EPO and Hobby Cyclists

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Fred, Apr 16, 2004.

  1. On 23 Apr 2004 01:08:53 -0700, [email protected] (gwhite) wrote:


    >
    >I don't know where Kunich may have read/heard it, but I believe that
    >information was released on FOX, and it was explicitly cited. When
    >and where was stated, and the tape was played. Of course, I didn't
    >check the citation because I didn't have my own tape recorder running
    >and just don't care enough. It was on FOX right around her testimony
    >time if you want to contact FOX and peruse their tapes and check the
    >citation. I would have been listening in the evening if that helps
    >you folks do your verification. Good luck.


    Don't bullshit us. Much of Fox show, especially ones like the one in
    question, are available as transcripts at their website. There is a
    well-known instance of Rice mentioning Osama Bin-Laden that Fox played
    repeatedly to show she "was well aware of Al Quaeda". That's the best
    they could do because that's all their is. You've either
    intentionally or unintentially fallen for their spin.

    JT
     


  2. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest

    Stewart Fleming wrote:
    > Tom Kunich wrote:
    >
    >> I think that reflects a great deal more on your own ethics than
    >> anything I can say.

    >
    > *stunned silence*
    > Literally, words fail me.


    I feel your pain. Sometimes aspirin helps.
     
  3. Howard Kveck

    Howard Kveck Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Stewart Fleming <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Tom Kunich wrote:
    >
    > > "Stewart Fleming" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]


    > >>Tom, what is there in someone's personal ethics and moral background
    > >>that makes them unwilling or unable to lie for their country when
    > >>ordered to do so?

    > >
    > >
    > > I think that reflects a great deal more on your own ethics than anything I
    > > can say.

    >
    > *stunned silence*
    > Literally, words fail me.


    Stewart, it's kind of funny that lying for the government is something to
    be admired by Tom when the liar is named North, Oliver. When a 'lunatic
    idea' has a 'certain strange genius'...

    --
    tanx,
    Howard

    Q: Can we call it a quagmire yet?

    remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
     
  4. gwhite

    gwhite Guest

    John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<8[email protected]>...
    > On 23 Apr 2004 01:08:53 -0700, [email protected] (gwhite) wrote:
    >
    >
    > >
    > >I don't know where Kunich may have read/heard it, but I believe that
    > >information was released on FOX, and it was explicitly cited. When
    > >and where was stated, and the tape was played. Of course, I didn't
    > >check the citation because I didn't have my own tape recorder running
    > >and just don't care enough. It was on FOX right around her testimony
    > >time if you want to contact FOX and peruse their tapes and check the
    > >citation. I would have been listening in the evening if that helps
    > >you folks do your verification. Good luck.

    >
    > Don't bullshit us.


    WTF? I know I heard what I reported I heard.

    > Much of Fox show, especially ones like the one in
    > question, are available as transcripts at their website.


    So if you know how to find it, then do so.

    > There is a
    > well-known instance of Rice mentioning Osama Bin-Laden that Fox played
    > repeatedly to show she "was well aware of Al Quaeda". That's the best
    > they could do because that's all their is.


    So? Why would I care either way? I could not care less if she and
    Bush roast or survive well.

    > You've either
    > intentionally or unintentially fallen for their spin.


    What spin are you referring to? I heard something on TV and referred
    to it. That is was stated by FOX is likely true. Whether or not
    their own citation is true or false is a matter for those who care to
    go and investigate. I'm simply relating what I witnessed. I didn't
    judge it one way or another, or make any indication of doing so.

    As far as judgement goes, I'm not so sure having known about Osama
    Bin-Laden and AQ is such a good thing. After all, that is what the
    inquiry is about. If they (Rice, et al) knew about AQ before 9-11, I
    can see how that could be viewed as negative. They knew and didn't do
    enough. But I'll leave it for you guys who need one side or the other
    to be "right" to argue it out.
     
  5. gwhite

    gwhite Guest

  6. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "gwhite" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote in message

    news:<[email protected]>...
    > > On 23 Apr 2004 01:08:53 -0700, [email protected] (gwhite) wrote:
    > >
    > > >I don't know where Kunich may have read/heard it, but I believe that
    > > >information was released on FOX, and it was explicitly cited. When
    > > >and where was stated, and the tape was played. Of course, I didn't
    > > >check the citation because I didn't have my own tape recorder running
    > > >and just don't care enough. It was on FOX right around her testimony
    > > >time if you want to contact FOX and peruse their tapes and check the
    > > >citation. I would have been listening in the evening if that helps
    > > >you folks do your verification. Good luck.

