[bgates]

PS, I have the idea that you brother is part of a terrorist cell, and he’s using you to poke around online for gullible America-haters to help him kill Jews.

As evidence, I will note that you post a lot of material on this site, a lot of it is very critical of the US and Israel, you’ve said admiring things about Iran’s president, you’re from a part of the world where people have chanted ‘Death to America’ for decades, and you apparently got this thread started picking up a link from an anti-Semitic website.

Now, will you calmly present evidence that I am mistaken, or will you simply say that could never happen?

Or maybe you’re trying to drum up money for terrorist groups. If someone wanted to get money from Americans for terrorism, I think they would have to:
-find Americans who had lots of money, maybe because they had recently been convinced to sell their houses
-convince those people that many other investments were risky, by talking up the possibility of a depression or by very publically making some investments that don’t pan out to convince the marks of the risks of the market
-be endlessly critical of the American government and speak admiringly of its enemies, like the president of Iran

Gee, ps, it looks like your work on this site matches up with what a terrorist fund-raiser would do. Do you want to deny it – careful, that’s just what a guilty person would do. Do you want to ignore the accusation as batshit crazy – careful, that’s the other thing a guilty person would do.

It just so happens that denying or ignoring ludicrous charges are also what an innocent person would do. But don’t anybody try telling me that, or I’ll call you mindless idolaters and sheep!

[bgates]

Perry, somebody hijacked your login.

Was it the guy yesterday who said, “Interesting topic. I haven’t read much about how the towers came down. I’ll check into the info you guys mentioned.”

Or the guy today who said, “I’m amazed that some many of you believe in conspiracy theories.”

[bgates]

How many of you conspiracy nuts think the government was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing? Or the Khobar Towers bombing? Or the first World Trade Center bombing? Or the 1998 embassy bombings? Or the 2000 USS Cole bombing? Or the Olympic bombing?

And if you really think the government has murdered thousands of people, and you do nothing about it besides write comments to a website, how do you live with your cowardice?

[bgates]

Bomb-sniffing dogs were present until the day before the attack. I would think the presence of heightened security would make it more difficult to sabotage the buildings, yes?

I would imagine Silverstein wanted terrorism coverage and the right to rebuild the towers because they were a well-known landmark and, oh by the way, they had been attacked by terrorists in the past.

The towers were such a white elephant that Silverstein paid more than twice what had been estimated three years earlier. Silverstein was a successful enough man that he could come up with a hundred million dollar down payment and promise to pay three billion dollars over 99 years (and he wasn’t the only bidder on the project willing and able to do so – were they all in on the scheme?), all for what 4plexowner assures us was a money-loser. They must have started losing money in a hurry – they had over 90% occupancy as recently as mid-98. Was there a recession in Manhattan in the late 90’s that I didn’t hear about?

I’m sure there were lots of files in the towers. They were very large buildings. Despite whatever Enron-related losses occurred, last I heard several high-ranking Enron officials have been convicted.

A B-25 has a maximum takeoff weight of 41000 lbs, and top speed of 275 mph. A Boeing 767 is nine times as heavy and has a cruising speed of 540mph.

As for the neo-con reign of terror, I can’t help but notice no one on this thread has been locked up – but I blame that more on Reagan’s emptying the mental institutions in the early 80s. Pity. Just because someone calls you a conspiracy nut doesn’t mean you’re NOT crazy.

[bgates]

Maybe this is the one guy who’s telling the truth.

Maybe the entire NORAD chain of command has been lying for five years. Maybe a team of demolitions experts planted explosives in three skyscrapers – entering the buildings at night, drilling holes in the walls, planting explosives, and replastering the walls, all without any night watchmen noticing them coming or going, for weeks – and all the demolitions guys have kept quiet too. Or maybe the night watchmen were in on the plan, and they all kept their mouths shut. Or maybe the demolitions work was carried out in broad daylight, and thousands of workers, dozens or hundreds of demolitions experts, the top ranks of the military, and the federal government all worked together to murder thousands of people to start a war, and the only person willing to reveal his knowledge is Sgt Lauro Sanchez.

Me, I think it was the ghosts of Indians pissed that the Dutch bought their island.

Prove it wasn’t.

[bgates]

If you want anti-American sentiment, you’ve come to the right place with this board. Or should I say left place.

For those who have visited China, how does the One Child Policy manifest itself? My biggest problem in analogizing China to 50’s America is that two American families gathered around a tv would have more than two kids between them. I also read on wiki that the policy combined with Chinese chauvinism has led to an extreme gender imbalance – 116 male children for every 100 female in 1990, which means one in seven male Chinese high school kids is mathematically unable to have a girlfriend. No wonder they’re industrious.

[bgates]

I only lived in SD from June 2004-Oct 2006. Before I moved I heard all the great things about the weather. You may remember the meteorologists saying June 2004-July 2005 was the third wettest ‘rain year’ (measured June-July) on record. I moved to Orlando. Before I left I was told winter was the best time out here due to the weather. It’s 65 degrees and raining right now. So to all those enjoying SD now that I’ve left, you’re welcome.

