Propaganda SpinMasters At Work?

[Al_U_Card]

In this context, "fraternité" means brotherhood or brotherly love, so we are speaking about mutual respect.

 

The hardest part of dealing with humans is their imperfections of which there are many. Our higher ideals are constantly being bogged down by the nitty-gritty baser elements. We are individualized survival machines. We don't have an innate "protect the hive" mentality. Our "self-sacrificing" actions tend to be motivated by an often mis-placed altruism indoctrinated into us more psychologically than psychically.

 

Get Iran! is the same as those muslim youths swearing to kill Pope Benedict if the Imam so requested.....and when asked what he had said that was so reprehensible, they replied that they did not know but if the wise Imam so indicated then they would follow his lead. Right. Didn't this pope quote another religious leader's philosophy and was it (or not) taken out of context?

 

The zealots always find reasons for their insanity. Reasons are in great supply. Reasoning is in small demand. Look behind the veil and you will see the face as it truly exists....not always a pretty sight.

[Winstonm]

Wininston, why do you seem so willing to believe something like that? that the comment has been discredited as a bad translation? that just is not true... from the BBC:

 

 

This is what I have read:

 

The Guardian's Jonathan Steele cites four different translations, from professors to the BBC to the New York Times and even pro-Israel news outlets, in none of those translations is the word "map" used. The closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," or a narrow relative thereof. In no version is the word "map" used or a context of mass genocide or hostile military action even hinted at.

The acceptance of the word "map" seemingly originated with the New York Times, who later had to back away from this false translation. The BBC also wrongly used the word and, in comments to Steele, later accepted their mistake but refused to issue a retraction.

 

"The fact that he compared his desired option - the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" - with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel. As a schoolboy opponent of the Shah in the 1970's he surely did not favor Iran's removal from the page of time. He just wanted the Shah out," writes Steele.

 

"It's important to note that the "quote" in question was itself a quote, writes Arash Norouzi, "they are the words of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to Khomeini and not Ahmadinejad. Thus, Ahmadinejad has essentially been credited (or blamed) for a quote that is not only unoriginal, but represents a viewpoint already in place well before he ever took office."

 

This would be akin to President Truman quoting Winston Churchill's "desire to crush the Nazis" as somehow meaning Truman wanted to wipe Germany and its people off the map.

 

Joining the protest, Mr Ahmadinejad said: "My words were the Iranian nation's words. Westerners are free to comment, but their reactions are invalid,"

 

"The westerners reactions are invalid" - didn't the westerners assume a reaction that he wanted to wipe Israel off the map?

 

Iran's president has defended his widely criticised call for Israel to be "wiped off the map".  Attending an anti-Israel rally in Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his remarks were "just" - and the criticism did not "have any validity".

 

Here we have the BBC saying that the quote is "wiped off the map" and a different quote from Ahmadinejad saying his remarks were just - there is no way of knowing if Ahmadinejad in his response was resonding to "wipe then off the map" or what he believed he said.

 

Palestinians recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist and I reject his (Ahmadinejad's) comments

 

Saeb Erekat

Chief Palestinian negotiator

 

This is the best quote you provide - and to me it appears that Mr. Erekat is acknowledging Ahmadinejad's anti-Zionist ambitions - and to me there is great difference between Iran hoping for the state of Israel to be eliminated and a simple-minded hatred for all Jews - I don't believe I have seen any threats from Iran to Jews living in London, New York, or anywhere else but Israel. So to extrapolate that Ahmadinejad's anti-Zionists beliefs are somehow genocidal is not logically consistent.

 

So for me, Jimmy, it is quite complex, as I know the one thing I can never again do is accept what the present adminstration claims, what the major news networks reports, or what I read in the major newspapers - and I am unwilling to paint this man with such a broad brush as "totally evil and insane" without more information.

Certainly I question his motives and want to know more - but to accept on face value what has been provided, "that he is a looney and wants to wipe out Israel" is not enough for me.

 

I guess that really is the bottom line of this entire thread - where do we root out the truth these days? What sources are credible? Who can we believe? Ir is everything only spin.

