Shodan, my friend from way back, is an idiot. My brother is also an idiot. I try to pat them on the head without it seeming I am being condescending, but not always successfully.
“Mom, my dear older brother is an idiot. Nod when he speaks, but don’t do what he suggests.”
If there is a reason why you disagree with my point, please explain.
Given that the “all-hands-on-deck” approach completely failed to identify, prevent or play any part of the LAX bombing until after the guy was already caught and the attack already prevented, despite intel and active efforts to stop it - I would say we don’t have enough information to answer yes to your question.
We have a similar situation in which they completely failed, yet you conclude this time it would have been different?
Was the intel for 9/11 better than for millenium?
According to Richard Clarke, there were indications of some sort of attack in June 2011. He tried to get the Bush Admin to focus on terrorism, to no avail: they were obsessed with missile defense against the Chinese. He would not have had such problems with President Gore, who understood national security.
Richard Clarke thinks an energetic proactive policy could have made a difference, though he also believed that there certainly were no guarantees.
Source: Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke.
So we can’t say whether Gore could have prevented the 911 attacks. We can say that he would have tried and might have succeeded. After all, there were indications that something was afoot.
Don’t worry about it, we can get you a cream for that.
That’s it, you’re off the list of serious debaters. Into the “usual suspects” lineup with you!
I agree with all those with the possible exception of the “strong military” point, depending on what you mean by it. However, I think foie gras is delicious (evil but delicious) so we’re doomed to disagree.
I’m glad somebody remembers what I said. I’d have to look it up myself.
But at least the membership of the 1% are identifiable (unless you’re one of those idiots deliberately or unintentionally misinterpreting where the number comes from, as some on this board are). “The Usual Suspects” could be anyone on any side in any thread, and all we know is that Shodan disagrees with them. Which is the majority of board members including some conservatives.
Good to see your counting skills are better than your reading skills.
I once posited that you seem to read every post as if it were a Magic Eye picture, squinting at it to see a picture which you are convinced is there - “IT’S A DOLPHIN!” - even if everyone else is reading it entirely differently. It’s the only explanation for the bizarre non-sequiturs, strawmen and twisted interpretations you present, of which the above reply is another example.
Keep squinting, my friend, and maybe one day you’ll really see that dolphin.
All this hate is unnecessary. Just do what I do with his posts, skip all the drivel and only read the stuff that makes sense. He makes it easy by marking where the drivel ends.
Regards,
don’t ask
To me. There will be a $100 filing fee.
You basically avoided my point. So there really wasn’t anything in what you said for me to rebut.
You realize this makes absolutely no sense.
Oh wait. Maybe you don’t.
Let me spell it out in crayon. If this doesn’t work, I don’t think I can communicate this in grunts and gestures, so this is my last try.
A. People at the lower ranks had pieces of the puzzle.
B. They thought those pieces were important.
C. They wanted their bosses to move those pieces up the ladder.
D. But nobody at the top was interested in any part of that puzzle.
E. So the general message that went back down was ‘don’t bother me with this crap.’
F. So the pieces never got to where they could have been put together.
D. Those at the top are very interested in the puzzle.
E. They make sure word goes down to pass anything on up that looks like it might be a puzzle piece.
Reach your own conclusions about F.
Hmmmm… nah. I guess I’ll just hang onto my amateur status.
That is rather the point this thread is attempting to get across, yes.
Exactly. I actually enjoy a debate with righties who clearly state their issues: “I just hate taxes, unless I can be sure they’re going to benefit me directly and immediately,” in which case I can say “Okeydokey, I think you’re being small-minded and selfish here” (for example) “but at least I understand why you’re against this particular tax, and I’m also clear on why your objections don’t especially bother me. Have a nice day.”
But when I get, as from Shodan, “You’re a fool and a lefty, or do I repeat myself?”, well, that’s hardly edifying for anyone involved, is it?
I really do think the righty-lefty thing does break down fundamentally as to the appropriate use of taxes (occasionally to jingoism/patriotism/tribal loyalty)–there are so many emotional issues there that it often devolves into personal abuse, but it need not, except where people like **Shodan **seem to be in it primarily for the chance to be abusive and to get away with it.
I want to make a general comment about issues of SDMB partisanship, not specifically related to Shodan at all. A lot of times, accusations of hypocrisy/double-standards that are leveled at people (or, more often, amorphous groups of people) have, as their basis, something concerning what issues people choose to post about, or who people choose to respond to.
Ie, “sure, Shodan has a bit of an edgy posting style, but you guys never give (some liberal poster) the same amount of grief, which proves that you’re just responding to Shodan because you disagree with his politics”, etc.
Now, on the surface this seems like a meaningful argument. But the problem is that it ignores the fact that we’re all just here for fun. This is not our job. Whether or not to post in any given thread is a decision made by each of us for any number of reasons, but an overriding one is always “do I care? is it worth my time? will it be fun?”. None of us (even moderators) were sworn in and took a solemn oath to always choose whether or not to post based purely on some set of objective criteria with no room for personal preference.
