I didn't write it. They did.
It's obviously something you think about. The word "trutherism" is a new one for me.
You posted that you thought this group and their document was B.S.
No, I'm saying that in this postyou are spreading bullshit about what's in that document. I'm glad that you now know that "9/11 trutherism" is a common description for the conspiracy theory you're indulging in.
Don't tell me what I think.
I'm not talking about what you think, I'm talking about what you wrote.
The "new Pearl Harbor" content is their's.
That document does not say "the USA needed a "Pearl Harbor" event to rally the people for USA dominance" as you claim it does.
This seems to have you upset and thinking
Now who's pretending to know what someone else thinks?
that this means that people could interpret this as your "trutherism" issue.
(That is just an atrocious sentence.)
Your trutherism is displayed in your previous post, in which you connect 9/11, US support for the mujahideen and Bin Ladin, and one phrase from the PNAC report and then say it "looks like conspiracy".
That does not say “the USA needed a "Pearl Harbor" event to rally the people for USA dominance”.
Here’s the full paragraph in which Pearl Harbor is mentioned:
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today – the F-22 fighter, for example – will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades.
They’re clearly expecting their policies to take a long time - they’re neither expecting an attack nor agitating for one.
Your repeated mention of this one throw-away aside is nothing more than playing footsie with 9/11 trutherism. This was bullshit the last two times you dredged it up, it’s bullshit now, and it will be bullshit the next time you haul it out again.
There is a huge difference between suggesting that the September 11th attacks were faked or a false flag, and saying that the neo-cons exploited the attacks to push agendas they already had in place (e.g. regime change in Iraq). The Pearl Harbour note is indicative not of a desire to see such an attack but of a willingness to use such an attack for their own ends. It's a variant on "never let a good crisis go to waste", or Lenin's conception of war as the "mighty accelerator" of the revolution. The grey area between the two is the possibility that neo-cons ignored warnings of an attack, either (at the most grave end) knowing the scale and planning on using it, or (at the lower end of the scale) expecting another botched attack or relatively minor bombing that would feed their narrative.
There was no indication of a most grave end whatsoever. Nobody saw 9/11 coming. Nobody.
I strongly disagree with your statement. When Bush was in transition, Clinton's team warned of an imminent strike by Al Qaeda. Foreign intelligence services were telling the CIA of increased activities among Al Qaeda channels. About a month before 9/11 a van carrying Al Qaeda operatives was stopped at the Canadian border in Blaine, WA. Their target had been the Space Needle in Seattle. Just days before the attack the National Security Chief had warned Bush of an imminent attack with potential targets in NYC and Washington DC. To which Bush said, "thanks for your input," and went fishing.
When the attack happened, he was in Florida about to read to a second-grade class. When his aids told him what had happened he had the look of a deer in the headlights. (See Fahrenheit 9/11).
Wikipedia has a short outline on its site. But a more detailed story is from Politico here.
Which again shows that nobody saw it coming. What did the NSC chief know and do about it?
What did the NSC know and what could have been done about it? Well, the NSC already knew that the attack would use aircraft going into buildings. They knew of Arabs taking flight training with private companies--and there were reports that these people wanted to take simulation flights regarding slamming into buildings. The previous attempt to try to bomb the Space Needle in mid-summer should have indicated that we were under attack.
What could have been done about it? Increased airport security. Al Qaeda had already known that the Boston airport was lax in its enforcement of the then airport security laws--private companies were doing the enforcement at that time so there was really no nationwide standards. While some Arabs had received flight training in the USA a large group of Arab men had been crossing into the US through Canada. In other words, we could have sent alerts to our border guards and to the Canadians to watch out for such men as they were entering Canada and our country.
Note: While I mention what we knew about suspicious activities of certain Arabs, we had not made the connection between them and Al Qaeda at the time.
To the point that all we knew was Bin Laden was some crazy middle-aged man spouting off verses from the Quran. We had a number of our embassies in Africa had been attacked by the group calling itself Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attack on our troops in Somalia. They also were responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole. We knew what Al Qaeda was capable of doing.
Oh, we had ample warning--about the only thing we did not know was the projected day of the 9/11 attack, but we knew it was coming.
I didn't write it. They did.
It's obviously something you think about. The word "trutherism" is a new one for me.
You posted that you thought this group and their document was B.S.
No, I'm saying that in this postyou are spreading bullshit about what's in that document. I'm glad that you now know that "9/11 trutherism" is a common description for the conspiracy theory you're indulging in.
