I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
r-a-t-i-n-g-s.
fear sells... Hence 24x7 weather coverage in my hometown of Orlando.
After the London Blitz, this is small potatoes.
fear sells... Hence 24x7 weather coverage in my hometown of Orlando.
trumad
yeah, hear comes the rain.
Aqua Tigre beat me to it.
I'd be curious, bars and taverns aside, what the regional demographic of the average CNN watcher is.
It’s too early to say, but I’ll say it anyway. I hope and I believe that the attacks on London yesterday will be remembered not for how much they changed Londoners and the world but for how much they didn’t.
Show your support to the British Blitz Spirit and buy London rescue workers a beer!
Panic does not get anyone anywhere. Thorough police work coupled with military back-up will.
I'm reminded of a 'Get Your War On' Cartoon where the characters were demanding to 'Super-size' our grief, because noone knows pain like Americans, Right?
I noticed the same on our local public radio station. All the political talk shows kept insisting on how frightening the future is and how helpless we are in combating the events. They even had a segment about whether people who have booked vacations in Europe can get their hotel deposits back!
They are playing up the fear. Also, if you want to cause mental long-term damage on viewers, please, repeat the same shocking images over and over during the days. That works in brainwashing so why not here? I really think that the media and the psychological community should get together and determine what advice to give people about following these events. We are not designed for vicarious catastrophies.
I'm reminded of a 'Get Your War On' Cartoon where the characters were demanding to 'Super-size' our grief, because noone knows pain like Americans, Right?
A nation of friggin' drama queens.
OT Reminder -
For those keeping score, it was Novak to Hanssen to Miller to Smithson.
http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/...226/
index2.html
"When there is trouble, it appears she’s more than happy to pass around the responsibility. One incident that still rankles happened last April, when Miller co-bylined a story with Douglas Jehl on the WMD search that included a quote from Amy Smithson, an analyst formerly at the Henry L. Stimson Center. A day after it appeared, the Times learned that the quote was deeply problematic. To begin with, it had been supplied to Miller in an e-mail that began, "Briefly and on background" -- a condition that Miller had flatly broken by naming her source. Miller committed a further offense by paraphrasing the quote and distorting Smithson's analysis. One person who viewed the e-mail says that it attributed views to Smithson that she clearly didn’t hold. An embarrassing correction ensued."
-----
I remember CNN round the clock coverage of Columbine where they even covered the funerals of the victims....once they get their hooks in they do not let go
From the article Atrios linked to:
"the worst day of death in the UK since world War II"
Anyone remember Lockerbie?
Besides, this isn't even about stats.
Oh, Christ - Operation Phallic Reference continues. We've moved on to "Operation Scimitar"...
I read Tierney today (yes, in fact, it did hurt) and he managed to make half a point, and ignore the incredibly obvious!!
9/11 was bad. It wasn't our first major terrorist attack, but it did strike at the heart of our self-perception. The adult thing to do would have been to count to ten before we did anything dumb. Oops.
For the record, though, if you look at how Britain reacted to the Guildford Pub and other bombings when they passed their own bad anti-terrorism law, they aren't immune either. Regardless, they didn't invade France because some Irish wanted them off their island.
It's to the credit of the British press that they haven't succumbed to the hysteria-peddling. If the goal of terrorism is what the name implies, and the MSM wet themselves keeping people terrorized, what does that make them, hmmmmm?
Reason for Fear
of course if the "media" had not goaded the populace into fear and revenge mode, perhaps we'd not be in such straits.
fox has been in overdrive on the "were gonna get those bastards" motif. i'm hoping maybe i can see o'reilly stroke out.
US and European intelligence services are monitoring a more pronounced level of radicalization among young Muslim men in Europe, they said, particularly in the wake of the Iraq war, which has drawn in hundreds of European Muslim fighters, according to US military estimates.
when i was a kid you'd learn not to break up the stinging nettles, just made lots of little ones. you took the whole jelly fish and laid it on the dock to dry and die in the sun.
cnn seems particularly distressed that there weren't more bodies, or more carnage visible for their tape loops. jeff greenfield took a rare (i'm guessing) subway ride to get the pulse, and was sorely disappointed that there were riders going to the yankees game, and not remaining locked in their apts huddled in fear.
"GREENFIELD: Well, I guess the question is whether or not people are going to assume that, first, that this attack in Britain suggests that people in the United States are at risk. It certainly is -- it's hard to take this kind of story and just brush it aside.
Although I will tell you, Wolf, last night, I was on the New York City subway system on my way up to and then back from Yankee Stadium. The train was packed. And I'd be misleading you if I told you there was any sense of any kind of apprehension on that train. You know, if you wanted to be worried about it, you think, well, that's a heck of a target, a totally packed train going to a classic American event.
But I do think, because this is such a dramatic event and because anyone in any large city who uses mass transit can feel how vulnerable you are, the complete lack of security. There's nobody at a subway station checking bags or anything like that. That it's almost inevitable that people are going to point to this and then make what points they choose. That's what I was mentioning."
What's the alternative to selling fear?
Informative though somewhat dry discussions of terrorist groups and methods, varieties of Islam, Western policies in the Middle East since 1919, counterterrorist police strategies...
Zzzzzzzzzz.
Although I will tell you, Wolf, last night, I was on the New York City subway system on my way up to and then back from Yankee Stadium. The train was packed. And I'd be misleading you if I told you there was any sense of any kind of apprehension on that train. You know, if you wanted to be worried about it, you think, well, that's a heck of a target, a totally packed train going to a classic American event.
Thanks for pointing that out to potential terrorists, Jeff. Like they don't already know that? What an ijit.
BTW, if I saw Jeff Greenfield on a subway car, I'd go out of my way to terrorize him.
We *deal* with it, Jeff. Got it?
"For the record, though, if you look at how Britain reacted to the Guildford Pub and other bombings when they passed their own bad anti-terrorism law, they aren't immune either"
No, you are right. And we shouldn't mythologize, but for now the Brits have been acting very level-headed and we should encourage that.
A surgeon acts with finely tuned precision and determination, that is how we should approach, IMHO, terrorism. Cut away the cancer without damaging the healthy tissue and use medication to annihilate the remaining cells.
Thank you Atrios. You always seem to hit the nail on the head of things I'm thinking about. The way Londoners got up and went to work on Friday just made me cry.
on the otherhand, the British DO have their opportuinistic politicians willing to exploit tragedy:
"Clarke set to rush through emergency arrest powers"
-
Selling fear works to a point but then it stops. The British and the French have much experience on terrorism and they have developed an ability to live with the risk. We don't have this yet.
Though the fear selling is a lot more common here. Almost everything is sold that way, from pederasty to bird flu. Like it's astonishing that we manage to still be alive at all.
And lots of tv seems to be just rehashing the latest murder in the area or if there isn't one then a murder from some other place or a murder from the past, with lots of sobbing relatives interviews.
The Busheviki and the Corporate Controlled Conservative Press (CCCP) are united to use terror to further their agenda at the expense of our safety-
http://gotv.blogspot.com/2005/07...and-
london.html
and yet . . .
"We know that after September the 11th, our country must think differently. We must take threats seriously, before they fully materialize."
Three weeks before London's bus and subway bombings, a Senate committee voted to slash spending on mass transit security in the United States, a decision sure to be reversed when Congress returns next week.
Digby -- gotta love 'im.
"on the otherhand, the British DO have their opportuinistic politicians willing to exploit tragedy"
I am afraid these opportunistic people are a universal phenomenon.
After 9/11 when Bush declared "War on Terror" my friend in London said "he shouldn't do that." I didn't get it at the time. Now I get it.
BTW, if I saw Jeff Greenfield on a subway car, I'd go out of my way to terrorize him.
Tell him he's a "fraudulant, fatuous, fuck" for me Watertiger.
well, oddly, after 9/11 the administration did count to 10 before doing anything. At the time it gave me confidence.
Now we know that the reason they were counting to 10 was because they were trying to figure out how they could use 9/11 to attack Iraq.
Afghanistan wasn't the "kick out the taliban and rebuild the nation" war we were promised, but that promise didn't sound so bad at the time or now.
They didn't get to they really stupid until they had a lot of time to think.
Tube blasts 'almost simultaneous'
Since I live in a nobody town like Devizes the London blasts are quite remote for me. Yes I am sad but it hasn't effected me personally.
If you get what I mean.
And freakin' Scott Simon is doing his "whispery danger" voice whilst talking to a British "terrorism expert"...
Freakin' drama queen.
Y'know, with all these "terrorism experts," it's surprising that terrorism is still around.
The way Londoners got up and went to work on Friday just made me cry.
Willow
Hell, they stayed at work on Thursday. A phlegmatic friend of mine, writing Friday morning, said his building was under lockdown Thursday, but that it didn't matter much to him. There wasn't any way to get anyplace anyway, he pointed out. On Friday, he said things were "subdued," but that was all.
american media - they are constantly telling you what you are supposed to do and feel about things (God forbid somebody should have to think). If it's the weather report, it's going to be "a great day to go fishing" - f*** fishing, I would rather do the laundry today; if it's a missing teen, it's Paula Zahn telling you it's "terrible, just terrible" - that conclusion I can reach for myself, over a beer, with my friends - why should I watch the news for that? constant emoting and editorializing. Just get me the facts!
It would help CNN enormously if some white English women turned up missing.
Three weeks before London's bus and subway bombings, a Senate committee voted to slash spending on mass transit security in the United States, a decision sure to be reversed when Congress returns next week.
well that's fine, hope they aren't listening to jeff greenfield. what an ass. i still dislike wolf more tho.
Tony Blair is a damn liberal therapist:
The prime minister said that the government did everything it could to protect Britons, but added: "If people are actually prepared to go on to a tube or a bus and blow up wholly innocent people, people just at random, to do the maximum death and destruction without any thought for their human rights or human life, you can have all the surveillance in the world and you couldn't stop that happening."
"That is why ultimately, although we have to take the measures necessary, the underlying issues have to be dealt with too," he said.
Mr Blair said the response of Londoners had been "extraordinary" and showed that they would not be "terrorised by terror".
"I think that we will continue with our way of life, I genuinely believe that," he said. "Even as we mourn the lives of those people killed so brutally and unnecessarily the sense, I think, and I hope, within the country, is to pull together and to make sure people can't divide us,"
The government will be cautious and will not introduce authoritarian laws in response to the tragedy, promised Mr Blair, who chaired another meeting of the Cobra civil contingencies committee this morning.
Guardian story
well, oddly, after 9/11 the administration did count to 10 before doing anything. At the time it gave me confidence.
Now we know that the reason they were counting to 10 was because they were trying to figure out how they could use 9/11 to attack Iraq.
So good it needs to be repeated. That's exactly how I felt.
The whole "are people scared to ride the subway now" stuff is ridiculous. Clue to Jeff: people who live in New York, unless they have drivers and limousines, have to ride the subway if they ever want to do anything.
After a 50 car pileup on the highway we never get "are people scared to go out on the road" story. we don't, because it's equally ridiculous - people *have* to go out on the road most places.
