News & Politics - Bush's Pre-9/11 Terrorist Memo - Page 7

SuperDeluxe · 04-14-2004, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lizzie2000:
, but yet they have not done anything to stop the attacks, .

Do you have ANY links/facts to support this?

I'll be waiting.

SuperDeluxe · 04-14-2004, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by *Ledi*:
My friend's mom who lives in the states, said that a lot of people hadn't gone to work the day of the attacks because they sort of knew something was going to happen, so... Bush knowing about this doesn't surprise me really.

Wha?

This makes no sense.

SuperDeluxe · 04-14-2004, 12:52 PM

Quote:

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

Actually it was a attentive stewardess and several passangers that prevented the madman from doing his deed. Not increased security.

RedRockSedona · 04-14-2004, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SuperDeluxe:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by StellaSlight:
Well, 'increased security' has prevented another madman from bombing another plane with his shoes<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it was a attentive stewardess and several passangers that prevented the madman from doing his deed. Not increased security.

No, actually IT WAS increased security that led the stewardess to being even more attentive than usual.
At the risk of sounding like a Monday Morning Quarterback who is to say what heighten awareness and increased security may have done in the 9/11 case? But I believe we would have paid better attention to all the other little clues and red flags that by them selves did not amount to much...IE like the memo from a Phoenix Woman (Spring of 2001) who questioned why so many Arabs were taking Flying lessons and yet did not care much about learning to land. Then all it took was heighten awareness and a handful of very brave and self-sacrificing civilians on board Flight 93 to know that their plane too was to be used as the three others had that day and do something about it.
And when we considered that we have placed air marshals aboard airplanes for less than a PDB one wonders what the out come would have been that day had they been in place?

**n e r b l e** · 04-14-2004, 04:43 PM

no. actually it was not heightened security. even janet reno said that it was just good police work. all of the agents that pulled him to the side thought they were doing a drug bust. it wasn't till later that the found the explosives that they realized what they actually found.

StellaSlight · 04-14-2004, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Posted by Abducted Bookworm :

There is a difference between considering a tyrant a tyrant and considering a democratically elected leader bound by parliament, supreme court and constitution a tyrant

Who can possibly argue that the line is cut-and-dry?
Hitler was democratically elected too, and he was bound by what was the equivalent of a Parliament (Chancellery) and a Supreme Court.
History taught us that even a tyrant can be elected and that he can be a threat to world peace, so the notion of 'democratically-elected leader' doesn't necessarily equal non-dangerous man.

StellaSlight · 04-14-2004, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Posted by Abducted Bookworm :

There is a difference between disagreeing with Israel policies, or alleging Israel doesn't do enough to achieve peace, or does too much to defend itself, and considering Israel a threat to peace.

Well you sure thought that Saddam Hussein didn't do enough to achieve piece and hid weapons, and to that extent you did think that Iraq was a threat to world peace, didn't you?

And to another extent, did thinking that Iraq was a threat to world peace make you a Iraqis-hater?

[ 04-14-2004: Message edited StellaSlight ]

sum1 · 04-14-2004, 06:03 PM

sum1 · 04-14-2004, 06:06 PM

Article: http://216.239.51.1 04/search?q=cache:WZfsXhw-9IgJ:www.tomifobia.com/weekly_news/cjn_story.html+natan+sharansky+demonization+delegitimization&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

sum1 · 04-14-2004, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JohannafromIHJ:
If you can label Europeans as anti-Semites based on a poll that says Europe is fearful of what Israel's politics might bring, then I could label everyone who disagrees with European politics as anti-Europeans. Not anti-Europe (though certainly that as well), but anti-Europeans. Because, hey, being against the politics of a country must mean you're against its inhabitants as well, right?

The recent drastic rise in anti-Semitism in Europe is well-documented. Anti-Semitic attitudes are widespread. Anti-Semitic attacks are on the rapid increase. We don't need a poll about European attitudes to Israel to know that, there's plenty documentation of obvious anti-Semitism (of a sort directed at Jews as a whole, not just at Israel). But the widespread anti-Semitic attitudes influence European views of Israel, hence the poll's results.

