BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jul 05 - 06:08 PM

jpk, some of our own military people have indicated that they experience just what you have described in war situations. And some of them have said that they enjoy it. So is it a good thing or a bad thing?

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: jpk
Date: 28 Jul 05 - 04:59 PM

hey carol,ever think that another reason they do these things is for the high they get from the felling of power the percieve,or maybe they just enjoy the thought of causing people to die,using what ever excuse they can.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST,Shakey
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 08:21 PM

So why cheapen yourself like that?

There's a thread running that has more than 160 posts because the name of another thread got friggin changed.

What can I say? Sometimes the passion takes over.



Shakey
If you're not living on the edge you're taking up too much room

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 07:16 PM

"your friends You know that's a lie, GUEST,Shakey.

You have shown that you are perfectly capable of arguing in a rational and a courteous way, and you must also know that that is far more convincing and effective. So why cheapen yourself like that?

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 06:56 PM

Have you tried sex for a change

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 05:56 PM

You must have an incredibly perverse definition for the word "pamper", jpk.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: jpk
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 05:28 PM

pampering makes them weaker?spoiled brats whine all the time to get there way too.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 05:19 PM

My "friends" Shakey? I think they're your friends since you are the one who supports US and British foreign policy that keeps making them stronger and more dangerous. You too, jpk.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: jpk
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 05:00 PM

seems to me carol,that your evidence looks more like excuses than any thing else,no matter how you dress it,it is still an excise.
out here they chg. the word cowshit into, organicaly produced soil nutrient,hoping that it would not stink as bad in the publics ear,still does in the nose.
kind of like your evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST,Shakey
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 04:14 PM

Invoking the victims of 9/11 as a way of trying to shut people up when they are discussing important issues is shameful. I don't think the victims of 9/11 would appreciate you doing that.

That's the point Carol they're not here to support you are they and why not, because your friends murdered them

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 04:02 PM

CarolC,

Let me correct my statement to " no convincing evidence".


I found your "evidence" lacking. You are mistaken in assuming that failure to agree with you means a failure to look at your points. I have given evidence as well: Would I be justified in saying that since you do not now agree with me, you must not have looked at it?

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 03:48 PM

What keeps on being ignored is that the war in Iraq is a triumph for the fanatics behind September 11th. It's helped them, it continues to help them. It might get presented as a "war against terror" but in real terms it is a war engineered by terrorists as a way of extending and deepening their power and influence.

This isn't football, it's chess. You win football by pushing forward and scoring. You win chess by out-thinking your opponent, thinking ahead and being willing to sacrifice pieces.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 03:45 PM

I gave pleney of supporting evidence, beardedbruce. I can't help it if you have failed to read it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 03:30 PM

And, CarolC, it is your statement of responsibility that I do not agree with. As I have stated. We each have an opinion on the matter, but YOU are insisting that your opinion is fact with no supporting evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 03:15 PM

I can't see how discussing important issues equals not having a life. I do think that following people around and telling them to get a life certainly could be described as not having a life.

Invoking the victims of 9/11 as a way of trying to shut people up when they are discussing important issues is shameful. I don't think the victims of 9/11 would appreciate you doing that.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 02:58 PM

Going back another step, of course, it's down to the architects of September 11, since without that Bush would never have been able to take the USA to war in Iraq, and Blair wouldn't have tagged along behind.

And, since the Iraq war has suited Al Qaeda down to the ground, it's another of their successful atrocities - and this time they got someone else to do it for them.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 02:21 PM

Why don't you go and get a life.

Unfortunately those who died in 9/11 and 7/7 do not have that luxury anymore, use it don't abuse it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 01:58 PM

But here is the point I was making, and that has been obscured by nitpicking...

ALL of the deaths that occurred as a result of the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the US, Britain, and the "coalition", are the responsibility of the US, Britain, and the "coalition" countries, regardless of who did the killing.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 01:46 PM

Then I'll admit I was "snarky" and we can all go back to playing guitar or whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 01:43 PM

"non-combatant civilian deaths" can include according to Carol "someone's ancient grandfather who died peacefully in his sleep."?