No surprise here. It's show biz, baby, except the actors in this case should know better. Sadly, the script is already written - this is your basic terrorism thriller - and they have to make it thrilling according to the formula. They are so excited to be such an important part of the story, as they see it, they can't actually care about hackneyed old-fashioned stuff like "news" or "truth." So we are left with their yammering maws on camera intercut with stark video assembled like movie trailers and wild text bumpers selling the thrills to be had in the next segment. Not to mention the regal inspiration of a sound bite from the Dear Leader.
It is kind of funny to see the Bob Foreheads turn into "experts." One anchor guy on CNN remarked how the "syntax, vocabulary, and style" of the statement posted on the al Queda wannabee web site was reminiscent, in his mind, of terrorist communiques he had known. It's like they have to fill air time and can't even hear their own idiocy.
They didn't get to they really stupid until they had a lot of time to think.
Dunno about that. They'd already had a lot of time to think about Iraq, and I think 9/11 gave them the perfect platform. Attack Afghanistan, show how easily we can nail these terra-ists, then talk up WMD and bogus AQ links to Saddam, and people will follow you to the logical conclusion. Almost like Hitler's maxim of submitting your demands to the vanquished one at a time--we bore one war in the aftermath of 9/11, why not another, especially when we might see mushroom clouds?
Anyway, my point about counting to 10 wasn't so much about BushCo but as the Senate and other guardians of liberty. Allowing PATRIOT to get pushed through, supporting the IWR, etc, all smacks of rushing to stupid.
Blair returns to security briefings Parties show support, but Galloway breaks ranks
Tell him he's a "fraudulant, fatuous, fuck" for me Watertiger.
I'll make sure to summon up extra spittle for all those "f"s. For added humiliation.
A nation of friggin' drama queens.
watertiger
Well put.
I loved thosepic at http://www.werenotafraid.com/. I confess to believing that was how NYers would behave after 9/11 - "Is that all you got?"
Because truly the capability exists to kick their sorry arses all over the universe - unfortunately it doesn't seem to suit the purposes of this corrupt administration.
And fuck bush!
The government will be cautious and will not introduce authoritarian laws in response to the tragedy, promised Mr Blair, who chaired another meeting of the Cobra civil contingencies committee this morning.
Sigh. What's it like, having an adult in charge? (Granted, he's made more than his share of mistakes, but still, at least he can form coherent sentences without a script).
And freakin' Scott Simon is doing his "whispery danger" voice whilst talking to a British "terrorism expert"...
If he's in shopping today (as he and his wife and adoptive daughter sometimes are on Saturday afternoons) I'll ask him to please do his "whispery danger voice" for me.
...no, I won't.
Actually, they're very, very nice people... I try not to listen to him on Saturdays so as to stay on friendly terms.
After a 50 car pileup on the highway we never get "are people scared to go out on the road" story. we don't, because it's equally ridiculous - people *have* to go out on the road most places.
well, that is why i got the fuck out of miami. yikes.
It isn't just about ratings. Fear is entirely basic to the Bushies' social, political, religious and, for all I know, Cheeto-eating policies, and their means of holding onto power.
That's why Britain treating London terror as, while awful, a limited threat to be dealt with mostly by police methods threatens them, and their media lapdogs. Ordinary people, going about their business, are far and away more likely to describe the emperor's new clothes more accurately than they have been here. Tierney, who noted Bush's statement that the 'war on terror' can never be definitively 'won,' resolutely refuses to take the next step and question just how we've been fighting, who, why, and with what result.
"hank you Atrios. You always seem to hit the nail on the head of things I'm thinking about. The way Londoners got up and went to work on Friday just made me cry."
Let me tell what I'm sure is just one story of thousands. In 2001, Siemens Transporation Systems was doing a big job for the Subway system in NYC (affectionately known as "The TA"). The Construction Offices for the project were in Tower 2 of the WTC (close to TA offices). Siemens and TA people had been meeting at 2 WTC everyday, all summer. There were many from both companies in WTC 2 on 9-11-01.
After they evacuated WTC 2, all of the Siemens personnel that were in Tower 2 went home to Germany. Some returned 2 months later, some never returned. Most, if not all TA personnel went to TA offices a few blocks away on 9/11 - All of the TA personnel from WTC 2 went to work on 9/12.
Who can forget the shitting of pants that was displayed by the TV whores when the DC sniper was on the loose?
Luton Muslims ~ Feelings of siege amid fear of blame
I am not a fan of Blair but when I hear him speak or see him on screen I do not laugh out a loud as I do when Bush starts speaking, he is just too darn funny for me to take seriously.
Atrios is right. I also thought that they were being careful and logical before acting but it soon became obvious that they were just trying to fit their Iraq obsession into the scheme of things while giving lip service to fighting bin Laden.
But I really blame the media for working with the terrorists. The terrorists want us scared and the media tries to oblige. They are really unpatriotic in doing that.
They didn't get to they really stupid until they had a lot of time to think.
Atrios
Which is reason for fear as the results of that "skull session" show that the cognitive skills of these idiots approach those of 16 year old children.
BTW , this:
that we as a national collectively crapped our pants
is the line of the day. Your articulation is impeccable, sir.
Sigh. What's it like, having an adult in charge?
watertiger
My recollections goes something like:
peace
prosperity
things so good some of us can obssess over a blowjob
That sound about right?
If I hadn't been riding a subway car with 4 police officers *to* work on Thurs, and 6 on the way home, with 6 more on the steps going down into the Manhattan-bound subway yesterday, and 2 on the platform last night coming home, I probably would have thought a lot less about the subway's vulnerabilities.
I didn't feel safer, though I did recognize that they were there as a deterrent. I just hoped that someone wasn't getting mugged elsewhere in the city while a good proportion of NYCs police officers were underground.
New Yorkers, except those determined to get their 15 minutes of fame by going on TV and discussing their "fear" and "caution" and what-have-you behaved about as calmly as you can hope during a disaster of 9/11s nature.
It's the politicians I'd like to smack. Let's hope that even as Britain's public keeps on keeping on, their government doesn't go apeshit like ours did.
I've said it before, and I'll say
it again:
Something like London is going
to happen on American soil sometime
during Bush's remaining tenure.
And I, er, lack confidence that the
American people won't be so frightened
that they'll gladly give
Bush carte blanche
to shred what's left of the
Constitution.
No, I don't agree that it was "understandable".
Throw out your TVs. I did. When you start going crazy from watching CNN et al, the media terrorists have won.
http://www.martinkramer.org/page...g/pages/899527/
Juan Cole scandalously rewrites history.
Who can forget the shitting of pants that was displayed by the TV whores when the DC sniper was on the loose?
I had been trying, Lime Rickey. Thanks a bunch.
They cancelled the football games at my daughter's high school, along with other assorted lunacies. And of course when her high school band was supposed to go to Scotland to play, that got cancelled because of the threat of "terrorism."
For the self-proclaimed "most powerful nation in the history of the world" we certainly are a bunch of craven chickenshits.
renska,
i was on the subway (and buses) 6 times yesterday. situation normal - 2/3 of the riders in the car plugged in to their portable music systems (myself included), no one making eye contact, a group of loud teenagers trying to outshout one another, one homeless guy asleep in the corner.
So normal that my heart swelled for the teenagers, whom I normally want to punch out for making me turn my ipod volume up so high to drown 'em out that i'm invariably going to go deaf sooner rather than later.
From Digby
It's an interesting insight into the fundamentally anti-democratic nature of the modern Republican party. Evidently a majority means that you shouldn't even have to hear the opposition, much less take their input into consideration. It's quite obvious that Rush is frustrated that even when he wins he doesn't get to rule with total dominance. In fact, he seems more angry now than when The One True party was sharing power. It's a remarkably immature and privileged worldview that says you should not only get your own way in all things but that you should get it without any effort at all.
And it's creepy how preturnaturally sure they seem that they will never lose another election.
Their preternatural certainty is explained by certain facts:
1) they own the whole electoral machinery;
2) they own the whole mass media apparatus;
3) they own the whole discourse of 'security';
4) they own the international terror networks.
you figger it out...
.
After a 50 car pileup on the highway we never get "are people scared to go out on the road" story. we don't, because it's equally ridiculous - people *have* to go out on the road most places.
Atrios - 9:37 am
Alternatively, after the 2004 election trauma a significant number of people are considering leaving the country.
When 9/11 happened here in the US, people in London probably more or less said "Welcome to the Club!". Londoners for many decades have gotten used to IRA bombings. The US has merely joined most of the rest of the world in dealing with terror attacks.
And yes, we are more calm now than we were about 4 years ago. Besides, Iraq has become a much bigger problem than any thought of future terror attacks domestically. Now that I think of it, Iraq has been such a drain on Bush's political capital, he himself has used up any resilience he had with that fateful day.
Obviously, if Bush had actually stayed focused on UBL, that would've been a different story. But alas, Bush doesn't think about him much anymore.
Oh, Christ - Operation Phallic Reference continues. We've moved on to "Operation Scimitar"...
Yes, I noticed that too.
'I pray for the victims, here and in Iraq'
These are edited comments from contributors to the Guardian's Muslim youth forum, which meets annually for discussion and debate
"That is why ultimately, although we have to take the measures necessary, the underlying issues have to be dealt with too," he said.
Blair said that?!
Good for him. That's just excellent.
And if part of the nation crapped its pants on 9/11, it was just following georgie's *lead*.
The rest of us were shocked, but mostly saddened and already asking that we focus on *underlying issues*.
Tragically, georgie focused on Iraq.
OT SNAFUcontinues in Afghanistan - a job that should have been completed some time ago - This is horrible if true - me? I blame president cuckoo bananas http://today.reuters.com/News/
Cr...toryId=SP272262
seriously, the biggest pussies are in wdc. remember the hysteria displayed when the dc sniper was lose, and the recent incursions of airspace by prop planes and the resulting panic as people ran from the capitol.
"Who can forget the shitting of pants that was displayed by the TV whores when the DC sniper was on the loose?"
who can forget the shitting of pants of the bushcriminal as he learned of the 9/11 pants and subsequent shatting in hiding for 3 days - very inspirational.
+
Frankly, I'm far more afraid of
Bush nominating four Supreme
Court Justices than I am of
a terrorist attack.
Sorry.
oops, should be:
"...learned of the 9/11 ATTACKS and..."
Your more likely to die on the M25 during rush hour than in a terrorist attack.
a very cool photo by Mike Segar of AP...
simels,
that's the proper NY spirit. good on ya, mate.
watertiger:
Back at ya!
Remember how after 9/11 Bush said he any country that harbors terrorists is an of the US? Well, Greenpeace seems to have found one of these terrorists living in the US and selling arms to the Special Forces.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/
Funny how the suicide bombings
turned out to be remote control
not-suicide bombings.
The M25 motorway is one of the UK's motorways. It is an orbital motorway that encircles London, and is approximately 117 miles (188 km) in circumference. It is the world's biggest ring road.
(snip)
It is thought to be Europe's busiest motorway: an estimated 200,000 vehicles a day make use of it, up from 100,000 a day in 1987.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M25...ki/
M25_motorway
Bush signs the Book of Condolences.
I just wrote my first letter to the "new" NYT Public Editor, Byron Calame. It was about Friedman's ridiculous assertion yesterday that "no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden." which was lengthily debunked by Juan Cole.
I'll let y'all know what kind of response I get.