[bgates]

Pick one, Perry:
Wanting to win is one thing. Everyone wants to win.
or
I don’t believe that the sacrifices that we’d have to make as a nation are worth a win in Iraq.

If we need another 500,000 troops, then the sacrifice we’d be making as a nation would be restoring the active duty military to the size it was during the Carter administration. We’d have an additional 0.17% of the country in uniform – and that’s assuming all 500,000 came from new enrollment rather than shifting people around (out of Germany, for example.)

I don’t think you appreciate the dangers of defeat in Iraq. You claim to value allies; we have one in Iraq, a flawed one to be sure. If we go back on our word and leave, our ally will be destroyed. What effect will that have on future alliances? Certainly if we were to always do as the French instruct, they would be willing to use us for their own purposes, whether that purpose is keeping alive oil contracts with Saddam or simply restraining our independence. It is breathtakingly naive to describe France as a friend to anyone but itself.

Algeria has some parallels to Iraq, but America has not and will not approach anything like French ruthlessness and disdain for human rights in the first few years of that struggle. The French were fighting (as they always do) to enrich and empower France. We have always been fighting with the goal of establishing a stable, free, independent Iraq. For all the reasons we are different from the French, we have more local support than they did.

If America leaves Iraq, so will the tv cameras. People here will be able to pretend there is no more killing, as we pretended in the 90s when CNN turned a blind eye to Saddam’s killing, as the networks today ignore Central Africa. But people who trusted us will be killed. And the people who made it happen – al Qaeda in Iraq, and Iran’s puppets – do you think they will stop?

[bgates]

Actually, I’ll be happy with victory. So, tell you what, let’s call it “Incompetent War of Evil Jesus-Lovers who Aren’t Smart Enough to Obey the French,” and keep fighting to win, and we’ll all be happy.

I really don’t understand the people who don’t want to win.

[bgates]

Hey Josh,
If you take a moment to read the whole thread, you’ll notice my error on that point has been corrected already. (jg is making a valiant attempt to argue I wasn’t wrong, but I think I was – the argument “we didn’t lose, our ally lost after we left and withdrew support” isn’t convincing to me.) For that matter, your error has been mentioned (we’ve had at least a fleeting involvement in 3 civil wars since Vietnam.)

Peace, I’m not sure what “just because it sounds unbelievable doesn’t make it untrue” is referring to.

[bgates]

Heh. I was sloppy. I was actually thinking of the American Civil War, though we have been involved in the Korean and Vietnamese (and minimally in Lebanese, Bosnian, and Somali) civil wars since then. Those are all distinct conflicts, so I remain unclear on what is gained (or lost, to be fair) by applying the term to Iraq. But Matt Lauer feels differently, so it must be a big deal.

[bgates]

Here are some thing I just don’t get.
I read today that the UN Security Council AP’s term) has said it was the United states that was “intent on destabilizing the situation.”

“Their agents on the ground are terrorists, outlaws and former Baathists,” [Khameini] said.

And that’s strange, because everybody knows the thing to do to clean up Iraq (even better than getting UN support) is to talk to Iran. Yet here’s an important Iranian who sounds like he doesn’t want to be friends with us. In fact, I think what he’s saying might not even be true.

It’s almost as if the UN and Iran don’t really want Iraq to become a peaceful, civil society. Can that be right?

[bgates]

From the outset? I think the starting point of a civil war is difficult to measure. Tens of thousands of Shia were killed in an uprising against Saddam in 1991, but I don’t think Perry or his military historian friends at NBC consider that relevant. There was outside intervention in the Russian Civil War, Spanish Civil War, andLebanese Civil War; the Japanese invaded China during the middle of that country’s civil war as well.

BTW, an important distinction between the civil wars in Spain, Russia, China, and America vs what’s happening in Iraq is that the former each had two sides fighting with the objective of gaining control over a sovereign state. It was relatively easier in those situations for foreign powers to identify a side to favor and back it. Iraq is more like Lebanon in that there are lots of smaller factions each too weak to win but well-armed enough to kill a lot of people. It’s not even clear who the sides are in Iraq, much less the relationships between them or their goals. So I question the utility of the phrase ‘civil war’, except to show how brave NBC is to use a term Bush won’t. To the extent it reminds people of the clear-cut Blue vs Gray in our own history, it’s not a helpful description.

Though if NBC intends to remind people that the process of rebuilding civilian government can take lighter toll on American life than our own civil war, I suppose it’s a valuable contrast.

The war in Iraq does give me a much greater appreciation for Robert E Lee, that’s for sure.

[bgates]

Your point regarding the Polish pope seems to prove my point.

If your point is that ‘homosexual’ is use as a modifier of ‘pedophile’ because it’s a rare event to have a pedophile who’s homosexual, then yes.

[bgates]

Perry, thank goodness! I was afraid something had happened to you, since you haven’t been responding to my arguments in other threads. OK, NBC has spoken; so let it be written, so let it be done. What does this terminology mean?

I’d point out that the last time the US Army was involved in a civil war, we won. And do you know, we didn’t have a single European ally with us at the time?

[Author]

Posts