Don't tell me what I think.
I'm not talking about what you think, I'm talking about what you wrote.
The "new Pearl Harbor" content is their's.
That document does not say "the USA needed a "Pearl Harbor" event to rally the people for USA dominance" as you claim it does.
This seems to have you upset and thinking
Now who's pretending to know what someone else thinks?
that this means that people could interpret this as your "trutherism" issue.
(That is just an atrocious sentence.)
Your trutherism is displayed in your previous post, in which you connect 9/11, US support for the mujahideen and Bin Ladin, and one phrase from the PNAC report and then say it "looks like conspiracy".
Pretty thick here, kindly stop projecting. The problem is that it looks like a conspiracy. It would be better if it didn't, and they hadn't written it so as to create it. And hadn't pursued policies that they did. And if Brzenzski and Jimmy Carter hadn't done what he said he and Jimmy Carter did.
I didn't write it. They did.
It's obviously something you think about. The word "trutherism" is a new one for me.
You posted that you thought this group and their document was B.S.
No, I'm saying that in this postyou are spreading bullshit about what's in that document. I'm glad that you now know that "9/11 trutherism" is a common description for the conspiracy theory you're indulging in.
Don't tell me what I think.
I'm not talking about what you think, I'm talking about what you wrote.
The "new Pearl Harbor" content is their's.
That document does not say "the USA needed a "Pearl Harbor" event to rally the people for USA dominance" as you claim it does.
This seems to have you upset and thinking
Now who's pretending to know what someone else thinks?
that this means that people could interpret this as your "trutherism" issue.
(That is just an atrocious sentence.)
Your trutherism is displayed in your previous post, in which you connect 9/11, US support for the mujahideen and Bin Ladin, and one phrase from the PNAC report and then say it "looks like conspiracy".
Pretty thick here, kindly stop projecting.
I don't know what to say. I'm ... sorry for your thickness?
The problem is that it looks like a conspiracy. It would be better if it didn't, and they hadn't written it so as to create it.
Right. You think it looks like a conspiracy (I hope you won't mind me concluding from you saying that very thing) because of one sentence - a sentence that doesn't even claim what you say it does - in a 70+ page document which the conspirators helpfully published for everyone in the world to read. And your suspicions are confirmed when that organization, now defunct, no longer maintains a website - even though the incriminating document can still be found with the simplest Google search.
This is ISTM a very insightful article from the BBC which looks into the cultural reasons why the CIA failed to take Al Qaeda seriously as a threat. It argues that all the signs were there to people familiar with Islam. The trouble was that the CIA had not put any effort into recruiting people familiar with Islam.
That does not say “the USA needed a "Pearl Harbor" event to rally the people for USA dominance”.
Here’s the full paragraph in which Pearl Harbor is mentioned:
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today – the F-22 fighter, for example – will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades.
They’re clearly expecting their policies to take a long time - they’re neither expecting an attack nor agitating for one.
Your repeated mention of this one throw-away aside is nothing more than playing footsie with 9/11 trutherism. This was bullshit the last two times you dredged it up, it’s bullshit now, and it will be bullshit the next time you haul it out again.
There is a huge difference between suggesting that the September 11th attacks were faked or a false flag, and saying that the neo-cons exploited the attacks to push agendas they already had in place (e.g. regime change in Iraq). The Pearl Harbour note is indicative not of a desire to see such an attack but of a willingness to use such an attack for their own ends. It's a variant on "never let a good crisis go to waste", or Lenin's conception of war as the "mighty accelerator" of the revolution. The grey area between the two is the possibility that neo-cons ignored warnings of an attack, either (at the most grave end) knowing the scale and planning on using it, or (at the lower end of the scale) expecting another botched attack or relatively minor bombing that would feed their narrative.
There was no indication of a most grave end whatsoever. Nobody saw 9/11 coming. Nobody.
I strongly disagree with your statement. When Bush was in transition, Clinton's team warned of an imminent strike by Al Qaeda. Foreign intelligence services were telling the CIA of increased activities among Al Qaeda channels. About a month before 9/11 a van carrying Al Qaeda operatives was stopped at the Canadian border in Blaine, WA. Their target had been the Space Needle in Seattle. Just days before the attack the National Security Chief had warned Bush of an imminent attack with potential targets in NYC and Washington DC. To which Bush said, "thanks for your input," and went fishing.