The IRA bombings went on and on and on and on.... The most numbing way of life imaginable, never knowing, never being able to prevent anything really. Forget the Blitz - we're talking 15 years ago. Four bombs, however nasty, in one concentrated area at one time with no indication of anything further -
It's not that Londoners are immune to fear and distress - but they're not hysterics as a rule, and the events of the 7th are not hysteria-producing.
Does Bush even know how to write?
Or does he like
Charlemagne need a gold stencil in order to sign his name.
The blog neo-neocon uses 9-11 to justify her turn toward conservatism.
Good point Atrios! I was listening to NPR, I believe, and they were talking about how the people of London have gone about with their business (instead of wailing and gnashing their teeth, of course). When you think of it, though, through the years with the IRA attacks, they already have the stamina and the past experiences to not be shell-shocked.
By the way, if anyone wants to read a good joke, here it is.
Blair wants to focus on "Underlying issues."
All Bush has ever wanted to do was go to war.
Consider the response to the first IRA bombings in London, not so many years ago now. Would it have made sense for Britain to invade the "rest" of Ireland? To claim somehow it could "wipe out" the terrorists of the IRA by exerting even more severe military control over Northern Ireland, and kick but in the Ireland over all, just to make the point?
Nonsense. Invading Afghanistan was always a stupid idea, as stupid as what the USSR did. You can't invade a country, kick out all the social and political and security systems, and then say: "Thanks for a lovely party, we had a good time, good night." Unless you are prepared to make that country the 51st state, or at least a permanent colony (and ask Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, etc., how that works out), you are setting yourself up for a messs you have to walk away from without "victory."
We are still functioning on the "World War II" scenario: we invade the bad guys, take out the "bad" government, and after a couple of years, civilization returns. Happened once. In Germany. And that's more of a tribute to the underlying civilization of what became Nazi Germany than anyone wants to admit, the culture of Schopenhauer and Bach and Beethoven and Hegel and Goethe. It's also because WWII was just the conclusion of WWI, not "a pleasant outing for the troops" and a chance to show the U.S. is the meanest SOB in the Valley.
War. Violence. Responding to death with a greater volume of death. Feh.
Fisk offers a sane perspective.
Little Brøther -
Thank you - I always enjoy reading Robert Fisk. I'm reading the article you link to, right now!
The GOP-owned media is trying to whip up first a feeling if depression and then anger that they hope corresponds to "LETS GET THE BASTARDS...IN IRAQ!"
Then they hope it will result in a "groundswell" of support for the war and georgie...
They hope. They KNOW this will only result in britons saying YOU FUCKERS get the FUCK out of Iraq. It has/HAD NOTHING to do with this bullshit but now because of your FUCKING BULLSHIT "flypaper" mess IT IS NOW WORSE!
Then the faux-news types will say how they are pulling a "spain" for "cuttin' and runnin'" and not resolutin' like georgie who won't cut 'n run.
Fuck I hate these GOP terrorists.
Well, you can tell it's early and I'm not proofreading.
But really? Why do we continue to cling to the idiotic notion that we just haven't used enough violence yet, or used it wisely enough, or with the "right purpose"?
We were "justified in going a little nuts"? No. Children are justified, and only because adults are around to stop them from hurting themselves or doing really stupid things. We are supposed to be adults. We are supposed to know better.
What we learned in 9/11 is that our technology is not our salvation; that it can, in fact, be the source of our destruction. What we learned was that the oceans around us are no longer a barrier to attack. Now THAT was certainly a psychological stunner, but, hey, get over it! The rest of the world showed us sympathy because they knew we'd learned that lesson, at last.
And we reacted like children; not like adults.
End of sermon. Apologies all around for the stridency. I'm off for the first cup of morning java.
I'll be better later.
I have the opportunity in the next little while to move to London for employment. I won't hesitate for a minute to move there.
I am kind of claustrophobic, so I may avoid the Tube as much as possible - mainly because of the idea of the delays that happen daily in the tunnels.
I always thought I was pretty chicken, but I guess I'm braver than I gave myself credit for.
"Invading Afghanistan was always a stupid idea, as stupid as what the USSR did. You can't invade a country, kick out all the social and political and security systems,"
Taliban = "all the social and political and security systems"
!
No matter how horrific the circumstances, the living must go out and about to earn their daily bread. Our visiting right-wing gasbags will use this fact to proclaim that everything is normal is Baghdad.
people did die in the attack. CNN right now has the dolan clowns on.
I don't think desperate is a strong enough word...
check out this screen shot.
shorter fisk: blair caused 7/7
she asked for it, your honor.
i saved a screen grab from CNN's website yesterday with it's screaming headline: WE WERE WAITING TO DIE. Ironically, the head was a misquote from someone talking about getting stuck in the Tube after the attack. If anyone wants a copy, send me an e-mail
"Invading Afghanistan was always a stupid idea, as stupid as what the USSR did. You can't invade a country, kick out all the social and political and security systems,"
Taliban = "all the social and political and security systems"
!
perigord
The rest were warlords, who now run the country.
!
Idiot.
Why do we continue to cling to the idiotic notion that we just haven't used enough violence yet, or used it wisely enough, or with the "right purpose"?
Very nice, Robert.
I was in a discussion yesterday in which I was assured the above. If we "nuke Mecca" then they'll quit.
My reply, "Then we will have a billion mortal Muslim enemies."
Them: "They are already our mortal enemies. Get your head out of the sand."
And on and on.
Needless to say, Clinton was blamed for not getting bin Laden.
Quentin Compson, thanks for that great Judy,Judy,Judy link at 9:19.
I'm really enjoying it.
While the culture of the paper assiduously practices omertà—what happens in the newsroom stays in the newsroom—Miller is cause for reporters to break the code of silence. An unusual number of her co-workers have gone out of their way to separate themselves and their paper from Miller. Few are brave enough to attach their names to the stories, but they all sound a similar refrain. “She’s a shit to the people she works with,” says one. “When I see her coming, my instinct is to go the other way,” says another. They recite her foibles and peccadilloes, from getting temporarily banned by the Times’ D.C. car service for her rudeness to throwing a fit over rearranged items on her desk.
Juan Cole scandalously rewrites history.
Nope. He's guilty of being unclear: he meant Staff Report 16 as part of the entire body of the 9-11 Commission's report. Here's what it says on page 18:
"Bin Ladin had been pressuring KSM for months to advance the attack date. According to
KSM, Bin Ladin had even asked that the attacks occur as early as mid-2000, after Israeli
opposition party leader Ariel Sharon caused an outcry in the Middle East by visiting a
sensitive and contested holy site in Jerusalem that is sacred to both Muslims and Jews.
Although Bin Ladin recognized that Atta and the other pilots had only just arrived in the
United States to begin their flight training, the al Qaeda leader wanted to punish the
United States for supporting Israel. He allegedly told KSM it would be sufficient simply
to down the planes and not hit specific targets. KSM withstood this pressure, arguing
that the operation would not be successful unless the pilots were fully trained and the
hijacking teams were larger.
In 2001, Bin Ladin apparently pressured KSM twice more for an earlier date. According
to KSM, Bin Ladin first requested a date of May 12, 2001, the seven-month anniversary
of the Cole bombing. Then, when Bin Ladin learned from the media that Sharon would
be visiting the White House in June or July 2001, he attempted once more to accelerate
the operation."
Well, if you are going to fight a war, it's not surprising that the other guys will decide at some point to take the battle to your home turf.
Outhouse man lands in hot water again
Associated Press
AUGUSTA, Maine -- A man's arrest two weeks ago after being pulled from an outhouse toilet in New Hampshire has landed him in hot water in Maine. Gary Moody, 45, appeared Thursday in court on a charge of violating his probation by leaving the state and allegedly committing new crimes.
snip
Moody has been free on $250 bail from Carroll County, N.H., where he faces two counts of disorderly conduct and one count of criminal trespass after being found June 26 in the waste tank of a pit toilet on U.S. Forest Service property in Albany, N.H.
Authorities arrived at the scene after a 14-year-old girl heard a noise in the toilet and saw a face looking up at her. Moody was removed by police and was hosed down by firefighters before being arrested.
snip
"He left the state of Maine without permission, and the crimes he is alleged to have committed in New Hampshire are extremely disturbing," the prosecutor said.
In retrospect, the Madrid bombings got far less attention in the US press than they should have. The big concern then seemed to focus on how this affected the Spanish elections, when our clients lost because they tried to deny a connection with a-Q, which would indicate that Spain's Iraq position was a problem.
There seems to be little or no awareness of how this attack in London could affect people in the UK. People can be very courageous, but still be terribly traumatized.
There are still wrecked subway cars way down below in London, with corpses that need to be retrieved. BBC reports said that this is hard to do, because of heat, danger of collapses in narrow tunnels already damaged, and masses of panicked vermin running around. But they're doing it.
As a European journal said, it's "our worst nightmares come true." The news here seems to be focusing on a handful of Americans who were injured instead, and comments focus on how changes of opinion due to the London bombings may impact our own government's overseas policy goals.
RMJ - Agreed, and by operating on that standard we are playing to the terrorists. I said yesterday that terrorism thrives on publicity and this country's media has bent over backwards to oblige. As has this country's present government.
It's a total cock-up - a mess. Has been all along because we have such a damned immature administration. Lord god, I despise these people so.
And we reacted like children; not like adults.
Indeed. Or perhaps like teenagers.
A film festival battle in Michigan
Associated Press
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. -- A film festival being organized by left-wing director Michael Moore has some right-wing competition.
Moore
A local activist and a conservative group from Texas said Wednesday they were putting together an alternative to the Traverse City Film Festival, which Moore and residents of this Lake Michigan community are organizing.
Snip.
The alternative festival would feature a dozen movies, including favorites such as Top Gun and Raiders of the Lost Ark. The others will be independent, politically oriented productions. Among them: In the Face of Evil, a tribute to Ronald Reagan; Confronting Iraq, a defense of the war in Iraq sponsored by the conservative group Accuracy in Media; and Michael Moore Hates America.
If that outhouse guy in Maine doesn't stop he's gonna end up getting shit on one of these days...
oh wait...
"Nope. He's guilty of being unclear: "
he's guilty of rewriting history, both that of 9/11 and his own weblog. jenin had zilch to do with 9/11. cole knows he was busted, so he went back and erased it from his own weblog.
and visiting the temple mount is not a 'policy' since sharon was not prime minister at the time.
I was riding my bike all over London on Thursday. As an American I was curious how people would respond. Except for people walking home I couldn't tell a difference.
Cole, again:
"According to the September 11 Commission report, al-Qaeda conceived 9/11 in some large part as a punishment on the US for supporting Ariel Sharon's iron fist policies toward the Palestinians."
Do you believe this is true?
Latest news on London bombing:
an Anglo-Morrocan man who was linked to the Madrid bombings being sought
AQ sends a second message claiming responsibility
still 20 bodies in one subway train that haven't been recuperated
And Bush and Blair are still stupid and criminal
A second Terrorist group claims responsibility for London attacks...
NTodd,
Cole's defenders have said he's only guilty of being unclear before.
But how can you say that now?
First, he wrote: "Bin Laden had wanted to move the operation up in response to Sharon's threatening visit to the Temple Mount, and again in response to the Israeli attack on the Jenin refugee camp, which left 4,000 persons homeless."
