9/11/2017

[OceanBreeze]

.

Articles WHAT articles?

 

I'm going to type very slowly in the remote chance that it will help.

 

What I saw on that day on TV were reports about people celebrating in New Jersey.

 

What I saw on subsequent days were online reports of people celebrating in New Jersey.

 

If President Trump saw what I saw, then that's your problem, not mine.

 

What I saw on that day on TV were video clips of "Palestinian" children being given candy by adults in celebration.

 

 

I saw the clips of Palestinians celebrating and I read reports of widespread spontaneous but short-lived celebrations throughout the Middle East and I definitely saw a video of Saddam celebrating by firing his rifle in the air while his minions cheered. What I did not see was any videotape of celebrations in New Jersey but I do remember hearing a mention on Fox News of “reports coming through” about such things in Patterson NJ.

 

Trump was stupidly wrong in overstating the case, but he was not totally lying when he said there were celebrations in New Jersey. Understandably, the police and other authorities wanted to keep a lid on such reports because there could have been violent backlashes against the Muslim communities in the US. Trump really should not have mentioned it for exactly the same reasons. It seems he just does not know how and when to keep his mouth shut.

 

By the way, arguing with Buffy is sort of like this cartoon:

 

http://assets.amuniversal.com/e1996ea0c0af0132d64a005056a9545d

 

She will find a way to use every word you say against you, even the words you didn’t say.

:cussing:  :cussing:  :cussing:  

 

I don’t dislike her for it but I wonder if her conduct is appropriate for an admin?  

[Buffy]

Well, now we're getting somewhere. Thank you for responding to my actual questions. At least one of them.
 

Articles WHAT articles?

An "article" is a part of speech in English language. I apologize if this was a distraction to you and I'll avoid such in the future.
 

What I saw on that day on TV were reports about people celebrating in New Jersey.

What I saw on subsequent days were online reports of people celebrating in New Jersey.

That means that you were watching ABC at 11:28 AM, which is the only known mention of it on the air on 9/11:
 

The only known on-air mention on ABC News related to celebrations of any kind in New Jersey came at 11:28 p.m. on Sept. 11, when former ABC News correspondent John Miller (now the NYPD deputy commissioner for counter-terrorism and intelligence) gave ABC News anchor Peter Jennings an update on reports of a van investigated for explosives.

Miller explained the van “was stopped after people reported seeing three men celebrating in Liberty Park, opposite the World Trade Center on the New Jersey side of the river, celebrating with joy after the explosion.” The three men reportedly seen celebrating were later stopped along with two others in the van, which was found by police not to carry any explosives.
...
ABC News later extensively reported on the individuals stopped in the van, detailing an investigation into five young Israelis and their possible connection to Israeli intelligence. ABC News reported in June 2002 that the men were held in detention for more than two months before being deported to Israel.
 

Source: ABC News, "What ABC News Footage Shows of 9/11 Celebrations" 12/4/15

So, yes, it turns out they were not even Muslim, they were Jewish. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution actually tracked them down and the story of their detention and deportation gives a pretty grim tale of anyone who may have thought of "celebrating."

This is the only group in the US that is known or even *alleged* to have celebrated. All of the right-wing and conspiracy theory sites appear to refer back to this.

It would appear that from your very carefully chosen words in that last quote block by you beginning with "What I saw..." (to be very specific about what I am referring to, since references seem to be difficult for you to locate), that you are not claiming that it actually happened, you just heard that it did.

All I'm trying to accomplish here is to ensure that people who are not noticing that you're using these very carefully chosen words, and who jump to the conclusion that you are simply asserting the truth of the stories that have now been widely disseminated by people like President Trump--whose particular rendition of it matches the story you'll find from right-wing/conspiracy sources that "thousands of people were dancing in New Jersey"--and to clarify that the stories are indeed not true.

Now you could have gathered that intent if you had bothered to read the link to the Washington Post piece that I provided in my earlier post, you could have saved us all the torture of you figuring out that that was the point.

I'm going to assume that because you are only saying that you heard about it and not that you actually saw it, along with your fevered reaction to my stating that you did see/believe it, is that you actually do not believe that it happened. That would be a good thing, because it did not.

If you go back and look at some of the previous posts, you may discern that I was not the only one who jumped to the conclusion that you believe the stories.

We're all glad you've now clarified that you do not.
 

What I saw on that day on TV were video clips of "Palestinian" children being given candy by adults in celebration.

Sure that happened. There was video taken by Reuters that got repeated endlessly on Fox News, and here it is:

Most dispassionate observers put the numbers "celebrating" here at a few dozen or so.

There were not widespread displays of "celebration" because quite frankly, the obvious result to anyone who understood the situation was that this would be bad for the Palestinians, especially once bin Laden claimed that one of the (bogus as it turns out) excuses for the attack was to support Palestine. Here is what Yasser Arafat had to say contemporaneously:

How you judge his reaction is a Rorsach Test I suppose, but he did not seem to think it was a good thing.