[luke warm]

but winston and richard, you both seem to ignore (although winston did alude to the palestinian position) what his own people and others in the area said about his words... remember egypt's official position on the speech?

Egypt said they (the words) showed "the weakness of the Iranian government".

not only that, how did his own people interpret his words?

Shouting "Death to Israel, death to the Zionists", the protesters dragged Israeli flags along the ground and then set them on fire. Many carried posters and placards sporting the slogan "Israel should be wiped off the map".

to mistrust bush, et al, is one thing... to deny that iran wishes harm to israel is quite another... why outwardly mistrusting the administration's view of this speech while giving it the benefit of the doubt is beyond me

 

if i was to say, "i will not rest until iran is wiped off the face of the map" i obviously don't even imply that physically removing the land upon which the country sits is my aim... that explanation is at the very least ingenious, and at the most it is apologetics in action - imho

[Winstonm]

but winston and richard, you both seem to ignore (although winston did alude to the palestinian position) what his own people and others in the area said about his words... remember egypt's official position on the speech?

Egypt said they (the words) showed "the weakness of the Iranian government".

not only that, how did his own people interpret his words?

Shouting "Death to Israel, death to the Zionists", the protesters dragged Israeli flags along the ground and then set them on fire. Many carried posters and placards sporting the slogan "Israel should be wiped off the map".

to mistrust bush, et al, is one thing... to deny that iran wishes harm to israel is quite another... why outwardly mistrusting the administration's view of this speech while giving it the benefit of the doubt is beyond me

 

if i was to say, "i will not rest until iran is wiped off the face of the map" i obviously don't even imply that physically removing the land upon which the country sits is my aim... that explanation is at the very least ingenious, and at the most it is apologetics in action - imho

Jimmy, I'm afraid I didn't make my point well - sorry.

 

What others in the region said is not a validation of the translation - the Palestinian even said he respects Israel's right to exist as a nation - he said nothing about the quote itself. Egypt's response is equally plausible regardless of how they understood the words.

 

And the second drives home the point - "Shouting Death to Israel, death to the Zionists," the protestors ....placards sporting...."Israel should be wiped off the map."

 

None of us speak Farsi and none of us saw the placards in question - and that is my point - how, with the apparent mistranslation before, can we be so sure that this translation reporting is accurate?

 

What I am arguing is that this is not the same situation as German Nazis killing Jews by the millions - a true atrocity that deserved to be stopped by military action against the Nazis.

 

There is no doubt that Iran would like Israel to "disappear into the sands of time" or whatever - but that is no different that the Sunnis in Iraq wanting the Shiites to disappear or Pakistan wanting India to disappear.

 

These are cultural/land-based grievances that are not genocidal in nature and therefore really not anyone else's business but the disputing parties. If Omert had said that Iran should be "wiped off the map", how big of public outcry would there have been?

 

Is Iran an enemy of Israel? Absolutely. The question is: how much so?

 

I don't put much stock in demonstrators, do you? I remember a bunch of long-hairs back in the sixties saying things like "Kill the pigs" but I never for an instant believed any one of them would actually murder a policeman. In that regard "Kill the pigs" was euphenism for "Change the establishment."

 

I see a lot of similarity between those long-hairs and the Iranian demonstrators.

Sure they want to see Israel go - but to the degree of actually supporting a nuclear holocaust?

[hrothgar]

not only that, how did his own people interpret his words?

 

Shouting "Death to Israel, death to the Zionists", the protesters dragged Israeli flags along the ground and then set them on fire. Many carried posters and placards sporting the slogan "Israel should be wiped off the map".

Three points:

 

1. Even after reading the original BBC article, I have no way of knowing what the Iranian crowd was saying. I don't know whether a large Iran crowd was marching arround shouting slogans and carrying placards in English. Alternatively, its entirely possible that the BBC translated what the crowd was saying from Farsi to English. Furthermore, even if the crowd was chanting a slogan in a foreign language, its unclear whether that actually understood what they were syaing.