Then he changed that, without making any kind of public correction, to this: "Bin Laden had wanted to move the operation up in response to Sharon's threatening visit to the Temple Mount, and again in response to Sharon's crackdown in spring of 2001."
Of course, Jenin happened after 9/11. So he had to change that when someone alerted him to that factual issue - but then he changed it to some alleged Sharon crackdown in the Spring of 2001. The sections of the 9/11 report you cite do not mention any Sharon crackdown at all, but his "threatening" visit to the Haram al-Sharif/Temple (reference by Cole, yes) Mount and a planned visit to the White House. How do either of those constitute "Sharon's crackdown in spring of 2001"?
You honestly believe that "crackdown = visit to Temple Mount/planned visit to White House"?
Come on. He just made that up. What's the problem with admitting that?
Can anyone tell me the name of another Middle East correspondent who was very anti-war before the build up to war? I think he's Austrailian. I can't remember his name, but when Little Brother posted the Fisk article, I was reminded that I hadn't read anything by this guy, lately. What is his name?
Indeed. Or perhaps like teenagers.
Echidne of the snakes
Child minds in adult bodies.
oldwhitelady,
You're probably thinking of John Pilger - but there are other anti-War Aussie journalists.
This letter appeared in the St. Pete Times on the 8th. What I wonder is when the left is going to call the right on this crap and state the obvious fact... The American Right is populated with a bunch of abject cowards. Have you ever in your life heard this kind of rhetoric from Americans? It's absolute abject cowardice, and we need to start calling it that. It's a disgrace.
Well? Has the Times and its liberal mind-set gotten the message yet? Probably not. Central London might as well be Times Square or downtown St. Petersburg.
As long as the leftist media and their comrades in the government continue to fight against the Patriot Act and similar antiterrorist measures, we will certainly face another attack by Islamic fanatics bent on destruction and the death of innocents.
It's time to pull out the stops and get serious about these terrorist lowlifes! And some people want to close Gitmo? One thing is for certain: None of those detainees had anything to do with the London bombings, because, thank God, they're behind bars!
I'd rather lose some "rights" than lose my life.
It is one of the most telling things about both the New York-DC bombings and the London bombings is how our alleged news media have an allergic reaction to trying to find out why people would go to the bother of killing people in those cities. Scott Simon stated baldly this morning that he's not interested in the reason for it. Rather astounding in a "news man". What this tells us are two things:
First, our media isn't interested in the news but only in shoving the opinion around.
Second, our oligarchs don't want the reasons explored because it would not be in their interest for people to find those out.
Third, NPR is a whore house posing as an information source.
How is anyone supposed to understand this rather important issue if the reasons they happen is covered up or made up instead of researched and reported? Intellegnt Design?
And why is it that the deaths of Americans and Britans are more worthy or reporting than the much larger numbers of Iraqis who have died in American and British bombing? This is a rhetorical question. We know, don't we?
Drink your java, RMJ, but don't get better, please.
I appreciate the sermon, although that doesn't mean too much, coming as it does from a member of the choir.
Don't park by the blueberry bushes though; when you get back to the car, you'll find streaks and splatters of perigord all over the windshield.
Make that three things. I'll get the hang of Preview, eventually.
Ignore the idiotic troll.
Ah, it's hot in the Athens of the South at 9:24 on this fine Saturday morning. I got a lovely wake-up beep from my phone at 8:04... it was T-Mobile, sending me a text message, thanking me for paying my bill yesterday! That could not have waited until later today, I'm sure. 
Bastiges.
Oh well, I wanted to get up and fulfill a request made last night by a very special Atriot, so, it's all good.
.
Mideast press condemns London attacks
Many Arabic papers worry that the bomb blasts which shook London on Thursday have sullied the name of Islam.
Some point at the same time to the "inevitability" of the attacks and link them directly to UK actions in Iraq.
In Israel, commentators exhort British officials to take a tougher line against "terror".
A second Terrorist group claims responsibility for London attacks...
dionysus
The BBC has that, too, and is pointing out, quite reasonably, that it's a bit early to decide responsibility:
A claim for the attacks has been made in the name of al-Qaeda - by a group calling itself the Abu Hafs al-Masri brigade.
But the BBC's security correspondent Gordon Corera has urged caution over the credibility of the claim.
Forensic teams working in Tube tunnels and at the other scenes of the blasts are taking swabs to try to determine the type of explosives used.
...
Police are also involved in one of the UK's biggest searches of CCTV footage to see if there are any clues as to the identity of the bombers.
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said there were a number of key questions which investigators were analysing.
"One of the most important is were the bombers home-grown British terrorists or was this a hit team that came in from abroad?" he said.
One possibility being investigated was that the bomb maker was an expert who came and instructed the bombers.
Another area was to see if they were "linked directly" to what was left of the core of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan or acting alone.
Wow. Investigation rather than jumping to conclusions.
What'll those crazy furriners think of next?
oldwhitelady,
You're probably thinking of John Pilger - but there are other anti-War Aussie journalists.
SoCalJustice | Email | 07.09.05 - 10:28 am | #
Ding ding ding!
That is the name I was looking for!
THANK YOU
It seems that a progressive christian organization has ruffled Falwell's feathers enough for him to comment on it:
Falwell Confidential
Insider weekly newsletter to The Moral Majority Coalition and The Liberty Alliance
http://www.moralmajority.us
From: Jerry Falwell
Date: July 8, 2005
ANOTHER GROUP ARRIVES TO COMBAT THE ‘RELIGIOUS RIGHT’
Last month, a new leftist religious organization announced its inception to battle the alleged domination that Dr. James Dobson, Pat Robertson and I have on modern-day politics. This organization, the Christian Alliance for Progress, is hardly “Christian.”
You may say, Falwell, that’s a pretty harsh statement. Well, let’s take a look at this new group so we can determine if they are actually exhibiting the precepts of true Christianity.
In announcing its formation, the Christian Alliance for Progress unveiled what it called its “Jacksonville Declaration,” an open letter to the political and church leaders of the religious right, which “challenges and invites them to return to a Christian foundation of compassion and justice, values that Jesus passionately taught and lived.”
First, the sole purpose for Jesus’ ministry on earth was stated in His own words: “… for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:30). Any organization that deems to calls itself “Christian,” simply must have as its basis the reality that Jesus asserted that salvation could come only through Him.
I wonder if the leadership of the Christian Alliance for Progress would state that Jesus Christ, who conquered death following His crucifixion, is the singular avenue to eternal life in heaven? If not, how can the name Christian be suitable for this organization?
Second, the Christian Alliance for Progress says it will “speak out when conservative Christians misrepresent the gospel to support their misguided political positions.” These positions include “equality for gays and lesbians” and “honoring the sanctity of childbearing decisions through effective prevention, not criminalization of abortion.”
It sounds like the Alliance got its talking points from Howard Dean. The group is simply falling in line with untold numbers of past liberal church groups that have promoted abortion-rights, homosexual rights and anti-war sentiments.
Joseph Loconte recently commented in the Wall Street Journal (July 1, 2005) that while the Christian Alliance for Progress claims to be “firmly founded on the teachings of the Gospel,” students of the Gospel “may be surprised at how neatly such an agenda fits the Democratic Party platform.”
Here is a reality of the Bible: it clearly forbids homosexual behavior and, for that matter, any sexual activity outside the bonds of male-female marriage. The Word of God unmistakably speaks against homosexual behavior in Romans chapter 1, describing a time in history when, as today, men and women gave themselves over to unnatural sexual relations. There can be no mistaking that these passages condemn same-sex relationships.
The Christian Alliance for Progress can label themselves “Christian,” but they are willfully daring to distort and dispute biblical writings forbidding homosexuality.
Further, abortion is clearly not the will of God. The Bible does not expressly address abortion, but in Psalm 139, we see a beautiful and remarkable picture of Almighty God ministering to us even within the womb:
“But you covered my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Marvelous are Your works” (Psalm 139: 13, 14)
Bottom line: personhood begins in the womb at conception; and the Bible is clear — “Thou shalt not kill.”
I often wonder how in the world leftist theologians can read this dramatic passage and continue to be lost in their abortion-rights quagmire.
The Christian Alliance for Progress describes themselves as “progressive,” but their so-called broad-minded efforts toward tolerance have blinded them to how the Bible instructs us to live.
Finally, the Alliance calls for peace and an end to war, but they cannot understand that the only true peace that man can know comes through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. He was not a hippie do-gooder, but rather the Son of the Living God who came to earth to pave the one way to heaven for mankind. To present Him as anything less is an outrage.
Dr. Ed Hindson, renowned theologian and Liberty University professor, writing in the August issue of National Liberty Journal, stated: “If liberals want to debate these issues on biblical grounds, let them go right ahead. Because they will lose, not only the debate, but also any influence they might hope to have among spiritually minded people. They are correct when they insist we do not speak for them and they certainly don’t speak for us. Their new Alliance for Progress will simply result in one more organization in regress.”
Many Americans are seeking to discover the true peace of Christ and real meaning for their lives. While evangelical Christians will continue to be denounced and despised by the fashionable left, we must continue to devotedly and passionately take the truth of the Gospel into the world.
It is my sincere pleasure and privilege to be laughed at and scorned because I have chosen to walk with and live out my life in servitude to the Christ of the Bible.
That is the name I was looking for!
THANK YOU
oldwhitelady | Homepage | 07.09.05 - 10:32 am | #
Cheers.
Karin: Ignore the idiotic troll.
What trool?
Don't step in the Santorum, I always say...
.
Erik, don't you have some doorbells to ring this morning?
dionysus--
that last post is, I suddenly realize, liable to being misunderstood.
I didn't mean you were jumping to conclusions. I was thinking of the Administration's response to 9/11: shoot first, don't ask questions later.
Now we have two groups "linked" to Al Qaeda, claiming responsibility. And the British seem fairly determined to find out just who is responsible.
Good on 'em.
NTodd,
Cole's defenders have said he's only guilty of being unclear before.
But how can you say that now?
NTodd like George Bush is pathologically incapable of admitting error.
Correction:
NTodd like George Bush and Juan Cole is pathologically incapable of admitting error.
Ba'al, did he have a bucket with him? If he was let out 'on bail' he could have thought it was a condition of his release.
Erik, have you sold everything you have, given the money to the poor and taken up your cross? Do you judge? And if you do are you ready to be judged? In other words, how far are you willing to go to really live out your life in servitude to the Christ of the Bible instead of the pantomime Jesus of the fundamentalists?
Erik - It is my sincere pleasure and privilege to be laughed at and scorned because I have chosen to walk with and live out my life in servitude to the Christ of the Bible.
Oh you suffer something wonderful, Erik, really. All you xians do. It's a sight to behold, all you sufferin' xian martyrs.
A second group claims responsibility...
Another babka?
I was listening to the radio this morning, and the Satellite Sisters were talking to an American woman living in London.
She said the English were pretty calm thru the whole thing, and picked up their kids at teh end of the day. Schools were locked down (I hate that phrase) and no one carrying any kind of package was allowed in. But everybody stayed in class and did their work. The schools her kids attend were not close to any of the stops that were hit. It was only hte American parents who took their kids home early.
