildings it's implausible and pointless. As a coincidence it's just one more in a long list, and mistrusting coincidence is a healthy approach to analysis. None of these questions - what a surprise - are touched on as even possible issues in the article.

The problem facing anyone wanting to make it remotely possible for four airliners to have free use of the skies for long enough to do these things is "why would they not be intercepted". Other than "the Air Force was on strike that day" or "the Air Force was out of fuel", an exercise at Norad is about the only plot-line available. Is that article seriously saying that nobody went near the question of why the attacks were scheduled within an hour of that year's Global Guardian? The coincidence of the timing - along with so many other coincidences - is the elephant in the room which nobody has talked about either in mainstream columns or - significantly - in the Commission report. The period of the exercise clearly dictated the "when" of the attack. For nobody on the Commission to have even pointed this out seems like a desire not to expose the joins.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:02 am

ah, i see you've found your tinfoil hat.

you gloss over the timelines. you gloss over how *little* actual confusion is described in the article that could be attributed to the exercise, rather than to a unique hijacking attack, in that all previous hijackings in history had followed a very clear path - plane diverted, demands made, conflict on the ground.

one could plausibly suggest on the other hand that if anything, the scheduled training lent itself to the entire crew being far more prepared for the situation than otherwise - already alert, likely having gone over procedure in their own minds the night before - who doesn't prepare for a test?

most of the confusion came from outside of NEAD/NORAD. the airline's reticence in identifying craft involved. planes with identification transponders turned off, with 3000 other craft in the air.

8:38am first report of the hijacking.

8:39am (approx) fighter jets sent to battle stations off cape cod

8:45am fighter jets launch

8:51am report of first plane hitting the towers.

even had the jets been launched at precisely the moment of the first report of the hijacking, they could not have intercepted them. nor could they have brought them down without receiving direct order from the president.

heck, wouldn't that have been the 'better' conspiracy path, even though it's even more implausible?:

8:38am first report of the hijacking

8:38am president contacted, orders airliners to be shot down

8:38am fighter jets launch

8:51am first plane hits towers, while jets enroute to intercept, because they could not have reached the airliners - even if they knew exactly where they were - in time

physics does matter, spot.

you seem to assume what lots of people assume, through the magic of hindsight: that NEAD/NORAD could have known that the planes were going to be rammed into the WTC. No civilian flight in history had ever been shot down before, and - utterly reasonably - the order to commit such an act must be given by the absolute top of the military chain of command. no captain, no leutenant, no general, no four star general, no 105 star general, nobody at the pentagon, nobody on the joint chiefs of staff can order a civilian jetliner full of passengers to be shot down. thanks goodness. yet you expect, in the span of thirteen minutes - again, without knowing that the intent was to use the jets as missiles, rather than as a hostage scenario as all previous hijackings in history had been - you expect this perfect, in hindsight, scenario where the jets are shot down. in thirteen minutes.

hindsight is indeed a magical thing. it's how stock analyst make themselves look like geniuses after the closing bell. "the market was down today on nervous jitters over the impending durable goods report". "the market was up today in anticipation of the impending durable goods report".

sigh.