 

2. Its entirely possible that there is an element of the Iranian population that would love to see a nuke go off over Tel'Aviv. Hell, there's a sizable element of the the US population that would love to see a nuke go off over Tehran. I'm old enough to recall all the claptrap about "turning Tehran into a parking lot" from the hostage crisis back in 79. I don't think these idiots have changed their positions much. (If anything, I'd argue that they've radicalized more)

 

3. Lets take it as a given that a significant portion of the Iranian population does want to see the state of Israel destroyed. I think that we'd both agree that this is regretable. I think its very regretable that Ahmadinejad is President of Iran. Where we differ is the appropriate way to respond to this issue. Personally, I think that escalating a military conflict with Iran will only strengthen the position of the current government.

[Winstonm]

How can you believe anyone who says this:

 

from the January State of the Union Address, spoken aloud in front of all the U.S. and indeed the world:

 

BUSH: But here is some of what we do know -

 

We stopped an Al Qaida plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast.

 

 

Now here is the truth behind this statement:

 

The day after the announcement, twenty three separate intelligence experts, all with either CIA, FBI, NSA or military credentials, both in and out of service, angrily disputed Bush's remarks about the alleged L.A. plot, with one going as far as saying that the President was "full of *****."

 

Another described the claims as “worthless intel that was discarded long ago.”

 

A New York Times story cited "several counter-terrorism officials" as saying that "the plot never progressed past the planning stages.... 'To take that and make it into a disrupted plot is just ludicrous,' said one senior FBI official."

 

The New York Daily News cited another senior counterterrorism official who said: "There was no definitive plot. It never materialized or got past the thought stage."

 

The Washington Post also dismissed the alleged plot as nothing more than talk, noting that no actual attack plan had been thwarted.

 

The LA attack plot arose from the same discredited informant who said that Washington and New York financial institutions were being targeted, which led the White House to raise the terror alert right as the 2004 election campaign was beginning.

 

Bush dug out a year-old tall tale that had been discredited, shown to be false, yet claimed it as true and a victory. This is more than spin. This is no mispeak. This is, by my views, a total and malicious fabrication designed to reinforce the causes of Bush's wars. This same man is now saying Iran is supporting insurgents inside Iraq - how can anyone take seriously a single claim he makes, or is made for him by his supporters, including certain media outlets.

 

Better yet, how can we so stupid as to let him again and again get away unchallenged with unbridled lies? And why should we believe anything he says about Iran?

 

Legal note: Of course this is all stated as opinion.

[Al_U_Card]

His credibility is zero. His power is still 100%..for now...

[luke warm]

Now here is the truth behind this statement:

ok, we have bush saying, "We stopped an Al Qaida plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast."

 

we have the NYT saying, "...the plot never progressed past the planning stages..."

 

we have the NYDN saying, "There was no definitive plot. It never materialized or got past the thought stage."

 

that statement makes no sense... what never materialized or got past the thought stage? no definitive plot? if there was thought, if there was planning, there was a plot by definition, yes?

 

the washington post "...dismissed the alleged plot as nothing more than talk, noting that no actual attack plan had been thwarted."

 

then what were they talking about? put yourself in "their" shoes and try to imagine exactly what was being planned, or thought of, or talked about

 

so it appears that bush and the others agree there was a plot that was in *some* stage, yes? now my question is, did the plot fail to "progress" because of something "we" did? bush says yes and i see nothing you've provided that says otherwise

 

Bush dug out a year-old tall tale that had been discredited, shown to be false, yet claimed it as true and a victory.

this is not true... the tale was not discredited, the sources you quote agree that there was a plot, they disagree on the severity or importance of it... they don't say *why* it wasn't severe or important, so it's possible it was what it was because of actions taken by the u.s. gov't

 

This is, by my views, a total and malicious fabrication designed to reinforce the causes of Bush's wars.

i hope a closer reading of the quotes you provided will cause you to see that there was no fabrication

 

This same man is now saying Iran is supporting insurgents inside Iraq ...

winston, do you believe iran is supporting insurgents inside iraq? if not, upon what do you base your opinion?

