Ignorance

[BernardLanguillier]

It is dumb to make the comparisons Bernard made between plainly different circumstances.

I don't think he's dumb, as I said ... And since he isn't dumb, but he is saying dumb things leads me to believe he is being facetious ... So i noted the apparent contradiction.

That was not a personal attack.

And was not taken as such, no worries.

I'll now withdraw from this thread. I feel the time has come to eat a good tempura, a word coming from the Portugese language, adopted by the Japanese.

Correction, it is going to a Tunisian Couscous.

Cheers,
Bernard

[michael]

Please discontinue personal attacks. Disputing ideas is fine, but not name calling.

Michael

[ErikKaffehr]

A red Porsche?

Erik

No, Bill, it's a Porsche.

Rob C

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I can also remember the money I gave to assorted charities over the years, and particiapating in several wars fought to protect muslims from others...

I am glad your generosity is finally paying dividends. Looks like you succeeded once again in creating your own future enemies (like you did with Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden):

From today's Associated Press article (and not Vietnamese Propaganda Ministry):

Radical Islam on rise in Balkans

SKOPJE, Macedonia (AP) -- An online music video praising Osama bin Laden has driven home a troubling new reality: A radical brand of Islam embraced by al-Qaida and the Taliban is gaining a foothold in the Balkans.

"Oh Osama, annihilate the American army. Oh Osama, raise the Muslims' honor," a group of Macedonian men sing in Albanian, in video posted on YouTube last year and picked up by Macedonian media this August. "In September 2001 you conquered a power. We all pray for you."

You can read the rest of the article: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_BALKANS_RADICAL_ISLAM?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[RSL]

Slobodan, You know as well as I do that these people would be saying the same thing about Serbia if it were the most powerful Western nation on earth. What they're against is western culture -- actually, any kind of culture that doesn't grow out of Sharia.

[Steve Weldon]

[quoteLooks like you succeeded once again in creating your own future enemies (like you did with Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden):][/quote]

It's been fun..  I dropped out of this thread when it became obvious (a bit more than) discussion was never really the goal of several of the main participants.  To be fair it rarely is.  Like any agenda it starts out appearing to be reasonable, and then gradually descends into the depths of extremism.    They make a few reasonable points, and then reach a point where they actually think they've convinced someone other than themselves.. and then they let it all hang out.  Insidious would be a good word.

Of course others are far too crude and reveal themselves almost immediately.  I admire their honesty, if not their beliefs.  In contrast would be those who you know are intelligent and informed enough to make a more fair and balanced presentation, but instead choose to take advantage of their opponents ignorance.  The worse sin imo.

Its rare a mind will be changed, even though its common all sides become more educated on the actual issues. 

I was surprised this thread was allowed to continue, but I think the experiment paid off.  Despite wildly different points of view the thread remained relatively civil.  I think the "why" of this would make an excellent thread all by itself.  Is the shared art of photography enough to allow different minds a fair and reasonable voice?  Or is it the type of mind, artistic capabilities perhaps, which makes someone more open in general?  And if so, would our world be better off headed by artists and not seasoned politicians?

My guess is we have much more to learn, and to benefit from, finding these answers than we'll ever achieve hashing over a war already fought..

If we are to hash over a war already fought, perhaps a restricted set of goals would be beneficial.  Instead of discussing the politics or position of a country, we could discuss an improved strategy for war.  For instance, instead of defending or attacking the reasons for invading Iraq, how about discussing a strategy for future invasions (of non-named countries) to include justification, verification, procedure, and goals?

[Rob C]

I may be imagining this, but didn't bin-lad actually claim responsibility for the events of 9/11? I can't, either, understand why Arabs are thought incapable of learning to fly - they have several airlines already, airforces (huge)...

Rob C

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... didn't bin-lad actually claim responsibility for the events of 9/11?...

