Clarke would not have been trashed and dismissed during his repeated pleads to have a high level meeting based on the detected imminent threat to national security from A.Q.
We can make hypotheses now and dream that Gore may have dismissed Clarke’s information too, like the Repubs did, but that’s just insane to even consider.
It’s American arrogance to assume that America is so wonderful that anyone who dislikes it isn’t just wrong, but insane. And for that matter, lunatics often do have a point for what they do, sometimes even sane ones.
One of Bush’s first acts was to order the State Department to lay off Osama. He ignored warnings from various people about the danger of an Al Qaeda attack. And Democrats are generally more effective against terrorism than Republicans (probably because they are actually trying).
The 9/11 lunatics are not lunatics because they killed Americans. They are lunatics because they are lunatics. When someone thinks he should intentionally kill other people to make a political or any other kind of statement, they are mentally deranged, or lunatics.
We already understand why these lunatics want to mass kill. We already know that the only point they can ever make is that they are insane deranged murderers.
No, it just means they aren’t very nice people.
“Very nice” people?
What is this, a Sunday Church tea party for old ladies?
No, it’s pretty standard humor.
Humor does not communicate well in text form on online forum posts.
If anyone thinks the 9/11 participants had a legitimate point to express with their actions, then it’s better that they say so directly and not try to use humor to do it.
But that’s exactly what the 9/11 participants did.
I didn’t doubt what they did.
I called them “lunatics” for what they did. If they were not, then it’s up to the challenger of the qualification of “lunatics” to argue their point of why that act was legitimate.
No, to propose that the AQ perpetrators were not lunatics, it is up to the challenger to argue why the act was sane. But since you haven’t made any argument that the act was insane in the first place, that argument is not necessary. Perhaps you’re merely misusing the term “lunatics”?
Too many quadruple negatives in your comment.
Care to make simpler statement?
Were the 9/11 instigators making a legitimate political or social statement, or were they lunatics?
The 9/11 instigators did not engage in a legitimate action. However, they were not lunatics.
You have twice presented the idea that the 9/11 attacks must either be “legitimate” or the work of “lunatics”; but the attacks can be (and are) neither. Why would you think otherwise?
ETA: Also note that there are no quadruple negatives in the statement you quoted. Both the substantive sentences reflect current “states”; ergo, they are negative only because the states are negative. For example, “you haven’t argued the act was insane” cannot drop the negatives; it means something different from “you argued the act was sane”.
OK.
So, you’re planning to send people to the US to learn how to fly passenger planes, but not learn how to take them off the ground, or land them, only how to fly them…
You find 15 Egyptians to agree to do this for you and kill anyone that stands in their way… in addition to killing all passengers and whoever the attack kills.
So, this may not be the work of a lunatic, according to you. What is it?
Actually Naxos’s claim goes beyond that; he/she claimed that killing your political opponents is always insane. Not just unethical, but insane; it’s that I really disagree with. Certainly it’s not a moral thing to do; but it is also a historically effective means of getting your way.
What does insanity mean anyways? Murder, manipulation, and crusading is generally seen as standard for human behaviour. I suppose I could cite psychology or sociology or anthropology, but really all one needs to do is read some history.
Neither. They were engaged in a very inexpensive form of war. Bin Laden’s goal was to bankrupt the United States. He was a money guy, the scion of a very wealthy family, and his interviews about the US were usually about money and finance rather than the imposition of a Caliphate or immorality. From a financial perspective, 9/11 was a bargain. It cost less than a million, and caused trillions of dollars in damage.
You mean 15 Saudis, don’t you?
To throw out a quick-and-dirty definition; perceptions or reasoning that is severely at conflict with reality. Which is why I don’t buy the idea that killing your political enemies is automatically insane; it quite often works after all which disqualifies it as an intrinsically insane act.
If you can convince 15 people to be Kamikazes and sacrifice their own lives to further your goals… then you are probably very skilled, intelligent, manipulative, and charismatic… but not insane. You’re probably much more sane than the people who are actually committing the suicides. (Though they’re probably not insane either.)
But of course they didn’t kill their political enemies in 9/11. They killed thousands of innocent civilians the majority of which would not have been politically active.
The idea of sanity is pretty hard to pin down. But certainly I would say they were irrational. I don’t think they would be able to defend their actions soberly and objectively.
Of course this is true of many human actions. But this action did require a high level of self-delusion (for want of a better word).
You realize these things aren’t mutually exclusive?
Heck, I would expect a correlation between certain kinds of irrational behaviour and charisma and/or influence.