[Winstonm]

Now here is the truth behind this statement:

ok, we have bush saying, "We stopped an Al Qaida plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast."

 

we have the NYT saying, "...the plot never progressed past the planning stages..."

 

we have the NYDN saying, "There was no definitive plot. It never materialized or got past the thought stage."

 

that statement makes no sense... what never materialized or got past the thought stage? no definitive plot? if there was thought, if there was planning, there was a plot by definition, yes?

 

the washington post "...dismissed the alleged plot as nothing more than talk, noting that no actual attack plan had been thwarted."

 

then what were they talking about? put yourself in "their" shoes and try to imagine exactly what was being planned, or thought of, or talked about

 

so it appears that bush and the others agree there was a plot that was in *some* stage, yes? now my question is, did the plot fail to "progress" because of something "we" did? bush says yes and i see nothing you've provided that says otherwise

 

Bush dug out a year-old tall tale that had been discredited, shown to be false, yet claimed it as true and a victory.

this is not true... the tale was not discredited, the sources you quote agree that there was a plot, they disagree on the severity or importance of it... they don't say *why* it wasn't severe or important, so it's possible it was what it was because of actions taken by the u.s. gov't

 

This is, by my views, a total and malicious fabrication designed to reinforce the causes of Bush's wars.

i hope a closer reading of the quotes you provided will cause you to see that there was no fabrication

 

This same man is now saying Iran is supporting insurgents inside Iraq ...

winston, do you believe iran is supporting insurgents inside iraq? if not, upon what do you base your opinion?

Jimmy, your points are always well thought out and non-provacative and I appreciate that - you deserve well-thought out answes.

 

Here are my contentions about this claim:

 

First, this quote: "The LA attack plot arose from the same discredited informant who said that Washington and New York financial institutions were being targeted,"

 

So it seems the the source of the "plot" intelligence was vritually worthless.

 

And these quotes: "twenty three separate intelligence experts, all with either CIA, FBI, NSA or military credentials, both in and out of service, angrily disputed Bush's remarks about the alleged L.A. plot, with one going as far as saying that the President was "full of *****."

 

Another described the claims as “worthless intel that was discarded long ago.”

 

To my reading this means there was no plot to begin with - only the word of of previously discredited informant who provided worthless intelligence.

 

And finally this: cited another senior counterterrorism official who said:"There was no definitive plot.

That's pretty clear - no plot.

 

The President's words were: "We stopped an al-Qaeda PLOT. The quoted senior counterterrorism official said: "There was no PLOT."

 

So who are you going to believe? Was there a plot or wasn't there a plot?

 

And these were not the only claims the Bush made in this part of his speech - he also talked about the ridiculous Brittish pop-bottle bomb plot that has all of us dumping our water out pre-boarding and thus far has shown to have been nothing but a bunch of hot air - of the 24 arrested, 8 were released without charges. Of the rest, only a few even had passports that would allow them to fly, and none have been shown to have the knowledge and skill (even professionals don't know if they could do it) to mix liquid explosives in flight and set them off.

 

But there is more - Keith Olbermann said it more eloquently - disregard the name on the website as it is simply the first one that had the link when I Googled.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/30/o...-the-president/

 

So to capsulate, we have these areas:

 

First, "Worthless Intel". This is the same thing that the trial of Libby is about, about Wilson discrediting the worthless intel that Iraq was trying to buy Nigerian uranium. Still the president made that claim about Iraq.

 

Second, "There was no plot." Bush said there was a plot, but he also stood up in front of the world and said we knew that Iraq had stockpiles of chemical weapons and was trying to buy uranium from Nigeria.

 

I mean, really , fool me once, shame on me, but try to fool me over and over is annoying, especially with the same old tired trick I've seen before.

 

The way you get people to accept propaganda as truth is by repeating it over and over and over. To continue to accept this man's statements as factual borders on fanciful delusion - the definition of insanity is to do the same thing again and again and expect different results. How many times do we have to believe what hear from this man before we finally decide we are nuts to believe him?

