Fifty-six Deceits in Fahrenheit 911

[Rich Grise]

John Woodgate wrote:
[Rich Grise wrote]

I haven't notice the US destroying mine recently.

Ah, that's because they're doing it very subtlely, around the
edges, so to speak. Very recently, there were three rulings
that dramatically increased police powers to commit searches
and seizures. This latest patriotism fervor I find especially
chilling. "Must protect the homeland from terrorists" sounds
way too much like "must protect the fatherland from the juden."
(or whatever they were calling them back then.) It's the old
boil a frog trick. You can't boil a frog by throwing him in
a pot of boiling water - he'll leap out with just scalds.
What you do is put him in a pot of nice comfortable lukewarm
water, and start heating it. By the time he realizes he's
being cooked, it's too late. You chip away at the Constitution
pretty much the same way. But, of course, I see things that
when I tell others about them it convinces them that I'm
hallucinating, so wtf.

 

[Mark Fergerson]

[...]

I don't know anyone who thinks that the insurgents murdering Iraqis is
excusable except for the extreme left.

I think you meant to say "extreme right" didn't you.

It would more likely be the Islamist insurgents and their supporters think
that it is okay to murder Iraqis.

.. and these are "religious fundamentalists". This makes them religious
rightwing extremists.

"Fundamental" error in logic.

A quick review of the history indicates that it is not supporters that the
extremists can thank for their freedom to kill Iraqies. Before the war
Hussein ruthlessly suppressed the islamists. The purpose of the war was
to remove hussein. Any reasonable planner would know that the islamist
were an issue that would come up. The fact that the US went to war with
Iraq and did not deploy enough troups to Iraq to control the islamists is
the reason they are free to commit murder. The folks who planned the war
considered the risk of these murders acceptable.

Same fundamental logic error. Because the Iraqui
civilians don't actively oppose the terrorists (say, by
exposing them) does _not_ mean they support them. It just
means they can't effectively oppose them.

The US left, most likely, would not have started the war in spring of
2003 so if it had been up to them, the issue may not have even come up.

Why don't you call Bosnia "Clinton's War"? Fair's fair...

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Mark Fergerson <[email protected]>

Fair's fair...

Not in politics, it isn't; it's suicide.

 

[Xomicron]

You chip away at the Constitution
pretty much the same way.

So far the Constitution hasn't been changed so that theory goes right down
the drain.

 

[Rolavine]

Subject: Re: Fifty-six Deceits in Fahrenheit 911

From: Mark Fergerson [email protected]
Date: 7/19/2004 1:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <7ULKc.6405$Zr.509@okepread01>

[...]

I don't know anyone who thinks that the insurgents murdering Iraqis is
excusable except for the extreme left.

I think you meant to say "extreme right" didn't you.


It would more likely be the Islamist insurgents and their supporters think
that it is okay to murder Iraqis.

.. and these are "religious fundamentalists". This makes them religious
rightwing extremists.

"Fundamental" error in logic.

A quick review of the history indicates that it is not supporters that the
extremists can thank for their freedom to kill Iraqies. Before the war
Hussein ruthlessly suppressed the islamists. The purpose of the war was
to remove hussein. Any reasonable planner would know that the islamist
were an issue that would come up. The fact that the US went to war with
Iraq and did not deploy enough troups to Iraq to control the islamists is
the reason they are free to commit murder. The folks who planned the war
considered the risk of these murders acceptable.

Same fundamental logic error. Because the Iraqui
civilians don't actively oppose the terrorists (say, by
exposing them) does _not_ mean they support them. It just
means they can't effectively oppose them.

The US left, most likely, would not have started the war in spring of
2003 so if it had been up to them, the issue may not have even come up.

Why don't you call Bosnia "Clinton's War"? Fair's fair...

Actions in the former Yugoslavia during the Clinton Admin were done in
cooperation with the UN and NATO. Other than that go on and call it 'Clinton's
War'. It cost less than 7 billion dollars including rebuilding, was over in a
few months, killed only small numbers and seems to have worked at stopping
programs of genocide by three separate groups that would have killed hundreds
of times more people.

In the NATO air strikes civilians were killed, the planning was kind of poor,
and there were other blunders too. However, I know of no lies that Clinton or
his admin fed the American Public in connection with this war. Clinton took
responsibility for these actions and even publicly acknowledged the civilian
casualties, I'm still waiting for Bush, that girlie-man, to take responsibility
for anything.

Clinton did not try to sell a war to the public, he told it like it was!

