Spook #2: Or how about we just spy on everyone so we can blackmail the President, Senate Intelligence Committee, whistle-blowers, the media and anyone who tries to get in our way?
The bodies in Paris, only the latest kills in the West, are barely cold, and you apparently want more. Unfortunately that is very likely to happen.
The thing that puzzles me is the indifference. What is that? Autism? Narcissism? Lack of empathy? Misplaced idealism? Distorted thinking? Common cause with al Qaeda? Or simply wanting to see the world burn?
I'll cut the wait short - there is nothing in that report to suggest that course of action was the right thing to do to frustrate al Qaeda's designs. You aren't offering insight, you're parroting back what was done after the fact and the actual method of attack became known. Although the Bush administration may have suffered a "failure of imagination" in countering Bin Laden you've gone the opposite direction - an overactive imagination confusing hindsight for insight.
Yep, agree completely. We knew who was coming,
False
.. how they were coming
False
, and from where they were coming
False
We didn't lack the know how - we lacked the leadership and will to stop them.
Well given the CIA report entited "Bin Laden determined to attack US" mentioning flying planes into buildings... and with the spooks trying to get emergency meetings with El Presidente Bush, I don't think Thin Thread would have helped.
Your "given" is a lie. The Presidential Daily Brief containing the "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US" assessment doesn't make any mention of flying planes into buildings.
What is the basis for your suggestion that the CIA couldn't get a meeting with President Bush? Another lie?
The problem with 9/11 was a President who was too lazy to act, and was family friends with the Bin Ladens, so had a reason to ignore anything that might cause his friends/business partners bad press. It happened to suit his friends political agendas too. Giving them the excuse to pass Patriot act, and, as we learned from some of the leaks, the mass surveillance started 1998, and 9/11 Patriot act simply gave it a legal cover.
The problem with much 9/11 commentary is that it is uninformed, distorted, manipulative, dishonest, and partisan. It is unimaginably stupid to suggest the President Bush willfully overlooked an attack on the United States on the basis of "family friends" as you have, as is any suggestion that the attack was allowed for political advantage. You've suggested both.
Well then, please quote the line from that report that told you that was the right thing to do? You know, the line that shows they were going to crash airplanes into skyscrapers?
Interesting how a direct reply to a post with false claims is "off topic" but not the parent post which is modded up. Most bad moderation from bad moderators.
I would have loved to hear the conversation.... Where the powers that be were convinced that warrantless wiretapping of everyone was an improvement over concentrating on terror targets.
I think your statement nicely encapsulates a fair amount of the rampant confusion and nonsense ideas held about matters in this general area. "Warrantless" refers to the authorization method for conducting the surveillance, it has nothing to do with the targets of the surveillance ("terror targets"). There is nothing mutually exclusive about warrantless surveillance targeted at terrorists. You probably also fail to understand that "warrantless" doesn't necessarily mean illegal. There are many searches that do not require a warrant. You should also look into the question of Article II powers of the President to authorize the conduct of surveillance for matters of national security and how that has played out in the courts. But I'm guessing you'll stick to hand waving.
Of course Corporate America is supposed to rule America. What do you think the word "capital" in "Capitalism" means? Rule of those with capital., i.e. rule of the rich.
Apparently you fundamentally misunderstand it then. "Capitalism," or better Free Enterprise, refers to an economic system, not a political system. America isn't ruled by "capitalism." America's government constitutes a republic with democratic elections. Corporations or capitalists don't pay a direct role in that. A drunken bum or a prostitute can do something that GE, American Express, Walmart, Citibank can't do - they can vote. It is still votes that decide who is a member of the legislature and the executive.
The only surprise is how "capitalism" has been marketed to Americans such that generations of them defend the rule of the rich as some utopia or ideal.
Given your misunderstanding I can see how you think that, but it is nonsense. Besides, there is a far greater issue regarding utopias and ideals. That is the con job regarding socialism in general, and Marxist varieties specifically. The internationalist socialists comprising the Communist movement killed 100,000,000 people in the last century, and ruined country after country. All the while they were engaging in mass repression, mass murder, and malpractice. In more than one case they turned an that was a bread basket for an entire region to desolation. It is one of the great follies of man that there are still Marxists and communists in this day and age.
"But Corporate America is not supposed to rule America."
Actually you are incorrect. Big business has always ruled america.
