Remembering September 10, 2001 ...

[omnirook]

It was a different world, wasn't it? I'll do Reagan and ask you: "Are you any better off than you were 5 years ago?"

What I remember clearly is not an event - but a sensation: Dubya's presidency was a lame, lack-lustre dud, so insignificant that, 9 months on, the newspapers were still dedicating more space to the former president than the current one. Then "it" happened: suddenly, Dubya was the man.

Harry: Whenever you consider anything that happened, always ask yourself, "Who benefitted from it?" - then you'll know for sure who did it and why.

[Arcturus]

That was a Monday. I hate Mondays.

Tuesdays are a little better :smooch:

[demagogic_schizoid]

Harry: Whenever you consider anything that happened, always ask yourself, "Who benefitted from it?" - then you'll know for sure who did it and why.

I ask myself "what would omnirook say?" Then I know for sure that the opposite is true.

[Ivy]

On September 10, 2001, I was reminiscing about the events of September 10, 1999. That was the day I went to the hospital, 2 weeks overdue and out to here. I was given a drug to start labor and spent the next 10 hours regressing into my reptilian brain. At 1:21 am on September 11, 1999, I met a good friend who turned 7 today.

On her second birthday some dudes flew some planes into some buildings, and I thought all day about how I could have made her last moments on Earth as meaningful as her first, if she and her dad and I had been on one of those planes.

[omnirook]

On September 10, 2001, I was reminiscing about the events of September 10, 1999. That was the day I went to the hospital, 2 weeks overdue and out to here. I was given a drug to start labor and spent the next 10 hours regressing into my reptilian brain. At 1:21 am on September 11, 1999, I met a good friend who turned 7 today.

On her second birthday some dudes flew some planes into some buildings, and I thought all day about how I could have made her last moments on Earth as meaningful as her first, if she and her dad and I had been on one of those planes.

Well, then, September 11th has a truly happy connotation for you - you are lucky. Happy birthday to your daughter!

[Ferrus]

In truth though George Bush was fairly insignificant till 9/11; he could've been like many forgettable politicians. Whilst he benefited from it in the short term, it merely provided the height with which he later hung himself politically.

[omnirook]

I ask myself "what would omnirook say?" Then I know for sure that the opposite is true.

Good for you. You must have even more fun when I am in fence-sitting mode - you can spin like a top! W/a broken bottle, you've got a ready-made "sit and spin" kit - have fun!

[earwax]

Sept 10, 2001 I was on vacation in Scotland. On Sept 11 the borders of my country were closed. It was a very odd feeling.

[booyalab]

i was wishing for more excitement in my life

[kuranes]

On the tenth I had seen a touring Japanese psychedelic band at a local record store. A couple years later they took the recording of that afternoon concert and sold it as a limited edition vinyl pressing called "The Day Before The Sky Fell In."

[libertarianjim]

I honestly couldn't tell you. I was teaching then, so I lectured at 10, 11, and 6. Then I probably stayed up late playing Playstation, since I didn't have to teach again until 2:45, so I could sleep late. And I did.

[int]

I went out drinking with some friends and was talking about how we're destined to fight in China or Iraq or something - given the Bush family's history and predicatability, the PNAC (http://www.newamericancentury.org/). And all.

When 9/11 happened I was already hung over.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Good for you. You must have even more fun when I am in fence-sitting mode - you can spin like a top! W/a broken bottle, you've got a ready-made "sit and spin" kit - have fun!

That's clever. And there was me thinking you were going to defend your statement that Bush planned 9/11:rolleyes2

[omnirook]

That's clever. And there was me thinking you were going to defend your statement that Bush planned 9/11:rolleyes2

Why should I bother? No matter what I say, the opposite is true, after all ... If you really wanted me to defend my statement, you could have said, "Defend your statement" - or you could have posed a question: "On what do you base that?" No, you just wanted to insult me.

