Berlusconi announce withdrawal - Nice timing

[Manny]

As Leif Roar said, this isn't new news. He was moderately dumb for being maneuvered into repeating the plans up in Gleneagles on the day after the bombings, but that's it.

In other news, Gleneagles is the coolest resort name ever. I don't even know why; it just rolls so nicely off the tongue. I'm gonna start a big huge multinational company just so we can have our annual international sales meeting in Gleneagles.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'm confused. Bush has been accused of playing on our fears but this looks like he isn't. ???? Which is it?

You seem to be assuming that politicians must be strictly consistent.

The way the game is played is that you tell the people that there are terrible evil terrorists presenting an imminent threat, and that you are heroically fighting that threat, and winning victories against that threat, but that there is still a terrible evil imminent threat.

If the public get the idea that there is not a real and imminent threat to them personally, or get the idea you aren't protecting them, or get the idea that anyone other than you can protect them, they won't feel dependant upon you.

 

[Mephisto]

So you're ok with the fact it's a contradiction, because you can't have it both ways.

Neither can Bush, but some are apparently willing to let him try.

Oh yeah, I forgot, now the threat is Iran.

 

[Mephisto]

The inteligence was clear that there was a lot of training camps devoted to training terrorists before 9/11. The extent and seriousnes of 9/11 demonstrated the degree to which they were trained and willing to go.

I can't understand how the U.S. can use our "intelligence" as a clear sign that there were terrorist training camps, but we claim "faulty intelligence" when it came to WMD. Either our intelligence gathering was accurate and terrorist training camps DO exist, which means our President lied about WMD, or our intelligence gathering is a joke (giving Bush his excuse for lack of WMD) and the training camps likely DO NOT exist.

I also don't think anyone (intelligent or not) has proven that Iraq had ANYTHING to do with 9/11.

 

[RandFan]

I can't understand how the U.S. can use our "intelligence" as a clear sign that there were terrorist training camps, but we claim "faulty intelligence" when it came to WMD. Either our intelligence gathering was accurate and terrorist training camps DO exist, which means our President lied about WMD, or our intelligence gathering is a joke (giving Bush his excuse for lack of WMD) and the training camps likely DO NOT exist.

False dilema. Your logic assumes that a single mistake in inteligence means we can only assume that all inteligence is wrong. Certainly such mistakes call into quetion the reliability of inteligence but we can hardly dismiss all of the inteligence based on a mistake. Besides, there WAS intelligence that there was no WMD, that is the sad part. Bush cherry picked his inteligence and the cherry picking was obviously politically expedient.

AIU we know the camps existed because of multiple sources and the fact that they were filmed by the terrorists themselves.

I also don't think anyone (intelligent or not) has proven that Iraq had ANYTHING to do with 9/11.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I hope that is clear.

 

[RandFan]

You seem to be assuming that politicians must be strictly consistent.

No, I don't know how they can be effective by telling us everything is ok but be scared.

The way the game is played is that you tell the people that there are terrible evil terrorists presenting an imminent threat, and that you are heroically fighting that threat, and winning victories against that threat, but that there is still a terrible evil imminent threat.

If the public get the idea that there is not a real and imminent threat to them personally, or get the idea you aren't protecting them, or get the idea that anyone other than you can protect them, they won't feel dependant upon you.

I can buy the argument that the world is "safer" but we are still in danger. Perhaps.

 

[AWPrime]

AIU we know the camps existed because of multiple sources and the fact that they were filmed by the terrorists themselves.

But by which terorists?

It is not one big organisation.

 

[RandFan]

But by which terorists?

It is not one big organisation.

You obviously have me at a disadvantage here. I appologize if I missed the elephant in the room. Is the point specifically about a specific group or an individual terrorists? I'm going back through the thread and I don't see it. It wouldn't of course be my first SNAFU.

Thanks,

RandFan

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No, I don't know how they can be effective by telling us everything is ok but be scared.

You don't tell them everything is okay, you tell them that a mighty victory has been won but also that the Spooky Terrorist Threat Level is orange now. So cheer for your mighty leaders, but also live in fear.

I can buy the argument that the world is "safer" but we are still in danger. Perhaps.

I don't think I can buy that we are "in danger", for any value of "in danger" that requires the danger from terrorism to be greater than the danger from lightning strikes, traffic accidents and so forth. Unless you work in a likely terrorist target like the Pentagon, it's not realistic to consider yourself in danger from terrorists unless you also consider yourself in danger from bee stings and undiagnosed brain cancers.