Those who own the country ought to govern it.--John Jay, 1745-1829
That is false. To start with that quote refers to land ownership, and it was a statement of personal philosophy, not an element of the Constitution which is a governing document. The thinking behind it was that land owners would have vested interests and would exercise due care in voting and governing.
If that quote "proves" that big business has always ruled America, then Benjamin Franklin's quote about beer proves that God exists. Would you care to share your favorite hymn with us?
That was kind of the point behind invading Iraq, if you listen to certain neo-cons. Unfortunately, it turns out that 1) the supply of stupid fuckups is nearly inexhaustible...
That isn't quite correct. Most of Al Qaeda eventually fled Iraq because things had turned so bad for them. Iraq continued to grow more peaceful as the extremists were captured, killed, forced into hiding, or fled. Where did they go? Afghanistan. Guess what happened in Afghanistan at that time? It started heating up, violence started spiking. After President Obama declined to negotiate an agreement for US troops to remain in Iraq the reverse started happening. Militants eventually started traveling to Iraq and Syria, melding into ISIS.
When things were especially bloody in Iraq, say 2005-2007, al Qaeda was able to recruit suicide bombers. But eventually as the war started to go against them and recruiting became more difficult the supply of "good" candidates for suicide bombers started to dry up and they had to make do. They did things like coerce people (drive this car here or we'll kill you and your family), and use children and the mentally infirm or grief stricken.
America proves that companies don't need to actually be named governor to have power over the government.
That's kind of funny. So why do the corporations pay taxes to government if they control it? Why all of the expensive government read tape? Why have business executive been going to jail? When two companies disagree on what the government should do, how does that get decided? There is a hole lot more of explaining to do if you want that nonsense to even border on not insane, let alone plausible.
I do not support any government that indiscriminately kills civilians (ie Israel) and I hold my own accountable when accidents happen.
Israel doesn't make a practice of indiscriminately killing civilians, and the "investigations" making those sorts of accusations tend to have "issues".
You are mistaken on many points. Saddam was not put into power by the US. Saddam didn't keep a lid on violence, he inflicted it on his population and engaged in wars of aggression against his neighbors and attacked others. Saddam funded terrorism. The mortality rate in Iraq from state violence and terrorism is still probably lower than Saddam's long term average. It could have been far lower if progressives hadn't pushed so hard to get stabilizing influences out of Iraq.
Iraq wasn't a Sharia law country. The scale of abuses aren't even close to comparable. Iraq has hundreds of mass graves. Saddam used nerve gas on the villages of Iraqi Kurds, and engaged in other forms of mass slaughter against others. There were as many as 2,000,000 Iraqis that died under Saddams regime as a result of mass murder, war, and all manner of abuse. Saudi Arabia is nothing like that.
The view of "morons" is that the world is broken down into the simple black and white camps of the good guys (us, obviously) and the bad guys (anyone with whom we have an armed conflict.)
There is another set of morons that believe that there is no such thing as good and evil.
Have you any harsh words for the Muslim invaders that not only conquered the Holy Lands, but Byzantium, Spain, threatened France and Vienna? The Dark Ages were largely a result of their actions. Do you think any of that matters if we want to discuss the whys of history? Do you have any disapproval left for them?
Was the Byzantine empire an invader? I'm not sure that is true. Byzantine inherited control of a portion of the former Roman empire, but I don't think they invaded the area themselves. (Unless you want to quibble about some revolts and attempted invasion in the in interim period before the Muslim invasion.) The Romans did invade and conquer the region something like 700-800 years prior to the Muslim invasions.
But now we come to the question, so what? Even if Byzantine did invade the region in the past does that mean that the Muslim armies were not invaders? Does it mean this was not a defensive war on the part of the West? In both cases the answer is "no".
Slashdot Mirror
My guess is it went a little like this...
Spook #2: Or how about we just spy on everyone so we can blackmail the President, Senate Intelligence Committee, whistle-blowers, the media and anyone who tries to get in our way?
Proof, or it didn't happen.
And after conversations are encrypted effort will be made to render traffic analysis useless as well.
In short: aiding the enemy.
I think I've seen reasoning like that before.
The bodies in Paris, only the latest kills in the West, are barely cold, and you apparently want more. Unfortunately that is very likely to happen.
The thing that puzzles me is the indifference. What is that? Autism? Narcissism? Lack of empathy? Misplaced idealism? Distorted thinking? Common cause with al Qaeda? Or simply wanting to see the world burn?
