News & Politics - Bush's Pre-9/11 Terrorist Memo - Page 3

sum1 · 04-11-2004, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by elisheva:
A benign comment about Jews? Benign? What is "benign" about saying that Jews stayed home on 9/11 because they knew the attack would happen? It's a hateful and malevolent thing to say. (Clarification -- Im not saying that *Ledi* said that; I'm saying that when people do say it, it's a horrible, malicious, destructive thing to say.)

Exactly. The crazed anti-Semitic myth that the Jews were somehow behind 911 is that and nothing but that. It's blatant anti-Semitism of a kind with the sort of anti-Semitic myths that have led to the massacre of multitudes of Jews down through the ages. I find it truly shocking that anybody could try to claim otherwise.

It is evident that Ledi did not know that the rumor she was repeating referred to Jews. She said she was just told "people", not "Jews". As such, it is clear she meant nothing anti-Semitic by what she said. However, the myth that rumor is based on is very much anti-Semitic and there is no way it could reasonably be claimed otherwise.

[ 04-11-2004: Message edited sum1 ]

jjj · 04-11-2004, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Enigma, I.C.:

... I think the best thing the Bush administration could do at this point is apologize to the families of the victims and publicly admit that it was it could have taken the warnings more seriously.

This is something I don't understand - to apologize to the families, anymore than has already been done, would imply that the administration was to blame for or caused the attack, instead of the attack being the act of terrorism. Nothing has shown that either the current administration or the last one knew what was going to happen other than non-specific chatter, threats, rumblings. No one has identified what if anything the administration could have done to prevent the attacks. An apology should/would be dismissed as a public relations ploy.

sum1 · 04-11-2004, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Avatar:
That being said, what I think is baffling is how some people is insistant of drawing anti-Americanism and/or anti-semitism into every discussion on this board. Anti-semitism is a serious problem - brandishing all objectional comments as being anti-semitic wouldn't help anyone. And you're not anti-American just because you believe and share crazy conspiracy theories.

Perhaps some people see bigotry (such as anti-Semitism or anti-Americanism) where it doesn't exist, but the reverse can also happen. And there have always been people in the world ready to downplay bigotry and its effects, deny it exists or is as serious as it is, or deny that actual bigotry is actually bigotry.

As for conspiracy theories, not all such theories are the same. Some are innocent, some most definitely are not. For example, conspiracy theories to the effect that the Jews were behind 911 or are trying to take over the world are definitely bigoted. It is impossible to believe anti-Semitic conspiracy theories like those without being anti-Semitic.

[ 04-11-2004: Message edited sum1 ]

Enigma, I.C. · 04-11-2004, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jjj:

An apology should/would be dismissed as a public relations ploy.

I don't think so. It would be welcomed by most people, I think.
Richard Clarke apologized, saying "I failed you" and Bill Frist raced into the House chambers to denounce it as "theatrics."

StellaSlight · 04-11-2004, 04:30 PM

I agree with Bobby (Enigma) and will say that I don't really care now if George W. Bush was fully aware or not of the situation back then. I'm only concerned with his current decisions in international politics. What is done is done.

Quote:

Perhaps some people see bigotry (such as anti-Semitism or anti-Americanism) where it doesn't exist, but the reverse can also happen. And there have always been people in the world ready to downplay bigotry and its effects, deny it exists or is as serious as it is, or deny that actual bigotry is actually bigotry.

As for conspiracy theories, not all such theories are the same. Some are innocent, some most definitely are not. For example, conspiracy theories to the effect that the Jews were behind 911 or are trying to take over the world are definitely bigoted. It is impossible to believe anti-Semitic conspiracy theories like those without being anti-Semitic.

But it's not like we haven't all been 'discussing' topics before, right? So it's not like we don't know where the other posters in this board stand in serious topics like anti-semitism and terrorism etc. And yet, we'll still appear as the anti-semitic people because we're not fully supporting Israel and also terrorist-lovers because we don't support Bush in Iraq. This manichaean too-cut-and-dry logic is what is baffling, bigotry or not. Especially when it's not relevant, like in this topic.