A more rational approach would be to treat terrorism like traffic safety. Have a realistic appreciation of the real dangers, minimise them as much as you can personally, be vaguely grateful that other people are doing stuff to minimise the risk to you, hold idiots who increase the risk to you accountable, but don't get more exited about it than the real risks merit.

 

[RandFan]

You don't tell them everything is okay, you tell them that a mighty victory has been won but also that the Spooky Terrorist Threat Level is orange now. So cheer for your mighty leaders, but also live in fear.

That is the point I made. In any event I don't think it works.

I don't think I can buy that we are "in danger", for any value of "in danger" that requires the danger from terrorism to be greater than the danger from lightning strikes, traffic accidents and so forth. Unless you work in a likely terrorist target like the Pentagon, it's not realistic to consider yourself in danger from terrorists unless you also consider yourself in danger from bee stings and undiagnosed brain cancers.

A more rational approach would be to treat terrorism like traffic safety. Have a realistic appreciation of the real dangers, minimise them as much as you can personally, be vaguely grateful that other people are doing stuff to minimise the risk to you, hold idiots who increase the risk to you accountable, but don't get more exited about it than the real risks merit.

Not at all what I meant.

 

[normdoering]

I'm confused. Bush has been accused of playing on our fears but this looks like he isn't. ???? Which is it?

What would you say if Bush had a secret pull out plan already going?

http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=95595&cat=World

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages...rticle_id=355291&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=

The trick is to make a horrible mistake not look like a mistake at all.

 

[Elind]

Re: Berlusconi announce withdrawal of troops - Nice timing

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/08/italy.iraq.ap/index.html

Anyone else who think Berlusconi's announcement has an absolutely idiotic timing? The day of the announcement comes just one day after the London bombings, and the terrorist warnings against Italy and Denmark, that those countries would be targetted unless they pull their troops out.

I'm actually sure that this decision has nothing to do with the bombings, and has been planned for a while, but going ahead with it on the following day gives the impression that the terrorists succeeded in their goals and that violence wins.

I've already called it craven elsewhere, and of course been chastised by the usual apologists.

However, I am really surprised that you can be "actually sure" that this has nothing to do with the bombings.

That guy didn't become the richest man in Italy by being a complete dumbass. Even I wouldn't make that kind of assinine "mistake" after a sixpack of beer at 2am.

Obviously the Italians show that they are not the ones to choose to cover your back. They might not be there when you turn around.

 

[Manny]

A more rational approach would be to treat terrorism like traffic safety. Have a realistic appreciation of the real dangers, minimise them as much as you can personally, be vaguely grateful that other people are doing stuff to minimise the risk to you, hold idiots who increase the risk to you accountable, but don't get more exited about it than the real risks merit.

I actually agree with most of this, except for the part about "hold idiots who increase the risk to you accountable."

We're not going to "hold them accountable." We're going to kill them, Kevin. They're going to die. Maybe not today, maybe not next week, but we're going to kill them. Much like spraying for mosquitoes when West Nile perked up, we're going to kill the people who spread terrorism.

On the other stuff, I agree with the proviso that I think people are too lackadaisical about other risks. All the stuff the Homeland Security people said people should do that everyone made fun of? People should be doing most of it anyway, terrorism or no (OK, I'll admit that the plastic house bubble thing was dumb). Every house should have a survival kit which includes first aid, water purifier tablets, a gun and ammunition, flashlight, radio, lots of batteries, packaged food, etc. Every car should have a first aid kit, flares, jumper cables, and a cell phone. People should be much better prepared for emergencies than they are, and terrorism is but one of those emergencies.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I actually agree with most of this, except for the part about "hold idiots who increase the risk to you accountable."

We're not going to "hold them accountable." We're going to kill them, Kevin. They're going to die. Maybe not today, maybe not next week, but we're going to kill them. Much like spraying for mosquitoes when West Nile perked up, we're going to kill the people who spread terrorism.

When the Secret Service show up, I suggest that you tell them that you somehow misinterpreted "idiots who increase the risk to you" to refer to terrorists instead of President Bush.

It's not a very believable story, but maybe they'll buy it.

