Seriously: The all time stupidest thing I ever read on these boards

It’s in this thread here:

That’s the “Nuclear solution to WTC” thread in GD. It’s getting long so I doubt it’s being actively followd, especially since Olentzero joined, and devolved it into his predictable class struggle rhetoric.

Which is ok, I guess. He’s allowed.

After some hedging ad doublespeak though, and after edging around it, he finally comes out and gives his root opinion.

The WTC bombing is the fault of the US, because we “cosciously created” Bin Laden and the Middle East situation.

We planned it this way.
Here’s the whole post: I’ve put my comments which he responds to in italics.

So unbeleivably asinine, that I can’t even get worked up about the substance of what he’s saying.

I’ve read Jack Dean Tyler, and Phaedrus, and seen creationist bullshit, but this takes the cake. It is the dumbest and most insensitive and unpardonably stupid thing I’ve ever read here.

I am astounded that somebody could be a thinking feeling human being, live in this country, be cognizant of the events of the last week, and hold such a position. It scares me.

Welcome to America, Scylla, land of the freak. Actually, Olentzero’s comment is pretty tame compared to the one I heard someone utter IRL the other day. The guy claimed that Bush planned and executed the whole WTC thing in order to boost his popularity in the polls! :rolleyes:

Yeah, jeez. how stupid, especially when everyone knows CNN bankrolled it to boost ratings…

Scylla, this tragedy really is bringing out the stupidest of humans, isn’t it?

It’s a shame someone can be that pathetic.

Utter bull. Gary Condit did it, to simultaneously get the press to talk of something else, plus to dispose of Levy’s body in the rubble.

Well, nobody gives two shits what I think. But who cares? I’ll type anyway. Gotta get that post count up somehow.

I think Olentzero is overstating the case to an uncomfortable degree. But it’s not the dumbest shit I’ve ever seen posted. There’s a kernel of truth to his contentions. For example, maybe the U.S. coulda eliminated bin Laden much sooner, and didn’t for some reason that’s beyond me.

Maybe what’s up for debate is whether that kernel of truth is the size of a mustard seed or a dingleberry hanging off Osama’s ass.

You may not agree with Olentzero (and I confess, I couldn’t bear to read that thread to know personally) but is he really deserving of the hyperbole? We gots a lotta dumbasses on the boards up for nomination.

I’m not really taking sides on this issue but I did wonder about this:

When the atom bombs dropped on Japan, did any Japanese people dare to say ‘Was it something we did? Nah…just those evil Americans.’

**Note: NOT comparing US V.2001 to Japan V.1945 **

The Japanese didn’t ask to be bombed, didn’t expect to be bombed, but nevertheless caused themselves to be. (Although the US had something to do with it too.)

If Olentzero is asserting that the CIA trained OBL in the full knowledge that he might one day turn on his benefactors, then he is probably wrong. However, they were fully aware of the sort of man he was, and cannot calim to be completely surprised that he began attacking Americans once he ran out of Soviets. His power and reputation are built on fighting an enemy: he was always going to find someone to oppose.

The crucial distinction here is between different kinds of reponsibility. The CIA never meant NY to be attacked, but it’s actions are part of the explanation for it’s occurrence, as is America’s foreign policy.

One of the main reasons for the continued existence of Middle East terrorism is the appalling conditions in many countries in that area: people in prosperous and secure nations tend not to become fanatical terrorists (with some exceptions, naturally). Since the so-called victory of Capitalism against Communism, it’s become easy to dismiss arguments based on class struggles or any other socialist ideas. If you want to have that argument, fine. Do not dismiss it as if you’ve already won though. (Comparing it to Creationism doesn’t count as an argument.) If the tragedy of last week doesn’t show you that rampant self-interested Capitalism might not be the answer to the world’s problems then you weren’t paying attention.

Alex B

Hell, that ain’t even the the most vile comment I’ve seen from Olentzero on the board.

Class differences may indeed be a cause of the anti-US strife in the Middle East. If so, I’d guess that are support of Israel, and the effects of US culture and mores are larger causes. Certainly I’d concur that economics is a large issue.

The Russians had problems with the Afghanis, too, and they were supposedly pretty class conscience.

It’s a debate and perhaps an interesting one.

Here however, I’m pretty much sticking to dumbstruck amazement at the callous stupidity and willful ignorance of O’s comments.

The U.S. is responsible for the WTC problem, because we “consciously” set up the situation in the Mideast, and trained Osama Bin Laden so he could do it. In short, we planned it.