I'll cut the wait short - there is nothing in that report to suggest that course of action was the right thing to do to frustrate al Qaeda's designs. You aren't offering insight, you're parroting back what was done after the fact and the actual method of attack became known. Although the Bush administration may have suffered a "failure of imagination" in countering Bin Laden you've gone the opposite direction - an overactive imagination confusing hindsight for insight.
Yep, agree completely. We knew who was coming,
False
.. how they were coming
False
, and from where they were coming
False
We didn't lack the know how - we lacked the leadership and will to stop them.
And false.
Well given the CIA report entited "Bin Laden determined to attack US" mentioning flying planes into buildings... and with the spooks trying to get emergency meetings with El Presidente Bush, I don't think Thin Thread would have helped.
Your "given" is a lie. The Presidential Daily Brief containing the "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US" assessment doesn't make any mention of flying planes into buildings.
What is the basis for your suggestion that the CIA couldn't get a meeting with President Bush? Another lie?
The problem with 9/11 was a President who was too lazy to act, and was family friends with the Bin Ladens, so had a reason to ignore anything that might cause his friends/business partners bad press. It happened to suit his friends political agendas too. Giving them the excuse to pass Patriot act, and, as we learned from some of the leaks, the mass surveillance started 1998, and 9/11 Patriot act simply gave it a legal cover.
The problem with much 9/11 commentary is that it is uninformed, distorted, manipulative, dishonest, and partisan. It is unimaginably stupid to suggest the President Bush willfully overlooked an attack on the United States on the basis of "family friends" as you have, as is any suggestion that the attack was allowed for political advantage. You've suggested both.
Actually, as a practical matter, yes you are.
Well then, please quote the line from that report that told you that was the right thing to do? You know, the line that shows they were going to crash airplanes into skyscrapers?
Interesting how a direct reply to a post with false claims is "off topic" but not the parent post which is modded up. Most bad moderation from bad moderators.
Thanks, you seem to have just demonstrated you didn't read that. You "dunno" is correct.
Certainly no Slashdot commentator could be wrong.
Why don't you go to GWU and read the section of the Presidential Daily Brief and tell me what you would do based on that information?
Bin Laden Determined To Strike US
***** SPOILER ALERT ******** You and the AC are full of baloney.
I would have loved to hear the conversation .... Where the powers that be were convinced that warrantless wiretapping of everyone was an improvement over concentrating on terror targets.
I think your statement nicely encapsulates a fair amount of the rampant confusion and nonsense ideas held about matters in this general area. "Warrantless" refers to the authorization method for conducting the surveillance, it has nothing to do with the targets of the surveillance ("terror targets"). There is nothing mutually exclusive about warrantless surveillance targeted at terrorists. You probably also fail to understand that "warrantless" doesn't necessarily mean illegal. There are many searches that do not require a warrant. You should also look into the question of Article II powers of the President to authorize the conduct of surveillance for matters of national security and how that has played out in the courts. But I'm guessing you'll stick to hand waving.
Of course Corporate America is supposed to rule America. What do you think the word "capital" in "Capitalism" means? Rule of those with capital., i.e. rule of the rich.
Apparently you fundamentally misunderstand it then. "Capitalism," or better Free Enterprise, refers to an economic system, not a political system. America isn't ruled by "capitalism." America's government constitutes a republic with democratic elections. Corporations or capitalists don't pay a direct role in that. A drunken bum or a prostitute can do something that GE, American Express, Walmart, Citibank can't do - they can vote. It is still votes that decide who is a member of the legislature and the executive.
The only surprise is how "capitalism" has been marketed to Americans such that generations of them defend the rule of the rich as some utopia or ideal.
Given your misunderstanding I can see how you think that, but it is nonsense. Besides, there is a far greater issue regarding utopias and ideals. That is the con job regarding socialism in general, and Marxist varieties specifically. The internationalist socialists comprising the Communist movement killed 100,000,000 people in the last century, and ruined country after country. All the while they were engaging in mass repression, mass murder, and malpractice. In more than one case they turned an that was a bread basket for an entire region to desolation. It is one of the great follies of man that there are still Marxists and communists in this day and age.
"But Corporate America is not supposed to rule America."
Actually you are incorrect. Big business has always ruled america.
