Aliens

[KingAl]

I am the walrus.

Sitting in an English garden waiting for the sun,
If the sun don't come you get a tan from standing in the English rain.

Coo Coo Ca Choo.

[MrBunsy]

I was asking them to stop with their endless almost-and-sometimes-actual bickering about the Bush administration (which I personally believe is held to much more blame than it should be).

Why? It's an important topic. If you have some intelligent point to add fine, but you posts add absolutely nothing to the topic.

Precisely. I was enjoying reading it.

As to Bush stopping terrorist attacks, does anyone actually have any evidence, however slight? Over here in the UK Heathrow (seems) to be shut down quite regularily with supposed plots being foiled, and it's been reported that the government is aware of 30 odd plans for attacks over Christmas. Wether or not it's total nonesense is beyond me, but it would seem the government is either actively protecting the country or at the very least giving the impression of actively protecting the country.

I doubt the president would actually have very much to do with things like stopping terrorism anyway, isn't that what the secret service is for?

[SODsniper]

As to Bush stopping terrorist attacks, does anyone actually have any evidence, however slight?

Uh... How about the fact that there hasn't been any terrorist attacks on US proper?? Surely that would more than qualify for "slight" evidence. Unless you can come up with any other logical and rational reason why we have not been hit in the US since 9/11...

I doubt the president would actually have very much to do with things like stopping terrorism anyway, isn't that what the secret service is for?

Fair enough.. I don't believe it, but let's run with that.

Bush isn't, personally, responsible for the prevention of terrorism on US soil.

Extrapolating that out, that would mean that Bush is not PERSONALLY responsible for all the bad things that the Bush-Bashers accuse him of..

Wouldn't that be accurate?


SODsniper

[SODsniper]

How many real plots have been foiled? I'll give you a hint, none.

You would be wrong.

Dozens if not HUNDREDS of attacks had been stopped. The relatively recent Airlines attack comes to mind right off the bat.

Were you there? Were any of you there?

There might have been plans foiled, but then again, they might not. Curiosly the airlines attacks as far as I remember seemed to be mostly directed to britain (but I could be wrong).

Actually, they originated in Britain.. However all the airlines targeted were American Carriers with American destinations.

If you're reffering to the bombers who wanted to take bottles abord the flight, let me set you straight on this one. America had nearly no hand in this result, at all. Blair, who knew of the pending attack for *six months*, told Bush *three days* before the raids. The US was clueless about it.

NeoThermic

Actually, that is not entirely accurate.. It was the Pakistanis who initially broke open the plot when they... ahem.. "obtained" information from a captured Al Qaeda Elltee.. The Pakistanis contacted the British MI5 and the US FBI and relayed to them the details of the plot. MI5 operatives infiltrated the terrorist group and took them down mere days before a final test run was planned.

You can bet that the FBI and MI5 were burning the phone lines back and forth on this one.

While I am not trying to take away ANYTHING from the Brits and their superb work, the facts of the matter are that the US was involved at the outset.

Don't believe everything you read in the media. Blair had some very real political reasons for leading people to believe that it was solely a Brit Op..


SODsniper

[xander]

Uh... How about the fact that there hasn't been any terrorist attacks on US proper?? Surely that would more than qualify for "slight" evidence. Unless you can come up with any other logical and rational reason why we have not been hit in the US since 9/11...

Lack of evidence does not prove the opposite. There are a million confounding variables that could also account for the lack of terrorist attacks. It could be that bin Laden got what he wanted, in that the US invaded the Middle East, sparking a radical shift of the general population from moderation to fanaticism. It could be that there were no further plans to attack on US soil, at least for the time being. It could be that the Brits have stopped the attacks that you are giving Bush credit for preventing. You could even be right -- Bush might personally be responsible. However, when evaluated by history, Bush will be given credits and demerits for those things that he obviously had influence over, such as the economy (he has well published economic policies and philosophies), social policy (again, well published), and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- especially the wars. There is little to no evidence that Bush has anything to do with the lack of attacks, which makes it next to impossible to give him credit for it.

Again, why not give Clinton credit for the same? There was one attack on US soil during his presidency, and it caused a hell of a lot less damage and fewer deaths than the one on Bush's watch. And, after that attack, there weren't any more.