    > >
    > > Don't bullshit us.

    >
    > WTF? I know I heard what I reported I heard.


    Hmm sounds just like what I said and what the other's arguing with you said
    that I couldn't possibly have heard.

    > > You've either
    > > intentionally or unintentially fallen for their spin.

    >
    > What spin are you referring to? I heard something on TV and referred
    > to it. That is was stated by FOX is likely true. Whether or not
    > their own citation is true or false is a matter for those who care to
    > go and investigate. I'm simply relating what I witnessed. I didn't
    > judge it one way or another, or make any indication of doing so.


    Greg, I finally came to the conclusion yesterday that what these people are
    doing is trying to pretend that THEY have no responsibility for the
    terrorism in the world. The same people who proclaim loudly that queers
    should have the right to "marry" other queers (being a homosexual is a death
    penalty in Islam), that women should have the right to wear anything that
    they like, that pay big bucks for satellite TV to watch "Friends"
    demonstrating every possible insult to the conservative Muslim populations
    of the world in their own languages and who think that "Guess" jeans (ain't
    they French?) that show a young girls ass-crack aren't the real cause of
    terrorism and instead blame it on pumping oil out of the ground which has
    brought about more social advancement in the Arab world than all past
    history.

    The very lifestyle that Liberals think they have improved the world with are
    the root cause of terrorism. It isn't SUV's driving down American roads - it
    is the sky black with airlines flying them all over the world to demonstrate
    their "enlightenment" to the downtrodden populations of third world
    countries.

    What it all boils down to is the Liberal belief that they are right no
    matter what history has to say about it. They will regale you with the dream
    of how they stopped the war in Vietnam but never mention the 3 million
    deaths the communists committed after the American pullout. Nor the 4
    million deaths in Cambodia or the 2 million in Laos. To the Liberals,
    pulling out of Vietnam was good regardless of the cost to anyone else. And
    they truly don't believe that the blood is on their hands.

    > As far as judgement goes, I'm not so sure having known about Osama
    > Bin-Laden and AQ is such a good thing. After all, that is what the
    > inquiry is about. If they (Rice, et al) knew about AQ before 9-11, I
    > can see how that could be viewed as negative. They knew and didn't do
    > enough. But I'll leave it for you guys who need one side or the other
    > to be "right" to argue it out.


    The problem doesn't require a commission. You only have to read Osama's
    declaration of war against the USA. He said that when he saw that 10
    Americans killed in Somalia and the Americans run away he knew that he could
    win.

    Funny thing that the Liberals aren't advertising that so much.
     
  7. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest

    gwhite wrote:
    > John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    >> On 23 Apr 2004 01:08:53 -0700, [email protected] (gwhite) wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>
    >>> I don't know where Kunich may have read/heard it, but I believe that
    >>> information was released on FOX, and it was explicitly cited. When
    >>> and where was stated, and the tape was played. Of course, I didn't
    >>> check the citation because I didn't have my own tape recorder running
    >>> and just don't care enough. It was on FOX right around her testimony
    >>> time if you want to contact FOX and peruse their tapes and check the
    >>> citation. I would have been listening in the evening if that helps
    >>> you folks do your verification. Good luck.

    >>
    >> Don't bullshit us.

    >
    > WTF? I know I heard what I reported I heard.
    >
    >> Much of Fox show, especially ones like the one in
    >> question, are available as transcripts at their website.

    >
    > So if you know how to find it, then do so.
    >
    >> There is a
    >> well-known instance of Rice mentioning Osama Bin-Laden that Fox played
    >> repeatedly to show she "was well aware of Al Quaeda". That's the best
    >> they could do because that's all their is.

    >
    > So? Why would I care either way? I could not care less if she and
    > Bush roast or survive well.
    >
    >> You've either
    >> intentionally or unintentially fallen for their spin.

    >
    > What spin are you referring to? I heard something on TV and referred
    > to it. That is was stated by FOX is likely true. Whether or not
    > their own citation is true or false is a matter for those who care to
    > go and investigate. I'm simply relating what I witnessed. I didn't
    > judge it one way or another, or make any indication of doing so.
    >
    > As far as judgement goes, I'm not so sure having known about Osama
    > Bin-Laden and AQ is such a good thing. After all, that is what the
    > inquiry is about. If they (Rice, et al) knew about AQ before 9-11, I
    > can see how that could be viewed as negative. They knew and didn't do
    > enough. But I'll leave it for you guys who need one side or the other
    > to be "right" to argue it out.