What's the problem with that Wolfgang? That clearly would be a non-combatant civilian death. (And the terms are not synonymous - you can have civilians who are combatants, and military personnel who are non-combatants.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 01:39 PM

Although I'll grant that the way I put it was snarky.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 01:37 PM

Yes, it's true... I make mistakes. But it was still a coherent reply, even if it's not perfect.

I'm not picking on anyone. If Wolfgang is going to go around twisting people's words and taking them out of context to make irrelevant and highly questionable points at the expense of the people he is targeting, he is not making a coherent point, nor is he contributing to coherency in the discussion itself. Quite the opposite... he is creating confusion and he is obscuring real points that others have made.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 01:29 PM

Guest - Speak for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 01:18 PM

Well not a coherent reply then was it Carol.

Let's face you started picking on the language issue with a guy who's first language, I understand, is not English.

And you could always get a spell chucker.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 01:04 PM

Is this a sentence Carol?

Only part of one, Guest,27 Jul 05 - 10:40 AM. It's a continuation of what I started with the quotes, but forgot to use elipses and I mistakenly capitalized "seems".

I was not correcting his spelling, Guest, 27 Jul 05 - 10:44 AM. I was discussing his misuse of other people's words.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 12:49 PM

Hey !! 300 !!

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST,Curious
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 12:47 PM

Why do these threads so often degenerate into personal slanging matches ?

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST,Shakey
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 12:23 PM

Wolfgang, it's interesting but what are you trying to show with this?

Let's face it, for all sorts of reasons, TB isn't popular there anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 12:12 PM

Some may be interested to read what a quite conservative German newspaper (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) has written recently about Blair/Iraq/London. Yes, it is really conservative, but keep in mind McGrath's warning that European conservatives don't look so conservative to Americans.

"Blair is a master at denying claims that no one has made and making demands to which no one can object. First, he denies that the Iraq war has been a cause of terrorism and then he demands that we combat terrorism, condemn its methods and pull out its roots. Indeed, the only concession Blair has made is to admit that Iraq is becoming a recruiting ground for terrorists...The Iraq war was neither approved by the UN nor backed by the Arab world, and that's why people are able to propagandistically denounce it as an 'imperial crusade'. It's true that this war did not create terrorism, but it has encouraged it." (I pinched the translation from DER SPIEGEL)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 10:44 AM

"not read just that one sentance, but to read the whole article or page in which the sentance is found."

Carol, did you mean sentence?

I believe Wolfgang's spelling is correct.

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 10:40 AM

Seems to be the crux of your inability to converse coherently in English, Wolfgang.

Is this a sentence Carol?

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: pdq
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 08:39 PM

While Mudcat was down, I picked out a few quotes. They are absolutely not aimed at any individual.

From Branch Rickey, Dodgers general manager who broke baseball's color barrier:

                He that will not reason is a bigot.
             He that cannot reason is a fool.
             He that dares not reason is a slave.

From me, I suppose:

             Back in the '60s, people often used the term 'heavy'. I once suggested that

                   "Sometimes 'heavy' just means that you've overlaoded your wagon with shit!"

From comic Don Rickles:

                   "Don't cross swords with someone who knows how to use one."

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 12:07 PM

Not really, Wolfgang. The issue is you going around correcting people all the time, and then turning out to be wrong yourself, as I have just demonstrated.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 11:58 AM

argumentum ad hominem instead discussing the issue.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 11:52 AM

non-combatant civilian deaths

can include according to Carol

someone's ancient grandfather who died peacefully in his sleep.

Interesting. Each day I learn something new in English.

Combined with...

If I read just that one sentence quoted prominently by Carol I wonder how anyone can take them serious anymore

Seems to be the crux of your inability to converse coherently in English, Wolfgang. The idea is to take things IN context rather than out of them. For instance, my advice to you would be to not read just that one sentance, but to read the whole article or page in which the sentance is found.

"Wolfgang has no brain"

...means something entirely different than...

"Wolfgang has no brain samples from monkeys in his lab"

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 08:47 AM

non-combatant civilian deaths

can include according to Carol

someone's ancient grandfather who died peacefully in his sleep.

Interesting. Each day I learn something new in English.