Your righties keep trying to score some points with the former Yugoslavia, but
this dog will only hunt you.

Rocky

 

[Ken Smith]

[...]

"Fundamental" error in logic.

Please explain. Where is the error? Are the Islamist not
fundamentalists? Are they not extremists? Is fundamentalism not part of
the religious right?

I maintain that the statement is correct as posted.



[...]
I left all of this just to be sure that the context was kept:

Same fundamental logic error. Because the Iraqui
civilians don't actively oppose the terrorists (say, by
exposing them) does _not_ mean they support them. It just
means they can't effectively oppose them.

Where is this error you speak of?

What does the fact that the civilians in Iraq can't oppose the murderers
have to do with my statement about the planners of the war or the murders
themselves?

Whether the civilians are guilty of supporting the murders has nothing to
do with whether those who planned the war didn't do enough to prevent it
and that the murders are still murders. Adding another guilty party does
not change that one bit.

Why don't you call Bosnia "Clinton's War"? Fair's fair...

Ok "Bosnia was Clinton's War". Happy now? I suspect not, since the
whole subject of Bosnia is a red herring.

 

[Ken Smith]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Mark Fergerson <[email protected]>


Not in politics, it isn't; it's suicide.

The US is being split right down the middle by the win at any cost
attitude. John McCain has always struck me as someone who is usually
fair. He has survived. I guess it could be president McCain though.

 

[JeffM]

John McCain has always struck me as someone who is usually fair.

I guess it could be president McCain though.
Ken Smith

I could accept that, especially if he chose Pete Peterson as VP.
http://www.google.com/search?&q=peter-g-peterson+nixon+commerce

We had a guy with Pete's economic common sense
that ran for Govenor of California in the Davis recall.
http://www.google.com/search?&q=peter-camejo+green
He didn't get very far.
From those results and those of the 2000 Presidential Primaries,
it appears that Americans want religious/secular idealogues
more than they want folks who can solve the real problems we face.

 

[Ken Smith]

I could accept that, especially if he chose Pete Peterson as VP.

Yes he looks like a good VP option.

From those results and those of the 2000 Presidential Primaries,
it appears that Americans want religious/secular idealogues
more than they want folks who can solve the real problems we face.

I think its more that people want their ideas to fit on bumper
stickers. Complex concepts are hard work.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Ken Smith <[email protected]>

I think its more that people want their ideas to fit on bumper stickers.
Complex concepts are hard work.

Hence the greater popularity of E = mc^2 over Schrodinger's equation.
(;-)

 

[Mark Fergerson]

[...]

"Fundamental" error in logic.

Please explain. Where is the error? Are the Islamist not
fundamentalists? Are they not extremists? Is fundamentalism not part of
the religious right?

I maintain that the statement is correct as posted.

Are you equating Al Qaeda et. al. with the American
"Religious Right" bozos who so want this to be a religious
war to support their Apocalyptic delusions? If so, I agree.

However, "fundamentalism" is a very slippery concept;
does it refer to the fundamentals taught by the originator,
or by later "interpreters"? Fundy Xtians frinst have little
in common with Jesus' teachings, but much in common with
Catholic warmongers. Similar for Islam.

"Extremist" is more slippery, for similar reasons. Ever
watch "Life of Brian"?

[...]
I left all of this just to be sure that the context was kept:

There's something you don't see every day, thanks.

Where is this error you speak of?

What does the fact that the civilians in Iraq can't oppose the murderers
have to do with my statement about the planners of the war or the murders
themselves?

Whether the civilians are guilty of supporting the murders has nothing to
do with whether those who planned the war didn't do enough to prevent it
and that the murders are still murders. Adding another guilty party does
not change that one bit.

Civilian assistance is always assumed; the quantity and
quality is always in doubt. Let's discuss the shortcomings
we see.

Why did not Islamist Fundies oppose Saddam more
effectively while he was in power? Several possibilities
exist; that the general population didn't want them to and
supported his suppression of them, that they did but were
unable to, or that the Fundies didn't see it as worthwhile.

The last one seems unlikely given their mutual history.
The other two reduce to willingness in the face of hazard,
both from the Fundies and from Saddam. Which was the greater
risk, and what would they see as potential reward?

Note that there is no general effort to expose them
currently by the general populace in the face of lots of
"collateral damage" perpetrated by the Fundies. What does
that mean? Again, several possibilites occur to me; that
they don't mind, that they do but are unable to oppose the
Fundies, or that they see them as authorities, and since
they have been trained to submit to authorities, suffer in
silence.

Finally, whose definition of "murder" are you using?