Quote:

Originally posted by AirBear:
It's frankly offensive to have you two throwing around the term "anti-semetic". Use it for people who truly deserve the title, not as a way to bully those who disagree with you out of an argument.

Really? And do you know what I find offensive? Bigotry and people trying to downplay it and pretend it's not there or as serious as it really is.

And neither me nor those who agree with me here are talking about anti-Semitism to bully those who disagree with us. We're talking about it because we happen to be concerned about anti-Semitism. Maybe to some people dominating a debate is more important than the issues the debate is about, so they'll use issues for the ulterior motive of wanting to dominate. But that's not the case here. We're concerned about the issue itself, that's why we're bringing it up.

We're pointing out that criticising Israel can anti-Semitic (not that it always is, but that it can be), because it can indeed be. And because we know that when such criticism is biased and slanderous in such a way as to blacken Israel's name, it can affect the lives of Jews worldwide, when people blame them for what is supposedly Israel's fault. There's all too much of that already and it has made lives harder for Jews all over the world.

[ 04-14-2004: Message edited sum1 ]

elisheva · 04-14-2004, 06:50 PM

Quote:

From Katis:
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.

That isn't the guise anti-Semitism takes these days. In fact, it has never been "Jews are dumb" (maybe "Jews are ugly and have hooked noses and horns", but that kind of thing is really more a symptom of the deeper hatred). Classical anti-Semitism, such as that shown now by Arab countries, involves spreading rumours such as the blood libel, and demonizing Jews.
Modern anti-Semitism parades itself far more intellectually; for example, in saying Israel does not have the right to exist, in denying the national character of the Jewish people, in attacking Israel unreasonably and disproportionately...etc.

Quote:

From StellaSlight:
The Muslims countries have hated Israel for the past 40 years mainly because of its conflict with Palestine

It's not just the last 40 years that Israel has been attacked/hated by Arab countries. Immediately after the state of Israel was created in 1948, surrounding Arab countries jumped on it and attacked (war of Independence.) And even before Israel's creation as an independent state, there were many attacks against Jews. So, no, it's not just the last 40 years, and no, it's not just because of "Israel's controversial policies". It's Israel's right to exist that bothers these countries.

Quote:

Posted by JohannaFromIHJ:
Viewing Israel as a threat to world peace is not anti-Semitic. Viewing Jews as a threat to world peace is anti-Semitic.
I've never run across anyone here who hates Jews. But I know a lot of people who are worried that the leaders of Israel are now doing to people what was done to Jews during WW2 - excluding, persecuting and scapegoating.

Viewing Israel's policies as not conducive to peace? Fine. Viewing Israel itself, its existence, as a threat to world peace? Not.

And there's been a LOT of anti-semitic trouble in Europe recently, which is unfortunately spreading to North America (see, thread about firebombing of Jewish school.)
And I'm sure you're aware that a lot more was done to Jews in WW2 than just "excluding, persecuting and scapegoating". For example, rounding up into concentration camps and systematically annihilating six million, including one million children. Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is ridiculous and insulting.

So is comparing Israel to Iraq under Hussein, which StellaSlight seems to be doing--??

Quote:

Also from StellaSlight:
Who can possibly argue that the line is cut-and-dry?
Hitler was democratically elected too, and he was bound by what was the equivalent of a Parliament (Chancellery) and a Supreme Court.
History taught us that even a tyrant can be elected and that he can be a threat to world peace, so the notion of 'democratically-elected leader' doesn't necessarily equal non-dangerous man.

Sharon abides by the democratic rules of the country and is subject to investigation and legal action. Hitler did not. Again, comparing the two is senseless.

Er, I want to post more and explain myself more thoroughly, but I'm tired and I have a Psych test coming up [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

AirBear · 04-14-2004, 06:57 PM

I understand that Jewish people are very sensitive about this subject with the horrible past they have been subjected to, but that gives you no right to go slinging around the term "Anti-semitic" at people who don't deserve it.