Honestly, however, what bothers me most about Bush is not any of his wrong-headed policies, it is his, quite frankly, anti-intellectual stance on most issues. Bush does not simply lack intellectual curiosity, which would be bad enough -- he is actively anti-intellectual. He makes decisions on issues, and sticks by those decisions, no matter how much evidence might appear to contradict him. He discourages the pursuit of knowledge, in preference to faith. I think that his policies and philosophies with regards to the changing climate of the world, stem cells, and Intelligent Design exemplify Bush's attitude perfectly.

You compared Bush to Lincoln. While I agree with SBM that Lincoln is one of the more overrated presidents in US history, he showed great intellectual curiosity. He wanted to know about the world around him. He was a great believer in the arts and sciences. The same was true of FDR and Kennedy. Even Bush Sr. showed more curiosity than his son.

xander

[Stewsburntmonkey]

Uh... How about the fact that there hasn't been any terrorist attacks on US proper?? Surely that would more than qualify for "slight" evidence. Unless you can come up with any other logical and rational reason why we have not been hit in the US since 9/11...

Ugh. . . This sort of ridiculous non-logic is one reason Bush has been such a disaster. Again, since you seem not to be understanding this, correlation does not imply causality. Just because two things happen at the same time does not mean one caused the other.

For example why was there only a single instance of Islamic terrorism in the US during the Clinton administration? Bin Laden started his war against the US after the first invasion of Iraq, so the war was going on all through the Clinton administration and there was only one relatively minor attack (6 killed) on US soil. By your logic that would make Clinton far better at handling terrorism than Bush has been.

The truth of the matter is that terror attack against distant targets tend to come years apart. It is most likely that Al Qaeda simply haven't attempted another attack on US soil. Why should they after all? Bush has kept the US population in a constant state of fear which is what terrorists are after anyway. I think that may be the most effective anti-terrorism action the Bush administration has made.

Fair enough.. I don't believe it, but let's run with that.

Bush isn't, personally, responsible for the prevention of terrorism on US soil.

Extrapolating that out, that would mean that Bush is not PERSONALLY responsible for all the bad things that the Bush-Bashers accuse him of..

Wouldn't that be accurate?

Not quite. There are lots of things Bush has done directly that hurt this nation (all the signing statement, executive orders and recess appointments for starters). Although given that Bush is in charge of all military and national law enforcement in the country he is responsible for their actions.

[SODsniper]

Uh... How about the fact that there hasn't been any terrorist attacks on US proper?? Surely that would more than qualify for "slight" evidence. Unless you can come up with any other logical and rational reason why we have not been hit in the US since 9/11...

Lack of evidence does not prove the opposite. There are a million confounding variables that could also account for the lack of terrorist attacks. It could be that bin Laden got what he wanted, in that the US invaded the Middle East, sparking a radical shift of the general population from moderation to fanaticism.

But yet there are plenty of other terrorist attacks elsewhere. This possibility doesn't make much sense, especially when one consider's the mindset of a terrorist.

It could be that there were no further plans to attack on US soil, at least for the time being.

Again, this is not logical. There is no strategic, tactical or political advantage to Al Qaeda to simply stop terrorist attacks on US soil.

It could be that the Brits have stopped the attacks that you are giving Bush credit for preventing.

Please point to where I gave credit to Bush for that. If I recall correctly, I meerly pointed that incident out as evidence that terrorists are still active against American interests.

You could even be right -- Bush might personally be responsible.

I never claimed such a thing. I have stated that the Bush ADMINISTRATION is responsible.

However, when evaluated by history, Bush will be given credits and demerits for those things that he obviously had influence over, such as the economy (he has well published economic policies and philosophies), social policy (again, well published), and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- especially the wars. There is little to no evidence that Bush has anything to do with the lack of attacks, which makes it next to impossible to give him credit for it.

Personally, I would agree with you. But I never claimed that Bush was "personally" responsible, so this is a straw-man argument.

Again, why not give Clinton credit for the same? There was one attack on US soil during his presidency, and it caused a hell of a lot less damage and fewer deaths than the one on Bush's watch. And, after that attack, there weren't any more.

Honestly, however, what bothers me most about Bush is not any of his wrong-headed policies, it is his, quite frankly, anti-intellectual stance on most issues. Bush does not simply lack intellectual curiosity, which would be bad enough -- he is actively anti-intellectual. He makes decisions on issues, and sticks by those decisions, no matter how much evidence might appear to contradict him. He discourages the pursuit of knowledge, in preference to faith. I think that his policies and philosophies with regards to the changing climate of the world, stem cells, and Intelligent Design exemplify Bush's attitude perfectly.

