- #71
mheslep
Gold Member
- 364
- 729
baywax said:
?
"www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf"[/URL]
Last edited by a moderator:
baywax said:I'd like to see some references supporting your claims.
mheslep said:?
"www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf"[/URL][/QUOTE]
911 Report?
Oh, you mean the report the government was forced to do in the face of criticisms from the public and the (only) other party in American politics? Let's see, do we take that report as independent or is it just another internal audit?
I'd like to see references from archived footage among other resources. (For example: I claimed that Bin Labin's name was mentioned during the first 20 to 120 minutes of this mass murder. For me to back up my claim I need to go to CBS or ABC, or NBC, or CNN or FOX and find the footage of the newscast I was watching during the first hour of this cowardly attack. I'm not too sure, but, my bet is that a lot of this kind of footage has been mysteriously recycled.
baywax said:Oh, you mean the report the government was forced to do in the face of criticisms from the public and the (only) other party in American politics? Let's see, do we take that report as independent or is it just another internal audit?
Pelt said:The government didn't issue the 9/11 Report.
baywax said:Actually, it was a bipartisan group of government appointed folk doing the "investigations".
This group had to be approved and signed for by the the President and his admin. Where is the New York City Police Dept. represented in this group? The majority of this mass murder took place in New York City.
denverdoc said:I felt the 911 was wanting in several key areas, many of which have been enumerated elsewhere in great detail. Perhaps it was bipartisan, but I would have greatly preferred a Richard Fetnmann or two. Where was the science?
Pelt said:And that's important why?
The commission's charter was to investigate the attacks. What purpose would having an NYPD representative serve?
Kurdt said:No assumptions are needed since for example, the 7th of July bombings in London were commited by people who clearly stated that British involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq was their motivation. there have been numerous other warnings from terrorist groups to countries with troops in those two aforementioned countries.
baywax said:They're government appointees. They are not independent investigators. Or I should say "investigator" because there is only one investigator listed on the panel.
Any murder that happens in NYC is investigated by the NYPD. This is a case where over 3000 murders took place with in an hour. I would think the NYPD would have a place in the investigation.
Sorry to have brought this topic off topic. The original topic asks what the right approach is to end the cowardly sucker punches being pulled by some weak-minded, panty-waisted group of scum. My solution is to show them the right way to live as in "provide a good example". Best in the new year!
Pelt said:Perhaps we disagree on the definition of "independent," then. I tend to draw a bright line at political appointees that answer either to some executive of legislative leadership. Where do you draw the line?
NYPD lost jurisdiction the minute those aircraft took off from Logan. Aside from being an act of terrorism, jurisdiction over airspace is federal period. If that's not enough for you, the crime was inherently of an interstate nature.
baywax said:My idea of an independent inquiry is different from yours. Mine begins with people who have no connection with the middle east, oil company lobbyists, airlines, military or other governmentally influenced or influencing entities.
For instance a civil union such as the NYPD or perhaps a democratically appointed panel brought into being through an open referendum or vote of some kind.
Not when the crime falls into Federal jurisdiction.Baywax said:Any murder that happens in NYC is investigated by the NYPD. This is a case where over 3000 murders took place with in an hour. I would think the NYPD would have a place in the investigation.
Pelt is correct.Pelt said:NYPD lost jurisdiction the minute those aircraft took off from Logan. Aside from being an act of terrorism, jurisdiction over airspace is federal period. If that's not enough for you, the crime was inherently of an interstate nature.
Specifically the FBI.Evo said:Not when the crime falls into Federal jurisdiction.
baywax said:I'll suggest that a change in terminology will help in the "war on terror". Quite literally the title, "war on terror", evokes emotional responses like hate, fear and hysteria in most audiences.
These audiences are what comprise a society and a nation. I would propose that the phrase become the " war on cowardice". This change of terminology is intended to provide a two-fold benefit to the society. One, it will instill a national and international determination to eradicate acts of cowardice and two it will define the "terrorists" and their accomplices for what they are and how they act.