Most business stayed open Thursday and were open Friday, except those close to the bomb sites.
This woman was very matter of fact about it, but I get the impression she freaked initially, but was impressed by the native Londoners.
NTodd seems to have fans of the freaky variety. They could almost be stalkers.
Ba'al wagers on the following: The Wingnut media will soon expound on the following meme (if they have not done so already):
"those pathetic Europeans have TERRORISTS WITHIN THEIR MIDSTS and need to GET THEIR HOUSE IN ORDER and probably deserve this for not being TOUGH ENOUGH. We are 'Murkins and being better and tougher not to mention more religious have long since ERRADICATED any such threat of domestic terror owing to Our Leader. Except that we need to eliminate the commie parts of the constitution to protect freedom"
Of course, Oklahoma City cannot be considered domestic terror because the perps were not brown Islamofacists, but whatever.
Cole's defenders have said he's only guilty of being unclear before.
But how can you say that now?
Because he was. I've been exchanging e-mail with Martin Kramer on the subject right now. The Jenin thing was wrong, but everything else he said was accurate. Note he never claimed Sharon was PM at the time, nor does Cole say Sharon was the sole reason--he observes that Sharon's iron-fisted approach to the I/P conflict, and his visit to Temple Mount, are part of the reasons why OBL launched 9/11.
while the Christian Alliance for Progress claims to be “firmly founded on the teachings of the Gospel,” students of the Gospel “may be surprised at how neatly such an agenda fits the Democratic Party platform.”
(Imagine, if you will, the cartoon image of a character's eyes popping out of his head on springs, and the accompanying 'BOINNGGGGG!" sfx.)
For is it not odd that gospels of passing judgment, taking vengeance through killing, Old Testament retribution, and a belief that only a Saved Christian who parrots the beliefs of an EXTREMELY narrow interpretation of the Bible can lead the US -- is it not a MAD COINCIDENCE that this fits in neatly with the agenda of the Republican Party?
If any of these so-called "christians" actually had to give up their comfortable lifestyles, they'd renounce "God" and "Jesus" in a heartbeat with no regrets. "Fuck that stupid hippie! I'm not giving up my SUV!"
Erik posted a lengthy screed from Falwell, who was trying (as usual) to claim Jesus as the Exclusive Property of the Republican Party.
might help to read the whole thing
After a while peole will get that this hyped up fear and security is but another way for some peope to make lots of cash... and for nothing.
Clearly we need some reasonable level of security. But short of a full blown fascist police state there is no way to stop random acts of terror... in complex urbanc environments, for example,... if someone wants to do mischief. All the security is just making them find some other place.
No one feels safer with armed patrols everywhere and bag searches every place. We are growing weary and annoyed at the inconvenience.
We need to look for more fundamental causes for the things which represent a threat to our pease and "security".
Some people live in gated communities to remove themselves from the "problem"... but terrorism, like crime and poverty can be overcome without the use of gated communities and hyped of secutity everywhere.
But they money is to be made in a corporate police state and so that is how we will attempt to solve the "problem" of terrorism.
The Israelis have been fighting and dying.. and killing for their security and are hardly better after decades of trying. Desparate people will take desparate measures... always
One thing you won't see in the British press - criticism of British intelligence.
If you read French or German, look at the other European papers and there are all kinds of stories about the problems that the other intelligence services were having in dealing with the British - the Germans in particular, but also the French, were complaining about the laxity of the British vis a vis their very large Islamist population. They felt that the Brits lack of supervision of these dangerous elements was putting all of Europe at risk. And, they also felt that their countries were unfairly being talked about as "teeming" with Islamists when London was being called Londonistan for the very large number of Muslim fundamentalists there.
Erik - It is my sincere pleasure and privilege to be laughed at and scorned because I have chosen to walk with and live out my life in servitude to the Christ of the Bible.
Onward, Christian masochist!
nick, that's the risk of posting something that long. And with all the parody trolls and the real trolls how can anyone be sure?
Quentin -
Thanx for the link to the article about Judy. I think her connection with Laurie Mylroie should've been mentiond but it was a good article nonetheless.
and visiting the temple mount is not a 'policy' since sharon was not prime minister at the time.
Uh...it's what sparked the al-Aqsa Intifada.
It is my sincere pleasure and privilege to be laughed at and scorned because I have chosen to walk with and live out my life in servitude to the Christ of the Bible.
Well, Ba'al would not like to deprive you of pleasure or privilege. Is there something that you find really really humiliating that might help you practice your religion?
And Erik - kindly move over there and quit bleeding on my rugs, would you?
It is my sincere pleasure and privilege to be laughed at and scorned because I have chosen to walk with and live out my life in servitude to the Christ of the Bible.
Shorter Erik:
I am a victim! Pity me.
I live in the biggest, fattest, most powerful nation in the world. Pity me.
I am a member of the party that controls all three branches of government and the media. Pity me.
My belly is always full. There is always a roof over my head. I always have clothes on my back. Pity me.
Pity me. Pity me. Pity me.
pssst. clean sheets upstairs.
he observes that Sharon's iron-fisted approach to the I/P conflict
he didnt say "approach" he said 'policies,' and they're not Israel's policies if he's in the opposition.
nor does Cole say Sharon was the sole reason
he said "in some large part" which is plainly false, and he said "conceived" not timed. Jesus man, can't you say "I'm wrong" so much as once?
Nevermind terror -- whatever happened to the Friday Catflogging?
Ba'al -- made me literally LOL.
"Uh...it's what sparked the al-Aqsa Intifada."
Uh, it's not 'policy' and uh it's not what conceived 9/11 in any part let alone a "great part".
I read Erik's comment 3 times and that last statement looks and reads as though it is Erik who is saying it.
If it isn't, Erik can clarify it - and if he was quoting Falwell, then consider my comments addressed to Falwell.
Otherwise, it is helpful if one indicates what is a quote from someone else and what isn't.
visiting the temple mount is not a 'policy' since sharon was not prime minister at the time.
It was a provocative act, which was known to be provocative before it was done in order to further Sharon's political career. It was provocative, people ended up getting killed in large numbers and it furthered Sharon's career.
RMJ:
Yup. Violence begets more violence. Always has, always will. And your 3-year-old child is just as dead in a 'just war' as in a 'war of aggression.' The last refuge of the incompetent, and the first of the scoundrel.
It would be nice to be governed by people who understood that the superficial verisimilitude of a Tom Clancy story, and the easy popcorn thriller with astounding special effects and comic book characters, diverge deeply from reality: that unfettered, competent execution of violence and loyalty to one's group of warriors aren't enough, and have consequences other that those intended.
Wouldn't it?
Erik, next time just link to the damn thing, will ya?
Uh oh, someone's being critical of Sharon! YOU MUST HATE JEWS!!!
Come on folks, the WWII blitz and the London Fire of 1666 were nothing compared the transit attacks! {snark}
I still don't understand how these media goofballs have jobs that don't involve drive thru windows.
The Jenin thing was wrong, but everything else he said was accurate.
Ok, so you're not bothered by the lack of public forthrightness with the Jenin assertion - fine, that's up to you.
Most other bloggers would cop to that mistake with a public correction - but fine.
Still, you say he's being unclear. How is the assertion of a Sharon spring 2001 crackdown merely unclear?
No one's accusing Cole of having said that Sharon was PM at the time. But, first off, the leader of the opposition in most countries cannot order any crackdowns.
Second, do you have a cite - in the 9/11 report or anywhere else - for this alleged crackdown (of course, he's not just stating there was a Sharon crackdown, but that it was the reason OBL wanted to move up the 9/11 attacks) about which you think is merely J.C. being unclear?
Again, the 9/11 report says it's visits to the Al-Aqsa complex and the White House. Cole says it's the visit to the Al-Aqsa complex and a Sharon spring 2001 crackdown.
That's not just being unclear. That is incorrect.
NAZI!!!FUCKING NAZI!!!
he didnt say "approach" he said 'policies,' and they're not Israel's policies if he's in the opposition.
I see, so an opposition cannot espouse policies? Then why do you guys keep asking Democrats for them?
he said "in some large part" which is plainly false, and he said "conceived" not timed.
I disagree that "in some large part" is false. And yes, he said "conceived", which is why I think he is guilty of being unclear. It is obvious from the 9-11 commission info that Bin Laden had in mind (in other words 'conceived') punishing the US for supporting Israeli policies, and that the Temple Mount visit by Sharon was an explicit, symbolic act requiring retribution.
Jesus man, can't you say "I'm wrong" so much as once?
Not when I'm right.
Erik's lead in sentence should be the tip-off he isn't trolling: "It seems a progressive Christian organization has ruffled Falwell's feathers..."
but yeah, an excerpt & link would have been better...
Uh oh, someone's being critical of Sharon! YOU MUST HATE JEWS!!!
BlakNo1
That's the other shoe isn't it? Leaves out the fact that both Palestinians and Israelis get killed when these stunts are indulged in, doesn't it?
I'll repeat myself until it stops being true, If we don't care about 'thieir' lives, they have no reason to care about 'ours'.
It's not only Americans though. The Brit war mongers are also creaming over the possibility that 7/7 will result in a terrorism is the world's only problem change of heart for former "liberals"
http://
hurryupharry.bloghouse.ne...heart_watch.php
Harry's Place has been jumping the shark for a while now, and the terror attacks have given them cover to pull a full LGF. It's pretty sad to see happen in blog-time.
he observes that Sharon's iron-fisted approach to the I/P conflict, and his visit to Temple Mount, are part of the reasons why OBL launched 9/11.
Uh, 9/11 was launched many years before the visit to the Temple Mount by then-opposition leader Sharon. His iron-fisted approach to the I/P conflict could hardly have mattered when it WAS launched in 1995 under Rabin and/or Peres.
"Uh...it's what sparked the al-Aqsa Intifada."
Uh, it's not 'policy' and uh it's not what conceived 9/11 in any part let alone a "great part".
Uh...it was the policy of Sharon and his party to assert control over a controversial symbol, and that IS in at least "some large part" of why the intifada flared up, and that is in "some large part" of the entire tapestry of OBL's desire to attack the US: we support Israel to the detriment of the Palestinians.
And that is merely one example. Do you really think everything happens in a vacuum? That Sharon and his party never did anything else that just might piss off the Palestinians and OBL?
You, who tell us that Dems should watch what they say because the bad guys hear it, now say that Sharon was invisible because he was in opposition? Fascinating.
Further, Martin Kramer claims that there's no mention of Sharon in the 9-11 commission's report. That's disingenuous because the report is not the only thing they released, as evidenced by Staff Report 16.
Instead of trying to play "gotcha" when somebody is writing stuff on the fly on a very dark, confusing day, maybe you could engaged Juan instead. I've written to both Martin Kramer and Juan Cole just this morning to clear things up.
But you'd rather debate words like 'policy' and phrases like 'in some large part' in Clintonian fashion.
Right on, EPT.
Uh, 9/11 was launched many years before the visit to the Temple Mount by then-opposition leader Sharon.
Sharon visited Temple Mount on 9/28/2000. Thanks for playing.
His iron-fisted approach to the I/P conflict could hardly have mattered when it WAS launched in 1995 under Rabin and/or Peres.