What does this mean? Well, I have a lot of issues with the way Shodan posts, and have argued with him about it at length on several occasions. Imagine a left-wing poster who was basically the precise equivalent of Shodan in all ways, but on the other side of the political spectrum. Would I react to that poster precisely the same way I react to Shodan? Almost certainly not. Why? Because I post on the SDMB to have fun, and it’s more fun and satisfying to argue with someone I disagree with than it is to chide someone whose politics I agree with for their posting style. Sure, I could come up with a “hey, I agree with your politics, but disagree with your posting style, and think that your level of combativeness and divisiveness makes the SDMB a worse place” post and start busting it out every time some liberal gets obnoxious. Which, given that there are lots of liberals on the SDMB would be a lot of the time. And after doing that for about two days, I would be exhausted and sick of it and give it up as a bad idea. Meanwhile, I pick fights with Shodan and Bricker for similar offenses with some regularity (ie, maybe twice a year or so).
So? Am I a raving partisan hypocrite? Well, I like to think that when I actually do post I treat both sides as fairly and evenly as I possibly can. I’m sure I don’t always perfectly succeed (nor does anyone else), but I try. But it’s still definitely the case that if you judge me purely based on “what threads does Max choose to participate in in the first place” or “how likely is Max to actually make a post criticizing a behavior” you would judge me to be FAR more biased than if you judge me on the actual content of what I post.
My point is that trying to draw meaningful conclusions about someone purely by looking at quantity of posts will give you very skewed results.
RTFirefly, when you post things like:
“you have no point”
“You realize this makes absolutely no sense.”
it’s hard to take you seriously. You may disagree that the point I was making added up to being substantial enough to override your point, but if that’s what you think you should say that, because as it is I’m trying to figure out if you are too emotional to even discuss the issue rationally.
I understand the point you are making, that you think there was enough data that had they continued Clinton’s efforts there was a possibility they would have put the pieces together and stopped it.
I don’t disagree there is a “possibility”.
I don’t disagree that Bush admin should have continued the efforts.
But I think their chances were slim.
For example:
The millenium attack was known in advance, lots of intel from foriegn security services, wiretaps, arrests, known associates, etc., they knew it could be on our soil, knew it was likely to be a bomb - and still they were unable to do anything to prevent it.
You’ve been ignoring this point all along, do you have any kind of argument to show why the millenium attack was substantially different from 9/11? I know you have listed evidence from 9/11 but what you haven’t done is even attempted to show why you think that is substantially more than the information we had in the case of the millenium attack. Do you think we didn’t really have much intel for the millenium attack?
Don’t tell me that after I worked so hard at it.
Marge: “Now, Homer, it’s easy to criticize …”
Homer: “And fun, too!”
Your position seems slippery. When **Mr. Moto said “And the notion that another president could have prevented 9/11 or contained Iraq without invasion is a fantasy, IMHO,” I called this bullshit.
You called me out for this, but now you don’t disagree that there is a possibility (even if you consider it slim). Is it fantasy, or is it a possibility?
(This is setting aside the added element from Mr. Moto of another president being unable to “contain” Iraq. Did Bush prevent Iraq from doing something apart from limping along? Talk about a fantasy world!)
I also find it odd that you are so cautious and cagey about the idea that another president possibly could have prevented 9/11, but seem willing to accept as demonstrated fact that Iran was involved in 9/11. Perhaps a little more consistent skepticism is appropriate?
Yes, I see your point.
I didn’t really notice at the time that the word was “could”, I was reacting as if the message was more of a “would”.
I don’t like most extreme positions either direction, because anything can happen, and that’s what I was responding to, clearly incorrectly.
Regarding contain Iraq:
I wasn’t interested in discussing that comment, it’s vague and I don’t know the background to your conversation, but the 9/11 portion interested me
Regarding 9/11 vs Iran:
Trying to predict what “would have happened” is always tough, then make it on a large scale with lots of people and complexity, multiple levels of indirection for information flow, etc. - how can an intelligent person not be cautious in that case?
But the Iran info - I had not really thought much about it, it makes sense that they might support something like that - but just because I accept the possibility doesn’t mean I think that 's the final word - it’s a reasonable possibility
Iran is mostly Shia Muslim, and likes to posture as the protector of Shia minorities, as is the case in most (all?) other Muslim countries. AlQ is founded upon principles of an extremist Sunni sect very powerful in Saudi Arabia, called *wahabbism *, which loathes Shia Muslims with an intensity that boggles the mind. Cooperation is a very remote possibility.
I have read that, but I don’t truly understand first hand the level of dislike - bottom line is I don’t really know enough about the possibility of Iran involvement to be a good judge one way or the other - but on the surface it seemed reasonable to me, maybe it’s not.