#18: The Pentagon Plane? > Hopeless?

THREAD BEGAN, November 6th, 2004
The quiet after the storm...

BOB: HEY ALL, This is a link to a shocking, short video that "proves" that a plane never hit the Pentagon. WATCH IT...and respond:
http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main

JAY: Originally I treated these conspiracies as a joke, but when people in other countries and the U.S. eat them up creating a greater hatred for the U.S., I feel compelled to respond. It's sad that people tarnish the memories of those who parished by spreading these lies. However, don't only listen to me. I'd like you to go to these web sites and educate yourselves about the "conspiracy" before you go spreading more propoganda. The first thing that should jump out at you are the creators of the "conspiracy." I hope you aren't encouraging this. Ask your students to do an in depth investigation on the story and see what they find. Here are some web sites, but feel free to investigate yourselves:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13059-2004Oct6?language=printer
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gpentagon/frame.htm
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
http://www.montalk.net/pentagon.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/06/26/france.book/
Informed decisions just make more sense.

BOB: Abramovich, you are amazing!
In the 16th thread you submitted a 344 word post that, although I could be wrong, I assume you didn’t write. In it, there were several strange claims which I asked you to back up or explain. My questions were:
1) How exactly do you figure that 2/3 of al-Qaeda has been brought to justice?
2) If the 9-11 commission was such a good idea, why did Bush originally oppose it?
3) What evidence do you have that Saddam gave money and aid to al-Qaeda?
4) What were the dangerous powers, weapons and technologies that you were referring to in this sentence: "BUSH declared war on Iraq to prevent any future attacks on the US…by a man who had the power, weapons, and technology to do so."
Since my questions, you have sent two emails. The first was yet another cut-and-paste job. The second was about the weather. So Abramovich, were you just talking out your ass, or do you have some answers for us?

ABRAMOVICH: ALL OF THIS IS IRRELEVENT. WE WON. BUSH CHENEY '04
In response to your claim that Saddam did not give money or aid to al-Qaeda.....
Yes this was copied and pasted:
Its roots date back to 1990, shortly after the Islamist coup that converted Sudan into a terrorist haven to which bin Laden would move his fledgling al-Qaeda. Saddam had invaded Kuwait, and found himself under siege by a U.S.-led coalition” which in turn provoked Sudanese Islamist leader Hassan al-Turabi, bin Laden, and others to begin calling for worldwide jihad. Turabi embraced Saddam and brokered an uneasy accommodation between Iraq and the militants” inducing the secular Baathist to incorporate elements of Islamic sharia into Iraqi law, while convincing wary militants that aligning with Saddam was a necessary evil.
It worked. Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) records recovered last year reveal that, by 1992, bin Laden was already regarded as an IIS asset, while Saddam was hosting Ayman al-Zawahiri of Egyptian Islamic Jihad” who would later become bin Laden's second-in-command. By 1994, the two sides came to an understanding: Al-Qaeda would not work against Iraq, but would cooperate with it on some projects, including weapons development. IIS provided al-Qaeda with phony passports; Iraq also set up secret training camps for terrorists, where the IIS special-operations division provided schooling in assassination and hijacking.
If these early contacts now appear jarring, it owes to the verve with which the anti-Bush, anti“Iraq-war propagandists have whitewashed Saddam's promotion of terrorism” a history that was once a staple of Clinton-administration rhetoric, and led one defector (an IIS terrorist-trainer) to observe that "Saddam is the father and the grandfather of terrorists."
The myth that a "heathen" like Saddam could never have made common cause with radical Muslims. Saddam was more an opportunist than a committed secularist. In the 1990s, as necessity drove him further into the arms of militants, he energetically countered that secularist image, infusing his speeches with jihadist fire and assiduously courting radicals through "Popular Islamic Conferences" that brought together the most vicious militant organizations on earth.
Bin Laden himself is equal parts zealot and realist. The hazards of knitting together a fractious international terrorist network, one grounded more on hatred of the U.S. than ideological consistency, have often impelled him to strike strategic deals with the likes of Turabi (more modernist than bin Laden) and Hezbollah (Shiites, whom radical Sunnis like bin Laden have historically despised). Entanglements with Saddam were well within the parameters of practical entente. But each side had great incentives for keeping the dealings secret: Saddam sought to avoid a ruinous confrontation with the U.S., and bin Laden needed to keep his global confederation together.
In early February 1998, Zawahiri was in Iraq, negotiating training arrangements and collecting $300,000 from the IIS. Saddam, meanwhile, was making a mockery of weapons inspections, prompting a warning from President Clinton on February 17 against a "rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists." Two... OVER WORD LIMIT

BOB: Well Abramovich, I asked you to simply explain FOUR claims that you made. You send yet another unsited, cut-and-past thesis to address ONE. The other THREE, I assume, will remain forever unanswered. (By the way when you cut and paste something from the internet…site it, please! We would all love to know where Abramovich’s opinion is coming from, cause it certainly isn’t Abramovich.) And what was your justification for not explaining the other THREE points:
“ALL OF THIS IS IRRELEVENT. WE WON. BUSH CHENEY '04”
Maybe you’re right, Abramovich. Maybe the fact that you can’t summarize your own opinion is irrelevant; the fact that you can’t back up your own claims; the truth about Saddam’s relationship with Osama; all the exaggerations and lies of this administration. Who gives a shit now?!…Bush’s mind-fuck worked. So much so, that you don’t even see a problem with the fact that you can’t back-up the claims that you’ve been regurgitating for the past year like a parrot.