He apparently did it so belatedly, that FBI failed to notice and include it in their Most Wanted:

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

Edit: just in case you missed my point: 9/11 is not on the list.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Steve,

Since you quoted my post, and then embarked on a psycho-analysis of various types of posters and their motivations, I wonder where do you imply I fit in? Insidious extremist? Crude but honest? Intelligent, manipulative sinner?

Labeling others, of course, is a well-known method of avoiding discussing issues on their merits.

[BernardLanguillier]

I may be imagining this, but didn't bin-lad actually claim responsibility for the events of 9/11? I can't, either, understand why Arabs are thought incapable of learning to fly - they have several airlines already, airforces (huge)...

This is not about being able to learn to fly, it is about the complexity of the operation in terms of synchronization. There are tons of examples of less complex operations led by highly trained and very well equiped military teams that failed miserably.

On the flying part, if you know any pilot, please ask them what they think about the possibility that a beginner manages to hit a tower the way the 737 did (flight trajectory,...). I happen to know a few pilots who are not into conspiration theories and they all tell me that the flight path used is not trivial to master for beginners [corrected].

But anyway, this is only a minor aspect. There are many sides to the 9/11 official story that are plain impossible to believe. I already mentioned the fact that passports belonging to the supposed terrorists were found untouched at the base of the towers... The odds of this happening are simply nill...

Besides, I advise reading a book from David Ray Grieffin on the topic. He doesn't propose any explanation as to what happened, but he demonstrates in a convincing way that:
1. It would be very surprising if the official conspiration theory were true,
2. The 9/11 commision had very clear motivations to back up the official story and cannot be considered an independant body.

Finally for Steve, why would this thread not be allowed to continue?

Cheers,
Bernard

[RSL]

On the flying part, if you know any pilot, please ask them what they think about the possibility that a beginner manages to hit a tower the way the 737 did (flight trajectory,...). I happen to know a few pilots who are not into conspiration theories and they all tell me that even an experienced pilot wouln't be sure to succeed every time.

Bernard, I was a military pilot for a long time. I'd sure hate to ride with any of the incompetent pilots you asked for an opinion. Flying any airplane into a target the size of the World Trade Center would be what we used to call "a piece of cake." Can your buddies even land an airplane? That's a lot harder than hitting the World Trade Center.

[BernardLanguillier]

Bernard, I was a military pilot for a long time. I'd sure hate to ride with any of the incompetent pilots you asked for an opinion. Flying any airplane into a target the size of the World Trade Center would be what we used to call "a piece of cake." Can your buddies even land an airplane? That's a lot harder than hitting the World Trade Center.

Flying straight most probably yes, although the speed at which they were approaching was a lot higher than landing speed, but banking the way it did was explained to me as being non trivial.

Anyway, again, this is one detail among many others.

Cheers,
Bernard

[DarkPenguin]

One debunked detail amongst many other debunked details.

[BernardLanguillier]

One debunked detail amongst many other debunked details.

Agreed, they would have to be looked into carefully one by one by independant investigators.

Cheers,
Bernard

[stamper]

Quote


If we are to hash over a war already fought, perhaps a restricted set of goals would be beneficial.  Instead of discussing the politics or position of a country, we could discuss an improved strategy for war.  For instance, instead of defending or attacking the reasons for invading Iraq, how about discussing a strategy for future invasions (of non-named countries) to include justification, verification, procedure, and goals?

Unquote

I think most people weren't hashing out a war already fought but the reasoning behind people's thinking for supporting or not supporting the war. There are obviously many different political point's of view on display from right wing to left wing that inherently shape their thinking. Most who have contributed to this thread will have had their political thinking displayed for all to see. One or two won't because they were posting to stir the pot. Possibly one or two will have been doing the Devil's Advocate. I would suggest all of the contributors got it wrong in some way or another, even you Steve? The only problem as I see it is when the personal slant, whether deliberate or not, becomes obvious it then descends into mudslinging. In any debating chamber a person states their views usually in a forthright manner. They don't state them in an apologetic manner because this would be seen as a sign of weakness. It is then up to the others to debunk their stance, preferably with evidence. Slobodan took the time and effort to skilfully put across  his points via links which was most helpful. One other point, in an effort to be brief sometimes you have to leave out salient points which is then construed as not knowing your subject. Nothing worse than a long winded dialogue usually bereft of facts?