    Wow. Amusing. Scary.
     
  8. gwhite <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Is the "misperception link" to FOX causal or simply correlative? If
    > it is causal then there must be citations, and certainly some
    > frequency to them.


    > "The frequency of Americans' misperceptions varies significantly
    > depending on their source of news."


    > By implication of "depend," then the misstatements were made on FOX.
    > To me, depend means causal.


    Usually, in order to look for a correlation, one does something like
    plot y against x. Frequently one calls y the "dependent variable" and
    x the "independent variable," same use of "depends." Often one
    chooses x as the presumed cause and y as the effect, but usually one
    can demonstrate the existence of a correlation without calling it
    cause/effect. (There are statistical methods which try to make sure
    you get the same answer for fitting y against x or x against y.) It
    could be the other way around, after all - perhaps people who have
    misperceptions choose to get news from FOX because it makes them feel
    good, or it's somehow correlated with whether they like checking out
    the anchors. Oh sorry, that was the Gum thread.

    Anyway, you're the engineer. You should know this crap.
     
  9. Howard Kveck

    Howard Kveck Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Stewart Fleming wrote:
    > > Tom Kunich wrote:
    > >
    > >> I think that reflects a great deal more on your own ethics than
    > >> anything I can say.

    > >
    > > *stunned silence*
    > > Literally, words fail me.

    >
    > I feel your pain. Sometimes aspirin helps.


    Does aspirin help in cases of aberrant thinking?

    --
    tanx,
    Howard

    Q: Can we call it a quagmire yet?

    remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
     
  10. gecwhite

    gecwhite Guest

    Benjamin Weiner wrote:
    >
    > gwhite <[email protected]> wrote:


    > ...Often one chooses x as the presumed cause
    > and y as the effect, but usually one can
    > demonstrate the existence of a correlation
    > without calling it cause/effect.


    Exactly -- that is what I was getting at. I don't so much doubt the
    correlation, but I don't believe it is causal _based solely on what I've
    heard on FOX_.

    > ... perhaps people who have misperceptions choose
    > to get news from FOX because it makes them feel
    > good,...


    Presuming the pipa report is not garbage, I think this is probably more
    like it since the political bent would seem to be the correlation. I am
    unconvinced those with the "misperceptions" acquired that specific
    misinformation on FOX, but the pipa report made the strong implication
    that this was indeed so. That was my problem with it. I don't (at
    all) mind criticism of FOX, or any other network for that matter, but
    actual facts would be nice.

    I appreciate your response.
     
  11. Howard Kveck

    Howard Kveck Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] (gwhite) wrote:

    > I don't know where Kunich may have read/heard it, but I believe that
    > information was released on FOX, and it was explicitly cited. When
    > and where was stated, and the tape was played. Of course, I didn't
    > check the citation because I didn't have my own tape recorder running
    > and just don't care enough. It was on FOX right around her testimony
    > time if you want to contact FOX and peruse their tapes and check the
    > citation. I would have been listening in the evening if that helps
    > you folks do your verification. Good luck.



    Greg, I don't doubt you saw what you say you did. I wonder if it was on
    a news show, or one of the pundits, like Hannity... Of course, that may not
    really matter, as the line between those kinds of shows is pretty blurry
    over at FNC. (There's an interesting article on that over at Salon, if you
    don't mind sitting through an ad to get a free day pass - yeah, it's a
    little annoying, but the article is worth the hassle, imo. link is here:
    <http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/10/31/fox/index_np.html>)

    Anyway, I think that what Fox was trying to do was a sort of "gotcha" on
    Clarke. By taking one sentence out of context and showing something that
    seemed to disprove it, they are trying to discredit everything he said.
    What he seemed to mean was that when he asked her for a meeting to discuss
    al Qaeda, she dismissed it in a way that indicated that they had much more
    important things to think about. You know, "Huh? Why would you want to talk
    about them?!?!"

    I think you're right on the money when you say, "If they (Rice, et al)
    knew about AQ before 9-11, I can see how that could be viewed as negative.
    They knew and didn't do enough."

    --
    tanx,
    Howard

    Q: Can we call it a quagmire yet?

    remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
     
  12. Howard Kveck

    Howard Kveck Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Greg, I finally came to the conclusion yesterday that what these people are
    > doing is trying to pretend that THEY have no responsibility for the
    > terrorism in the world. The same people who proclaim loudly that queers
    > should have the right to "marry" other queers (being a homosexual is a death
    > penalty in Islam), that women should have the right to wear anything that
    > they like, that pay big bucks for satellite TV to watch "Friends"
    > demonstrating every possible insult to the conservative Muslim populations
    > of the world in their own languages and who think that "Guess" jeans (ain't
    > they French?) that show a young girls ass-crack aren't the real cause of
    > terrorism and instead blame it on pumping oil out of the ground which has
    > brought about more social advancement in the Arab world than all past
    > history.