[rainfall]

No, you just wanted to insult me.
So why did you not take up such a good opportunity? Once he would insult you all you would have to do is demonstrate that in fact, his post was nothing more than an insult. Then you would do everyone who has watched the whole affair a big service by letting them know who's the real ass around here. Well, the real ass # 2 after me, of course.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Why should I bother? No matter what I say, the opposite is true, after all ... If you really wanted me to defend my statement, you could have said, "Defend your statement" - or you could have posed a question: "On what do you base that?" No, you just wanted to insult me.

OK then.

On what do you base your statement that Bush planned 9/11?

By the way, what Harry said doesn't count.

In 1983, Margaret Thatcher was Britain's most unpopular Prime Minister since opinion polls began. She was a dead cert to lose the next election or be replaced by her own party before that time. However, in that year Argentina invaded the Falklands, Britain won the "conflict", and she became a national hero, and won the next general elections due to what political analysts called the "Falklands Factor". Clearly she benefitted more than nayone from this conflict. However, there has never been any suggestion that she had anything whatsoever to do with planning Argentina's invasion of the Falklands - it was simply her good fortune.

So there, I have proved that your "rule" doesn't work. So without using that dishonest technique, tell me why you think Bush planned 9/11.

[sbw]

OK then.

On what do you base your statement that Bush planned 9/11?

By the way, what Harry said doesn't count.

In 1983, Margaret Thatcher was Britain's most unpopular Prime Minister since opinion polls began. She was a dead cert to lose the next election or be replaced by her own party before that time. However, in that year Argentina invaded the Falklands, Britain won the "conflict", and she became a national hero, and won the next general elections due to what political analysts called the "Falklands Factor". Clearly she benefitted more than nayone from this conflict. However, there has never been any suggestion that she had anything whatsoever to do with planning Argentina's invasion of the Falklands - it was simply her good fortune.

So there, I have proved that your "rule" doesn't work. So without using that dishonest technique, tell me why you think Bush planned 9/11.

but how do you KNOW that thatcher didnt plan the invasion?

Scott

[demagogic_schizoid]

but how do you KNOW that thatcher didnt plan the invasion?

Scott

But how do I know you didn't? You can't prove a negative.

[demagogic_schizoid]

So why did you not take up such a good opportunity? Once he would insult you all you would have to do is demonstrate that in fact, his post was nothing more than an insult. Then you would do everyone who has watched the whole affair a big service by letting them know who's the real ass around here. Well, the real ass # 2 after me, of course.


Well he had the chance, don't say I wasn't prepared to listen.

[omnirook]

OK then.

On what do you base your statement that Bush planned 9/11?

By the way, what Harry said doesn't count.

In 1983, Margaret Thatcher was Britain's most unpopular Prime Minister since opinion polls began. She was a dead cert to lose the next election or be replaced by her own party before that time. However, in that year Argentina invaded the Falklands, Britain won the "conflict", and she became a national hero, and won the next general elections due to what political analysts called the "Falklands Factor". Clearly she benefitted more than nayone from this conflict. However, there has never been any suggestion that she had anything whatsoever to do with planning Argentina's invasion of the Falklands - it was simply her good fortune.

So there, I have proved that your "rule" doesn't work. So without using that dishonest technique, tell me why you think Bush planned 9/11.

OK.

One thing at a time, though.

1 - re Bush Administration complicity in 9/11 - well, that will mean a lot of work for me, and I'm not going to sit here and type for hours (I'm dyslexic and read and write very slowly) if you are not really interested, if all you want is to save face by now appearing reasonable.

Of course, you will protest a genuine interest: forgive me if I am doubtful and insist upon going forward one step at a time. Ready?

Let's start w/this: George W Bush has been compared to Ronald Reagan many times. That is true - and the comparison has been made by both sides, those who liked Reagan and those who did not. I did not. On my list "The Worst US Presidents," Mr Reagan takes second place, after Mr GW Bush, the son, not the father. So, when the comparison is made by me, it is not meant to be flattering.

And just how does Dubya compare w/Ronnie? Like Reagan, Bush 2 is a neocon figurehead who functions pretty much like a ventriloquist's dummy.