Now two comments :

Quote:

Posted by mh67511:

And there is no reason to believe that increased security would have prevented the attacks. It's not as if the hijackers had machine guns; they had box cutters.

Well, 'increased security' has prevented another madman from bombing another plane with his shoes.

Quote:

Posted by Abducted Bookworm :

FF rules do not force posters to credit this sort of loony conspiracy theory as being either correct, possible or even reasonable.

The claims made in the topic line of this post, like others made on this board, are not simply incorrect. They are absurd. They are intrinsically unreasonable and unacceptable.

Perhaps people have left this board because they are made uncomfortable by the bigotry towards certain groups that is often prevalent on the News and Politics threads. Perhaps moderate Democrats have visited the so-called "Democrats" thread, been disgusted, and left the board instead of joining (as I have) the so-called "Republicans" thread.

Well well well. Isn't that interesting. [img]smilies/nono.gif[/img]

It is one thing to call someone's opinion absurd. But to make assumptions on how people have been 'disgusted' by our thread and our views and left the board because of it, is another thing. And a telling thing about you.

I've seen people get a warning for less than that.

I think it is really easy to dismiss everyone else's opinion with a [i]'this is false. this is absurd. this is irrational.' like you always do and then call people bigots because they said something you don't agree with without much adding in the discussion to prove your point. You're the first one to call people anti-semitic, terrorist-lovers and anti-american based on their disagreement with Bush's politics, and we're the irrational bigots. Right.

Last thing, about loony theories and FF. I've seen some loony theories myself in this board. One of them was this crazy conspiracy theory about how most countries were lied to about the WMD, while Hussein was hiding them with his spaceship.

mh67511 · 04-11-2004, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by StellaSlight:
Well, 'increased security' has prevented another madman from bombing another plane with his shoes.

Oh I know that. I am not knocking the increased security. I for one am glad that we have increased security and I know that it makes a difference.

But I was referring solely to the 9/11 attacks and the fact that increased security before the attacks would have been criticized and unpopular. And it probably wouldn't have stopped the attacks from happening, as it is doubtful that security would have been at the level that it is now.

On a side note, people do WAY too much bitching about airport just security. Just suck it up, take off your shoes, and stop whining about it!

StellaSlight · 04-11-2004, 04:56 PM

I kinda agree that people would not have reacted well to the high-level security system that the US have now before 9/11. Go explain to them that they have to take off their shoes to go in a plane.

I know that in France we didn't get to use the public trash bins for awhile right after the attacks wave in '95. Definately something we wouldn't have understood before the wave in question.

[ 04-11-2004: Message edited StellaSlight ]

Katis · 04-11-2004, 05:48 PM

Let's make sure we stay on topic here guys, k? Also, I'll ask you all again to respect one another's opinions. There is no need to call another person's opinion absurd or anything along those lines. And can we please stop slinging around terms like anti-American, terrorist supporters, and anti-Semetic? Like Stella has pointed out, most of us have been chatting with each other for a while and knows where each other stand on these issues. They are serious accusations and shouldn't be thrown at one another so often.

It is possible to have a discussion in a polite fashion, maybe we could try? You know with all that respect stuff I was talking about, assuming people have the best intentions with their opinions, giving them the benefit of the doubt, etc.

sum1 · 04-11-2004, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Katis:
Let's make sure we stay on topic here guys, k? Also, I'll ask you all again to respect one another's opinions. There is no need to call another person's opinion absurd or anything along those lines. And can we please stop slinging around terms like anti-American, terrorist supporters, and anti-Semetic?

That depends. For example, if somebody were to say the Jews were behind 911, it would be perfectly reasonable to say that person's statement was anti-Semitic and absurd (indeed, it would be wrong not to). Courtesy and respect are fine, but it would be unreasonable to ask people not to call blatant anti-Semitism what it is. Heck, we even had a white supremacist posting anti-Semitic propaganda on this board for a bit last year, before he got banned. So there's going to be need to call stuff anti-Semitic at times.