    You have -got- to be joking. If you spent the least amount of time
    looking into the Islamic terrorist movement, you might discover that the
    causes that are overwhelmingly listed are US foreign policy, US trade
    policy and US support of Israel. Do the Islamic fundies hate western
    culture? Of course they do! But so do Christian fundies. There is no way in
    hell that the number one reason for Islamic terrorists is western culture.
    Christ, think about why they attacked the World TRADE Center (twice,
    remember?), and not Universal Studios or Tower Records. Don't you think
    that building had some symbolism to them? Do you think Mohammed Atta yelled
    out, "Take that, Rachel and Ross!" as the planes piled into the buildings
    that day? To ascribe the motivations of al Qaeda or any other serious
    terrorist organization to "Friends" is the most preposterous thing you've
    come up with yet, even as a goddamn analogy.

    So what's the solution to the culture issue, T? Women back in the home,
    maybe even burqas? That worked wonders in Afghanistan.

    Is it possible that by invading Iraq, Bush has inspired even more people
    to take up the anti-US terorism cause? And he was able to supply them with
    plenty of targets in Iraq, and they don't even have to do any sneaking into
    the US to get those targets. Thoughtful.

    Do you think that stunt Bush pulled last week where he gave Ariel Sharon
    even more than he wanted won't have some effect? You know, Sharon seems to
    be hinting that Arafat is the next to go - do you think that'll calm the
    Palestinians down, Tom? (By the way, back in that Update on French
    anti-Americanism thread, you tried to thoroughly lambaste me for saying
    that the Iraqi people are glad that Saddam is gone, but that if we don't
    leave soon, they'll take up arms against us. Soooo, after the events in
    Fallujah a couple weeks ago (and in plenty of other places since), whattaya
    say - maybe I wasn't so far off the mark, hmmm?)

    Social advancement, in the Arab world? Sure, lots of US dough flows into
    the Arab world due to the oil trade - how much positive effect does that
    have on the general population of those countries? Or does it go to a
    select few and the governments of those countries, who keep the population
    in line with brutal and oppressive security? Ever consider why Osama bin
    Laden has the house of Saud as one of his primary objectives?

    You want root causes of terror against the west, that first, watershed
    event? Try The Brits and US helping the Shah of Iran overthrow the
    immensely popular Mohammed Mossadegh in August 1953.


    > The very lifestyle that Liberals think they have improved the world with are
    > the root cause of terrorism. It isn't SUV's driving down American roads - it
    > is the sky black with airlines flying them all over the world to demonstrate
    > their "enlightenment" to the downtrodden populations of third world
    > countries.
    >
    > What it all boils down to is the Liberal belief that they are right no
    > matter what history has to say about it. They will regale you with the dream
    > of how they stopped the war in Vietnam but never mention the 3 million
    > deaths the communists committed after the American pullout. Nor the 4
    > million deaths in Cambodia or the 2 million in Laos. To the Liberals,
    > pulling out of Vietnam was good regardless of the cost to anyone else. And
    > they truly don't believe that the blood is on their hands.


    How many would have died if the war had continued the way it been fought
    from the first? They never really tried to "win". It was always an attempt
    to maintain the status quo. Suppose they had tried to actually win the way
    Nixon suggested? You know, he wanted to drop an atomic bomb or several on
    Hanoi. How many casualties from that? What about from the retaliation that
    would have been inevitable from the North Vietnamese' allies/backers? Would
    that blood be acceptable, or would it, too, be on "Liberal's hands"?

    Is there any evidence that the US being in Vietnam had any restraining
    effect on Pol Pot in Cambodia? Of course not.

    Chile? Guatemala? Yeah, you said that Chile was "only about 30,000".
    Guatemala seems to have been at least 200,000 - and that's just the ones
    that died while Rios Mont was in charge. The deaths kept on rolling after
    he was eased out. Did Liberals cause those? John Negroponte still asserts
    that there were no death squads. Strange that CIA guys seem to disagree
    with him there.