How we’re credited with this foreknowledge, I have no idea.

I’ve seen posts by Brithael and, oh, wossname, the guy I joined the board just to flame he was so awful; watched in awe as Phaedrus self-destructed, sat through at least two different incarnations of Cyberian/JohnJohn and was here for three or four events we don’t talk because we’re afraid of what would happen.

That was not the stupidest thing to ever appear on the Board. It was an opinion that you disagree with and find horribly misguided.


Scylla, I gave up on that thread days ago, when it got hijacked into The Class War.
I’ve been waiting for Olentzero to say the US Army is responsible for OKC, because they trained McVeigh and should have known he was unstable…

Well, I must be a little bit tougher than I thought, because I’ve stuck through that entire abortion of a thread since it’s misguided inception. Olentzero, in typical fashion, overstates the culpability of the CIA (as Cranky said), and glosses over the cultural influences which produced bin Laden for which the US bears no responsibility. But nothing he’s said in that thread comes anywhere close to being “the stupidest thing ever” on these boards. Scylla, I think you’ve taken this feud with Olentzero to the point where you’re no longer looking for the meaning in anything he writes; you’re only looking for more phrases to be offended by.

IMHO, anyway.


I wish you would take me at my word. I don’t have a feud with Olentzero. In fact, what I know about him personally suggests he’s a pretty good guy. So, I harbor no ill feelings towards him whatsoever.

His arguments on the other hand are something else entirely. 4 pages of hemming and hawing and edging around the point, and finally he comes out with his big thesis. It’s our fault. We killed those people.

The frustration I feel is at myself for having bothered with such dreck. I generally know better.

My mouth was agape not just at that, but at the sentiment he expressed to me in that thread: that man creates history.

Of course, if you believe history is a conscious creation it is easy to pin the blame on the US for bin Laden. In fact, its easy to lay blame for all actions everywhere; perhaps that is a comforting way to live, where all of man’s material actions have direct conscious causes… I just don’t see that as true or even possible.

Well, not wanting to get into the middle of this…

But would like to point out that this isn’t Olentzero’s own insight–it was in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune, which will require registration if you want to read the whole thing, and after 7 days, will require $$$.

By Tom Hundley, Tribune Foreign Correspondent

And he goes on to say basically what O.Z. said, that it’s our own fault.


That’s not the same thing.

The thing is, I that’s not what Olentzero actually said. He may not be stating his thesis very clearly at all, but that thesis is clearly not what you say it is. His thesis is that US policies created conditions in which the bin Ladens of the world could prosper. He’s even stated quite unequivocably that this is not an excuse for the terrorists.

Scylla, I’ll take you at your word that you have no grudge or feud with Olent, but I think you’re misrepresenting his position. I’m sure that this is unintentional, but I’m not sure where the inability to fairly represent his argument comes from, if not from high emotion.


I don’t think so.

In the questions I’ve cited in the OP to which O responded, I asked him explicity whether the US was responsible for the WTC bombings in his opinion or whether we was suggesting we had merely unintentionally caused it. He responded:

I don’t know how to reduce it any simpler than that. He said we knew what the effects would be and did it anyway.

In his second answer he basically says it’s doubly our fault, not because we didn’t get Bin Laden, but because we didn’t appease the Middle East.

What am I misinterpreting?

Scylla, I will concede that you are correct in your interpretation if Olentzero will state it the way you did. It appears to me that he’s saying the US is responsible for the existence of many of the terrorists on whom we’re currently contemplating war, and specifically responsible for the existence of bin Laden.

I have not seen any statement from him that the US is directly responsible for bin Laden’s actions post-USSR invasion, or for the actions of the hijackers presumably under bin Laden’s management.

While I disagree vehemently with the idea that the US is culpable in any way for the terrorist attacks, I don’t object to O’s assertion that some of our past policies had unintended consequences which included enabling bin Laden to some extent.
NOTE: THIS DOES NOT MEAN WE’RE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HE DID! OR THAT OUR POLICIES WERE BAD OR FOOLISH! OR THAT WE WOULDN’T BE HATED NO MATTER WHAT OUR POLICIES WERE, JUST BECAUSE OF WHAT OUR COUNTRY STANDS FOR! Sorry for shouting, but I don’t want anyone to mistake my comments for sympathy/empathy with the terrorists, or for unqualified support for Olentzero’s argument.


Well, I was quoting his words. I myself really didn’t believe that he was espousing such a point of view which is why I asked him outright.

No need to concede anything here.

I’d be glad to be wrong.