The socialists win in Spain

sovtek

Originally posted by BattleBoar
I find the notion that either the socialists in spain or GWB were complicit in the murder of hundreds/thousands of citizens, respectively, to be ridiculous, regardless of "coincidences" that people may point out. These arguments remind me of the methodology of creationists. These are people with an agenda of proving their notion of how we got here, and their scientific philosophy can be summarised as follows: "Start with the idea that God created the earth a few tens of thousands of years ago, then cherry-pick select facts to support your assertion." Now I don't know how many people here are scientists, but anyone who is would immediately see the fallacy of this scientific method.

Creationist come from a POV of trying to prove a conclusion they have already made. ie proving the Bible factually correct.
Unlike creationists I'm not stating that I know the Bush regime were complicit or involved in the Sept 11 attacks. I'm saying that I beleive they could be complicit because I've seen evidence in the interim that suggests it.
Given that past government actions have been that sadistic and brutal (ie operation MONGOOSE, COINTELPRO, operation NORTHWOODS).
Also that the Bush regime (and family and friends connected to them) seemed to have gained alot of their goals held before Sept 11th and as a direct result of such. The Bush regime has also done everything possible to obstruct the investigation of Sept 11th.
While it doesn't prove they were complicit it surely suggests it. At the very least it shows they aren't being completely honest about their actions before said tragedy.
Unlike you I'm not ruling out things that are actually possible, whilst you seem to be suggesting that it's impossible and that the Bush regime is INCAPABLE of doing such deeds.
Which strikes me as being exactly what you are accusing myself and creationist of doing.

No doubt both parties used the attacks for political gain.

I have yet to see how the Socialist USED the attacks. Did the PP shoot themselves in the foot? Yes! Would it then logically follow that their opposition would gain? Does that mean that the Socialist intentionally set out to use the attacks against the PP?

But do you really believe that either would be capable of such a deed?

Yes they are human beings. Have I seen evidence that the Socialist did such a thing...no. On the other hand I have from the Bush regime. In fact I thought claims that Bush were involved were complete garbage 3 years ago. Subsequent evidence and their actions following have changed my mind though.

And, if you do believe that each would have been capable (which I don't), how likely is it that they'd be able to cover it up, or find the necessary people to go along with the murder of their countrymen without saying a word?

Are you saying that people aren't capable of such atrocities? Are you also saying that governments haven't done such things in the past?

I often wonder if people making such arguments realise that by doing so, they are in fact discrediting their own positions on other issues, regardless of how legitimate those other positions may be.

How am I descrediting myself when I suggest that the government are possibly involved in something that they've done before in similiar circumstances and with some of the very same people as actors?

BattleBoar

Originally posted by sovtek
The Bush regime has also done everything possible to obstruct the investigation of Sept 11th. While it doesn't prove they were complicit it surely suggests it. At the very least it shows they aren't being completely honest about their actions before said tragedy.

Of course it is *possible* that this is because they had a hand in the attacks. Anything is theoretically *possible* . But is that likely?

Originally posted by sovtek
Unlike you I'm not ruling out things that are actually possible, whilst you seem to be suggesting that it's impossible and that the Bush regime is INCAPABLE of doing such deeds. Which strikes me as being exactly what you are accusing myself and creationist of doing.

Who said I'm ruling anything out. All I said is that I don't believe it's likely that anyone would reach that conclusion through a careful analysis of all the facts currently available without having a preconceived bias.

Originally posted by sovtek I have yet to see how the Socialist USED the attacks.

Perhaps I should say, no doubt both parties gained from the respective attacks.

Originally posted by sovtek Yes they are human beings. Have I seen evidence that the Socialist did such a thing...no. On the other hand I have from the Bush regime. In fact I thought claims that Bush were involved were complete garbage 3 years ago. Subsequent evidence and their actions following have changed my mind though.

So do you believe Bush was involved then? Not do you believe it's *possible*, because I believe it's *possible*, however unlikely. Do you believe there is more than a 50% chance that GWB was complicit?

Originally posted by sovtek Are you saying that people aren't capable of such atrocities?

No, read my original post. I'm saying that I think it highly unlikely that GWB or the Socialists are capable, or could pull it off even if they were.

Originally posted by sovtek How am I descrediting myself when I suggest that the government are possibly involved in something that they've done before in similiar circumstances and with some of the very same people as actors?