When the attack happened, he was in Florida about to read to a second-grade class. When his aids told him what had happened he had the look of a deer in the headlights. (See Fahrenheit 9/11).
Wikipedia has a short outline on its site. But a more detailed story is from Politico here.
Which again shows that nobody saw it coming. What did the NSC chief know and do about it?
...Well, the NSC already knew that the attack would use aircraft going into buildings. They knew of Arabs taking flight training with private companies--and there were reports that these people wanted to take simulation flights regarding slamming into buildings...
This is ISTM a very insightful article from the BBC which looks into the cultural reasons why the CIA failed to take Al Qaeda seriously as a threat. It argues that all the signs were there to people familiar with Islam. The trouble was that the CIA had not put any effort into recruiting people familiar with Islam.
I remember it well. The very best hindsight. Like the British lawyer who came up with the question that would have jailed O.J.
Martin, I invite you to read the National Commission's Report on 9.11 In particular, go to Chapter 8: "The System Was Blinking Red." It starts on page 271. The prior chapter 7 talks about how Al Qaeda was preparing for the attacks. It mentions the pilot training some men were going through and the insertion of the rest of the teams in the months leading up to the attack. We knew something was about to happen. The initial guess was sometime mid-summer. But that got delayed. We kind of slacked off after then.
I didn't write it. They did.
It's obviously something you think about. The word "trutherism" is a new one for me.
You posted that you thought this group and their document was B.S.
No, I'm saying that in this postyou are spreading bullshit about what's in that document. I'm glad that you now know that "9/11 trutherism" is a common description for the conspiracy theory you're indulging in.
Don't tell me what I think.
I'm not talking about what you think, I'm talking about what you wrote.
The "new Pearl Harbor" content is their's.
That document does not say "the USA needed a "Pearl Harbor" event to rally the people for USA dominance" as you claim it does.
This seems to have you upset and thinking
Now who's pretending to know what someone else thinks?
that this means that people could interpret this as your "trutherism" issue.
(That is just an atrocious sentence.)
Your trutherism is displayed in your previous post, in which you connect 9/11, US support for the mujahideen and Bin Ladin, and one phrase from the PNAC report and then say it "looks like conspiracy".
Pretty thick here, kindly stop projecting.
Boy would it make you look less defeated if you actually answered the individual points.
This is ISTM a very insightful article from the BBC which looks into the cultural reasons why the CIA failed to take Al Qaeda seriously as a threat. It argues that all the signs were there to people familiar with Islam. The trouble was that the CIA had not put any effort into recruiting people familiar with Islam.
I remember it well. The very best hindsight. Like the British lawyer who came up with the question that would have jailed O.J.
This is ISTM a very insightful article from the BBC which looks into the cultural reasons why the CIA failed to take Al Qaeda seriously as a threat. It argues that all the signs were there to people familiar with Islam. The trouble was that the CIA had not put any effort into recruiting people familiar with Islam.
I remember it well. The very best hindsight. Like the British lawyer who came up with the question that would have jailed O.J.
What was the question?
The US homicide rate is about 5:100,000/yr
20% is of women: 1:100,000/yr
80% of them are by (ex-)partners
So the chances of a woman being murdered by her (ex-)partner are 0.005% x 0.2% x 0.8% = 0.0008%, call it 0.001%
Even if he is violent (1:4), as Simpson was, that probability will 'only' go up by an order of magnitude, I can't establish better yet: 0.01%, 1 in 10,000, or 2 at worst, 0.1%, 1:1000. Which it won't be.
But that is the wrong sequence.
The right question is, if a woman is murdered and her partner was violent, what are the chances they did it? I don't have the figure, but it's a damn site more damning that 1:000
This is ISTM a very insightful article from the BBC which looks into the cultural reasons why the CIA failed to take Al Qaeda seriously as a threat. It argues that all the signs were there to people familiar with Islam. The trouble was that the CIA had not put any effort into recruiting people familiar with Islam.
I remember it well. The very best hindsight. Like the British lawyer who came up with the question that would have jailed O.J.
What was the question?
The US homicide rate is about 5:100,000/yr
20% is of women: 1:100,000/yr
80% of them are by (ex-)partners
So the chances of a woman being murdered by her (ex-)partner are 0.005% x 0.2% x 0.8% = 0.0008%, call it 0.001%
Even if he is violent (1:4), as Simpson was, that probability will 'only' go up by an order of magnitude, I can't establish better yet: 0.01%, 1 in 10,000, or 2 at worst, 0.1%, 1:1000. Which it won't be.
