This is getting better.
[quote] ou've said that we helped the Taliban (another spurious charge that I've never-the-less left alone) because we wanted to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. I pointed you to Congressional testimony that shows how the project truly was regarded in Washington. It doesn't back up your argument at all. <hr></blockquote>
ScottH himself pointed to a text backing up my claims (IIRC), and I don't think your congressional testimony from a guy in a leather coated office stands any credibility when compared to the testimony of Massood.
[quote] It's a perfectly fair question. Not surprising it wouldn't interest you, though. And that part about divulging state secrets? (You must have added that later.) How do you build a pipeline in secret?
Your question might be fair, it doesn't discredit my source, furthermore, do you really believe somebody posing as a senatorial aid would go about unnoticed in a book that has been so talked about? Indeed, I talked about "divulging state secrets", but what you don't seem to understand, because of your selective reading, because I've already stated this before, is that I was supposing
the book contained state secrets since one of the contributers was an ex-CIA operative. The book is not only about the pipeline. Your stubbornness regarding this issue and your "Reagan brought down the USSR with one speech" is getting quite abnoxious. Furthermore, nobody here has supported your claims. So will you please understand that:
a) the book being written in french doesn't make it a fake
b) I have no idea why it was written in french and all I've said regarding this matter are suppositons, as I've said before.
[quote] I don't think any thoughtful person would make such a statement. <hr></blockquote>
Read the very first post of this thread, and the following ones by ScottH, you will realise that he has made just that statement. About him being thoughtfull though...
[quote] Aye, that's the rub. I do not believe in a) the predictability of "every action provokes a reaction" I mean, you can say that, but it seldom really enlightens an analysis of a situation because there are too many variables for the equation. Worse, sometimes this "every action provokes a reaction" (very Hegelian, BTW) is used to blame, which always has a political motivation rather than an interest in truth. An example is the number of journalists in England who shrugged off the crime of the WTC et al assaults as "every action provokes a reaction." This is blaming the victim, and it is also a "short circuit" in reasoning. It squashes a very complicated understanding of the world, filled with holes, into a chemical metaphor, and as such is a disservice to truth and an escape hatch for criminals. <hr></blockquote>
To be quite honest with you, I wasn't suprised at 9/11. I was indeed surprised, and horrified, at the sheer scope of the attack, yet the fact that a fundamentalist group had attacked the US wasn't a surprise for me. In fact what did surprise me was the fact that it hadn't happened before, especially considering the behavior of Israel in the few weeks preceding the attack.
Furthermore, I agree with you to a certain extent. You can't base your analysis on every action provokes a reaction. You can't dismiss it either. As in all things, there must be a correct balance between both.
[quote] Second, I agree people should take an emotional step back, but I do not believe that people can argue dispassionately. If you are dispassionate, you don't care, and if you don't care, you're not invested in the debate and therefore the whole thing is simply an exercise (BTW: an analogous excercise is the poster who simply posts to piss people off. They don't care either.) <hr></blockquote>
To be quite clear, and I've discussed this recently with my philosophy teacher:
I think Bush's speeches in the week following the attacks were diplomatical blunders because he spoke under emotion. Soon his aides took over and the speeches got much more reasoned. IMO, most of the actions of the US ever since the attack, especially in Afghanistan, have been very balanced, thought about and mature, thanks to Colin Powell and the fact that Bush doesn't decide what his army does on his own. You can hardly criticize the US given the circumstances. Yet recently, again, Bush' speeches have been made under intense emotion and have lead to international outrage.
[quote] Finally, you rely on "certain accurate information" "not found in today's media." You know well that "accurate information" is an oxymoron when it comes to politics. Everything is tainted by viewpoint. Perhaps the trick is to have many viewpoints. <hr></blockquote>
Exactly. That's the point I've been trying to make, and this what certain people here don't seem to understand.
[quote] That goes back to my original point. European doubts are irrelevant. We'll call you when we need you. Don't sit by the phone. We will act alone and protect our country. If Europe doesn't agree then ... well who cares if they don't agree. <hr></blockquote>
Al Quaeda, and terrorism in general, are international groups, "without a face", as has been very accuratley said by powerdoc. How
will the US, on its own
, fight it? Will it start bombing all supposed terrorist-cells? In ally countries? hint: it can't. It needs all the help it can get from Europe, and if you aren't up to speed, the investigation has been immensely sped up by the help of German, British and yes indeed French help.