[Winstonm]

winston, do you believe iran is supporting insurgents inside iraq? if not, upon what do you base your opinion?

 

I quite honestly do not know. I think it is possible - but so is the likelihood of Syria being as seriously involved. It seems strange that Iran would be trying to dismantle a Shiite Iraqian regime by providing weapons to the Sunnis.

 

I can say this much - if Bush states it as fact I will not believe it. And this is not about Bush-bashing or the Republican party - but the man has shown his unrepentence in masquerading behind unsubstatiated claims that later proved false.

 

Has any of us truly grasped yet the magnitude of the tales told about Iraq and their WMDs, the chemical stockpiles, and their hunger for nuclear arms - we were told they knew for a 100% fact that this was gospel, that they even knew where the stockpiles were hid. There was nothing there - and they had been so informed but chose to disregard that news and instead listen and quote intelligence that fit their mindset.

 

Over 3000 American's dead, now, because of those disproven claims - and an untold number of Iraqis - and not one word of repentence, of error, of being wrong. Not even a lame claim to have been misled by a lousy CIA. Nothing.

 

In my opinion, Israel and the U.S. have more to gain in toppling Iran than Iran does in destabilizing Iraq - and I'm unwilling to bet the lives of another 3000 Americans that this time we are being told the truth.

 

I really don't care if Iran is providing arms - they have to the right to chose sides in a civil war if they so wish - we need to get our troops out so they don't get caught in the crossfire. To say that Iran is furnishing arms to fight Americans is not really accurate, is it? Even if Iran is providing weapons, they are doing so to disrupt the regime and not specifically trying to harm our soldiers.

 

The U.S. has sided with Malaki and that regime, and is sending not only weapons but troops - Iran, if true, has taken the other side. How does that make them an enemy of the U.S.? Is the U.S. the enemy of Iran because they have sided with Malaki?

 

With our continued presense, this is probably another 100-year war - if we withdraw someone will win sometime soon. I don't care which side wins - we had no right to invade in the first place; we are the ones who destabilzed Iraq; and we are the ones who have an obligation to help rebuild - but that is only after Iraq decides who will be in charge. Let them determine that by themselves - and then let us try to repair our damage with whomever comes out on top.

[jikl]

Does anyone think that an organisation or a country will have the guts to try and charge Bush with war crimes?

 

Sean

[Winstonm]

Does anyone think that an organisation or a country will have the guts to try and charge Bush with war crimes?

 

Sean

No, unless two extremely large "ifs" occur.

 

If #1 would involve a "smoking gun" piece of evidence that proved beyond dispute that the one of the three buildings that collapsed on 9-11 was brought down by controlled demolition, and thereby brought about a criminal investigation that found a tie to the administration.

 

If #2 would be proof that this administration manufatured false evidence about Iraq's WMD and indirectly profited from the war.

 

I doubt - even if true - either could ever be proven to a point that would bring about war crime charges - and the Military Commissions Act has a built in pardon for the tortures already committed on detainees so no crimes there.

 

I think it would take something provably so savage that the ire of the American people would demand Bush be sacrificed as a "war criminal" or even a plain criminal - foreknowledge of 9-11, allowing it to happen, demolition of the buildings after the fact to intesify the horror, and falsifying evidence to start a war.

 

However, even if this did happen, finding proof would be virtually impossible.

[luke warm]

ok winston... i'll stand by my words above, that when people admit there was a plot, but one only in the planning stages ("...the plot never progressed past the planning stages..." and "...It never materialized or got past the thought stage.") then a plot had to have existed, by definition... heck, even those papers seem to be saying that... so my only point is that a plot either did or did not exist.. the nydn and nyt, according to my understanding of their words, agree one did

 

to believe there was no plot, one has to believe there were no plotters... correct? if that's true, who was doing this planning? who was doing this thinking?