Pelt said:A cursory search of Google Scholar for cognitive research supporting this idea is particularly frustrating. Do you have some sort of support for this hypothesis or is it your own personal belief?
I believe your idea boils down to to undermining some alleged atmosphere of hate, fear and by shaping people's perceptions of the terrorist threat downward. Setting aside the very tenuous basis for that strategy, how did you work out that changing the label to "war on cowardice" would in anyway impact public opinion?
A power word is a word that illicits a powerful emotional response from the browser. It is a word so irresistible that it makes a user far more likely to first notice and then click on the Google pay-per-click ad.
baywax said:Hi Pelt 0,
Pelt said:Hey baywax. I think you misunderstood me. I'm looking for refereed scholarship. Your own would suffice. It's for my edification.
baywax said:I'm not sure that I can help you with that.
If you don't understand how a word can effect you physiologically and psychologically, whether written or spoken, then you need to pay attention to your own responses.
Here's a little test... have a look at these two words and gauge your response.
TERROR
and
COWARD
Some refereed science and scholarship has already been done with regard to the effects of aurally and visually presented words on the physiology of human neurons.
Is this too off-side for you?!
Pelt said:Too bad.
Once again, I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm asking specifically about your theories regarding the phrases "war on terror" and "war on cowardice." I'm not interested in your broader thoughts on rhetoric and social psychology. I'm also not interested in anything less than actual research on this issue. For example...
...I have no response to these words independent of the context of our discussion. Either your hypothesis is messed up or your test is less than satisfactory gauge.
Once again, I'm looking specifically for scholarship on a phrase that has been used widely and attracted a great deal of scholarly attention for six years now. Absent that, I'd love to see other research that at least allows me to reasonably the phrase's impact.
No, it's merely irrelevant to the question I asked.
You've said that progressives should never use the phrase "war on terror" — why?
There are two reasons for that. Let's start with "terror." Terror is a general state, and it's internal to a person. Terror is not the person we're fighting, the "terrorist." The word terror activates your fear, and fear activates the strict father model, which is what conservatives want. The "war on terror" is not about stopping you from being afraid, it's about making you afraid.
Next, "war." How many terrorists are there — hundreds? Sure. Thousands? Maybe. Tens of thousands? Probably not. The point is, terrorists are actual people, and relatively small numbers of individuals, considering the size of our country and other countries. It's not a nation-state problem. War is a nation-state problem.
baywax said:Although Mr.Lakoff doesn't touch on my own reasons for abolishing this phrase, his are just as valid and in the same vein.
His reasoning is that the word "terror" is only an enemy within an individual, not a physical group or entity with which to be at "war". Whereas, cowardice is a physical behaviour exhibited by cowards. The kind that make a statement or gain control at any cost - sometimes destroying the lives of innocent, unarmed,unprepared and uninvolved people.
Pelt said:NYPD lost jurisdiction the minute those aircraft took off from Logan. Aside from being an act of terrorism, jurisdiction over airspace is federal period. If that's not enough for you, the crime was inherently of an interstate nature.
I don't think that's going to be terribly effective on Al Qaeda. The leadership's seen how the West lives and decided they want something else.
They (Al Qaeda) also speak to cultures where households and clan relationships mean a great deal more than in Western countries.
If setting an example hasn't stopped various overseas crime cultures from setting up hundred million dollar shops in the US, I sincerely doubt it alone can solve the US's public relations problem.
Depends on the crime. If the Aussie robs a federally insured bank (and they ~all are) the FBI gets involved along with local authorities. If the Aussie kills somebody in NY on the street then only the local (city and/or state) get involved. If the Aussie uses an airplane to destroy buildings its federal again. If the Aussie happens to be a recognized diplomat then its much more complicated, US State Dept gets involved, etc.baywax said:Just so I understand American justice better: if an Australian lands his private jet in New York then commits 6 murders in New York who is in charge of the investigation of the murders, NYPD, FBI, CIA or a federally appointed group of professional staff members or the Australian police?
