Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

According to Clarke, after the Khobar Towers bombing, for which the Iranians were responsible, the US retaliated with an unspecified action and a warning. What that response was is apparently classified. Nevertheless, Clarke reports that since then the Iranians haven't messed with us. Others, yes, but not us.

Hmm... "according to Clarke..." "unspecified action..." If I were to offer an argument like that, Brain Rush would be all over it like ants on a popsicle.

Even if I accept this, you're definition of "rolled-up" seems peculiar in this case. Iran is developing nukes, and is actively opposing us in Iraq. Al Sadr is an Iranian agent. And you admit that Iran is continuing to utilize terrorism against others. (Remember, this is supposed to be a WOT.)

By I'll grant that it's feasible that Iran is avoiding directly attacking the U.S. at this point, and the Clinton administration might have done something to make it so.

As for Iran being responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing, I'll merely stipulate that for now...

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

It is possible that the US has responded against al Qaeda in a classified manner and that's why we haven't been hit since. But I don't think so.

I'm not sure how one would do that against a stateless organization. States are easy. It's like Rumsfeld says, they are "target rich".

Yeah, so Al Qaeda's harder to "roll-up". We are all in agreement there. My favorite comment from the very day of 9/11 was when it was noted that "When the Japanese attacked us, they used their own damn planes!"

Given that, it's apples and oranges, don't you think?

Plus, there are some other Clinton failures that you didn't factor into your grades:

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by msm

Turns out Nick Berg was Jewish....

Ordinarily, I wouldn't question a statement like this, but given msm's track record...

Citation?

After all, Berg is a pretty common German name, too.

I guess you haven't heard this fact on any major media, either. It's spooky how they're all playing by the same rulebook.

Here you go:

http://news.google.com/news?q=nick+b...r=&sa=N&tab=nn

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by msm

Turns out Nick Berg was Jewish....

Ordinarily, I wouldn't question a statement like this, but given msm's track record...

Citation?

After all, Berg is a pretty common German name, too.

I guess you haven't heard this fact on any major media, either. It's spooky how they're all playing by the same rulebook.

Here you go:

http://news.google.com/news?q=nick+b...r=&sa=N&tab=nn

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You see, the British offered evidence of their specific claim -- said evidence turning out to be a load of crap, but that's secondary here.

Said evidence has never turned out to be "a load of crap". That's just the Ministry of Truth speaking, Justin. Have they gotten to you already?

It was the cage of rats on the face, eh? Yeah, that sucks.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You see, the British offered evidence of their specific claim -- said evidence turning out to be a load of crap, but that's secondary here.

Said evidence has never turned out to be "a load of crap". That's just the Ministry of Truth speaking, Justin. Have they gotten to you already?

It was the cage of rats on the face, eh? Yeah, that sucks.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

What's more, the premise you listed initially, that Iraq had "gone to other countries for uranium" is not the same thing as the bogus British claim that Iraq had "gone to Nigeria for uranium".

Another swing and a miss for Justin. It was Niger, not Nigeria.

Don't you remember all those people saying "Neejair" a year ago?

Your track record isn't getting any better, man.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

What's more, the premise you listed initially, that Iraq had "gone to other countries for uranium" is not the same thing as the bogus British claim that Iraq had "gone to Nigeria for uranium".

Another swing and a miss for Justin. It was Niger, not Nigeria.

Don't you remember all those people saying "Neejair" a year ago?

Your track record isn't getting any better, man.

Note: I'm NOT citing this as evidence of anything. I'm just noting something unusual:

Don't look now, but the Prime Minister of Canada is crazy, too.

SADDAM'S MISSING WEAPONS IN TERRORISTS' HANDS


Prime Minister Paul Martin says he believes Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and they've fallen into terrorists' hands. Martin said the threat of terrorism is even greater now than it was following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, because terrorists have acquired nuclear, chemical and biological weapons from the toppled Iraqi leader.

"The fact is that there is now, we know well, a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that many weapons that Saddam Hussein had, we don't know where they are," Martin told a crowd of about 700 university researchers and business leaders in Montreal. "That means terrorists have access to all of that."


He's even crazier than me. All I say is that Saddam was trying to GET nukes, and would have eventually succeeded had we not stopped him.

Note: I'm NOT citing this as evidence of anything. I'm just noting something unusual:

Don't look now, but the Prime Minister of Canada is crazy, too.