They were following Oslo and other peaceful approaches. Not fast enough for OBL, perhaps, but Arafat was on board at the time. 9/11 was originally conceived (heh) in 1999. Sharon was a vocal opponent of the soft approach to the PA. Hence, the policies he advocated, which began to gain traction in Israeli politics and culminating in his becoming PM in 2001, are in some large part why OBL wanted to attack the US.
Sorry people, I got it in email form. Was lenghty. I thought haloscan would cut it off but posted the whole thing. Went away for a little bit then came back saw the uproar. Sorry again.
The WSJ has a story on just how London has been coping in the aftermath of the bombings. I thought this line in particular was striking: "London Metropolitan Police bulletins issued to the media and carried live on television continued to refer to "a major incident," not an attack, even as evening rolled in."
From the moment that the bombings happened, the American media, by contrast and Fox News in particular, were banging the "terror" drum. In the face of waning global support for our reactions following 9/11, the American press seemed morbidly desperate have a partner in misery. What's more, the bombings were seized upon as an opportunity to say "I told you so," to those who said terror isn't #1.
This isn't a football game. We should not express glee that others have died, or dejection that some others did not. The American press displays an alarming disregard for history; with the Blitz, IRA bombings, Lockerbie, et cetera, the British have come to be very familiar with terror -- as most Europeans have too. America does really have a history of violence against its cities and citizenry, so our virgin reactions are understandable. But we mustn't try to project our anxities upon others.
There is also a lesson here for the Bush administration: people won't stay afraid forever.
But you'd rather debate words like 'policy' and phrases like 'in some large part' in Clintonian fashion.
Read what the Israeli papers are saying about the London attacks.
Beat those drums, boys.
Sickening.
I was actually going to say how this falwell statement could be ripped to shreds and by the looks of your comments I was right. Good job guys.
might help to read the whole thing
nick carraway - 10:41 am
Nick, it's true that all too often, people carelessly glance at or skim through posts and pile on the poster based on some misconception.
However, I think it would be better in the first place if people offered links or salient quotes rather than pasting lengthy articles or other large blocks of text into comments. Even long-winded origninal posts, occasionally favored by Your Humble Narrator, DAS, and DWD et al, are problematic and prone to being misunderstood or rejected out of scrollbar. It's an assumed risk.
Spamming comments threads is not the best approach.
Allowing Sharon to visit the Temple Mount, along with a large security contingent, was an Israeli govt. POLICY decision, a controversial one at the time.
Rule #1: Don't talk about Fight Club
...
Rule #17: Don't argue with those who insist on constructing narrowly-defined contexts for their assertions.
.
I didn't mean you were jumping to conclusions. I was thinking of the Administration's response to 9/11: shoot first, don't ask questions later.
Now we have two groups "linked" to Al Qaeda, claiming responsibility. And the British seem fairly determined to find out just who is responsible.
Good on 'em.
Rmj, Wandering Aengus
I understood your point, no offense taken. If you notice in my post, it stated that a new terrorist was claiming and that it was "reported", my take is the comic theater of it all. The US media trying to crank up the fear, terrorist groups fight for "glory", and the Londoners just carrying on, really just emphasizes the absurdity of both parties fight their holy war.
and that is in "some large part" of the entire tapestry of OBL's desire to attack the US
lol. Cole didnt mean what he said! he meant this other bland comment about tapestries and overall attitudes!
Sharon had NO large (or even small) part in 9/11's conception or execution, period. Cole is full of shit, and you are full of shit for defending him.
" a controversial one at the time."
and it had nothing to do with the conception of 9/11. "thanks for playing"
Read what the Israeli papers are saying about the London attacks.
Beat those drums, boys.
Sickening.
I'm not sure I follow, and I'm pretty sure you're not pie.
Allowing Sharon to visit the Temple Mount, along with a large security contingent, was an Israeli govt. POLICY decision, a controversial one at the time.
Bingo.
Erik - apology accepted and thanks for the clarification.
So - disregard those parts of my comments that I addressed directly to you and consider them addressed to all the sufferin' American Xians out there, who just bleed and bleed and bleed and yet refuse to die.
" maybe you could engaged Juan instead."
Because Juan doesnt take kindly to critics, doesnt respond to critical email, and doesnt allow comments on his website. you seem happy enough to defend his lies, so Im equally happy to address you instead.
periwinkle - As I told Martin Kramer mere moments ago, if Cole had said "originally conceived", I would agree with you 100%. Yet the word 'conceive' has several meanings. I can, for example, conceive of you as an asshat. That's not the first time I've thought that.
I'll let y'all know what kind of response I get.
Karin | Email | 07.09.05 - 9:59 am | #
I've written at least a half a dozen and all I've gotten back is the automated "we got your e-mail" in reply.
"maybe you could engaged Juan instead."
Because Juan doesnt take kindly to critics, doesnt respond to critical email, and doesnt allow comments on his website. you seem happy enough to defend his lies, so Im equally happy to address you instead.
Oh, you know this about Juan because you've engaged him constructively instead of calling him a piece of shit?
You and the other people attacking Cole are saying he is 'lying' about 'facts'. You have yet to provide an objective fact that he has lied about--rather, your sole basis for critique is on subjective interpretation of the facts.
That's fine. You can have a different opinion. But don't tell me he's lying.
Sheep go to heaven
Traitors go to jail
Go to jail
Go to jail
Go to... jail
Go to jail
.
"
Instead of trying to play "gotcha" when somebody is writing stuff on the fly on a very dark, confusing day"
Oh man this is weak.
It's important to understand why Sharon had very little to with 9/11's execution or conception. You seem unable to admit even that sterile fact.
saying he is 'lying' about 'facts'.
Don't you mean 'lying' 'about' 'facts'?
So, I see in this morning headlines that Tony Blair is offering therapy and understanding for the terrorists.
Care to comment Karl?
I'm not sure I follow.
Did you read the editorials/commentary posted in the BBC article?
Like this one:
Four years ago the Western world declared war on Islamic terrorism. But Europe wasted this time mainly in chatter about terrorism.
It's important to understand why Sharon had very little to with 9/11's execution or conception. You seem unable to admit even that sterile fact.
It's very important to understand that Sharon was not an impotent player in Israeli politics or policymaking. It's very important to understand that OBL wanted to punish the US for supporting policies that Sharon espoused and actions he took as a leading figure in government. Them's the facts.
Don't you mean 'lying' 'about' 'facts'?
Nope. When I type too fast I do make minor mistakes, but nothing like that. I generally write what I mean.
I remember when the IRA left a few incendiaries in central Oxford. (June 1993.) We were stuck within two cordons: had to evacuate college, but couldn't go more than a few hundred yards outside the evacuated area.
We went to the pub and drank it dry.
'Get on with it' is the order of the day.
Did you read the editorials/commentary posted in the BBC article?
What BBC article? You had no link in the comment to which I was responding.
Oh, and Tucker Carlson can fuck right off: he'd been in London for 18 hours, and was berating British Muslims for 'not doing enough to condemn terrorism'. Twat. And that goes for all the other US news-whores flown into London on Friday.
And here's why we're going through this in the first place. Read and ponder the future that may or may not be.
WAR ON TERROR: THE KILLER BEE POLICY
RIGHT HERE
New Yorkers didn't panic. I was there. Some of my colleagues watched the towers collapse (we had a clear view from our windows) and then went back to their desks and continued to do their jobs. The evacuation of the city was very slow but orderly and without hysteria. I was in a car creeping north toward the Bronx, and on the Upper West Side people were shopping and dining as usual. There were long lines around hospitals, however, because people were donating blood in record numbers. I saw people walking north on 8th Avenue, covered in dust but quiet. I wasn't in the towers themselves, but when you consider that tens of thousands of people evacuated down many flights of stairs in an orderly manner, it,s something of a miracle.
These past couple of days I keep hearing that "we were hysterical, but those Brits are so calm." That's just wrong. The rest of America may have been hysterical, but Manhattan was not.
What BBC article?
Hey, settle down. The one Moonbootica posted above,including:
In Israel, commentators exhort British officials to take a tougher line against "terror".
Hence, my drum-beating remark.
Okay?
Oh, and Tucker Carlson can fuck right off: he'd been in London for 18 hours, and was berating British Muslims for 'not doing enough to condemn terrorism'.
I'm sure he went deep into the British Muslim Community to find out. I'm sure he could do that all right from the hotel restaurant.
That's discouraging, Steve J.
Shameless self-advertising, but I have a post on this at Phronesisaical. Welcome any and all.
These past couple of days I keep hearing that "we were hysterical, but those Brits are so calm." That's just wrong. The rest of America may have been hysterical, but Manhattan was not.
Maha is right. That's the way I remember it, too.
Hey, settle down.
I wasn't getting riled. I asked a question, given that you said something apparently referring to an article I didn't see linked by you.
Hence, my drum-beating remark.
Okay?
Now I get it. Thanks.
The rest of America may have been hysterical, but Manhattan was not.
I think the media and the administration created and fed the hysteria fever which some Americans subsequently caught.
The feeding continues.
BTW, to his credit, Martin Kramer has been very reasonable in our e-mail exchange. Not surprisingly, we haven't convinced each other, but he was very cordial.
PS--I cc'd Juan Cole on a few of my replies so maybe he'll jump in at some point.
Now I get it. Thanks.
You're welcome. Sorry I wasn't clearer.
I think the media and the administration created and fed the hysteria fever which some Americans subsequently caught.
What, you think yelling "OHMYGODWEREALLGONNADIE!!!!!" over and over again had an impact?
"PS--I cc'd Juan Cole on a few of my replies so maybe he'll jump in at some point."
Cole the Magnificent directly engaging the loathsome neocon Likudnik Martin Kramer?
Not bloody likely!
These past couple of days I keep hearing that "we were hysterical, but those Brits are so calm." That's just wrong. The rest of America may have been hysterical, but Manhattan was not.
Originally it was only BushCo that was hysterical. Then they turned that hysteria into policy.
You're welcome. Sorry I wasn't clearer.
No worries. The post just had the trappings of a namestealer: no link, a homepage I'd not seen with your moniker before, so I figured you weren't you. Sorry about that.
Cole the Magnificent directly engaging the loathsome neocon Likudnik Martin Kramer?
Not bloody likely!
And you know this how, exactly?
What, you think yelling "OHMYGODWEREALLGONNADIE!!!!!" over and over again had an impact?
Mortimer and Martha in West Podunk, USA sure were impacted as they sat in their recliners glued to Faux.
"
And you know this how, exactly?"
I know this from reading Cole every day, and noticing how infrequently he links to Kramer even by way of criticism (whereas Kramer links to Cole all the time eg http://www.martinkramer.org/page...99526/
index.htm )
Perhaps you imagine Martin Kramer to be some no-account web stalker rather than a distinguished scholar.
I'd love to see Cole debate Kramer directly. I fear however that Cole knows he's badly outclassed.
As someone who was born in England, has relatives who survived the Battle of Britain, has roots going back centuries, it always amazes me how little americans understand our culture. You would think that they came from another.
We are an old culture and we do not frighten easily. We have had this happen before when the IRA set bombs during their struggle. We will bury and mourn our dead then we will reorganize those ministries , if need be, that screwed up, then we will find those who did it. It might take years, but they will be found and brough to justice as sure as the sun rises.