Ok "Bosnia was Clinton's War". Happy now? I suspect not, since the
whole subject of Bosnia is a red herring.

Not really, on either point, but that's irrelevant. Point
is that much hoorah is made of greater UN support for the
Bosnian mess than for the Iraqi mess. Yet how many UN
resolutions did Milosevic et. al. ignore before bullets
started flying? Look deeper than CNN; why did France,
Germany etc. not support Bush? Because they stand to lose
lots of money, that's why. This was made clear when Bush
suggested that Iraqi foreign debt be forgiven. That went
over real well, didn't it?

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Ken Smith]

[...]

.. and these are "religious fundamentalists". This makes them religious
rightwing extremists.

"Fundamental" error in logic.

Please explain. Where is the error? Are the Islamist not
fundamentalists? Are they not extremists? Is fundamentalism not part of
the religious right?

I maintain that the statement is correct as posted.

Are you equating Al Qaeda et. al. with the American
"Religious Right" bozos

Certainly not! Remember this started with me correcting the word
"left". Al Qaeda etc are a very different brand of "religious right" but
they are "relifious right".

There are "christian religious right" people that commit murder in the
name of God. Those few and the Al Qaeda few will hopefully share a cab to
hell some day.

Why did not Islamist Fundies oppose Saddam more
effectively while he was in power? Several possibilities
exist; that the general population didn't want them to and
supported his suppression of them, that they did but were
unable to, or that the Fundies didn't see it as worthwhile.

...or they were afraid to. They weren't in the country. They were too
stupid to. They did, this whole war and the stories of WMDs etc was all a
plot by them.

Finally, whose definition of "murder" are you using?

Mine. For most terms I use my definition.

why did France,
Germany etc. not support Bush?

One theory I'd like to fly by you:
Imagine you are the head of the German government. Further imagine that
you have spies in Iraq and they tell you that there are no WMDs. Would
you say anything about it and perhaps risk those spies? I doubt it. We
know we aren't getting the whole story. We don't know what the part that
is left out contains.

Because they stand to lose
lots of money, that's why. This was made clear when Bush
suggested that Iraqi foreign debt be forgiven. That went
over real well, didn't it?

They saw the loss of money as a more of an issue than the WMDs etc. You
have to fill in why they concluded that.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Ken Smith <[email protected]>

One theory I'd like to fly by you:
Imagine you are the head of the German government. Further imagine that
you have spies in Iraq and they tell you that there are no WMDs.

While we have stark evidence that associating intelligence with the
Intelligence Services is rash, an assertion that 'there are no WMDs'
would be singularly foolish. There is no way to prove such a negative:
the most one can say is 'I have not seen any WMDs'. But then most of us
haven't seen any in UK or USA, even though....

Whereas an assertion that 'there are WMDs' is not foolish but may be
unreliable.

 

[Jim Yanik]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Ken Smith <[email protected]>


While we have stark evidence that associating intelligence with the
Intelligence Services is rash, an assertion that 'there are no WMDs'
would be singularly foolish. There is no way to prove such a negative:
the most one can say is 'I have not seen any WMDs'. But then most of us
haven't seen any in UK or USA, even though....

Whereas an assertion that 'there are WMDs' is not foolish but may be
unreliable.

Clinton and his Cabinet believed Iraq had WMD,and was actively pursuing
more WMD. Were THEY lying,too?

There's also the possibility that the WMD were moved to Syria.

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Ken Smith wrote:

[...]
I wrote:


.. and these are "religious fundamentalists". This makes them religious
rightwing extremists.

"Fundamental" error in logic.

Please explain. Where is the error? Are the Islamist not
fundamentalists? Are they not extremists? Is fundamentalism not part of
the religious right?

I maintain that the statement is correct as posted.

Are you equating Al Qaeda et. al. with the American
"Religious Right" bozos

Certainly not! Remember this started with me correcting the word
"left".

"Correcting"? Actually, you wrote (in response to Xomicron):

I think you meant to say "extreme right" didn't you.

That was more of a disagreement. Point is, who opposes
opposing them, the political Left, or the Right?

Al Qaeda etc are a very different brand of "religious right" but
they are "relifious right".

How are they different?

There are "christian religious right" people that commit murder in the
name of God. Those few and the Al Qaeda few will hopefully share a cab to
hell some day.

AFAIC they can just die.

..or they were afraid to. They weren't in the country. They were too
stupid to. They did, this whole war and the stories of WMDs etc was all a
plot by them.

If they were afraid of Saddam, why aren't they afraid of us?