If a gang from Miami drives its hummer through a Macy's window New York and unfortunately kills 27 innocent people does the American Automobile Association do the investigation, the Miami Police Department, Florida State Authorities, the NYPD, the FBI, CIA or a federally appointed group of professional staff members?
baywax said:Just so I understand American justice better: if an Australian lands his private jet in New York then commits 6 murders in New York who is in charge of the investigation of the murders...
If a gang from Miami drives its hummer through a Macy's window New York and unfortunately kills 27 innocent people does the American Automobile Association do the investigation, the Miami Police Department, Florida State Authorities, the NYPD, the FBI, CIA or a federally appointed group of professional staff members?
Can you cite research and witnesses to support this claim or is this a personal observation?
Can you point to any evidence of this or is this personal conjecture?
So far the examples offered by western countries have been contradictory at best. While the governments may offer the perception of altruism, and upholding individual freedoms, the corporate cultures are allowed to undermine this reputation through aggressive lobbying and poorly planned foreign development practices that hurt relations with these "other cultures".
Pelt said:Well, we know significantly more than that. We have footage of the hijackers boarding their aircraft, evidence linking them to al Qaeda, bin Laden's own confession of responsibility for the attacks, two of the men behind the planning of the attacks, etc.
All that was known 20 minutes into the attack is that it was an attack.
There's enough evidence in the public record--forensics and witness testimony--to choke horse.
If your mystery "investigators" are so magical that they can take down the leadership of a well-armed terrorist organization integrated into the armed forces of a hostile nation, then why not scrap the regular services and turn them loose on snowstorms, wildfires and floods as well?
baywax said:In order for Bin's confession to be admissible...
Any references, links to stock footage? I'm still looking for the report that mentions Bin at least an hour or two into the attack.
Please link to an inventory of this alleged evidence... or at least the horse.
I don't have mystery investigators.
I pay my governments (civil etc...) to properly assign effective solutions to problems as they arise.
Publishers Weekly said:Combining a novelist's talent for atmosphere with a scholar's grasp of historical sweep, foreign correspondent Fisk has written one of the most dense and compelling accounts of recent Middle Eastern history yet. The book opens with a deftly juxtaposed account of Fisk's two interviews with Osama bin Laden. In the first, held in Sudan in 1993, bin Laden declared himself "a construction engineer and an agriculturist." He had no time to train mujahideen, he said; he was busy constructing a highway. In the second, held four years later in Afghanistan, he declared war on the Saudi royal family and America. Fisk, who has lived in and reported on the Middle East since 1976, first for the (London) Times and now for the Independent, possesses deep knowledge of the broader history of the region, which allows him to discuss the Armenian genocide 90 years ago, the 2002 destruction of Jenin, and the battlefields of Iraq with equal aplomb. But it is his stunning capacity for visceral description—he has seen, or tracked down firsthand accounts of, all the major events of the past 25 years—that makes this volume unique. Some of the chapters contain detailed accounts of torture and murder, which more squeamish readers may be inclined to skip, but such scenes are not gratuitous. They are designed to drive home Fisk's belief that "war is primarily not about victory or defeat but about death and the infliction of death." Though Fisk's political stances may sometimes be controversial, no one can deny that this volume is a stunning achievement.
Washington Post said:This is first of all a book about war -- in particular, the wars that have scarred the Middle East, from Afghanistan to Algeria, throughout the author's long career as a correspondent for the London Times and then the Independent. It switches back and forth across the 20th century in a way that seems driven more by stream of consciousness than by any linear design, and, as befits its topic, it is a book of almost unremitting violence. The author presents himself both as unflinching witness and implacable judge of the events he recounts, for he believes that he is telling a story of unrelenting perfidy and betrayal -- in part a story of Middle Easterners being betrayed by themselves and their leaders, but mostly one of the Middle East being betrayed by the power, greed and arrogance of the West.