SADDAM'S MISSING WEAPONS IN TERRORISTS' HANDS


Prime Minister Paul Martin says he believes Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and they've fallen into terrorists' hands. Martin said the threat of terrorism is even greater now than it was following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, because terrorists have acquired nuclear, chemical and biological weapons from the toppled Iraqi leader.

"The fact is that there is now, we know well, a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that many weapons that Saddam Hussein had, we don't know where they are," Martin told a crowd of about 700 university researchers and business leaders in Montreal. "That means terrorists have access to all of that."


He's even crazier than me. All I say is that Saddam was trying to GET nukes, and would have eventually succeeded had we not stopped him.

Originally Posted by msm

Originally Posted by Justin '77

What's more, the premise you listed initially, that Iraq had "gone to other countries for uranium" is not the same thing as the bogus British claim that Iraq had "gone to Nigeria for uranium".

It was Niger, not Nigeria..

Good catch. My bad.

(Please note how an adult like myself or Marc Lamb (example chosen to avoid excuses of ideological bias) cops to his errors promptly and openly)

Originally Posted by msm

Originally Posted by Justin '77

What's more, the premise you listed initially, that Iraq had "gone to other countries for uranium" is not the same thing as the bogus British claim that Iraq had "gone to Nigeria for uranium".

It was Niger, not Nigeria..

Good catch. My bad.

(Please note how an adult like myself or Marc Lamb (example chosen to avoid excuses of ideological bias) cops to his errors promptly and openly)

Originally Posted by msm

I guess you haven't heard this fact on any major media, either. It's spooky how they're all playing by the same rulebook.

Here you go:

http://news.google.com/news?q=nick+b...r=&sa=N&tab=nn

Much obliged. I had heard the possibility mentioned on other, non-mainstream outlets almost immediately after the story broke, but none had confirmations. OTOH, maybe rather than evidence of a media conspiracy, we're just seeing the fact that his killers claimed he was killed to punish Americans for the actions of America makes the whole 'but he was Jewish, too' angle a bit trivial in comparison.

Originally Posted by msm

I guess you haven't heard this fact on any major media, either. It's spooky how they're all playing by the same rulebook.

Here you go:

http://news.google.com/news?q=nick+b...r=&sa=N&tab=nn

Much obliged. I had heard the possibility mentioned on other, non-mainstream outlets almost immediately after the story broke, but none had confirmations. OTOH, maybe rather than evidence of a media conspiracy, we're just seeing the fact that his killers claimed he was killed to punish Americans for the actions of America makes the whole 'but he was Jewish, too' angle a bit trivial in comparison.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

OTOH, maybe rather than evidence of a media conspiracy, we're just seeing the fact that his killers claimed he was killed to punish Americans for the actions of America makes the whole 'but he was Jewish, too' angle a bit trivial in comparison.

While reasonable-seeming, this avoids facing a crucial fact: the Jewishness of the victims in both Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg's case was a major part of the message intended to be sent by the murderers.

To us, it's besides the point. To them, it isn't.

That's my point.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

OTOH, maybe rather than evidence of a media conspiracy, we're just seeing the fact that his killers claimed he was killed to punish Americans for the actions of America makes the whole 'but he was Jewish, too' angle a bit trivial in comparison.

While reasonable-seeming, this avoids facing a crucial fact: the Jewishness of the victims in both Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg's case was a major part of the message intended to be sent by the murderers.

To us, it's besides the point. To them, it isn't.

That's my point.

Originally Posted by msm

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You see, the British offered evidence of their specific claim -- said evidence turning out to be a load of crap, but that's secondary here.

Said evidence has never turned out to be "a load of crap".

Slate's timeline
Rep. Henry Waxman's correspondence on the subject
Jack Straw (a US ally, one might add) admits it
The Carnegie Endowment breaks it all down

Originally Posted by msm

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You see, the British offered evidence of their specific claim -- said evidence turning out to be a load of crap, but that's secondary here.

Said evidence has never turned out to be "a load of crap".

Slate's timeline
Rep. Henry Waxman's correspondence on the subject
Jack Straw (a US ally, one might add) admits it
The Carnegie Endowment breaks it all down

Originally Posted by msm

While reasonable-seeming, this avoids facing a crucial fact: the Jewishness of the victims in both Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg's case was a major part of the message intended to be sent by the murderers.