But that is the wrong sequence.
The right question is, if a woman is murdered and her partner was violent, what are the chances they did it? I don't have the figure, but it's a damn site more damning that 1:000
Are those sorts of statistics regarded as legitimate evidence in a trial?
I suspect not since there would still be room for reasonable doubt.
Since the job of the prosecution is to prove that a particular person committed the crime in question, even evidence that they have committed similar crimes in the past might not be admissible, let alone that people like them have committed crimes like the one they are alleged to have committed.
Dr. Jacquelyn Campbell is a national leader in research and advocacy in the field of domestic and intimate partner violence. She holds a joint appointment in the John Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Good enough for me.
Of all homicides with female victims, 45% are committed by an (a) intimate partner (Catalano et al., 2009; VPC, 2011)
Of women killed by men that they know, 63% were killed by (b) a spouse, ex-spouse or current intimate partner (Catalano et al., 2009; VPC, 2011)
Between 65-80% of female intimate partner homicide victims were previously abused by the partner who killed them, making domestic violence the single largest risk factor for intimate partner femicide (Sharps et al., 2001; Campbell et al., 2003b; Campbell et al., 2007; Moracco, Runyon & Butts,1998; Pataki, 1997)
Those stats aren't easy to interpret unless (a)=(b) and other ambiguities, it's hard to do the sets.
Still, 1:100,000 women are murdered a year in the US - 0.001%
45% by an intimate partner, including former assumed - 0.00045%
at least 65% of whom were abusive - 0.00029%
But Nicole was murdered - 100%
The chance OJ killed her - 45%
OJ was abusive - 100%
That increased the chance he killed her to 74-81% Not 0.00029%
I remember the Nisei judge beginning the case anticipating 'fabulous lawyering skills'. No question about the defense's. But the prosecution were pathetic.
I am missing something here. How did we get to talking about the Simpson trial or the ethnicity of Judge Ito, when the topic of the thread is the Afghan War?
I am missing something here. How did we get to talking about the Simpson trial or the ethnicity of Judge Ito, when the topic of the thread is the Afghan War?
On the 7th post of this page, Martin54 analogized 9/11 to the OJ trial, and it went from there.
It was also Martin who introduced the ethnicity of Judge Ito into the conversation, for reasons that remain obscure.
Martin, I'm not doubting the stats, just whether or not they're admissable in a trial.
And I am at a complete loss as to why Judge Ito's ethnicity would be pertinent to this discussion.
Such stats were badly used. Judge Ito gave a gravitas to the proceedings, a dignity, according to my prejudice, just by being there he spoke well of the justice system, of American society. Until he said 'fabulous lawyering skills'. As it was he did the job perfectly of course, with helpless privilege.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Time for a bit of orderly direction.
OJ (and related stats and Judge Ito issues) is a tangent which has no place here. Stop it. Set up a new thread if you like.
The exchanges between Dave W and NOProphet_N0profit (with comments from others) have moved from vigorous and legitimate criticism of posts into more personal comments. A classic sign of a developing personality conflict (Commandment 4). The guideline is simple. Take it to Hell or end the argument.
Martin, I invite you to read the National Commission's Report on 9.11 In particular, go to Chapter 8: "The System Was Blinking Red." It starts on page 271. The prior chapter 7 talks about how Al Qaeda was preparing for the attacks. It mentions the pilot training some men were going through and the insertion of the rest of the teams in the months leading up to the attack. We knew something was about to happen. The initial guess was sometime mid-summer. But that got delayed. We kind of slacked off after then.
I've read it. I don't want to know what you say it says. What does it say? Make your case only with what is says. Otherwise you don't have one.
Comments
Your trutherism is displayed in your previous post, in which you connect 9/11, US support for the mujahideen and Bin Ladin, and one phrase from the PNAC report and then say it "looks like conspiracy".
What did the NSC know and what could have been done about it? Well, the NSC already knew that the attack would use aircraft going into buildings. They knew of Arabs taking flight training with private companies--and there were reports that these people wanted to take simulation flights regarding slamming into buildings. The previous attempt to try to bomb the Space Needle in mid-summer should have indicated that we were under attack.
What could have been done about it? Increased airport security. Al Qaeda had already known that the Boston airport was lax in its enforcement of the then airport security laws--private companies were doing the enforcement at that time so there was really no nationwide standards. While some Arabs had received flight training in the USA a large group of Arab men had been crossing into the US through Canada. In other words, we could have sent alerts to our border guards and to the Canadians to watch out for such men as they were entering Canada and our country.