Because as I stated previously, I think it's very unlikely someone could look at all the facts currently available and reach that conclusion. I believe one could only reach said conclusion with a preconcieved bias.

By the way, what previous case has there been of the US govenment murdering 3000 of it citizens in a strike made to look like terrorists for political gain? I haven't seen that incident in the history books.

spanner

Originally posted by bonkey
Huh?



This might sound tasteless, but if you declare war on someone, then expect war. And when you declare war on terrorists, you are going from the ridiculous to the sublime if you expect them to fight war on your terms, rather than the already-established terms they already fight their wars by - loathsome thought that may be.



jc

yes but that doesnt mean you should throw in the towel. the fact of the matter is that an election should not of been held so close to the bombings. emtions are very raw still and i dont think the people were able to make a clear decision

Sand

You can't say that either way, unless you have the magical ability to divide up the influence of every possible issue that influenced every voter. Or unless you think a 90% majority on a single issue must be reflected in a 90% majority in the next general election.

I cant say it for sure - but with the bombing and the blame being laid at Al Quedas door the war and Spains decision to contribute to Iraq would have been at the forefront of everyones minds. If 90% are against the war, it would carry that a significant portion of those people would vote against the government which supported that war. The breakdown was far more even, 38% for the PP and about 42%(?) for the socialists I think. I think its fair to say the 90% didnt carry through there, or wed see a far more decisive victory for the socialists.

Regardless, my point is that the polls of 90% against the war does not imply only 10% support for the government in actual verifiable elections. The idea that government policy should be slaves to TV, newspaper or telephone polls is actually dangerous to real democracy where everyone is consulted rather than whoever the pollsters happen to find on the street.

Sparks

Originally posted by spanner
yes but that doesnt mean you should throw in the towel. the fact of the matter is that an election should not of been held so close to the bombings. emtions are very raw still and i dont think the people were able to make a clear decision

It wouldn't matter. The problem with elections is that they compress huge numbers of issues, both policy and personal, down to a single question - do you want to vote for this candidate? It's a heavily distorted answer you'll get back, every time. Did they vote for you because of a series of educational reforms and grants you brought in two years ago? Or because your opponent was caught having an affair last week? Does the vote give you a mandate to continue with your programme of closing hospitals or was it because they wanted you to continue with your programme of opening schools? There's no way to tell.
See, that is the problem with representative democracy as we run it - elections are held so far apart that there's no way to tell what the results actually mean in terms of how the electorate supports the policy decisions made by government.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Regardless, my point is that the polls of 90% against the war does not imply only 10% support for the government in actual verifiable elections.

No, because while many people would be against one governmental stance (e.g. the war in Iraq), they may feel that on balance the government represents their interests better than the opposition.

However, is that sufficient grounds for a government to ignore public opinion? That as long as you are the lesser of two evils, or the least flawed option, that you can or should ignore public sentiment at will? I'm not convinced that it should...but I recognise the reality that it does.

jc

sovtek

Originally posted by BattleBoar
Of course it is *possible* that this is because they had a hand in the attacks. Anything is theoretically *possible* . But is that likely?

Has the American government ever covered up attacks that they carried out on a group of people?

Who said I'm ruling anything out.

But do you really believe that either would be capable of such a deed?

All I said is that I don't believe it's likely that anyone would reach that conclusion through a careful analysis of all the facts currently available without having a preconceived bias.

Ummmm so I would have to have a preconceived bias when know that America has given financial and military aid to Bin Laden, people in the Bush regime have financial connections to the Bin Laden family, There were warnings that Al Qaeda intended to hijack planes and crash them, people in the Bush regime that have financial connections to UNOCAL wanted to put a pipeline through Afghanistan prior to '98 but the Taliban wanted to much money, Hamid Karzia is a former consultant of UNOCAL as well as the interior minister of Afghanistan, UNOCAL now have a contract for a pipeline through Afghanistan, top officials in the FBI obstructed investigating Mossoui prior to 911
by lower FBI officials, one of those was killed in the Towers just months after he quit FBI and got job as head of security for twin towers, Bush never wanted an inquiry into 911 but was pressured by victims families, Bush has done everything to stall the commission and has never cooperated without serious pressure from the victims famillies.....now....do I need a bias to think that suggests some ulterior motives in regards 911?
Sorry I forgot the little passage in the document presented to Clinton by the PNAC that said "would not be able to carry out these policies without some catostrophic even like another Pearl Harbor" or something like that.....who make up the PNAC that are now in the Bush regime?