    Since we supplied the weapons to the Afghan rebels when they were
    fighting the Russians, and then said, "See ya" once the Russians were
    defeated, don't the people who supported that effort have just a bit of
    blood on their hands, courtesy the Taliban? Not all the muj turned into
    Taliban, so perhaps if there'd been a little more support for the guys who
    became the Northern Alliance, the Taliban wouldn't have got power... After
    Russia was gone, the powers that be just didn't give a damn anymore.

    > The problem doesn't require a commission. You only have to read Osama's
    > declaration of war against the USA. He said that when he saw that 10
    > Americans killed in Somalia and the Americans run away he knew that he could
    > win.
    >
    > Funny thing that the Liberals aren't advertising that so much.


    Whose voices were the loudest in clamoring for the admin. to withdraw
    from Somalia after that, Tom? Conservatives. They said the cost outweighed
    any benefit to the US. Clinton should have ignored them, since we were
    already there.

    Funny to read you going on about "Liberals not wanting to take
    responsibility" for their actions in the causes of terrorism, as you seem
    to do a pretty damn good job of that yourself. Thanks for the glimpse into
    your twisted psyche, Tom.

    --
    tanx,
    Howard

    Q: Can we call it a quagmire yet?

    remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
     
  13. Kyle Legate

    Kyle Legate Guest

    Howard Kveck wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> Greg, I finally came to the conclusion yesterday that what these
    >> people are doing is trying to pretend that THEY have no
    >> responsibility for the terrorism in the world. The same people who
    >> proclaim loudly that queers should have the right to "marry" other
    >> queers (being a homosexual is a death penalty in Islam), that women
    >> should have the right to wear anything that they like, that pay big
    >> bucks for satellite TV to watch "Friends" demonstrating every
    >> possible insult to the conservative Muslim populations of the world
    >> in their own languages and who think that "Guess" jeans (ain't they
    >> French?) that show a young girls ass-crack aren't the real cause of
    >> terrorism and instead blame it on pumping oil out of the ground
    >> which has brought about more social advancement in the Arab world
    >> than all past history.

    >
    > You have -got- to be joking. If you spent the least amount of time
    > looking into the Islamic terrorist movement, you might discover that
    > the causes that are overwhelmingly listed are US foreign policy, US
    > trade
    > policy and US support of Israel.
    >

    Howard,

    While your points are all correct based on careful, distanced analysis of
    the available FACTS, you'll never get through to a guy who thinks that all
    terrorism is caused by a girl's ass crack.
     
  14. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > You have -got- to be joking. If you spent the least amount of time
    > looking into the Islamic terrorist movement, you might discover that the
    > causes that are overwhelmingly listed are US foreign policy, US trade
    > policy and US support of Israel. Do the Islamic fundies hate western
    > culture? Of course they do! But so do Christian fundies. There is no way

    in
    > hell that the number one reason for Islamic terrorists is western culture.


    Howard, cite some foreign policy that you believe causes the likes of Atta
    to fly a plane into a building. That isn't someone that hates business,
    that's someone that has a bitter abiding hatred for the basic fundamentals
    of our culture.

    > So what's the solution to the culture issue, T? Women back in the home,
    > maybe even burqas? That worked wonders in Afghanistan.


    I think you are missing my point. It isn't what we are doing to the Muslims
    that is the problem. It is the fact that we exist at all.

    Here's the long and the short of it - I'm not suggesting WE change anything.
    But if you really believe that our putting gays on TV (Queer Eye?) having
    string bikinis on 13 year old girls and advertising "women's hygene
    products" in magazines isn't any of your or my business, then you have to
    accept that you are part of cause of Islamic hatred.

    > Is it possible that by invading Iraq, Bush has inspired even more

    people
    > to take up the anti-US terorism cause?


    Is it possible that seeing war close up and personal will discourage a
    greater number?

    > Do you think that stunt Bush pulled last week where he gave Ariel

    Sharon
    > even more than he wanted won't have some effect? You know, Sharon seems to
    > be hinting that Arafat is the next to go - do you think that'll calm the
    > Palestinians down, Tom?


    Well, do you really believe that leaving Arafat alive and planning his next
    financial additions to his family terrorism business is calming anyone down?
    You have to have a pretty blank mind not to have noticed that Hamas had
    offices in Arafat's building.

    > (By the way, back in that Update on French
    > anti-Americanism thread, you tried to thoroughly lambaste me for saying
    > that the Iraqi people are glad that Saddam is gone, but that if we don't
    > leave soon, they'll take up arms against us. Soooo, after the events in
    > Fallujah a couple weeks ago (and in plenty of other places since),

    whattaya
    > say - maybe I wasn't so far off the mark, hmmm?)