You won't get any argument from me on these points. As I said, sans one, I disagree with Bush on practically every issue..

You compared Bush to Lincoln.

Actually, I didn't.. I posted that blurb (that was written by Neil Cavuto, incidently) to show how the emotions of the moment may cloud judgement and how a "loser" in the here and now can easily become a great leader when one looks back 100+ years.

While I agree with SBM that Lincoln is one of the more overrated presidents in US history, he showed great intellectual curiosity. He wanted to know about the world around him. He was a great believer in the arts and sciences. The same was true of FDR and Kennedy. Even Bush Sr. showed more curiosity than his son.

xander

And here again, I am simply pointing out to the Bush Bashers how leaders that are considered great did much more horrible things than Bush is ACCUSED of, let alone things he actually might have had a hand in..


SODsniper

[SODsniper]

Although given that Bush is in charge of all military and national law enforcement in the country is responsible for their actions.

Exactly...

Actions both bad ***AND*** good..

I am glad we finally found some common ground..

I can die happy now.



SODsniper

[xander]

Uh... How about the fact that there hasn't been any terrorist attacks on US proper?? Surely that would more than qualify for "slight" evidence. Unless you can come up with any other logical and rational reason why we have not been hit in the US since 9/11...

Lack of evidence does not prove the opposite. There are a million confounding variables that could also account for the lack of terrorist attacks. It could be that bin Laden got what he wanted, in that the US invaded the Middle East, sparking a radical shift of the general population from moderation to fanaticism.

But yet there are plenty of other terrorist attacks elsewhere. This possibility doesn't make much sense, especially when one consider's the mindset of a terrorist.

It could be that there were no further plans to attack on US soil, at least for the time being.

Again, this is not logical. There is no strategic, tactical or political advantage to Al Qaeda to simply stop terrorist attacks on US soil.

It could be that the Brits have stopped the attacks that you are giving Bush credit for preventing.

Please point to where I gave credit to Bush for that. If I recall correctly, I meerly pointed that incident out as evidence that terrorists are still active against American interests.

You could even be right -- Bush might personally be responsible.

I never claimed such a thing. I have stated that the Bush ADMINISTRATION is responsible.

Go back and read what I wrote one more time. I never said that any of those things were the reason, I simply stated that they were possibilites. You go on to accuse me of making straw-man arguments, but you are flagrantly misinterpreting what I have written, and attacking your own misinterpretations. That is, more or less, the definition of a straw-man.

However, when evaluated by history, Bush will be given credits and demerits for those things that he obviously had influence over, such as the economy (he has well published economic policies and philosophies), social policy (again, well published), and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- especially the wars. There is little to no evidence that Bush has anything to do with the lack of attacks, which makes it next to impossible to give him credit for it.

Personally, I would agree with you. But I never claimed that Bush was "personally" responsible, so this is a straw-man argument.

Unless I have misinterpreted what what you have written, this is the argument that you have made -- Bush has done "one good thing," and that is to prevent further attacks on US soil. You have stated this very clearly at least twice now. If you want to change your arguement, so be it. However, we can only respond to what you actually say.

You compared Bush to Lincoln.

Actually, I didn't.. I posted that blurb (that was written by Neil Cavuto, incidently) to show how the emotions of the moment may cloud judgement and how a "loser" in the here and now can easily become a great leader when one looks back 100+ years.

Yes, you did. It doesn't matter where the comparision originally came from. You posted a comparison between Bush and Lincoln, without referencing any outside source. Thus, you compared the two. You may have been taking that comparison from some other source, but how can we know that? From our perspective, you compared Bush to Lincoln.

xander

[Stewsburntmonkey]

But yet there are plenty of other terrorist attacks elsewhere. This possibility doesn't make much sense, especially when one consider's the mindset of a terrorist.

And? Terrorist are looking for certain social and political changes when they launch an attack. There isn't much else a second attack on US soil would do. The administration has been keeping the terror up all on it's own. This was not true in other countries. Also terror networks operate in cells. The cells in other countries were operating on their own (with some coordination from the top). A cell in London or Madrid can't easily attack the US or some other country.

Again, this is not logical. There is no strategic, tactical or political advantage to Al Qaeda to simply stop terrorist attacks on US soil.