Carol,

I never would have bothered with your or Bearded Bruce's way of expressing the causes of the deaths in Iraq. McGrath of Harlow's (or should it be McGrath's of Harlow?) one-eyed selectivity in when or whom he criticises in these threads was my target. In particular, since the two sentences were so close to each other in form and time. His critique of such sentences is of course correct.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 05:35 AM

It is very easy to throw out allegations and comments without checking up on whether these are actually in accordance with the evidence, and some people do it constantly, even when it would only take a couple of seconds to check.

When we make some factual assertion about some issue which is relatively obscure, or subject to controversy, it is elementary good manners to provide links to sources.

And yet when Carol does that she is repeatedly attacked and insulted as if doing that kind of thing was a mark of obsession and imbalance. I wish that some of the people who lay into her would take a bit more care to check up on their facts, and to indicate their sources.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 11:52 PM

I'll grant your consistency, Bill Hahn, but it's still misspelt. I saw it as 'poopooganda'. If the shoe don't pinch...

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 09:19 PM

So let me see now---the thread is London and the tragedy inflicted by the "terrorists"---though the term may not be proper for Carol C and her cohorts. But now we are into Mossadegh, Israel, ---you name it.

So--Carol---are you a "hijacker" or not? thankfully not of airliners only threads that end up as ---your term--propoganda---aka Bullshit.

All in the eye of the beholder---you behold logic---I behold propoganda and Bullshit. You behold intransigence and narrowness on my part---and I of you.. So--you see---we agree. We both think the other is just spouting Bullshit---oh, sorry---you call it propoganda when you disagree.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 08:58 PM

pdq: I read the book by Kinzer and would like you to supply more than 'vomit' as a reaction to it. He was a NYT correspondent and the book appared to be researched and quite definitive. On the other hand, your glistening review of the military dictators called the Shahs runs counter to every secular Iranian I've ever met, and I met a lot of them in school.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 07:51 PM

I need to correct this (or Wolfgang will do it for me)...

Your first and second were propaganda. My second was propaganda.

It should read...

Your first and second were propaganda. The biography of Mossadegh that I provided a link to in my 25 Jul 05 - 04:01 PM post was propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: jpk
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 05:42 PM

seem to me carol, that they say persia and the diff peoples of that area where the center of the world long ago,they fell and lost it carol.
had it befor mohammed,lost it after they found him.hmmmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 05:20 PM

Dear Guest,
   You got it right! "Thread drift extraordinaire."

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:52 PM

P.S. I wouldn't say that the US and Britain are always wrong (although they usually are). The way I would tend to put it is that the US and Britain almost always have a self-serving hidden agenda that is pursued at the expense of the civilians of many countries less powerful than them. (And this is what makes them wrong... because it is wrong to kill people and/or subjugate them for money/oil/power, etc.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:46 PM

Your first and second were propaganda. My second was propaganda. But I think it's pretty difficult to argue with declassified CIA documents, and I tend to see Wikipedia as a more reliable (although not infallible) source of information than the unattributed material that has no known source (as in your first link), and sites that exist specifically for the purpose of glorifying the Shah.

The US and Britain are responsible. As is was the Soviet Union while it still existed.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: pdq
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:33 PM

Quite true, GUEST, but one cannot let CarolC's 'fact-opinions' go unchallenged.

CarolC...compare the two stories of the same events and you will see how propaganda works. In your posts, the US and Britain are always wrong. I say, most politely, that is not so.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:09 PM

Thread drift extraordinaire

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:01 PM

More unattributed propaganda, I see, pdq.

Here are the two sites I was able to find for what you put in your 25 Jul 05 - 10:39 AM post...

Long Live The Shah

http://www.sedona.net/pahlavi/content.html


If we're going to go down that partucular road, let's try this one on for size...

The Biography of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh

"- Dr. Mossadegh was elected to the Parliament from Tehran, and it was during this period that the Qajar dynasty was overthrown and Reza khan declared himself the King of Iran. Mossadegh strongly criticized the Kingship of Reza khan, and when the sixth Majlis ended, and Reza Khan became the absolute dictator of Iran, Mossadegh was forced to stay at home for many years. During the last years of Reza Shah's reign, when most of the political figures were either deceased or had surrendered to the Pahlavi regime, Mossadegh was arrested and exiled for several months, but finally he was sent back to his Ahmad Abad country estate under house arrest. After the occupation of Iran by the British and Russian armies in 1941, Reza Shah was forced to abdicate and exiled to South Africa until his death, and Mossadegh returned to Tehran...