Why weren't they in-country earlier?

Too _stupid_ to?

They did? Why haven't we heard anything at all about it?

So, the WMDs might have been their disinformation, spread
in order to bring us in, and them on our heels as
"liberators"? Make up your mind, are they that smart or stupid?

Mine. For most terms I use my definition.

This is usually where Liberals start going on about
"cultural sensitivity". See, to them, it isn't murder.
That's why there is less outcry from them than you might
otherwise expect.

One theory I'd like to fly by you:
Imagine you are the head of the German government. Further imagine that
you have spies in Iraq and they tell you that there are no WMDs. Would
you say anything about it and perhaps risk those spies? I doubt it. We
know we aren't getting the whole story. We don't know what the part that
is left out contains.

You can still fabricate a cover to leak the data so it
can be independently confirmed. Happens all the time.

They saw the loss of money as a more of an issue than the WMDs etc. You
have to fill in why they concluded that.

You keep going back to the WMD question. What about all
the UN resolutions that were ignored?

Because money is more important than being made Saddam's
bitch in the U.N.? Just a guess...

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Ken Smith]

While we have stark evidence that associating intelligence with the
Intelligence Services is rash, an assertion that 'there are no WMDs'
would be singularly foolish. There is no way to prove such a negative:
the most one can say is 'I have not seen any WMDs'. But then most of us
haven't seen any in UK or USA, even though....

Don't forget we were promiced: WMDs in this factory and and that building
and onboard trucks that look like this etc. I have no doubt that some
WMDs will be found in Iraq. I expect them to be old and rusty left overs
mostly.

 

[Ken Smith]

Clinton and his Cabinet believed Iraq had WMD,and was actively pursuing
more WMD. Were THEY lying,too?

"actively pursuing" is way different from "has some here and here and here
and a factory to make them over there and spray planes to hit the troops
with .. etc etc"

There's also the possibility that the WMD were moved to Syria.

No very likely. We are talking about many truck loads of the stuff and
equipment. If they manage to move them without the CIA or NSA noticing
someone(s) need to be fired and right now.

 

[Ken Smith]

That was more of a disagreement. Point is, who opposes
opposing them, the political Left, or the Right?

Since the US right started a war that removed the control over them
without supplying the security needed to prevent the murders and the US
left opposed starting this war, I'd have to say that the political left
has done more to oppose the murders than the US right.


[...]

If they were afraid of Saddam, why aren't they afraid of us?

How about: Because the US's CIA can't figure out who we are and their army
is populated by a bunch of wimps.

Why weren't they in-country earlier?

They were afraid of Saddam.

[...]

This is usually where Liberals start going on about
"cultural sensitivity". See, to them, it isn't murder.
That's why there is less outcry from them than you might
otherwise expect.

There has been a quite significant outcry from the US left. You've
obviously been watching the Fox news channel, if you missed it. The US
left has put it in the form of "why didn't we do something to prevent
it?" Its a valid question.

You can still fabricate a cover to leak the data so it
can be independently confirmed. Happens all the time.

Yes thats how Ashcroft dropped the dime on the CIA person[1] to Novac.
[1] I don't remember her name.

You keep going back to the WMD question. What about all
the UN resolutions that were ignored?

The extreme US right constantly says the UN doesn't matter and is
useless. Why the heck should US personel die trying to defend a UN
resolution if the UN doesn't matter.

And yes, I keep going back to the WMDs. No WMDs = no reason for war.

 

[John S. Dyson]

No very likely. We are talking about many truck loads of the stuff and
equipment. If they manage to move them without the CIA or NSA noticing
someone(s) need to be fired and right now.

There were indeed trucks of stuff that were transported to Syria. Reports
have come from the 'spy' organizations. Alas, they are not trustworthy,
especially since their HUMINT downsizing in the 1995-1996 timeframe, and
the even worse damage/precedent done by the Church commission.

John

 

[Jim Yanik]

"actively pursuing" is way different from "has some here and here and
here and a factory to make them over there and spray planes to hit the
troops with .. etc etc"

Clinton distinctly said he and his admin believed Iraq *possessed* WMD
after they were supposed to have disposed of it.

No very likely. We are talking about many truck loads of the stuff
and equipment. If they manage to move them without the CIA or NSA
noticing someone(s) need to be fired and right now.

I believe the Intelligence agencies DID notice,and were not allowed to
pursue it.Israeli intelligence also believes Syria received Iraq's WMD
materials.

And Iraq is a big place,easy to bury and hide WMD.