 

the only other thing i'll mention is that just because someone provided insufficient or faulty intel in the past does not mean that is the case in the present

 

i am not defending bush, i am *far* more disappointed in him than you'll ever be (imo), and if i was given to name calling he'd be a prime candidate... but fair is fair, and i'd make those same points no matter the person involved

[helene_t]

No Jimmy, it's not so that there either is or isn't a plot. It starts as a vague idea ("what about killing some heathens?") and then graduadely evolves into concrete plans. Since most vague ideas never evolve into anything, you can only say that you "prevented a terrorist attack" if it has evolved so far that it was likely to happen if it hadn't been "prevented".

 

When an intel expert says that "the president is full of *****" I see no reason not to believe him (the expert), especially given the reputation of the particular president being refered to.

[luke warm]

helene, i agree with you about bush's reputation, and it's one he's earned and fully deserves... but words have meanings, and even the nyt called this a "plot"... now it's possible they used the wrong word, or used it incorrectly... but they did use it

 

also, you can prevent a terrorist attack in many ways... imagine for a moment that we'd have been able to infiltrate and prevent the attacks of 9/11 during the early (i.e. planning or thinking) stages... would it be incorrect to say a plot was foiled?

[Al_U_Card]

Thought experiment

 

The US provides aid and assistance to all freedom loving peoples. They encourage brotherhood and religious expression everywhere. They open the immigration doors to any and all comers.

 

Are they still a target for terrorist attack? Is this the only way to win the war on terror? The current method seems to be a costly (in more than just dollars) failure.

[helene_t]

Your thought experiment is quite realistic. The U.S. helped the freedom loving people of Iraq, Kuwait and Afganistan to get rid of their opressors. In Iraq, they took the side of the moslem opposition against their atheistic dictator. In Bosnia and Albania, they took the side of the Moslems while the Russians took the side of Christians and Western Europe kept neutral. In Afganistan, they first helped moslems against the Russians and later one group of Moslems against another.

 

So you might expect that the U.S. is not a popular target for moslem violence. In fact, it isn't. Most moslem violence is against other moslems: Kabyls vs Arabs, Sunnis vs Shias, Kurds vs everybody.

[Winstonm]

also, you can prevent a terrorist attack in many ways...

 

True....you could kill all Muslim babies at birth - and any other baby you might think of that might one day grow up to be a threat.

 

You notice the papers nor the president used the word "conspiracy" - this would be the legal term for someone in the act of planning a crime. If there was no conspiracy to act on the plot, then nothing was truly stopped other than a BS session.

 

Jimmy, you keep pointing out what the papers said - what about what the quoted counterterrorists, FBI, and CIA personel statements? Those are the quotes that stress that nothing of import was stopped.

 

And, of course, you did notice that the president did not mention the use of the Patriot Act to try to prevent a Seattle shopkeeper from selling a spin-off of Rubik's cube, the patent of which had expired, so no patent violation had been commited.

Now there's some serious terror plot action at work. ;)

[pbleighton]

"The U.S. helped the freedom loving people of Iraq, Kuwait and Afganistan to get rid of their opressors. In Iraq, they took the side of the moslem opposition against their atheistic dictator."

 

Not to defend Saddam in any way, but this is a gross oversimplification.

 

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

The point being that when they act based upon their own fundamental ideals.....there can and will be no threat. Its when they allow those same ideals to be subverted and perverted (by big oil, etc.) that they get into trouble. Dwight was known as Ike , Milhous was known as Tricky but W will be known as Little Dick.

[luke warm]

also, you can prevent a terrorist attack in many ways...

 

True....you could kill all Muslim babies at birth - and any other baby you might think of that might one day grow up to be a threat.

well yes, i suppose that would work... it's a tad extreme eh? no, i was asking whether or not disrupting a plot during the planning stage counted... i say it does, what do you say?

You notice the papers nor the president used the word "conspiracy" - this would be the legal term for someone in the act of planning a crime.  If there was no conspiracy to act on the plot, then nothing was truly stopped other than a BS session.

true, they didn't use 'conspiracy'... they used 'plot'...