Furthermore, as regards the term "anti-American", it means "against America". If something said seems to be highly against America, I don't see how it makes sense to say we can't say so. Of course, it's true that people can be accused of making "anti-American" statements when they're not. That should be avoided.

StellaSlight · 04-11-2004, 06:18 PM

Well, the key word in your post was IF.
No one brought up the topic of Jews or the theory according to which they were behind 9/11 but Bush-supporters.
You said yourself that Ledi wasn't probably aware that she was only reproducing a anti-semitic speech, not even aware that it was about Jews.

No harm done, we're not anti-semitic and nowhere in this thread or this board with the current posters of this thread, I've seen written : JEWS ARE BEHIND 9/11.

Katis · 04-11-2004, 06:29 PM

Stella has the right of it there. I am not saying that using the term anti-semetic is wrong, just that using it in the wrong context is. If someone says something blatantly anti-semetic, or blantantly anti-American, such as, "Jews are dumb" or "Americans are stupid" etc, then clearly the term would be accurate. However, criticizing Israel and America don't fall under those circumstances. It just tends to take a lot of credit out of someone's arguement when terms like that are used excessively in situations when it doesn't seem accurate.

sum1 · 04-11-2004, 06:39 PM

Abducted's post:

Quote:

Originally posted by Abducted Bookworm:
Perhaps people have left this board because they are made uncomfortable by the bigotry towards certain groups that is often prevalent on the News and Politics threads. Perhaps moderate Democrats have visited the so-called "Democrats" thread, been disgusted, and left the board instead of joining (as I have) the so-called "Republicans" thread.

And Stella's reply to it:

Quote:

Originally posted by StellaSlight:
Well well well. Isn't that interesting.

It is one thing to call someone's opinion absurd. But to make assumptions on how people have been 'disgusted' by our thread and our views and left the board because of it, is another thing. And a telling thing about you.

I think something needs to be clarified here. Stella, I think you misunderstand Abducted. I don't think he's making assumptions. I think he's talking about actual people he knows about. Certainly, I know people who could fit the description he gives, people who've done and felt as he describes. In that case, maybe he shouldn't have used the word "perhaps", but I think that may have been just a figure of speech.

[ 04-11-2004: Message edited sum1 ]

sum1 · 04-11-2004, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Katis:
Stella has the right of it there. I am not saying that using the term anti-semetic is wrong, just that using it in the wrong context is. If someone says something blatantly anti-semetic, or blantantly anti-American, such as, "Jews are dumb" or "Americans are stupid" etc, then clearly the term would be accurate. However, criticizing Israel and America don't fall under those circumstances. It just tends to take a lot of credit out of someone's arguement when terms like that are used excessively in situations when it doesn't seem accurate.

Criticism of Israel can definitely be done without being anti-Semitic. But it can also be genuinely anti-Semitic. Though I agree it's probably best not to call it "anti-Semitic" unless it's blatantly so.

And if criticizing America doesn't deserve to be called "anti-American", then criticism of France shouldn't be called "France bashing" and the same goes for other countries. America and Israel shouldn't be the only countries people are allowed to criticise.

ceilirose · 04-11-2004, 06:48 PM

I agree with what Katis and Anne have said..throwing around terms like anti-Semitic, anti-American, anti-French etc., etc. when you disagree with an opinion just trivialize the seriousness of those situations where they actually do occur in the world. It is a way of shutting down a conversation and it's happened more than once around here.

If there is a Democrat elected to the Presidency (don't laugh, choke or gag - it could happen [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img])I'm sure Republicans and Conservatives would not like to be told that they were anti-American for disagreeing with a Democratic President. That's not right anyway you look at it.

ETA - as long as I've posted here I've seen both sides (Republicans/Conservatives and Democrats/Liberals) give as good as they get. I don't think either side can claim victim status in and of these discussions. That's why it's always better to give someone else the benefit of the doubt and to try and keep it civil and on topic.

[ 04-11-2004: Message edited ceilirose ]

[ 04-11-2004: Message edited ceilirose ]

Katis · 04-11-2004, 06:58 PM

Being accused of France bashing for criticizing France would fall into the same category.