... - The people of Iran who were angered by Mossadegh's dismissal, revolted in favor of him and Ayatollah Kashani (who was a close ally of Mossadegh at that time), and against the new government and the Shah. After 4 days of bloody revolt, the people defeated the Ghavam's government and the shah's army, and once again Mossadegh became Prime Minister...

... - By controlling the Defense Ministry (previous War Ministry), Mossadegh succeeded in cleaning the army from corrupted officers, and this act angered the Royal Court.

    - In March of 1953, the Royal Court with the help of a group of clergies, expelled army officers, and ruffians, decided to perform a conspiracy plan against Dr. Mossadegh. The plan was that on the first day of March, the Shah would leave the capital for Europe and pretend that Mossadegh had forced him to leave the country. On the other hand the ruffians and expelled army officers would gather in front of the Royal Palace to avoid the Shah's departure. At the same time when Mossadegh comes out of the Royal Palace, they would attack and murder him. But since Mossadegh suspected the conspiracy at the last moment, he escaped the scene.

    - General Afshar-Toos, the loyal police chief of Mossadegh's government, was brutally murdered by the Royal Court's agents and the expelled officers.

    - Because of the continues disputes between the Parliament and the cabinet, and following the Majlis member's abdications, Mossadegh declared a national referendum to let the people choose between dissolvement of the Parliament, or cabinet's abdication. In this referendum (which was criticized by many figures, because of the separation of the Yes and No ballot boxes, and not being held at a same time in Tehran and other cities), the majority of the votes were for dissolvement of the Majlis, and it was dissolved in August of 1953.

    - On August 16, 1953, with accordance to an American-British designed plan, the Shah issued Dr. Mossadegh's dismissal, and the chief of the Royal Guards carried the formal notice to Mossadegh's house (which was also his Prime Ministry office) and was ordered to occupy the house by the Royal troops. But when the troops reached the Mossadegh's house, Mossadegh's guards immediately arrested the Royal Guard's chief and his troops. The coup was publicized and the Shah escaped the country for Italy.

    - On 17th and 18th of August 1953, people poured to the streets in support of Mossadegh and the status of Mohammad Reza and Reza Shah were pulled down all over the country.

    - On August 19, 1953, the intelligence services of U.S.A. and Britain (CIA - MI6), enforced a more precise and expensive coup d'etat plan, and this time succeeded in overthrowing Mossadegh's government. On this day, after bribing some of the grand Ayatollahs, army officers, ruffians, and the prostitutes, the coup makers pulled large mobs into the streets to demonstrate against the national government of Dr. Mossadegh. Because of the police chief treachery, the coup makers reached the house of the Prime Minister and after several hours of bombarding the house and bloody battle with the small group of Mossadegh's loyal guards, they entered the house and after plundering it, they burned the house."

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: pdq
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 03:03 PM

Here are some key statements from my last post:

       "After the War, Stalin reneged on his promise to withdraw Soviet troops. Instead he used them to support secessionist regimes in Azarbaijan and Kurdestan. When Iranian public opinion, backed by international diplomacy and United Nations pressure, forced the Red Army to withdraw, Iranian forces under the command of the Shah marched to these north-west provinces, and in December, 1946, the secessionist movements abruptly collapsed.

Political instability continued in Tehran, however, and the government of Dr. Mossadegh, a nationalist Iranian to be sure, became embroiled with the still all-powerful Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Efforts to create a new and vigorous society where blocked. because of continuous quarrels with Britain over the nationalization of our oil industry. This period of tension and instability ended in 1953."

Yep, once again the pesky Commies in Russia had a hand in the instability, wanting oil-rich Iran in their sphere of influence.

aa- I have read part of Kinzer's book and it is vomit.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 03:02 PM

Regarding how we'll never know what that part of the world would be like without Western interference, so what?

So nothing, if we don't engage in the kind of speculation that you were engaging in in your 24 Jul 05 - 05:34 PM post. Such speculation serves no useful purpose, and only tends to promote the stereotyps that are an all to common part of our daily discourse these days, and that do, ultimately, get used to justify treating Muslims and people from the Middle East as less than human, or as lesser humans. We are not in a position to judge them because of where they are now, since we contributed greatly to that particular state of affairs.