What the hell are you talking about? The "message" sent by Berg's killers was transcribed, certainly, but the most complete copy I can find mentions only America and Pakistan -- nothing about Jewishness whatsoever.... Or do you know something about the killers that the rest of us don't?!? Calling Heimland Security! Probable Al-Q'aeda link located on T4T boards! Alert! Alert! :shock:

Originally Posted by msm

While reasonable-seeming, this avoids facing a crucial fact: the Jewishness of the victims in both Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg's case was a major part of the message intended to be sent by the murderers.

What the hell are you talking about? The "message" sent by Berg's killers was transcribed, certainly, but the most complete copy I can find mentions only America and Pakistan -- nothing about Jewishness whatsoever.... Or do you know something about the killers that the rest of us don't?!? Calling Heimland Security! Probable Al-Q'aeda link located on T4T boards! Alert! Alert! :shock:

Originally Posted by Justin '77

What the hell are you talking about? The "message" sent by Berg's killers was transcribed, certainly, but the most complete copy I can find mentions only America and Pakistan -- nothing about Jewishness whatsoever.... Or do you know something about the killers that the rest of us don't?!? Calling Heimland Security! Probable Al-Q'aeda link located on T4T boards! Alert! Alert! :shock:

I couldn't give a crap about the transcript. Unlike Pearl, they forgot to ask Berg to announce for the record that he was Jewish. So what? Do you think its a coincidence?

If the murderers were Idaho Neo-Nazis, the Jewishness of the victims would be recognized as an important part of the story by the media and by you, no matter what nonsense about "ZOG" they happened to spout.

But, the murderers were Arab Neo-Nazis, so they get cut a break. By the media. And by you.

As usual.

Just one post by me got you interested enough to ask for a citation. Clearly, some part of you recognized the pattern enough to be interested.

Yet 100-word articles about this are written, with no mention of this pertinent fact - terrorists behead another Jew on videotape...

Try to imagine this happening: a group of Alabamans chain a black man to the back of a pickup truck and drag him to his death, but the media reports this without mentioning the victim's ethnicity...

Yeah, right. That wouldn't happen, now, would it?

We aren't intended to recognize certain things about the terrorists...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

What the hell are you talking about? The "message" sent by Berg's killers was transcribed, certainly, but the most complete copy I can find mentions only America and Pakistan -- nothing about Jewishness whatsoever.... Or do you know something about the killers that the rest of us don't?!? Calling Heimland Security! Probable Al-Q'aeda link located on T4T boards! Alert! Alert! :shock:

I couldn't give a crap about the transcript. Unlike Pearl, they forgot to ask Berg to announce for the record that he was Jewish. So what? Do you think its a coincidence?

If the murderers were Idaho Neo-Nazis, the Jewishness of the victims would be recognized as an important part of the story by the media and by you, no matter what nonsense about "ZOG" they happened to spout.

But, the murderers were Arab Neo-Nazis, so they get cut a break. By the media. And by you.

As usual.

Just one post by me got you interested enough to ask for a citation. Clearly, some part of you recognized the pattern enough to be interested.

Yet 100-word articles about this are written, with no mention of this pertinent fact - terrorists behead another Jew on videotape...

Try to imagine this happening: a group of Alabamans chain a black man to the back of a pickup truck and drag him to his death, but the media reports this without mentioning the victim's ethnicity...

Yeah, right. That wouldn't happen, now, would it?

We aren't intended to recognize certain things about the terrorists...

Originally Posted by msm

terrorists behead another Jew on videotape...

Is that all he is to you? The same folks beheaded (in the same manner, as Mike Eagen attested a day or so ago) many, many Russians. You know, I bet none of them were asked to declare their religions, either :? It must be a conspiracy!

or maybe the thread in common for all the beheadings is being viewed as a member of an occupying army in the beheaders' homeland.... Nah, that couldn't be the case. After all, doesn't anti-semitism explain everything?

Originally Posted by msm

terrorists behead another Jew on videotape...

Is that all he is to you? The same folks beheaded (in the same manner, as Mike Eagen attested a day or so ago) many, many Russians. You know, I bet none of them were asked to declare their religions, either :? It must be a conspiracy!

or maybe the thread in common for all the beheadings is being viewed as a member of an occupying army in the beheaders' homeland.... Nah, that couldn't be the case. After all, doesn't anti-semitism explain everything?