Those who own the country ought to govern it.--John Jay, 1745-1829
That is false. To start with that quote refers to land ownership, and it was a statement of personal philosophy, not an element of the Constitution which is a governing document. The thinking behind it was that land owners would have vested interests and would exercise due care in voting and governing.
If that quote "proves" that big business has always ruled America, then Benjamin Franklin's quote about beer proves that God exists. Would you care to share your favorite hymn with us?
That was kind of the point behind invading Iraq, if you listen to certain neo-cons. Unfortunately, it turns out that 1) the supply of stupid fuckups is nearly inexhaustible...
That isn't quite correct. Most of Al Qaeda eventually fled Iraq because things had turned so bad for them. Iraq continued to grow more peaceful as the extremists were captured, killed, forced into hiding, or fled. Where did they go? Afghanistan. Guess what happened in Afghanistan at that time? It started heating up, violence started spiking. After President Obama declined to negotiate an agreement for US troops to remain in Iraq the reverse started happening. Militants eventually started traveling to Iraq and Syria, melding into ISIS.
When things were especially bloody in Iraq, say 2005-2007, al Qaeda was able to recruit suicide bombers. But eventually as the war started to go against them and recruiting became more difficult the supply of "good" candidates for suicide bombers started to dry up and they had to make do. They did things like coerce people (drive this car here or we'll kill you and your family), and use children and the mentally infirm or grief stricken.
America proves that companies don't need to actually be named governor to have power over the government.
That's kind of funny. So why do the corporations pay taxes to government if they control it? Why all of the expensive government read tape? Why have business executive been going to jail? When two companies disagree on what the government should do, how does that get decided? There is a hole lot more of explaining to do if you want that nonsense to even border on not insane, let alone plausible.
That's not a "power grab," that is at most a sales opportunity.
Let me know when General Dynamics or BAE is appointed governor of Syria, Mosul, or San Francisco.
It's a mini 9/11 of ... corp power grabbing
So it's imaginary then.
I do not support any government that indiscriminately kills civilians (ie Israel) and I hold my own accountable when accidents happen.
Israel doesn't make a practice of indiscriminately killing civilians, and the "investigations" making those sorts of accusations tend to have "issues".
Goldstone: You Cannot Undo a Slander
Israel’s Heroic Restraint
Scandal Rocks the U.N.
The U.N.’s Grotesque Gaza Inquiry
Another Effort to Destroy Israel
You are mistaken on many points. Saddam was not put into power by the US. Saddam didn't keep a lid on violence, he inflicted it on his population and engaged in wars of aggression against his neighbors and attacked others. Saddam funded terrorism. The mortality rate in Iraq from state violence and terrorism is still probably lower than Saddam's long term average. It could have been far lower if progressives hadn't pushed so hard to get stabilizing influences out of Iraq.
Iraq wasn't a Sharia law country. The scale of abuses aren't even close to comparable. Iraq has hundreds of mass graves. Saddam used nerve gas on the villages of Iraqi Kurds, and engaged in other forms of mass slaughter against others. There were as many as 2,000,000 Iraqis that died under Saddams regime as a result of mass murder, war, and all manner of abuse. Saudi Arabia is nothing like that.
The view of "morons" is that the world is broken down into the simple black and white camps of the good guys (us, obviously) and the bad guys (anyone with whom we have an armed conflict.)
There is another set of morons that believe that there is no such thing as good and evil.
So the view of "morons" is that ISIS is dangerous?
Have you any harsh words for the Muslim invaders that not only conquered the Holy Lands, but Byzantium, Spain, threatened France and Vienna? The Dark Ages were largely a result of their actions. Do you think any of that matters if we want to discuss the whys of history? Do you have any disapproval left for them?
Was the Byzantine empire an invader? I'm not sure that is true. Byzantine inherited control of a portion of the former Roman empire, but I don't think they invaded the area themselves. (Unless you want to quibble about some revolts and attempted invasion in the in interim period before the Muslim invasion.) The Romans did invade and conquer the region something like 700-800 years prior to the Muslim invasions.
But now we come to the question, so what? Even if Byzantine did invade the region in the past does that mean that the Muslim armies were not invaders? Does it mean this was not a defensive war on the part of the West? In both cases the answer is "no".
Gefilte fish pizza with matzo bread crust. Oh yaaaa. Hello, Dominos? Do you deliver to Syria? From Jordan? Great!