We do not forget and we do not get intimidated. These people made a big mistake in making it personal and believe me it is. Even though I am an American citizen now, I am British until my death and this is how we all feel.
We are a stubborn lot and fear is something that we do not indulge in, and so, we do not allow it to rule us.
i'd rather that you drop the rathers. they're rather tiring.
You have yet to provide an objective fact that he has lied about--rather, your sole basis for critique is on subjective interpretation of the facts.
That's fine. You can have a different opinion. But don't tell me he's lying.
NTodd | Email | Homepage | 07.09.05 - 11:09 am | #
I think I provided an objective fact which you have failed to address, twice now. Where is the evidence of "Sharon's crackdown in spring of 2001", let alone evidence that (this non-existent) crackdown motivated OBL to move up the 9/11 attacks?
Again, we have some evidence that the al-Aqsa visit and the planned visit to the White House were cited by al-Qaeda as reasons - but nothing about this "Sharon's crackdown in spring of 2001."
Clearly, the irony of a not just a blogger, but a professor of Middle Eastern history writing about events in Jenin which happened in 2002 as any kind of motivation for something that happened in 2001 - and then trying to quietly scrub that from the record - is of no concern to you.
Again, fine.
But if you want to say you're "right" and that this are subjective interpretations, please address how "Sharon's crackdown in spring of 2001" can be subjectively interpreted to be at all true, rather than avoiding that point altogether.
You've posted a ton on this thread, and not quoted that line and described how it could be true - subjective or otherwise.
Please do. Thanks. And for the record, I haven't accused J.C. of lying - but rather - of making stuff up and of trying to scrub the public record without making any public correction.
Those are objectively true observations.
Think about it folks. There's a big difference between 50 people (thusfar) killed 'off camera' and nearly 3000 killed in fireballs and collapsing skyscrapers on endlessly repeated film clips. That being said, I've heard more than a few radio commentators from London suggest that people shouldn't make too much of the 'Spirit of the Blitz' that supposedly prevails in the city (I live in Ireland).
Just thought I would paste this in....I read it after I wrote my own comment.
Very appropo
Terror plan that failed completely
Comment
Jul 9, 2005, 08:27
They planned on terror. They caused death and mayhem, leaving our capital in chaos. But, more than this, they wanted to strike fear into the heart of our nation. They failed.
In London millions of ordinary men and women went back to work as normal. Much of the London Underground is back in action, with people, as they do every day, taking the train, catching a bus or just relying on shanks's pony and walking.
Even the Number 30 bus route - on which a double-decker was torn apart in an explosion on Thursday - is back in service.
And every one of those commuters said the same thing: life goes on, it's time to get back to normal.
We have suffered attacks before. For 30 years our cities - Birmingham, Manchester, London - suffered the constant threat of IRA bombing. But we didn't let fear dominate our lives, we just got on with it.
In a moving tribute to the resilience of the British people, former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani - who led his city through the trauma of 9/11 and was just yards from the first London explosion - said he had modelled his response to the Twin Towers attack on the way we Brits responded to The Blitz in 1940.
And he saw that stoicism and ordinary courage under fire again.
How frustrating it must be to the supporters and leaders of these terrorists - their plans to crush our spirit have come to nothing.
These desperate people live by fear and violence. It is their stock in trade, to terrorise by the threat of killing and maiming.
We are different. We are a peaceful people who hate violence. These terrorists made the mistake that our hatred of violence somehow makes us weak. They could not be more wrong. We hate violence because we have had to live through it so many times before. We fight back, we dig in and we overcome.
And we do not let the threat of violence dominate us or change us. We live our lives the way we choose, without letting terrorists dictate what we can and cannot do.
That is why millions of Londoners went back to work as normal.
They know what they are doing. Any of those questioned had the same answer: we can't let the terrorists win.
We win by carrying on as normal. By living our lives in the freedom won by our parents, our grandparents and great-grandparents. Ordinary people who just got on with it.
These terrorists do no understand us and do not realise they cannot beat us.
They think that by bombing us they can force our Government to change its policies, and that they can turn us into the sort of frightened, huddled masses they dominate in their own countries.
They are wrong. And they have failed.
Utterly and completely.
© Copyright 1997-2002 Express & Star
"And we reacted like children; not like adults.
Indeed. Or perhaps like teenagers.
Echidne of the snakes | Email | Homepage | 07.09.05 - 10:18 am | # "
Not the batch of teenagers I have here lots of the time. They don't seem to be having much panic. But then I think my house has been a bit of a "safe house" for teenagers who don't like a step-parent, or who are not getting enough to eat, at home.
Well, at least this house is a safe place to be, the big dog that's my gravatar, won't allow non-peacefull people to raise a commonotion, or to threaten anyone here. It's inteferes with ear scratching & siting with his folks.
They think that by bombing us they can force our Government to change its policies, and that they can turn us into the sort of frightened, huddled masses they dominate in their own countries.
Huh?
Who doesn't understand whom?
marcus, enough with the cliches, ok?
Isn't this about framing reality for the Bush supporting rubes? He's a bold, resolute leader, blah, blah, and we're in the fight of our lives against the mongol hordes. But whatever you do, don't stop shopping folks, for then THEY have won.
perigord:
What is wrong is only that I shouldn't have restricted it to Sharon.
The Israeli occupation of Jerusalem is a manic obsession of Bin Ladin and his lieutenants ("the three holy cities) and hitting Jewish interests in New York, which is how they coded it, was intended as their response.
cheers Juan
NTodd:
J.C. writes you: What is wrong is only that I shouldn't have restricted it to Sharon.
Sorry, what is wrong is that (in addition to his Jenin fantasy which he has still failed to publicly addressed - pretty embarrassing behavior for a Middle Eastern history professor), he has also invented this: "Sharon's crackdown in spring of 2001."
Clearly, when he emails you, "The Israeli occupation of Jerusalem is a manic obsession of Bin Ladin and his lieutenants ("the three holy cities)," that is true, and it's probably what he should have written in the first place.
But instead of writing that, he makes up how Jenin was a motivating factor for OBL wanting to change the date of 9/11 (which he erased - still without any acknowledgement - after someone alerted him of the clear error) and invents a Sharon crackdown in the Spring of 2001.
Again, how again is "Sharon's crackdown in spring of 2001" merely unclear and subjectively true because it can be interpreted as such?
I remember the pundits screaming about how the Muslim community needed to clean up its act and condemn the OKC bombing. Then it turned out to have been done by a right wing Christian wackjob. Interestingly, the pundits didn't then turn around and demand that the Christian community needed to clean up its act and condemn the OKC bombing.
perigord - now that Juan Cole admits that Sharon was too limited in scope, you still attack him for limiting things to Sharon. Amazing.
Explain how he invented "Sharon's crackdown in spring of 2001." Really, educate me.
But instead of writing that, he makes up how Jenin was a motivating factor for OBL wanting to change the date of 9/11 (which he erased - still without any acknowledgement - after someone alerted him of the clear error)
He made an error and corrected it. Hardly a sin. But note this is the message he was responding to:
Okay, I agree at least in some large part, and have cc'd Juan so he can
respond.
ntodd
Martin Kramer wrote:
> "I always endeavor to let my readers know when I've changed something, it can
> be a PITA when you're doing things on the fly, as Juan clearly was in the
> aftermath of the bombings."
>
> I don't do things on the fly on my website--I treat it as publishing to all
> intents and purposes. I compose off-line, and I post only after I feel I can
> stand by every word. We bloggers punish mainstream journalists and government
> officials whenever they stray, even under pressures of time. Why should we be
> any different? Cole has a large readership. He has the responsibility to be
> accurate and make corrections in a public way. (He's also an academic, and we
> have a special obligation in that regard.)
>
> It's very easy to put visible strike-throughs through mistakes, add a
> correction to an existing post, or make a correction in a new post. And I
> don't have a problem with people who fiddle with a post in the first couple of
> hours after it goes up. But to change a post after its content has been
> quoted, to change a mistake after someone else has corrected it, is unethical.
> And to do it after the erroneous content is in Google's cache is just stupid.
So I agree he should inform his readers of his error, but I'm not going to begrudge him that when he's cranking out posts and keeping people up to date. At least he has not kept what was clearly an error posted.
Shit, haven't you ever forgotten in haste what year something happened? I do it all the time, even regarding things that are very important to me personally. When there are lots of events over a long stretch of history, you can make a simple error.
He fixed it. Move on.
Sorry, that was SoCalJustice I should've addressed that to.
Someone into Cole-bashing again? Sharon is a fanatical homocidal sonofabitch and Jerusalem belongs to the world. It is not "the eternal capital of Israel."
Juan has added this to the post in question:
*T.P. points out by email that I should have said that the 9/11 Commission concluded that the timing of 9/11 was attributable to Sharon, not that the operation was largely conceived in response to him. This is correct; one writes blogs in haste and my phrasing was insufficiently careful. However, it is also my conviction based on intensive study of Bin Laden, Zawahiri and Khalid Shaikh Muhammad, that they largely conceived the attack on the World Trade Center in New York, which they coded as Jewish and Zionist, as a punishment for the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem, the third holy city of Islam in their view. Al-Qaeda literature is obsessed with this issue, and Bin Laden tapes now being analyzed from Afghanistan show him giving long and passionate disquisitions on Jerusalem even in the late 1980s. The point is that radical Muslim fundamentalism has all along gotten big recruitment help and energy from Israeli expansionism, and the "war on terror" does have a historical context, which of course, has also to do with Western colonialism and its neocolonial legacy. Note that Westerners never colonized Thailand and haven't pushed hundreds of thousands of Thais into refugee camps or permanently stolen any Thai land, and as a result Thais don't hate us. - 7/9/05
NTodd, you write: "now that Juan Cole admits that Sharon was too limited in scope, you still attack him for limiting things to Sharon. Amazing."
Amazing? Hardly. A) he only admitted it after he was called to the carpet for it. And B) he's still wrong about "Sharon's crackdown in spring of 2001" which is still on his post.
You ask: "Explain how he invented "Sharon's crackdown in spring of 2001." Really, educate me."
Ok, I'll try to educate you. A) I have asked you to produce any citation (let alone one from the 9/11 report) which says that this "crackdown" was a motivating factor for OBL to ask KSM to move up the date of the 9/11 attack as J.C. asserts. The 9/11 report lists the factors, and that is not one of them. B) As pointed out by others, opposition leaders cannot order crackdowns.
What is amazing, to use your word, is the fact that you have refused to give a citation for that assertion, or explain how it can possibly be true - other then I guess show us J.C.'s email where he says he writes "What is wrong is only that I shouldn't have restricted it to Sharon."
What does he mean by "it"? The "spring 2001 crackdown" for which there's no mention of as a motivating factor in the 9/11 report?
Uh huh.
You ask: "Shit, haven't you ever forgotten in haste what year something happened?"
Of course. But I'm not a Middle Eastern history professor/prominent blogger/media figure. Many prominent bloggers - on both sides of the political aisle - publicly acknowledge their flagrant errors by posting "updates" and apologizing for them. That's the correct move for any blogger, especially if you're one who frequently smears critics as sleazeballs. It comes off as quite hypocritical to all but the most ardent apologists.