ZELIN: Jay, this is for you. Thought you might find this interesting, or maybe not. Ignorance might have played as big a role in the election's outcome as values...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/opinion/08herbert.html ex=1100968917&ei=1&en=811facd285bb2410

JAY: i guess it's interesting? just to point out, it is from the ny times. i really don't trust these surveys and polls that much, but they are funny to read. excuses, reasons, justifications, or revenge? who knows the motivations for these articles. i've read that 70% of kerry votes were simply b/c they didn't like bush. is that ignorance? again, i think these surveys all contain some bias.

BOB: Zelin, Great article! If it is true that the majority of President Bush's supporters believe the U.S. has come up with "clear evidence" that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda, and that one in three believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq and that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion...then it's official...we are fucked.
During this Blog experience I was highly critical of Kerry, calling some of his actions ‘unforgivable’ and ‘pathetic’ and at times admitting, 'I am deeply disappointed in the Democratic Party.' At one point, I compared Kerry to, 'a piece of petrified wood, with the exception of his shaky hands.'
I even wrote 'ten reasons that I love the Republican platform’ and confessed that ‘the traditional, Republican Economic Platform is better for America.’ Not to mention apologizing for at least one self-proclaimed ‘childish reply.’
But the Right…they can’t be self-critical. They can’t meet you halfway. They can’t say they were wrong. They view Liberals as the enemy and turn a blind eye to any fact that they prefer not to hear. They are impossible (with the exception of the BENs of the party).
Brazil is one of the most Roman Catholic nations on the planet. They hate Abortion; they don’t like the idea of stem cell research, or guys kissing each other. Despite these highly conservative views on social issues, nearly everyone here is baffled at how we could have reelected Bush. Baffled and sickened!
It is clear these people aren’t blinded by their strong moral stance. And it is clear Republicans can't see past theirs.
It really breaks my heart and makes this type of debate seem utterly hopeless.

ZELIN: Jay, agreed. I definitely tend to swing towards the NY Times, but I still value it as a credible newspaper. By many standards, the best paper in the nation. Similarly to Bobby, I guess I am just shocked, stunned, by what is going on in our nation. Call it excuses, crying, whining, but these are just feelings that I have about our current administration, the direction of our politics and the increasing conservatism/religiosity in our nation. Also, guess I have been surprised by your stance on many of the issues we have been discussing. I mean, for a regular raw dogger, thought you might voter for the party which supports abortion and research through technology and not guns and god.

JAY: i disagree as well w/ certain issues (conservative stances on gays, stem cell, and abortion), but it's a democracy and the people have spoken. are you against democracy? people vote and we go w/ the majority.

ZELIN: So, people vote and we just go along with everything they say. Questioning the president does not make you against democracy. Waiting for the next question where you attempt to put words in other people's mouths.

JAY: what words did i put in your mouth? you said, "I guess I am just shocked, stunned, by what is going on in our nation." what is going on in our nation that you are so shocked w/? questioning the president is a necessary priviledge that we, unlike others, enjoy. but i think you were questioning the people. and yes, when people vote we go along with whatever the majority says until the issue is up again (and of course you can question there stance). how else would we do it? you know how religious i am and my stances on most issues. i don't agree w/ a majority of our country, but what am i going to do (push my values on others or complain; i think not)? you have to face the fact that a majority of the population think differently than you and i for that matter. you can call them stupid or whatever you want, but that doesn't help your cause (it merely hinders it; some say that's why the democratic party failed--they veered too far to the left and ignored peoples values). what words did i put in your mouth? (that bothers me)

ZELIN: but it's a democracy and the people have spoken. Are you against democracy? That is the putting words in my mouth I was referring to. First off, don't think I am pushing my values on others, but hell yes, I will complain. Because I am a voter. Just as I have the right to question my president, I have the right to complain. I am not blowing up abortion clinics or producing F 9/11, but I am stressing to friends/colleagues my dissatisfaction with Bush and his administration. Don't think there is anything wrong with that. You do? You think there is something wrong with stressing your complaints/issues? You think there is something wrong with disagreeing? You think there is something wrong with putting it in the pooper? Just taking a bit of the 'Jay' method.

JAY: are you arguing w/ me or agreeing w/ me?

ZELIN: Not sure, I think, both. Did you see Dodgeball? Hilarious.

JAY: no, i'm trying to write me 35 page thesis on why religious people suck and why we should invest all our possible reources towards stem cell research. ironic, huh?

ZELIN: Yes, quite ironic I must say. How the hell are you managing to do that after voting for W? Aren't you part of the religious right constituency? You know, the born again virgins.