[/b]Perhaps I should say, no doubt both parties gained from the respective attacks.

Fair enough but that totally changes what you said.

[/b] So do you believe Bush was involved then?

What I now honestly beleive, knowing that I could very well being wrong, is that the Bush regime knew that that Al Quaeda (or some other terrorist org) were going to carry out a big attack and allowed it to happen so as to be able to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and put through other aspects of their agenda.
To beleive they were actually involved would require more evidence.

Not do you believe it's *possible*, because I believe it's *possible*

Definetly!

Do you believe there is more than a 50% chance that GWB was complicit?

Yup now I do...that we will ever know for sure....not for another 50 years probably...if ever.

[/b] No, read my original post. I'm saying that I think it highly unlikely that GWB or the Socialists are capable, or could pull it off even if they were.

NO you said "if you do believe that each would have been capable (which I don't)"

Because as I stated previously, I think it's very unlikely someone could look at all the facts currently available and reach that conclusion.

Given what I stated above I don't see how you can say that honestly.

I believe one could only reach said conclusion with a preconcieved bias.

I really don't understand how you could come to that conclusion.

By the way, what previous case has there been of the US govenment murdering 3000 of it citizens in a strike made to look like terrorists for political gain? I haven't seen that incident in the history books.

The JCS drew up a plan to attack both US military and civilians targets and blame it on Castro. They didn't carry it out (that we know of) because Kennedy vetoed it (instead of having them arrested and tried).
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html

BattleBoar

What I now honestly beleive, knowing that I could very well being wrong, is that the Bush regime knew that that Al Quaeda (or some other terrorist org) were going to carry out a big attack and allowed it to happen

Ok, fair enough, so at least you aren't one of the people that believes they planned it and carried it out. I believe that it is possible that Bush administration got warnings that there going to be an attack, but didn't see that there was enough specific evidence to act on it, and didn't know if it was real or not. They left it to the beaurocratic nightmare that is the FBI to figure it out, and they weren't talking with the CIA, and even if they were, it's doubtful that the two organisations would have gotten their acts together in time to do anything. I'm willing to say that the Bush administration may be guilty of incompetance if that is eventually shown to be the case, something I think they're guilty of anyway on other grounds. But do I believe that if Gore was in the White House the exact same thing wouldn't have happened? Definitely not.

sovtek

Originally posted by BattleBoar
Ok, fair enough, so at least you aren't one of the people that believes they planned it and carried it out. I believe that it is possible that Bush administration got warnings that there going to be an attack, but didn't see that there was enough specific evidence to act on it, and didn't know if it was real or not.

I remember that someone (sorry I don't have a link) gave them warnings about Moussoui (spelling) before 911 during his flight training. It was why he was arrested, IIRC. Thing is the top of the FBI prevented search warrants from being granted to search his computer and apartment. This came from the top down, not the other way around.
So the top leaders of the FBi didn't seem to want to find out if it was a real enough threat.

They left it to the beaurocratic nightmare that is the FBI to figure it out, and they weren't talking with the CIA, and even if they were, it's doubtful that the two organisations would have gotten their acts together in time to do anything.

Ok but this is the first of two times in the past 3 years that the Bush regime has blamed the CIA for policies that they were responsible for carrying out. It's at least obvious from Iraq that it wasn't the incompetence of the CIA but the wish to go to war no matter what the evidence happened to be.
Where blaming the CIA and FBI for incompetence falls apart is when it was revealed that two of the supposed hijackers were issued visas and entered America from Canada legally. Both the FBI and Immigration knew that they were on an FBI watch list. Still they were granted visas, allowed to enter and not watched.
Put that together with the obstruction of the Moussoui investigation just looks too much like intent and not like incompetence.
I've never seen a situation where such gross incompetence actually led to you getting almost everything you've previously wanted.

But do I believe that if Gore was in the White House the exact same thing wouldn't have happened? Definitely not.

I don't agree but I can see that it's possible.
I still believe that it wouldn't have happened if Gore was president.