[JohnKoerner]

Allright - I'll try to be humble and re-read:
I'm citing myself:Now, that the meaning of "mud" is clarified there still is no contradiction. There is no statement "A" and a statement "Not A" which I claim both to be true, thus there is no contradiction.
"Typically done in silence" is an assumption that may be true within the context of your experience, but that is not generally true. You also attempt to use the "talking publicly" as a weapon to stigmatise my argument as being abnornal which is grossly over the line and one of the classic dirty tricks to win a discussion. Schopenhauer wrote a great paper about these dirty tricks and you make very free use of these. I also can not see where from you conclude this behavior as "habitually" which raises the thought of it being simply another attempt to use dirty tricks.
Actually it does not. Speaking of oneself in third person is taking the perspective of a fantasized third person, which is simply creative and a valid means in a discussion. Again you take judgements concerning whats pathological or not here which again is not only a grossly unfair attempt to dominate  the discussion, but also simply bad behavior.
This is a blunt and transparent attempt to forbid me what I was doing. Nothing more.
As stated above I was taking the perspective of a fantasized third watching person. Using the term "abnormal" in this context again is an attempt to apply  an "Argument ad Hominem".
To name me a "self-blown" professional is a flat attempt of insulting. And again you are far over the line stating me a "case of mild narcisissm". This is repetitive overbearing.
To sum up my experience with the last exchange of posts I unfortunately have to say you are behaving increasingly overbearing, logically wrong and leaving the path of a civilized discussion. If I'd be mild I'd see this as a attempt of provocation to see more of what I meant and pull my reserves. Usually this kind of behavior is acceptable between good friends, but not in a first time discussion with someone you don't know.
You have shown to be a fighter in a discussion and you have some intellectual muscles. So what?
Therefore, and as a means of de-escalation (which the whole thread was lacking a lot) I see this discussion as closed and not meaningful anymore and I will only react if I see it as necessary.
Cheers
~C.
Source (That Schopenhauer thing): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right

.

[RSL]

Jack, Hear, hear!!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

John, you know what? This is the first post of yours that I like 100%! I would have liked it even more had you quoted one of your own posts, instead of Christoph's. Keep expressing yourself visually, refrain from using words, and you will soon become my favorite poster! 

[Steve Weldon]

"I wonder where do you imply I fit in? "

Well Slobodan, it's like this and reminds me of something my dearly departed great granddaddy once told to me while fishing on Lake Cachuma as a young lad.  I asked: "Great Granddaddy, what kind of fish are in this lake?"   Great Granddaddy replied:  "For such a wee bairn you ask some darn good questions.  I don't know the answer.  Sometimes you have to throw in a bit of chum and see what surfaces..."   Great Granddaddy was a wise man.   Everyone fits in somewhere, why would I try to pin a label on anyone when they've demonstrated such skill in doing it themselves?

"not knowing your subject. Nothing worse than a long winded dialogue usually bereft of facts?"

Oh my, I just spit my Pepsi-max through my nose all over my new monitors.  Thank you for the laugh, it was very much needed this morning.


"Finally for Steve, why would this thread not be allowed to continue? "

A rhetorical question?  I'm merely expressing my admiration that there have been no reasons.

[Rob C]

Why do some refuse to consider the suicide factor? I know of no service (western) other than the religious activist one where suicide would be included in the expectations of the employer.

Synchronisation a problem? Come on, anyone setting up a shoot to another country, using models from different places, can synchronise three flights pretty easily; who knows how many flights were actually manned with mad people capable of striking within the time framework that constituted the minutes of open season? Once the airforce was active, too late. Hold until the next available space. Trouble with that is they don't make shoes like they used to.

Rob C