Note: While I mention what we knew about suspicious activities of certain Arabs, we had not made the connection between them and Al Qaeda at the time.
To the point that all we knew was Bin Laden was some crazy middle-aged man spouting off verses from the Quran. We had a number of our embassies in Africa had been attacked by the group calling itself Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attack on our troops in Somalia. They also were responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole. We knew what Al Qaeda was capable of doing.
Oh, we had ample warning--about the only thing we did not know was the projected day of the 9/11 attack, but we knew it was coming.
Pretty thick here, kindly stop projecting. The problem is that it looks like a conspiracy. It would be better if it didn't, and they hadn't written it so as to create it. And hadn't pursued policies that they did. And if Brzenzski and Jimmy Carter hadn't done what he said he and Jimmy Carter did.
Where do you get any of that from?
I remember it well. The very best hindsight. Like the British lawyer who came up with the question that would have jailed O.J.
Boy would it make you look less defeated if you actually answered the individual points.
What was the question?
The US homicide rate is about 5:100,000/yr
20% is of women: 1:100,000/yr
80% of them are by (ex-)partners
So the chances of a woman being murdered by her (ex-)partner are 0.005% x 0.2% x 0.8% = 0.0008%, call it 0.001%
Even if he is violent (1:4), as Simpson was, that probability will 'only' go up by an order of magnitude, I can't establish better yet: 0.01%, 1 in 10,000, or 2 at worst, 0.1%, 1:1000. Which it won't be.
But that is the wrong sequence.
The right question is, if a woman is murdered and her partner was violent, what are the chances they did it? I don't have the figure, but it's a damn site more damning that 1:000
Are those sorts of statistics regarded as legitimate evidence in a trial?
Since the job of the prosecution is to prove that a particular person committed the crime in question, even evidence that they have committed similar crimes in the past might not be admissible, let alone that people like them have committed crimes like the one they are alleged to have committed.
https://domesticviolencehomicidehelp.com/statistics/
Dr. Jacquelyn Campbell is a national leader in research and advocacy in the field of domestic and intimate partner violence. She holds a joint appointment in the John Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Good enough for me.
Of all homicides with female victims, 45% are committed by an (a) intimate partner (Catalano et al., 2009; VPC, 2011)
Of women killed by men that they know, 63% were killed by (b) a spouse, ex-spouse or current intimate partner (Catalano et al., 2009; VPC, 2011)
Between 65-80% of female intimate partner homicide victims were previously abused by the partner who killed them, making domestic violence the single largest risk factor for intimate partner femicide (Sharps et al., 2001; Campbell et al., 2003b; Campbell et al., 2007; Moracco, Runyon & Butts,1998; Pataki, 1997)
Those stats aren't easy to interpret unless (a)=(b) and other ambiguities, it's hard to do the sets.
Still, 1:100,000 women are murdered a year in the US - 0.001%
45% by an intimate partner, including former assumed - 0.00045%
at least 65% of whom were abusive - 0.00029%
But Nicole was murdered - 100%
The chance OJ killed her - 45%
OJ was abusive - 100%
That increased the chance he killed her to 74-81% Not 0.00029%
I remember the Nisei judge beginning the case anticipating 'fabulous lawyering skills'. No question about the defense's. But the prosecution were pathetic.
And I am at a complete loss as to why Judge Ito's ethnicity would be pertinent to this discussion.
As am I.
On the 7th post of this page, Martin54 analogized 9/11 to the OJ trial, and it went from there.
It was also Martin who introduced the ethnicity of Judge Ito into the conversation, for reasons that remain obscure.
Such stats were badly used. Judge Ito gave a gravitas to the proceedings, a dignity, according to my prejudice, just by being there he spoke well of the justice system, of American society. Until he said 'fabulous lawyering skills'. As it was he did the job perfectly of course, with helpless privilege.
OJ (and related stats and Judge Ito issues) is a tangent which has no place here. Stop it. Set up a new thread if you like.
The exchanges between Dave W and NOProphet_N0profit (with comments from others) have moved from vigorous and legitimate criticism of posts into more personal comments. A classic sign of a developing personality conflict (Commandment 4). The guideline is simple. Take it to Hell or end the argument.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
I've read it. I don't want to know what you say it says. What does it say? Make your case only with what is says. Otherwise you don't have one.