Jimmy, you keep pointing out what the papers said - what about what the quoted counterterrorists, FBI, and CIA personel statements?  Those are the quotes that stress that nothing of import was stopped.

i only pointed that out because it evidently held some importance for you... i, exactly like you, don't know what the truth is here... you are willing to believe anyone whose view or recollection of events differs from bush's, and you've given your (legitimate) reasons for it... i'm simply pointing out that even a stopped clock is right sometimes, and granting that bush might be the most stopped of clocks

And, of course, you did notice that the president did not mention the use of the Patriot Act to try to prevent a Seattle shopkeeper from selling a spin-off of Rubik's cube, the patent of which had expired, so no patent violation had been commited.

i must have missed this

[Winstonm]

i was asking whether or not disrupting a plot during the planning stage counted... i say it does, what do you say?

 

 

Jimmy, I appreciate your input because I realize you are not taking sides - I would guess you are an attorney or had legal training?

 

Here is my answer to your question: it would depend totally on the ability of the plotters to carry out their plans. If a known terrorist who had a history of involvement in violent acts was caught planning an attack, I would think it reasonalbe to conclude it was a serious plan because he had proved before an ability to complete the plan; however, if it is four Arab students sitting around and talking about their hatred of the U.S. and tossing out ideas about terrorists attacks, I'd say no, there was no plot stopped as these 4 had no ability to complete their actions.

 

And I believe this ability to carry out the action is necessary to have a crime - which is, after all, what we are talkng about. We sometimes get lost in the euphamism of terrorist attack when what we are talking about is simply a crime.

For the crime of attempted murder, it is not enough to tell a policeman I am going to go kill Joe Blow; there has to be an attempt to carry through on the action.

 

true, they didn't use 'conspiracy'... they used 'plot'...

 

Regardless of what anyone says, these guys are not stupid or even close to it. They are shrewd to the max. If I am aware that the "technical" term for the actual crime would be conspiracy, then you know that they are aware also, and thus purposefully chose the word "plot" as to have deniability that they claimed they had prevented a crime. IMO, this way they were able to claim something heroic by chosing the word "plot", but in actuality prevented nothing else the word choice would have been "conspiracy".

 

i only pointed that out because it evidently held some importance for you... i, exactly like you, don't know what the truth is here...

 

Point taken. However, Jimmy, keep in mind the words of Vincent Bugliosi, the unbeaten LA prosecutor who brought Charles Manson to trial. He said about circumstantial evidence that it is not what the defendent's attorney would have you believe, that it is a chain and once any link is broken the chain falls apart. Circumstantial evidence is a rope, with many interwoven twines - even if one of those twines is cut, the rope is still strong.

 

Point being that even it the broken clock is right twice a day, it is wrong all the rest of the day. Would you bet the lives of 3000 more Americans that this just happens to be one of those two times? Or is the rope of disingiuousnous still too strong?

 

i must have missed this

 

If you want to amuse yourself sometime, Google "Abuses of the Patriot Act" and see what you find.

[luke warm]

I would guess you are an attorney or had legal training?

no, but i am a pisces... we tend to see both sides :rolleyes:

Here is my answer to your question: it would depend totally on the ability of the plotters to carry out their plans.

we'll just have to disagree here, i guess... not with your premise per se, but with the near impossibility of determining such a thing... for example, take the sad cases of high school students who have done such evil things over the past few years... some of those things started with 2 or 3 guys just tossing ideas around, with no real clue as to how to actually do what they conceived... but this talk led to that action, etc...

If a known terrorist who had a history of involvement in violent acts was caught planning an attack, I would think it reasonalbe to conclude it was a serious plan because he had proved before an ability to complete the plan; however, if it is four Arab students sitting around and talking about their hatred of the U.S. and tossing out ideas about terrorists attacks, I'd say no, there was no plot stopped as these 4 had no ability to complete their actions.

we can't know, but i'd guess there have been suicide bombings that have started in that very way... is it so difficult to imagine?