Sure, some people who oppose Israel's policies may do it just because they hate Jews, and they are sad, stupid people. But how DARE you call people on this board anti-semitic because they have differing politic views. It's a copout to cry discrimination, anti-semitism, in this situation presented on this board (sort of like Omarosa's comments about "the pot calling the kettle black" being a racist comment against her). It's completely irrational and unfair. And for the record, I'm not on one side or the other on this issue, I don't believe I know enough of the history to make a good decision (most of what I've been taught has come from my jewish/israeli friends at my school and people on this board), so I'm not exactly bringing a biased viewpoint to the table.

[ 04-14-2004: Message edited AirBear ]

sum1 · 04-14-2004, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AirBear:
I understand that Jewish people are very sensitive about this subject with the horrible past they have been subjected to, but that gives you no right to go slinging around the term "Anti-semitic" at people who don't deserve it.

Sure, some people who oppose Israel's policies may do it just because they hate Jews, and they are sad, stupid people. But how DARE you call people on this board anti-semitic because they have differing politic views. It's a copout to cry discrimination, anti-semitism, in this situation presented on this board (sort of like Omarosa's comments about "the pot calling the kettle black" being a racist comment against her). It's completely irrational and unfair. And for the record, I'm not on one side or the other on this issue, I don't believe I know enough of the history to make a good decision (most of what I've been taught has come from my jewish/israeli friends at my school and people on this board), so I'm not exactly bringing a biased viewpoint to the table.

In case you haven't noticed, we haven't called anybody here anti-Semitic. We've just pointed out that some criticism of Israel can be anti-Semitic.

Also, you seem to be addressing us (all 3 of us, not just elisheva -who has previously mentioned her Jewishness on this board) as if you're assuming that just because we're opposing anti-Semitism, we must be Jewish. One does not have to be Jewish to be concerned about anti-Semitism.

AirBear · 04-14-2004, 07:22 PM

I thought it was obvious that I was addressing my comments to her, I'll make it more simple next time. And thank you for sharing the idea that one does not have to be Jewish to oppose anti-semitism, I know that for a fact, since I am not Jewish myself nor would I ever support such hatred. You allude to the idea that the rest of us most not oppose anti-semitism, you've sunk to new lows. My two best friends are Jewish so that much should be obvious, or else they'd kick me to the curb [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img].

[ 04-14-2004: Message edited AirBear ]

sum1 · 04-14-2004, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AirBear:
I thought it was obvious that I was addressing my comments to her, I'll make it more simple next time. And thank you for sharing the idea that one does not have to be Jewish to oppose anti-semitism, I know that for a fact, since I am not Jewish myself nor would I ever support such hatred. You allude to the idea that the rest of us most not oppose anti-semitism, you've sunk to new lows. My two best friends are Jewish so that much should be obvious, or else they'd kick me to the curb [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img].

[ 04-14-2004: Message edited AirBear ]

"You allude to the idea that the rest of us most not oppose anti-semitism, you've sunk to new lows."

Actually, I wasn't "alluding" to anything. You misunderstand me, perhaps I phrased what I said misleadingly. I was just trying to handle the simplistic assumption you seemed to be making. Maybe I should have realized you weren't making that simplistic assumption, but the tone of your posts has persistently been over-aggressive and that complicates reacting to them.

You seem to be repeatedly assuming the worst about the intentions of myself and the other two posters here who are arguing in agreement with me, assuming we're calling posters "anti-Semitic" when we are dong no such thing, assuming we're saying what we're saying just to "bully" posters, assuming I'm "alluding" things about posters, etc. Plus aggressive stuff like your "how DARE you" and your "you've sunk to new lows".

I don't appreciate it and I don't like the discussion being made this personal. I'm not interested in debating with somebody who's going to post in a persistantly aggressive and rude manner like that, so I'm not going to further discuss this topic with you.

[ 04-14-2004: Message edited sum1 ]