    I'd say that while you're saying that the "Iraqi people" are rebelling that
    isn't what the word is from people that are there. In fact they are saying
    that there are a minute portion of the population and that there are more
    members of the KKK in this country than the rebels in Fallujah. So why are
    you implying that a tiny segment are representative of an entire country?

    > Social advancement, in the Arab world? Sure, lots of US dough flows

    into
    > the Arab world due to the oil trade - how much positive effect does that
    > have on the general population of those countries?


    Real historian are you? Try this: Arabs now have a lifespan nearing
    "normal". They don't die of diseases, starvation or inter-tribal strife at
    an average age of 34 any longer. That is directly due to western money,
    western medicine and western CULTURE.

    > Ever consider why Osama bin
    > Laden has the house of Saud as one of his primary objectives?


    Because of tribal politics that go back 100 years to Ibn Saud himself?

    > You want root causes of terror against the west, that first, watershed
    > event? Try The Brits and US helping the Shah of Iran overthrow the
    > immensely popular Mohammed Mossadegh in August 1953.


    Obvious reasons for Arabs who HATE the Iranians.

    > How many would have died if the war had continued the way it been

    fought
    > from the first? They never really tried to "win". It was always an attempt
    > to maintain the status quo.


    I suggest you study the Vietnamese war before making such ignorant
    statements. North Vietnam was BEATEN in the Tet Offensive. Any serious
    military action against the North would have caused them to completely
    crumble. They were not allowed to do so by the Liberals. Got that? The WAR
    WAS WON and then handed back to the North Vietnamese who them murdered in
    wholesale numbers.

    But I have the gist of your claim "It isn't MEEEEEEE, I HAVE NOTHING TO DO
    WITH IT!!! IT'S SOMEONE ELSE!"

    Gotcha.
     
  15. gwhite

    gwhite Guest

    Never tiring of shooting blanks, Robert Chung wrote:

    > Wow. Amusing. Scary.


    Nothing, nuthin, no thing.

    I believe most folks realize the zen approach to communication is only
    of utility a fraction of the time. You don't. With a general style
    of multitudinous open-ended questions and no clear statements on
    anything of import, you keep suggesting nothing is "there." People
    will eventually believe you. I know I do.

    After the pipa response, I stopped believing you could appreciate
    irony. You wouldn't know irony if it gave you a big smooch.
     
  16. gwhite

    gwhite Guest

    Howard Kveck wrote:

    > I wonder if it was on
    > a news show, or one of the pundits, like Hannity...


    I think it was Ham & Cheese, now that you remind me. It is all rather
    foggy. Sure, I get bored like everyone else.

    > <http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/10/31/fox/index_np.html>)


    Thanks, I'll check it out in awhile...

    > Anyway, I think that what Fox was trying to do was a sort of "gotcha" on
    > Clarke.


    Well that would have been Ham, but most certainly not Cheese. I see
    your point.

    > By taking one sentence out of context and showing something that
    > seemed to disprove it, they are trying to discredit everything he said.
    > What he seemed to mean was that when he asked her for a meeting to discuss
    > al Qaeda, she dismissed it in a way that indicated that they had much more
    > important things to think about. You know, "Huh? Why would you want to talk
    > about them?!?!"


    Could be for all I know. But it is an election year and politically
    there just isn't any way a sitting administration up for re-election
    can say "I screwed up" about something like 9-11. In fact, I don't
    think politics allow much room for admitting mistakes "period."
    That's too bad I suppose, but that's kinda "just how it is."

    If they did the right thing, they'll say: "I did the best job
    possible."
    If they didn't do so well they would say: "I did the best job
    possible."

    Presidential politics don't allow a lot of wiggle room there. Not
    that it makes me happy.

    I'm not ascribing blame, but people do make mistakes. Admitting I
    have not studied this particular issue, I (to date) suspect there is a
    good bit of blame to go around. Regarding how it has been handled
    politically, I would be cynical if you were to say the democrats, if
    they were currently in power, would be any more likely to admit a
    mistake of not decisively punching out AQ. I would be cynical if you
    were to tell me they would have "done better" as an incoming
    administration in 2001.


    > I think you're right on the money when you say, "If they (Rice, et al)
    > knew about AQ before 9-11, I can see how that could be viewed as negative.
    > They knew and didn't do enough."


    Yes, it seems like it could be used against them, but again I wasn't
    listening to the overall context/framework of the discussion, or
    trying to analyze it. In light of that, I think everyone should be
    mirandized at birth -- especially potential politicians. "Everything
    you say can and will be used against you." Of course, if they're "on
    your side," just the opposite will happen. "Everything you say can
    and will be used for you."
     