Originally Posted by msm

Even if I accept this, you're definition of "rolled-up" seems peculiar in this case. Iran is developing nukes, and is actively opposing us in Iraq.

The USSR and Red China developed nukes and actively opposed us in Vietnam and Korea. I submit that we "rolled up" the first in 1991 and we are have essentially subverted the second. Or do you think China is still Red? Both of these were huge empires, larger than we in both population and area. Al Qaeda is far, far weaker, and should be "rolled up" proportionally more quickly--in a few years, just as soon as we get serious.

Al Sadr is an Iranian agent. And you admit that Iran is continuing to utilize terrorism against others. (Remember, this is supposed to be a WOT.)

Al Sadr is an ambitious son of a bitch who is altogether too big for his britches. He's also a joke. And the WOT is a rhetorical device.

By I'll grant that it's feasible that Iran is avoiding directly attacking the U.S. at this point, and the Clinton administration might have done something to make it so.

Great.

As for Iran being responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing, I'll merely stipulate that for now...

I can only go by what I read. I am not privy to state secrets.

Yeah, so Al Qaeda's harder to "roll-up". We are all in agreement there. My favorite comment from the very day of 9/11 was when it was noted that "When the Japanese attacked us, they used their own damn planes!"

Given that, it's apples and oranges, don't you think?

Um 911 justifies a lot more than what could be done before 911. Look at all the crap we got for "bombing an asprin factory in Sudan" and bombin "tents" in Afghanistan. 911 silences this sort of criticism. Three years post-911 is plenty of time to roll up al Qaeda.

Plus, there are some other Clinton failures that you didn't factor into your grades:

What does this photo have to do with Islamic terror? I was grading solely on terrorism, not overall foreign policy. Reagan got low grades on terrorism because he focused on other goals like winning the Cold War, on which he did very well.

The Clinton adminstration was the first to take terrorism seriously. When the Bush people came on board they downplayed terrorism, figuring that if the Clintonites thought it was important, it can't really be. 911 showed otherwise; they would have to pay more attention to the issue. And they have. It's more important, perhaps even more than missile defence, but definitely secondary to regime change in Iraq.

Originally Posted by msm

Even if I accept this, you're definition of "rolled-up" seems peculiar in this case. Iran is developing nukes, and is actively opposing us in Iraq.

The USSR and Red China developed nukes and actively opposed us in Vietnam and Korea. I submit that we "rolled up" the first in 1991 and we are have essentially subverted the second. Or do you think China is still Red? Both of these were huge empires, larger than we in both population and area. Al Qaeda is far, far weaker, and should be "rolled up" proportionally more quickly--in a few years, just as soon as we get serious.

Al Sadr is an Iranian agent. And you admit that Iran is continuing to utilize terrorism against others. (Remember, this is supposed to be a WOT.)

Al Sadr is an ambitious son of a bitch who is altogether too big for his britches. He's also a joke. And the WOT is a rhetorical device.

By I'll grant that it's feasible that Iran is avoiding directly attacking the U.S. at this point, and the Clinton administration might have done something to make it so.

Great.

As for Iran being responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing, I'll merely stipulate that for now...

I can only go by what I read. I am not privy to state secrets.

Yeah, so Al Qaeda's harder to "roll-up". We are all in agreement there. My favorite comment from the very day of 9/11 was when it was noted that "When the Japanese attacked us, they used their own damn planes!"

Given that, it's apples and oranges, don't you think?

Um 911 justifies a lot more than what could be done before 911. Look at all the crap we got for "bombing an asprin factory in Sudan" and bombin "tents" in Afghanistan. 911 silences this sort of criticism. Three years post-911 is plenty of time to roll up al Qaeda.

Plus, there are some other Clinton failures that you didn't factor into your grades:

What does this photo have to do with Islamic terror? I was grading solely on terrorism, not overall foreign policy. Reagan got low grades on terrorism because he focused on other goals like winning the Cold War, on which he did very well.

The Clinton adminstration was the first to take terrorism seriously. When the Bush people came on board they downplayed terrorism, figuring that if the Clintonites thought it was important, it can't really be. 911 showed otherwise; they would have to pay more attention to the issue. And they have. It's more important, perhaps even more than missile defence, but definitely secondary to regime change in Iraq.