The bottom line is that it turned out really bad for the Palestinians. Bin Laden hijacked the Palestinian cause for his own benefit, when further research indicates that he hated them because they aligned with the Baathists and Hezbollah, both of which are Shi'ite organizations, and bin Laden hated them almost as much as he hated American Infidels.

Were there other extremists who aligned with/supported al Queda? Of course, but that's the crux of the issue at hand here, and what all of us have been trying to ask you: do you distinguish between "Muslims" and "Islamic Terrorists/Extremists?"

You've gone out of your way to avoid answering that, but I suppose a simpler interpretation is that you are simply astonished that anyone would *not* assume that all Muslims support terror against the US/Western countries.

As I said above, I'm not going to put words in your mouth, you'll have to clarify it for us. If you're not going to clarify it for us, then the next question is, why did you start this thread in the first place? This is a contentious topic that riles people up. You should know that. If you're not going to be clear about your intent and motives, then all you're going to accomplish is to rile people up to no purpose.

That's not at all civilized. But I won't assume that's what you're trying to do: please let us know what you really mean.


Every man prefers virtue, when there is not some strong incitement to transgress its precepts, :phones:
Buffy

[Buffy]

She will find a way to use every word you say against you, even the words you didn’t say.

Actually, the funny thing about most folks who throw strong opinions around is that they don't like it when they get the same treatment back. Sorry to be so mean to you, I know you are a fragile flower. I will try to be more delicate with you when you get out of line! :cheer:

 

And I'm happy to drop into strict predicate logic and formal rhetoric if an explicit request is made to ignore all intent and implications and focus strictly on exact words, as my most recent post above demonstrates. Be careful what you wish for!

 

You'll find though that I'm hardly the only one around here who doesn't have much tolerance for such game playing!

 

 

People gotta talk themselves into law and order before they do anything about it. Maybe because down deep they don't care. They just don't care. :phones: 

Buffy

[exchemist]

Yes it does rile people up. 

 

In my own case, what riled me up, and still does, is the waste by GW Bush of the huge outpouring of sympathy towards the USA from right across the world, notably including the Arab world. I really thought, in the ensuing months, that we might get peace in the Middle East at last, if the opportunity was seized, and that some good might come out of this act of terrorist carnage. (I had lived in the Middle East for 4 years, which had given me a bit of insight into the Arab take on Israel and the USA.)

 

Instead what happened was that, led by the neocons in and close to government, Bush squandered the opportunity by deciding to make enemies of the whole Arab world by invading Iraq, which was led by a secular dictator who obviously had nothing to do with Al Qa'ida. What made it even worse for me personally was that my own head of government, Tony Blair, went along with this idiocy. The rest is history. 

Edited September 13, 2017 by exchemist

[sanctus]

Exchemist, you really thought that Bush would go for something else than revenge? I hoped for it, but never believed it.

[exchemist]

Exchemist, you really thought that Bush would go for something else than revenge? I hoped for it, but never believed it.

I did. I thought it was so shocking, and such a time for statesmanship (Buffy's video shows even Arafat being quite the statesman - and genuinely shocked and upset), that somewhere in the Bush administration there would be diplomats who would seize the moment. There was huge support for the US attack on Afghanistan to root out Al Qa'ida. People have forgotten that. Not one Arab country complained. 

 

It was only 6 months or more later that we started to hear preposterous nonsense about Saddam's supposed support for Al Qa'ida, which then slowly morphed into another issue entirely, namely this cooked-up story about "weapons of mass destruction". That was entirely a cynical ploy by the neocons, to hijack US national sentiment (understandably running high at the time) and turn it to a quite different purpose, to further the agenda of the Israeli right by taking out a powerful adversary.

 

I was motivated by all this to read not only  Walt and Mearsheimer's book about the Israel Lobby, but Richard Clarke's memoir "Against All Enemies". I recall one piece of black humour in that account was Rumsfeld's complaint about the Afghan campaign that there were "no suitable military targets" and that therefore they should attack Iraq! The whole thing was unbelievably idiotic.

 

And the aftermath has been a catastrophe for the world,  as so many of us predicted at the time. I recall a flight back from Dubai in 2002, when I sat next to an American and we had an argument about the build up to war in Iraq. This guy had bought the neocon line. He had no idea about the 3 groups in Iraq (Sunni, Shia, Kurds), no idea that the Shia leader was called "Ayatollah" (!)  and no understanding that the last thing Saddam wanted was religiously inspired terrorism in Iraq. Saddam was an 88mm self-propelled arsehole, no doubt of that, but an Al Qa'ida supporter? No way.     

Edited September 13, 2017 by exchemist

[scherado]

Exchemist, you really thought that Bush would go for something else than revenge? I hoped for it, but never believed it.

.

Revenge for what? Do you mean the assassination plot on his father?