  17. gwhite

    gwhite Guest

    "Tom Kunich" wrote:
    > "gwhite" wrote:


    > > WTF? I know I heard what I reported I heard.

    >
    > Hmm sounds just like what I said and what the other's arguing with you said
    > that I couldn't possibly have heard.


    Yes, I'm saying it was very unlikely you pulled it out of thin air,
    aside from how the statements are specifically viewed by various
    politicos.

    > > What spin are you referring to?...

    >
    > Greg, I finally came to the conclusion yesterday that what these people are
    > doing is trying to pretend that THEY have no responsibility for the
    > terrorism in the world.


    Well I certainly don't feel responsible *for* it. The complaints
    about things like US trade policy and culture "stomping" as provoking
    terrorism are utterly ridiculous. I do feel responsible to do
    something *about* terrorism.

    We are probably in agreement that an effete (appeasement) policy is
    one doomed for long term disaster, death, and chaos. For the purpose
    of winning, it doesn't work any better with one's enemies than it does
    in a bike race. Basically we get in their face and take them out.
    That would be my approach.
     
  18. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest

    Benjamin Weiner wrote:
    > (There are statistical methods which try to make sure
    > you get the same answer for fitting y against x or x against y.)


    Which are those, and why would one be interested in that particular
    criterion?
     
  19. Howard Kveck

    Howard Kveck Guest

    In article <%[email protected]>,
    "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Howard, cite some foreign policy that you believe causes the likes of Atta
    > to fly a plane into a building. That isn't someone that hates business,
    > that's someone that has a bitter abiding hatred for the basic fundamentals
    > of our culture.


    Foreign policies that they hate the US for would include the perception
    that the US has an imperialistic streak, supporting and, in fact,
    installing brutal and oppressive leaders in various countries that do not
    represent the majority population in any way. The Shah of Iran, Rios Mont,
    Marcos, Somoza, Suharto, Pinochet and Saddam (when he was our friend during
    the Iran-Iraq war) are a few of those who come to mind. Our support for the
    Sauds especially galls them. Top of the list, of course, is the support of
    Israel. There's not a chance that any cultural issues tops that last one,
    in particular. Mideastern scholars say so, if you'd care to look.

    > Here's the long and the short of it - I'm not suggesting WE change anything.
    > But if you really believe that our putting gays on TV (Queer Eye?) having
    > string bikinis on 13 year old girls and advertising "women's hygene
    > products" in magazines isn't any of your or my business, then you have to
    > accept that you are part of cause of Islamic hatred.


    A very small part. Policy issues trump cultural ones, however. Big time.

    > > Is it possible that by invading Iraq, Bush has inspired even more
    > > people to take up the anti-US terorism cause?

    >
    > Is it possible that seeing war close up and personal will discourage a
    > greater number?


    Apparently not. Shiites have never tolerated suicide bombing, yet right
    now in Iraq, it -is- being condoned, as one example. Perhaps you should
    google it - there are many reports in various news outlets online that talk
    about recruiting in various Islamic extremist grooups being at an all time
    high since the invasion of Iraq.

    > Well, do you really believe that leaving Arafat alive and planning his next
    > financial additions to his family terrorism business is calming anyone down?
    > You have to have a pretty blank mind not to have noticed that Hamas had
    > offices in Arafat's building.


    If you think that executing Arafat is going to make the Palestinians
    say, "Oh, well, that ends that. We'll just let Israel have our homes, olive
    orchards and land - they are obviously more deserving..." The pot is about
    to boil over after they killed Yasin and Rantisi - right now is the calm
    before the storm. Do in Arafat and the explosion will be massive. Here's
    another thing you seem not to know: Islamic people the world over identify
    with the Palestinians.

    > I'd say that while you're saying that the "Iraqi people" are rebelling that
    > isn't what the word is from people that are there. In fact they are saying
    > that there are a minute portion of the population and that there are more
    > members of the KKK in this country than the rebels in Fallujah. So why are
    > you implying that a tiny segment are representative of an entire country?


    The guys doing the fighting are, indeed, a small percentage of the
    population, as is always the case. But they are supported by an
    overwhelming percentage of the population. If you don't want to take my
    word for it, perhaps try that of Brig. Nick Carter, commander of British
    troops in southern Iraq:
    "During an interview in Basra last week Brig Carter acknowledged that
    the Coalition's presence in southern Iraq was entirely dependent on the
    goodwill of the local Shia Muslim leader, Sayid Ali al-Safi al-Musawi."
    There are many articles on the web telling of this.
    In recent actions in and around Najaf and Fallujah, with Iraqi forces to
    be in support of the US, 40% abandoned their positions, and 10% fought
    against the US. There will be a huge backlash if the US goes into Najaf -
    for Muslims, it would be the equivalent of attacking the Vatican for
    Catholics.