Now, to go "up" on my list is to go down. Bush is in the top spot - or should I say, "bottom" - so he is, in my opinion, the worst president that we've ever had - worse even than Reagan - and that's saying really fucking bad.

Reagan was a smart dummy! He understood that his job was to provide the neocon junta w/a cute face and a sweet voice and a fatherly persona that the masses would just eat up - and that's what he did. Bush, on the other hand, is a stupid dummy. He actually believes that he's in charge - and that makes him dangerous. An imbecile w/power is as bad as it can get - worse by far than some truly evil motherfucker w/power.

Now, you don't have to agree w/me. I don't expect you to. Just acknowledge that I - me, myself, I - start w/the belief that Dubya is just a figurehead - and that, unlike Queen Elizabeth II, dummy does not know that he is a figurehead.

2 - re Thatcher and Argentina and the Falklands, etc - give me a little while to dredge all that up from my memory. 23 years is a long time. But I will answer you, I promise.

[demagogic_schizoid]

ok omni please don't get heavy. I really didn't mean to offend you, it's just the robust English way of arguing - watch our Houses of Parliament compared to your Congress for an example. I don't have anything against you personally, and that insult was just something I thought of in the heat of the moment rather than any thought out opinion I have of you, (and I get worse things said to me all the time) - in fact you strike as quite an interesting person (I just wouldn't normally say so). It's just that I get dismayed when I see people putting forward the sort of theories you have on this thread. But if you came up with a clear argument, I would listen.

[omnirook]

Thatcher and the Falklands ... Part One ...

Let's go back in time a bit. Quite a bit. Let's start w/the Monroe Doctrine.

The Monroe Doctrine was what Jews call chutzbah - balls! The newly formed and militarily weak - especially in naval terms - United States told the whole wide world that anyone daring to come to the Western hemisphere and interfere in its politics would have a price to pay - the bankrupt midget w/no standing army and no navy would kick him in the shins! The Russians were especially amused - that is, until that era's "only superpower," Britain, stood up behind its former colonies, patted them on the head, and said "Yeah!" The Monroe Doctrine became valid and stood once and only once the United Kingdom backed it up w/the very real threat of the Royal Navy, which was and remained the world's premier navy at least up until WW II (Given the current mis-Administration's own admission that the Royal Navy is indeed better trained and equipped than the US Navy, I am not certain that Britain's navy is not still the world's premier naval force: at any rate, the UK could give even the US one nasty tangle if it came down to war).

Now, what does this mean? It means that the US became sovereign in the Western hemisphere, whether it had the means to assert its sovereignity or had to rely upon Britain as the guarantor of its sovereignity.

Fast forward in time - post World War II ... The US was now the world's "only super power" - remember, it was not until the 1950's that the Soviet Union became the "threat"* that it would remain until the 1990's. That the Monroe Doctrine still stood was beyond question, even w/o the support of the Royal Navy. Indeed, even the UK had no choice but to understand that the US was determined to rule the roost in the Americas.

Fast forward in time - just before the Falklands War ... The UK wished to make war in the Americas. Guess whose permission was required! Margaret Thatcher had to have at least a tacit agreement w/the US for the US to stay neutral - in other words, to overlook the Monroe Doctrine - and to do so less than 25 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis. And, on top of that, that the US and Argentina were official allies.

Part One conclusion - Margaret Thatcher had US support for the war in the Falklands. That is pretty much undeniable.

*Yalta!

[demagogic_schizoid]

The reason I was talking about the Falklands was to disprove this:


Harry: Whenever you consider anything that happened, always ask yourself, "Who benefitted from it?" - then you'll know for sure who did it and why.

Thatcher benefitted. But she didn't plan it.

By the way, is it your mission to look for a way to blame the US for everything? Because you could do that to any nation earth - the French helped the UK much more in the Falklands war than the Americans for example (not saying that's a bad or good thing).

[omnirook]

The reason I was talking about the Falklands was to disprove this:



Thatcher benefitted. But she didn't plan it.

By the way, is it your mission to look for a way to blame the US for everything? Because you could do that to any nation earth - the French helped the UK much more in the Falklands war than the Americans for example (not saying that's a bad or good thing).