[sanctus]

No much simpler, eye for an eye...make up some weapons of mass destruction (remember never found any) and use it as an excuse to get revenge for the WTC

[scherado]

No much simpler, eye for an eye...make up some weapons of mass destruction (remember never found any) and use it as an excuse to get revenge for the WTC

.

Are you aware of the assassination plot?

[Maine farmer]

.

Who made that requirement? Are you applying for the list? I'll give it a name for convenience: New Kid On The Block (list).

 

What is implied by what being absent and on what basis do you make this judgement?

 

I'm giving you a second chance.

 

You have been smoking crack if you think I must qualify my objections to brutal murder to anyone.

The implication was that all Muslims are terrorists. It simply doesn't work to blame all of one group for the actions of a few.

 

When I was in high school, and I got picked on by a football (American) player, I knocked that one football player on his backside, and did not set out to do the same to the whole football team.  That would have been a foolish waste of energy.

[sanctus]

No I meant exactly what I said revenge for the attack on the WTC...nothing complicated in that sentence ;-)

No I was not aware, and doing some research I know why I was not. Because this plot is just based on the fact that 4 (in some other links 2) men wanted to interview Bush and were turned away. That is all we know for sure, rest is speculation...I have no clue of what the odds of it being true are, but my take is not so high since  never read it anywhere on different news outlets. Do I think it is impossible? No. Likely? No.
 

[exchemist]

No I meant exactly what I said revenge for the attack on the WTC...nothing complicated in that sentence ;-)

 

No I was not aware, and doing some research I know why I was not. Because this plot is just based on the fact that 4 (in some other links 2) men wanted to interview Bush and were turned away. That is all we know for sure, rest is speculation...I have no clue of what the odds of it being true are, but my take is not so high since  never read it anywhere on different news outlets. Do I think it is impossible? No. Likely? No.

 

In fact, after the fall of Baghdad, intelligence agents combed through the extensive records of the Iraqi secret service and found no trace of any such plot, rather to their surprise: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/25/pentagon-report-shows-no-_n_93264.html

Edited September 13, 2017 by exchemist

[Maine farmer]

.

Who made that requirement?

 

It's sort of an unwritten (or seldom written?) rule of social norms.

 

It's like that "Seinfeld" TV show episode where Jerry was interviewed by someone for a magazine article, and George was there, and the writer assumed they were a gay couple and included it in her article.  Every time George or Jerry denied being gay, they qualified it by adding, "Not that there's anything wrong with that."

[sanctus]

Ok, I admit mixed up something in my head (read WTC and war and skipped over the Iraq part). Revenge was excuse for war in Afghanistan, which is where I hoped but did not believe that Bush would to the smart thing...namely introspective and changing what led to it (also in terrorism there are always two sides needed).

So now your question scherado makes sense, sorry.

So no war in Iraq was not for revenge, just usual oil etc. under the excuse of inexistent weapons of mass destruction.

[scherado]

The implication was that all Muslims are terrorists. It simply doesn't work to blame all of one group for the actions of a few.

...

.

Noooo. Your inference was that I harbor the idiotic prejudice that all Muslims are terrorists. Actually, I have no memory of mentioning anything about Muslims or Islam. I'm going to have to look at my posts. If I don't find any references, then guess who is New Kid On The Block (list)?

 

I am going to type very slowly...

 

When I write, I imply.

 

When you read what I write, you infer.

 

Your erroneous, baseless, gratuitous inference was created by your fantasy. Your fantasy.

[Buffy]

Noooo. Your inference was that I harbor the idiotic prejudice that all Muslims are terrorists. Actually, I have no memory of mentioning anything about Muslims or Islam. I'm going to have to look at my posts. If I don't find any references, then guess who is New Kid On The Block (list)?

 

Your erroneous, baseless, gratuitous inference was created by your fantasy. Your fantasy.

 

Great! We may have finally gotten you to establish clearly that you do not believe "all Muslims are terrorists." Oddly, it would be to your benefit if we inferred from that that you also believe that "not all Muslims support terrorists," but alas, because we can only go on your explicit words, we are going to have to await a clarification from you.

 

I for one am willing to go out on a limb and say that I believe that you don't think "all Muslims support terrorists," but when I do that, we're still left with the question that I've posed several times in this thread without any acknowledgement from you, what was your purpose in opening this topic?

 

 

Let's go. Yes, let's go, :phones:

Buffy

[scherado]

Ok, I admit mixed up something in my head (read WTC and war and skipped over the Iraq part). Revenge was excuse for war in Afghanistan, which is where I hoped but did not believe that Bush would to the smart thing...namely introspective and changing what led to it (also in terrorism there are always two sides needed).

 

So now your question scherado makes sense, sorry.

 

So no war in Iraq was not for revenge, just usual oil etc. under the excuse of inexistent weapons of mass destruction.

.

I see, thanks.

 

My memory about the plot to kill President Father Bush was that it was not controversial as being fact and it did not get much media attention.