No, there is no strategic, tactical or political advantage to attack again when the level of fear from the 9/11 attacks is still going riding high. Better to put resources into attacks in other places where the level of fear isn't so high.



In any event xander was just listing possible reasons for their not being another terrorist attack on US soil. He made no claims that these were the reasons.

Please point to where I gave credit to Bush for that. If I recall correctly, I meerly pointed that incident out as evidence that terrorists are still active against American interests.

I had made a statement that there were no terrorist attacks Bush has stopped and you brought up the American Airlines plot.

I never claimed such a thing. I have stated that the Bush ADMINISTRATION is responsible.

Although given that Bush is in charge of all military and national law enforcement in the country is responsible for their actions.

Exactly...

Actions both bad ***AND*** good..

I am glad we finally found some common ground..

I can die happy now.

But here you clearly say that Bush is responsible for the agencies he controls, aka his administration. You are trying to have it both ways.

Personally, I would agree with you. But I never claimed that Bush was "personally" responsible, so this is a straw-man argument.

Oh, but you did, see above.

(it is always a bad sign when people use the term "straw-man". . .)

You compared Bush to Lincoln.

Actually, I didn't.. I posted that blurb (that was written by Neil Cavuto, incidently) to show how the emotions of the moment may cloud judgement and how a "loser" in the here and now can easily become a great leader when one looks back 100+ years.

By posting such a quote you are making the comparison. You also later compare Bush to Lincoln, FDR and JFK. There is nothing wrong with making such a comparison, however I see no reason to deny what you clearly wrote.

And here again, I am simply pointing out to the Bush Bashers how leaders that are considered great did much more horrible things than Bush is ACCUSED of, let alone things he actually might have had a hand in..

That is quite clearly not what you have been doing. You may have made one or two posts on that subject, but mostly you have been trying to defend Bush's terrorism policies.

I would also argue that nothing those other Presidents did was as horrible as some of the things Bush has done. Each of those Presidents did things that were horrible in the moment, but had no serious lasting impact on the nation. The consequences of the things Bush has done will be felt for generations to come not only in America but in the rest of the world as well. In addition Bush has worked to undermine the very core tenets of the US government which is something I cannot forgive.

[NeoThermic]

Actually, that is not entirely accurate.. It was the Pakistanis who initially broke open the plot when they... ahem.. "obtained" information from a captured Al Qaeda Elltee.. The Pakistanis contacted the British MI5 and the US FBI and relayed to them the details of the plot. MI5 operatives infiltrated the terrorist group and took them down mere days before a final test run was planned.

You can bet that the FBI and MI5 were burning the phone lines back and forth on this one.

While I am not trying to take away ANYTHING from the Brits and their superb work, the facts of the matter are that the US was involved at the outset.

Don't believe everything you read in the media. Blair had some very real political reasons for leading people to believe that it was solely a Brit Op..


SODsniper

I left Pakistan out of what I was telling you because it was simply not relevant. Pakistan didn't actually tell the US (if you believe they did, give me two reports, one US and one non-US telling that Pakistan told the FBI). I mean, why would they? The terrorists were on UK soil. The terrorists were boarding flights from the UK. Sure, they had US destinations, but the info was relaid to the UK six months before the terrorists were planning to make their attacks. America would only need to know about the attacks when it became relevant to them; i.e. the attacks were a few days away, and incidentally that is when Blair told Bush about it.

I also don't believe everything I read in the media. Any media is opinionated and stories are twisted to that opinion. However, there is much to be had from realising where the media opinion lies and working to a balanced story from that. You'll also find that detailed reports about the operation are available under the FIA (Freedom of Information Act), although some are withheld for obvious reasons.

NeoThermic

[xander]

And here again, I am simply pointing out to the Bush Bashers how leaders that are considered great did much more horrible things than Bush is ACCUSED of, let alone things he actually might have had a hand in..

Hey! I never said that ;)

xander

[SODsniper]

But yet there are plenty of other terrorist attacks elsewhere. This possibility doesn't make much sense, especially when one consider's the mindset of a terrorist.

And? Terrorist are looking for certain social and political changes when they launch an attack. There isn't much else a second attack on US soil would do. The administration has been keeping the terror up all on it's own. This was not true in other countries. Also terror networks operate in cells. The cells in other countries were operating on their own (with some coordination from the top). A cell in London or Madrid can't easily attack the US or some other country.