Fisk has thrown himself into the fiery pit time after time, often at grave personal risk -- Afghanistan at the beginning of the long struggle against the Soviets, the bloodbath of the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, the civil war in Algeria after 1991, the second Palestinian intifada since the fall of 2000. When he is not personally in the midst of conflict and destruction, he evokes them, as in his lengthy discussion of the Armenian deportations and massacres of World War I or (in a different register) his treatment of the shah of Iran's prisons and torture chambers.
However Fisk regards himself, he is at bottom a war correspondent, and the fabric of his book is woven largely from his battlefield reporting. Fisk's writing on war is vivid, graphic, intense and very personal. Readers will encounter no "collateral damage" here, only homes destroyed and bodies torn to shreds. At times, as one horror is heaped upon another, it all seems too much to absorb or bear.
That intensity is both the book's great strength and one of its principal weaknesses. After reading it, no one can hide from the immense human costs of the decisions made by generals and politicians, Middle Eastern or otherwise. But Fisk portrays the Middle East as a place of such unrelieved violence that the reader can hardly imagine that anyone has enjoyed a single ordinary day there over the past quarter-century. That picture is a serious distortion. Life in the region is far from easy, but in spite of endemic anxiety and frustration, most Middle Easterners, most of the time, are able to get on tolerably well. Fisk says little about more abstract, less violent issues such as economic stagnation, the complexities of political Islam or the status of women. This gap is not a weakness in itself -- Fisk is writing about different themes -- but readers need to be aware that, despite its staggering length, this book is not The Complete Middle East.
Pelt said:How about a John Dower? Where was the Meiji-era Japanese history? Or maybe a Dale Earnhardt Jr. or Peyton Manning. Who on the 9/11 commission was looking out for NFL and NASCAR fans? I mean c'mon, Congress and the President convened the Commission to independently investigate the attacks and make recommendations pertinent to the attacks. It wasn't put together to recommend some form airline lawsuit liability, negotiate with the FDNY unions or NYPD PBA reps to determine proper payouts, or make rulings the admissibility of scientific evidence in a court of law. It existed solely to enumerate a public record of facts and make recommendations therefrom.
denverdoc said:I felt the 911 was wanting in several key areas, many of which have been enumerated elsewhere in great detail. Perhaps it was bipartisan, but I would have greatly preferred a Richard Fetnmann or two. Where was the science?
Originally Posted by Pelt
How about a John Dower? Where was the Meiji-era Japanese history? Or maybe a Dale Earnhardt Jr. or Peyton Manning. Who on the 9/11 commission was looking out for NFL and NASCAR fans? I mean c'mon, Congress and the President convened the Commission to independently investigate the attacks and make recommendations pertinent to the attacks. It wasn't put together to recommend some form airline lawsuit liability, negotiate with the FDNY unions or NYPD PBA reps to determine proper payouts, or make rulings the admissibility of scientific evidence in a court of law. It existed solely to enumerate a public record of facts and make recommendations therefrom.
I believe the reply was exactly on point to the first post. I'm a Feynman fan too esp. of his Roger's commission work, but he's gone, he was once in a generation, this is not his field (foreign affairs, covert intelligence, law enforcement) and I think he would have been the first to say so. A more useful criticism would be forwarding the name of someone still walking around that you believe the commission needed.denverdoc said:I think you missed my point
There were several scholarly people on http://www.9-11pdp.org/about/bio_kojm.htm" as well as the appointees. Not every commission can have Nobel laureates, though it doesn't need them for success. It does need qualified, impartially minded people.--this was more about having some deep thinkers who owe no political allegiance to anyone. Feynman came to mind because of his brilliance in the shuttle disaster investigation and his dogged determination to not let biz as usual in Washington carry the day.