You write: "I do it all the time, even regarding things that are very important to me personally."
Well, good for you - but you're not a prominent blogger/media figure who frequently smears his critics with accusations of low character. At least I don't think you are.
You write: "When there are lots of events over a long stretch of history, you can make a simple error."
It wasn't a simple error. And he's a "Middle Eastern history" professor. And he failed to own up. He still is, and you're happily enabling him.
Whatever.
Rather, he still has (failed to own up), not still is...
See - correcting mistakes publicly - no sweat.
What does he mean by "it"? The "spring 2001 crackdown" for which there's no mention of as a motivating factor in the 9/11 report?
It = 9/11.
It wasn't a simple error. And he's a "Middle Eastern history" professor. And he failed to own up.
I forgot that ME profs are infallible.
Read his post addendum.
"a historical context, which of course, has also to do with Western colonialism and its neocolonial legacy."
classic postcolonial BS. The United States has never colonized Saudi Arabia, or Lebanon, or Egypt, ie the 9/11 hijackers' various countries of origin. the us has arguably acted as an anti-colonial bulwark in those regions (esp. egypt vis a vis the suez). the 9/11 attacks were conceived during the greatest LULL in israeli-palestinian hostility in 30 years. Cole's afactual, tortuous analysis tying 9-11 to Israel reveals little more than his own crippling phobia and procrustean ideology.
The United States has never colonized Saudi Arabia, or Lebanon, or Egypt, ie the 9/11 hijackers' various countries of origin.
We had troops stationed in the Muslim Holy Land. We supported Israel and thus her policies in Lebanon. In Egypt we support the autocratic Mubarak. Think holistically.
Further, I defy you to disprove his assertions that Bin Laden and his ilk are anti-Israel. That's in some large part his motivation. And that is explicitly mentioned in the 9-11 documentation.
CNN SUCKS CNN SUCKS CNN SUCKS CNN SUCKS CNN SUCKS CNN SUCKS CNN SUCKS CNN SUCKS CNN SUCKS CNN SUCKS CNN SUCKS CNN SUCKS CNN SUCKS CNN SUCKS CNN SUCKS CNN SUCKS CNN SUCKS CNN SUCKS CNN SUCKS CNN SUCKS CNN SUCKS CNN SUCKS CNN SUCKS CNN SUCKS
Got it? Why do you even bother watching that ass wipe... FOX is, um I don't know, authentic next to CNN, who can't get the courage up to be pure propaganda. Jon Stewart said it best. It's time to move on from these "trusted" sources -- I mean boycott these greedy cowards -- and do the best you can to talk truth to power of all kinds, including our pathetic media.
NTodd:
I forgot that ME profs are infallible.
Lame, NTodd. I've never said he should get everything right 100% of the time. I wrote that he should acknowledge when he gets things wrong (this was a glaring error, despite protestations to the contrary) - especially since he's quick to smear his critics of their own "sleazy tactics."
You ask: Read his post addendum.
Sure. He now writes: "*T.P. points out by email that I should have said that the 9/11 Commission concluded that the timing of 9/11 was attributable to Sharon, not that the operation was largely conceived in response to him. This is correct."
First, I would say that your post at 11:07 where you discuss, amongst other things, the meaning of the word "conceive," is now a little moot.
Second, he's gone from incorrect factual assertions to word games - because, according to what's been posted from the 9/11 report, the timing of the 9/11 attacks was not attributable to Sharon, but rather OBL's desired changes (which did not occur, according to KSM, because of the lack of readiness of his attackers) to the timing of the attacks that is attributable to Sharon.
I largely agree with the rest of his update, FWIW.
"Further, I defy you to disprove his assertions that Bin Laden and his ilk are anti-Israel"
NOT MY CLAIM! good lord.
Lame, NTodd. I've never said he should get everything right 100% of the time. I wrote that he should acknowledge when he gets things wrong (this was a glaring error, despite protestations to the contrary) - especially since he's quick to smear his critics of their own "sleazy tactics."
So now it all comes down to editorial policies. He fixed things in response to e-mail from me and other people, and people bitch about how he responded. That's lame.
First, I would say that your post at 11:07 where you discuss, amongst other things, the meaning of the word "conceive," is now a little moot.
I don't think it's moot, given that it still means "to have in mind". And his use of the word 'timing' is in direct response to the exchange between me and Kramer, which I forwarded to him.
My pointing out that 'conceive' has several meanings was certainly apt.
Second, he's gone from incorrect factual assertions to word games - because, according to what's been posted from the 9/11 report, the timing of the 9/11 attacks was not attributable to Sharon, but rather OBL's desired changes (which did not occur, according to KSM, because of the lack of readiness of his attackers) to the timing of the attacks that is attributable to Sharon.
I honestly don't understand what you're saying here. The 9-11 report does discuss OBL's desire to change the timing because of Sharon.
"Further, I defy you to disprove his assertions that Bin Laden and his ilk are anti-Israel"
NOT MY CLAIM! good lord.
Given you have taken one sentence out of a significantly larger discussion that OBL doesn't like the US because of perceived imperialist policies, particuarly because of our aid to Israel, it seemed to me that I should challenge you to examine the entire context.
But please, both of you, keep harping on semantic minutiae. I'm done here, so you may have the last word, like a tree falling in the woods.
Mudshark's right: this was no 9/11, I there's not much sense in comparing and contrasting the reactions -- so, a number of you are being too hard on yourselves. (But I know what Atrios means, some US liberals I know went over to the Dark Side then.)
Dissenter, I know all the points you've raised because I read about them *in the British press*. The Intelligence people here did a kind of deal whereby they concentrated on the IRA, leaving Muslims mainly alone ( and see Max Hastings in the Guardian today on the quality of our intelligence services now). But that particular laxity is not why *this* attack was not prevented.
"International Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders" obviously connotes anti-Israeli 'politics'. But there's little evidence that BinLaden distinguishes between a Rabin and a Sharon, which is why COLE's distinction is so very offensive and biased. Bin Laden's ambitions are far more extreme than anything Cole would ever espouse himself, and his motives far more arbitrary and delusional. The entire point is that 9/11 would have whether Sharon came to power or not.
Cole in his gratuitous swipes at Sharon is rationalising binladenism (wherein "Holy lands" refers to the whole of Israel) interpreting it in terms complementary to Cole's own politics (Likud-bashing, settlements, etc.)
this is the problem with mideast scholars of cole's stripe: misrepresenting psychotic cults like BinLaden's as animated PRIMARILY by US or Israeli policy, or even by rational or coherent objectives, extreme advocates of quasi-legitimate causes.
So now it all comes down to editorial policies. He fixed things in response to e-mail from me and other people, and people bitch about how he responded. That's lame.
Wow. Yeah, it comes down to editorial policies (which are important when discussing levels of character of bloggers, despite your effort to minize it) because he frequently smears his critics for being sleazy, then proves he's no better by making wild assertions and trying to hide them. Most other prominent bloggers acknowledge such mistakes. In fact, most acknowledge much smaller mistakes.
If you want to boil that down to mere "editorial policies," be my guest.
Again, whatever. That's kind of sad.
So is this: "I don't think it's moot, given that it still means "to have in mind". And his use of the word 'timing' is in direct response to the exchange between me and Kramer, which I forwarded to him.
My pointing out that 'conceive' has several meanings was certainly apt."
Uh, he is fairly clear (or maybe you think he's still being unclear? He must be the most unclear blogger on the internets) in his update the manner in which he is using the word conceive - and it's not the way you are.
This is getting laughable.
Finally, you write: "I honestly don't understand what you're saying here."
That's the truest thing you've written all day. Sigh.
You write: "The 9-11 report does discuss OBL's desire to change the timing because of Sharon."
No kidding. OBL's desire to change the timing did not come to fruition. The timing of 9/11 was not attributable to Sharon - OBL's desire to change it, however, was. It's a smaller point, but one that illustrates that J.C., even in an update/apology, still isn't being completely straight with his audience. Again, not that you would care, because you don't have a problem with any of his larger errors.
And you still have yet to provide, despite repeated requests, any citation to back up J.C.'s assertion that "Sharon's crackdown in spring of 2001" motivated OBL to request a change in timing of the 9/11 attacks. We got citation for the the al-Aqsa visit, we got the White House trip. Help us out.
I didn't see this:
But please, both of you, keep harping on semantic minutiae.
Sigh.
In addition to everything else, I've asked repeated times for you to back up the "crackdown of spring 2001" claim.
You have dodged it at every turn.
Semantic minutiae - whatever. You have not done Cole proud today.
Bye.
Put another way, Cole's dragging Likud and Sharon into his "clarification" of BinlAden's psychotic worldview is actually no better than Bush's "they hate us for our freedom." Binladen obviously rejects the Israel's ontology not its policy, so isolating one Israeli policy or the other for special mention as Cole does is afactual nonsense.
I'm done here, so you may have the last word, like a tree falling in the woods.
Yes, if as tree falls in the woods, and NTodd isn't there to hear it, it surely makes no sound!
WHAT AN EGOMANIAC
" he fixed it. move on."
that's rich. Cole makes something up out of thin air, then after being busted in a lie, purges the record of his fabrication altogether. Not a correction, an excision.
this mendacious behavior doesnt bother ntodd pritsky, web ethicist and [very] amateur mideast policy analyst. "move on" he says!!
lol!
I sat down and watched BBC America when I heard about this bombing because I wasn't interested in the all-spin zone of US cable news. And the BBC news was all agreeably about how people were just going back to "business as usual" with an occasional "day they will always remember for the INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED". There's just no way this would be seen as a 9/11 for London, and I think the only people who would see it that way would be non-worldly, sheltered Americans, exactly the audience core of Fox News and gradually CNN. I've just entirely given up on the US cable news channels. I just see no point in watching them.
This will end when people realize what happened.
There will be people who need all kinds of help in dealing with this. New Yorkers split between talking big and abject terror.
I will say one thing, those pictures of the missing unnerved me to no end.
Britain has quite a bit more experience with this kind of thing; e.g., the frequent IRA bombings during the 70's. I suspect that explains a lot of the difference.
And I think they even tried some of the same stupid sh*t that Shrub has tried (torture and other acts of extreme violence, profiling, etc.) early on (remember Bloody Sunday?), but by and by they figured out that it just didn't work; that you had to deal with terrorism with a combination of good old-fashioned law enforcement and political negotiations. It may not be as much fun as blowing things up or making people beg for mercy, and it's slow and tedious, but it works.
Hopefully we 'Merkins will figure that out too. Of course, there'll always be a few that just can't get it through their thick skulls, but at least they'll be back in the minority eventually.
The British have gotten on with it.
They've been through worse.
All the "news" stations talk about is what happened in London and Hurricane Dennis.
CAN'T talk about how Bush is fucking up the country.
"There's just no way this would be seen as a 9/11 for London, and I think the only people who would see it that way would be non-worldly, sheltered Americans, exactly the audience core of Fox News and gradually CNN. "
Exactly!
"I've just entirely given up on the US cable news channels. I just see no point in watching them.
Amazed"
I can't even call these "news channels". They are nothing but propaganda vehicles for Bush and his thugs.
bingo win real money bingo win real money bingo win real money // cheap payday loans cheap payday loans cheap payday loans
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