No. The US is not to blame for everything. However, the US is my country, and I, therefore, feel it my duty to speak out when I believe the US to be in the wrong - especially when it betrays the very ideals that are hammered into the heads of its children from the day that they are born. We are "taught" - indoctrinated! - to believe that this country not only stands for "truth, justice, and the American way" but must be the champion of those ideals. Don't forget - I'm a native New Yorker - just imagine all the times that the Statue of Liberty was pointed at, while intoning "Give me your tired, your hungry, your huddled masses" - and, then as Lou Reed, sang, "We'll club em to death!" Also don't forget - in my business, I'm in very close quarters w/the ruling elites - I see them; I hear them. Their hatred for and contempt for the ordinary citizens of this country goes beyond anything ever felt by the French aristocrats that got guillotined ... Either the US stands for freedom and equality and fair play, or it's a sham. I hate shams. If the media is a corporate propaganda machine, if the office holders are bought and paid for whores, if the country is willing to murder any number of people, including its own soldiers, to force market capitalism on the whole world, if the US cannot stand for a world where other nations have the governments of their choice and live by the rules that suit their people - then the United States is not the United States - it's a pig sty, and it's way past time for the hogs to be slaughtered!

[omnirook]

The reason I was talking about the Falklands was to disprove this:



Thatcher benefitted. But she didn't plan it.



She may not have planned it. Sometimes people do get lucky. However, she did bang the drums and fan the flames - and she did, rather cynically, use the war to further her neocon agenda. Let's keep going and see if we cannot at least come to an agreement that stipulates that Margaret Thatcher was not a complete innocent in the Falklands War. To say that she was would be like saying that the IRA never deliberately did anything to piss off the UDA.

[demagogic_schizoid]

I didn't say she was a complete innocent -she manipulated the situation for her own purposes. I'm not a fan of Thatcher and throughout the 80's my family were all deeply anti-Thatcher (although what's done is done and as I now live in a post-Thatcherite country there is little point in harking back to a time before her legacy)

However, my point wasn't to praise Maggie Thatcher, just to get you to admit that sometimes people do get lucky - the "Harry" rule simply doesn't take that into account. You seemed to be saying that Presidents and Prime Ministers are omnipotent, but really they have very little control over events in foreign policy.

[Dom]

events perhaps not, but they don't come out of no where, they have causes, and thouse causes are normally dependent upon how premiers responded to the last event.....

[omnirook]

I didn't say she was a complete innocent -she manipulated the situation for her own purposes. I'm not a fan of Thatcher and throughout the 80's my family were all deeply anti-Thatcher (although what's done is done and as I now live in a post-Thatcherite country there is little point in harking back to a time before her legacy)

However, my point wasn't to praise Maggie Thatcher, just to get you to admit that sometimes people do get lucky - the "Harry" rule simply doesn't take that into account. You seemed to be saying that Presidents and Prime Ministers are omnipotent, but really they have very little control over events in foreign policy.

Harry was never simple-minded. He would never have evaluated Margaret Thatcher on the basis of one event in her priemiership ... All things considered, the UK did benefit from Thatcher's rule. The same cannot be said of the US and Reagan and Bush the Younger. Like her or not, Margaret Thatcher was a devout patriot. That makes her a helluva lot better than Dubya or Reagan! Even Tony Blair is a vast improvement over Reagan and Bush. In my opinion, the British have historically been singularly blessed w/their leaders. I cannot think of one case where one could reasonably say that the British leadership was treasonous. Simply put: British politics are far, far cleaner than American politics. I'm willing to argue that point endlessly.

[wranglertj]

On September 10, 2001, as hijackers purchased boxcutters and plane tickets, this is what was keeping Donald Rumsfeld up at night. "We know the adversary. We know the threat. And with the same firmness of purpose that any effort against a determined adversary demands, we must get at it and stay at it."



http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20010910-secdef.html

Sadly, that lovable old psychotic is every bit as clueless five years later.

M.