    > > Ever consider why Osama bin Laden has the house of Saud as one of his
    > > primary objectives?

    >
    > Because of tribal politics that go back 100 years to Ibn Saud himself?


    Did you consider that bin Laden would think that the friend and big
    supporter of his enemy would be an enemy, too? The Saudi security service
    isn't exactly a friendly bunch, and they are trained by Americans, as well
    as being supported by US dollars. Very brutal, very repressive. Very hated.

    > > You want root causes of terror against the west, that first, watershed
    > > event? Try The Brits and US helping the Shah of Iran overthrow the
    > > immensely popular Mohammed Mossadegh in August 1953.

    >
    > Obvious reasons for Arabs who HATE the Iranians.


    Ehh???? You completely misunderstand that one. Islamic fundamentalists
    and extremists state that the removal of Mossadegh was the moment that they
    knew that the west did not have the Islamic world's interests at heart.
    They hated the US for putting the much despised Shah back in power.
    Remember the Iranian Revolution in '77? That had nought to do with culture.
    Terrorist organizations like al Qaeda aren't restricted to having
    allegiance to one nation state - they have people from many nations working
    with them, including people from countries who have natural enmities. Those
    antagonisms go away because of the common goal.

    > > How many would have died if the war had continued the way it been
    > >fought from the first? They never really tried to "win". It was always an
    > > attempt to maintain the status quo.

    >
    > I suggest you study the Vietnamese war before making such ignorant
    > statements. North Vietnam was BEATEN in the Tet Offensive. Any serious
    > military action against the North would have caused them to completely
    > crumble. They were not allowed to do so by the Liberals. Got that? The WAR
    > WAS WON and then handed back to the North Vietnamese who them murdered in
    > wholesale numbers.


    The NV did lose huge numbers of Viet Cong units in the Tet Offensive,
    but it was a calculated maneuver. They still had plenty of regular army and
    guerrilla troops available. But they threw Tet in an effort to kill as many
    South Vietnamese and US soldiers as possible, as well as demoralize the
    rest. They succeeded at both ends. The war wasn't close to being won,
    unless you are going by the stories that Westmoreland and Macnamara were
    telling at the time. And you are aware that those numbers were cooked,
    right? Check out Macnamara's new-ish book. Among others.

    > But I have the gist of your claim "It isn't MEEEEEEE, I HAVE NOTHING TO DO
    > WITH IT!!! IT'S SOMEONE ELSE!"


    Speaking for yourself again, eh? The fact you can't recognize that there
    are people in the world who don't agree with US foreign policy shows that
    you're a man who's in serious denial. I guess Tom knowledge is better than
    that of a pile of mid-eastern scholars.

    --
    tanx,
    Howard

    Q: Can we call it a quagmire yet?

    remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
     
  20. gwhite

    gwhite Guest

    Howard Kveck wrote:

    > Whose voices were the loudest in clamoring for the admin. to withdraw
    > from Somalia after that, Tom? Conservatives. They said the cost outweighed
    > any benefit to the US. Clinton should have ignored them, since we were
    > already there.


    If true, then indeed he should have ignored them. After all, he was
    commander-in-chief, not them. Those guys died for no reason.
    Abomination.

    I suspect the "to intervene or not intervene" topic is a very long
    talk -- I think it is already older than me. The US has history of
    doing some great things and some things it would rather forget. And
    it never did anything as bad as that of some of history's
    super-villains. There is no real excusing the bad things, but does
    that mean you can't do good things, or paralyze yourself from doing
    so? How do you decide? Laws and property rights might come in handy.

    Remember that people still want to come here. And if they can't come,
    they willingly want to trade with us, and we in turn do so willingly
    -- maybe more than any other 1st world country. If politics can't
    solve the nasty problems, free trade will. Growing dependent upon
    each other for a better life strongly disincentivizes killing each
    other, not to mention opening communication between cultures.
    Moreover trade is something free people do in practice, not an
    ethereal idea about what they "should do." Models (rules) for a
    better society should consider how people actually behave, and not be
    based on instructions of how they should behave given great advice
    from a morally superior politician, a political sect, a religious
    leader, ... and on and on. ;-)
     
Loading...
Loading...