On the other stuff, I agree with the proviso that I think people are too lackadaisical about other risks. All the stuff the Homeland Security people said people should do that everyone made fun of? People should be doing most of it anyway, terrorism or no (OK, I'll admit that the plastic house bubble thing was dumb). Every house should have a survival kit which includes first aid, water purifier tablets, a gun and ammunition, flashlight, radio, lots of batteries, packaged food, etc. Every car should have a first aid kit, flares, jumper cables, and a cell phone. People should be much better prepared for emergencies than they are, and terrorism is but one of those emergencies.

Everyone with a healthy disposable income, anyway.

 

[a_unique_person]

I actually agree with most of this, except for the part about "hold idiots who increase the risk to you accountable."

We're not going to "hold them accountable." We're going to kill them, Kevin. They're going to die. Maybe not today, maybe not next week, but we're going to kill them. Much like spraying for mosquitoes when West Nile perked up, we're going to kill the people who spread terrorism.

That kind of attitude is part of how we now find ourselves worse off than when we started, IMHO. You solve a problem with an understanding of it, and how and why it happens. Just saying you are going to kill them all is how the current quagmire happened.

 

[Manny]

When the Secret Service show up, I suggest that you tell them that you somehow misinterpreted "idiots who increase the risk to you" to refer to terrorists instead of President Bush.

Oh, dhimmi humor. Ar ar.

Everyone with a healthy disposable income, anyway.

I'll agree that there are families in Appalachia and elsewhere for whom this stuff is a too big an expense. And maybe it's more widespread a problem in Australia -- I honestly don't know. But ~90% of US households have a VCR player and only 2/3 have even a single fire extinguisher.

 

[Manny]

That kind of attitude is part of how we now find ourselves worse off than when we started, IMHO. You solve a problem with an understanding of it, and how and why it happens.

The problem is that ultra-religious radical nutjobs fly 767s into our buildings and bomb our subways. How and why it happens is because every time they've attacked us before we've failed to respond. They took over our embassy in Iran and we crashed some helicopters into the desert. They blew up our embassy and barracks in Beriut and we retreated. They desecrated our troops in Mogadishu and we retreated. We encouraged the Shi'a and Kurds to rebel and then stood there watching as they were massacred. They tried to assassinate a former president and we launched a couple of missiles in the middle of the night to demonstrate our resolve, I guess, against Iraqi cleaning people. They blew up two more embassies, and we launched a few more cruise missiles, this time into the desert and against Sudanese night watchmen. They blew up an American destroyer and we did nothing.

Finally, when they hit the homeland we figured out that someone is making war on us. When someone is making war on you, the correct response is to win.

 

[Mycroft]

That kind of attitude is part of how we now find ourselves worse off than when we started, IMHO. You solve a problem with an understanding of it, and how and why it happens. Just saying you are going to kill them all is how the current quagmire happened.

I understand religious fundamentalism. I grew up in a small town surounded by baptists who told me "Yoda" from Star Wars was an incarnation of a demon. These people are nuts, but mostly harmless as long as all they want to do is homeschool their kids and keep them from pop culture, but if their beliefs led them to kill, I have no illusions about what it would take to stop them.

I understand Fred Phelps, I understand Osama Bin Laden. There isn't that much difference between the two, they're both irrational. It just happens that one wants to kill people while the other only wants to tick them off by being as offensive as possible.

 

[Elind]

That kind of attitude is part of how we now find ourselves worse off than when we started, IMHO. You solve a problem with an understanding of it, and how and why it happens. Just saying you are going to kill them all is how the current quagmire happened.

No, the current "quagmire" happened when they decided to try to kill us.

Problems are actually not solved by understanding alone, at least not practical ones. They are solved by taking action based on understanding.

You like to recommend understanding, as long as it doesn't lead to unpleasant solutions. Unfortunately I don't hear you proposing any realistic pleasant solutions either.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Oh, dhimmi humor. Ar ar.

You'll have to run that by me again in complete English sentences.

I'll agree that there are families in Appalachia and elsewhere for whom this stuff is a too big an expense. And maybe it's more widespread a problem in Australia -- I honestly don't know. But ~90% of US households have a VCR player and only 2/3 have even a single fire extinguisher.

I don't know how things work in the USA, but I know for certain I could get a few second-hand VCRs for the price of a new fire extinguisher, without going into guns, ammunition, enough packaged food to survive for some time and whatnot.

That kind of luxury is probably beyond a lot of the working poor in the USA. For those who can afford it, it's cheap insurance though.