Again, this is not logical. There is no strategic, tactical or political advantage to Al Qaeda to simply stop terrorist attacks on US soil.

No, there is no strategic, tactical or political advantage to attack again when the level of fear from the 9/11 attacks is still going riding high. Better to put resources into attacks in other places where the level of fear isn't so high.



In any event xander was just listing possible reasons for their not being another terrorist attack on US soil. He made no claims that these were the reasons.

Please point to where I gave credit to Bush for that. If I recall correctly, I meerly pointed that incident out as evidence that terrorists are still active against American interests.

I had made a statement that there were no terrorist attacks Bush has stopped and you brought up the American Airlines plot.

I never claimed such a thing. I have stated that the Bush ADMINISTRATION is responsible.

Although given that Bush is in charge of all military and national law enforcement in the country is responsible for their actions.

Exactly...

Actions both bad ***AND*** good..

I am glad we finally found some common ground..

I can die happy now.

But here you clearly say that Bush is responsible for the agencies he controls, aka his administration. You are trying to have it both ways.

Personally, I would agree with you. But I never claimed that Bush was "personally" responsible, so this is a straw-man argument.

Oh, but you did, see above.

(it is always a bad sign when people use the term "straw-man". . .)

You compared Bush to Lincoln.

Actually, I didn't.. I posted that blurb (that was written by Neil Cavuto, incidently) to show how the emotions of the moment may cloud judgement and how a "loser" in the here and now can easily become a great leader when one looks back 100+ years.

By posting such a quote you are making the comparison. You also later compare Bush to Lincoln, FDR and JFK. There is nothing wrong with making such a comparison, however I see no reason to deny what you clearly wrote.

And here again, I am simply pointing out to the Bush Bashers how leaders that are considered great did much more horrible things than Bush is ACCUSED of, let alone things he actually might have had a hand in..

That is quite clearly not what you have been doing. You may have made one or two posts on that subject, but mostly you have been trying to defend Bush's terrorism policies.

I would also argue that nothing those other Presidents did was as horrible as some of the things Bush has done. Each of those Presidents did things that were horrible in the moment, but had no serious lasting impact on the nation. The consequences of the things Bush has done will be felt for generations to come not only in America but in the rest of the world as well. In addition Bush has worked to undermine the very core tenets of the US government which is something I cannot forgive.

This has now gone into the realm of trolling...

I was convinced by the "it is always a bad sign when people use the term "straw-man" part above, since I had been accused in many other threads of using straw man arguments.

So, I guess that it's a BAD sign when I use the term, but perfectly respectable when someone else uses the term...

Regardless, my participation in the Bush portion of this thread is now at an end. Ya'all have gone from an intellectual discussion to simple posting baited accusations designed to push buttons.

Sorry, ya'all will just be playing with yourselves...

I'll peek in on the thread now and again, to see if it has gotten back on the topic of aliens...


SODsniper

[Stewsburntmonkey]

And here again, I am simply pointing out to the Bush Bashers how leaders that are considered great did much more horrible things than Bush is ACCUSED of, let alone things he actually might have had a hand in..

Hey! I never said that

xander

Oh, dear. . . fixed.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

This has now gone into the realm of trolling...

I was convinced by the "it is always a bad sign when people use the term "straw-man" part above, since I had been accused in many other threads of using straw man arguments.

So, I guess that it's a BAD sign when I use the term, but perfectly respectable when someone else uses the term...

I haven't seen anyone else in this thread use the term straw-man (other than xander who was referring to your use of the term) and if I had I would have made the same statement to them. I haven't seen these other threads where you were accused of using straw-men, but I don't like the use of term straw-men regardless of who it is applied to. In my experience "straw-man" accusations are just crude deflection mechanisms. It just strikes me as an unnecessary use of a technical term designed to prove how much someone knows about a subject (here rhetoric).

My comment was certainly not meant in any way that could be considered trolling.

Regardless, my participation in the Bush portion of this thread is now at an end. Ya'all have gone from an intellectual discussion to simple posting baited accusations designed to push buttons.

Umm, no. If you want to drop out of the discussion fine, but insulting us as a way to excuse yourself from having to defend your statements is just really bad form.

I'll peek in on the thread now and again, to see if it has gotten back on the topic of aliens...

To be honest people can talk about aliens if they like, but there isn't all that much to say.