And I believe this ability to carry out the action is necessary to have a crime - which is, after all, what we are talkng about.

even if true, it seems hard to quantify what is meant by "ability"

Regardless of what anyone says, these guys are not stupid or even close to it.  They are shrewd to the max.  If I am aware that the "technical" term for the actual crime would be conspiracy, then you know that they are aware also, and thus purposefully chose the word "plot" as to have deniability that they claimed they had prevented a crime.

i see plot and conspiracy as two sides of the same coin... from dictionary.com:

con·spir·a·cy – noun, plural -cies

1. the act of conspiring.

2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

 

so plot and conspiracy are the same thing, in my view... as long as 2 or more people are involved, etc etc

keep in mind the words of Vincent Bugliosi, the unbeaten LA prosecutor who brought Charles Manson to trial.  He said about circumstantial evidence that it is not what the defendent's attorney would have you believe, that it is a chain and once any link is broken the chain falls apart.  Circumstantial evidence is a rope, with many interwoven twines - even if one of those twines is cut, the rope is still strong.

yes, his analogy won the day... but that's all it was

Point being that even it the broken clock is right twice a day, it is wrong all the rest of the day.  Would you bet the lives of 3000 more Americans that this just happens to be one of those two times?  Or is the rope of disingiuousnous still too strong?

that's actually my point... it isn't hard for me to imagine the actions on 9/11 starting with 2 (or more) people talking about the idea... it isn't hard to imagine the plot (or conspiracy) being nipped in the bud, under the right circumstances... had that happened though, and had bush announced "a plot to fly airplanes into buildings in nyc by terrorists was foiled" we'd probably still be having this same discussion

 

the fact that an informant has provided inaccurate intel in the past doesn't preclude *this* intelligence from being accurate

[Winstonm]

4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

 

Note, Jimmy, in the law it takes agreement, not simply discussion. To actually get a conviction, it takes also a plan and at least indications of working to fulfill that plan. Three guys sitting around and agreeing to blow up the White House may technically be conspiracy, but a conviction is extremely unlikely unless they go rent a truck, but fetilzer, etc.

 

Here is a little more on the L.A. plot.

 

According to US intelligence, the LA attack was actually called off by Osama bin Laden. Attempting simultaneous attacks on both coasts was deemed too risky. Khalid Shaykh Muhammad reportedly attempted to revive the plot on his own but the scheme was fatally squelched in early 2002 when an unidentified "Southeast Asian nation" arrested one of the four conspirators after he decided to back out of the plan.

 

On February 10, the LA Times asked a "US official familiar with the operational aspects of the war on terrorism" to assess the threat. Speaking anonymously, the terror official stated: "It didn't go. It didn't happen."

 

According to the Times, the official said he believed the Tower plot was "one of many Al Qaeda operations that had not gone much past the conceptual stage." The Times noted that the official "spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying that those familiar with the plot feared political retaliation for providing a different characterization of the plan that that of the president."

 

Conceptual plan called off. President claims plot prevented. Insiders who know afraid to publicly rebuke president for fear of reprisal - now this has the "ring of truth" to it IMO.

 

We can debate all we want the definition of "plot". It seems the truth of the matter is there was never any "threat" of this occuring.

 

That said, the president also quoted the London water-bottle bombers plot - let me ask you if you believe this was a serious terrorist plot capable of being carried to conclusion? Was this a legitiamate threat?

 

And what about the anthrax plot he claimed was stopped?

[luke warm]

4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

 

Note, Jimmy, in the law it takes agreement, not simply discussion. To actually get a conviction, it takes also a plan and at least indications of working to fulfill that plan. Three guys sitting around and agreeing to blow up the White House may technically be conspiracy, but a conviction is extremely unlikely unless they go rent a truck, but fetilzer, etc.

ok, just so i understand... if 3 guys so plot (or conspire) to blow up the white house, and if the fbi learns of this plot, they can't be said to "foil the plot" by arresting them prior to their renting of the truck, etc?

 

you seem to be speaking of conviction of a crime as if that is the same as bush's allegation of a plot having been foiled... i'm simply saying that plots can be foiled weekly, if not more often, by stopping them in the planning stages... you seem to be denying this