|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
| How can people blame [W.] Bush for these attacks...? |
W. Bush began as an unpopular president, at least in approximately half the country.
He has become more unpopular since then, and that approximate half of the country has become much more focused in its complaining about and its opposition to him.
What I am saying is that I find such polls as the one you cite as virtually meaningless.
What respondents are really saying is that they are unhappy with W. Bush. When asked "Is X W. Bush's fault?" they will be inclined to respond "yes" without putting too much analytical thought into X itself. As I said, mostly as a means of expressing their general unhappiness with the President.
And I think you would find that those who blame W. Bush vs. those who blame Clinton roughly correspond with those who hate President W. Bush vs. those who hated President Clinton. That is, it is probably no coincidence that these numbers are, very roughly, approaching a 50-50 split -- just like the last two elections.
So, yes, it is biased.
But everything is biased and nothing "objective" -- I mentioned this in another thread. Of course, it is biased, then. Show me something that is not? We are polarized. Cannot even talk about 9/11 without bickering and cynically accusing each other of lying. It will only get worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Isn't this silly? "Blame." What a stupidly loaded question that only gives the loonies who think Bush actually was part of the conspiracy something to hang their idiocy on.
I hate Bush, and I'm firmly on record with that. I loved Clinton, and still sort of do. But to hold either of them guilty because they didn't read the signals well enough to predict the future is just the stupidest, most asinine and useless sort of armchair quarterbacking there is.
I agree with Gopher, we are too polarized a nation/world for there to be any actual meaning in so useless a question as was asked in this poll. But then, most people don't go to the news, let alone news of polls, to find anything of meaning. They just go to find their own views validated.
Is Bush/Clinton to be blamed for 9/11 ... what rubbish. But to ask a more insightful or meaningful question is not possible (such as, Was U.S. foreign policy in the 20th century or the domestic policies of Middle Eastern nations more to blame for the rise of Muslim extremism?). Not possible because the average poll question answerer isn't educated enough to answer intelligently. Just educated enough to want to know what other average morons think about inane questions. I mean, the same people who answered this poll are indistinguishable from the ones who have opinions about whether Britney Spears should dump Kevin Federline, right? And here we are talking about their uninformed opinions as though they are in any way meaningful, so where does that put us?
God, I weep for this world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:00 pm Post subject: Re: Poll: More Americans blame Bush for 9/11 |
|
|
[quote="happeningthang"]
Thanks. Basically they were right-wing blogs and, in the case of "honest reporting" a pro-Israeli organization. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ahh...still working on your delivery I see. You must have studied hard to put all those words together like that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="daskalos"]Isn't this silly? "Blame." What a stupidly loaded (
| Quote: |
| such as, Was U.S. foreign policy in the 20th century or the domestic policies of Middle Eastern nations more to blame for the rise of Muslim extremism?). |
.
Well a little but the main cause is that mideast regimes and elties teach hate and incite violence.
| Quote: |
A controversy brewing in Saudi Arabia is instructive. Several weeks ago, when the U.S. was gearing up for the assault on Fallujah, Salman al-Awdah, a popular preacher who had close ties to al Qaeda in the '90s, signed, along with 25 colleagues, a declaration that made fighting the U.S. in Iraq an obligation for able-bodied Muslims. This sly document left it an open question as to whether Iraqis and Saudis were equally obliged to fight. The authors of the declaration wanted to have it both ways--to garner the benefits of association with al Qaeda abroad without suffering any consequences at home.
But many Saudis have grown tired of this game, and are working to expose clerics for playing fast and loose with peoples' lives. The reformist newspaper al-Watan revealed that Mr. al-Awdah subsequently enlisted the aid of the Saudi security services in order to prevent his son Muadh from joining the jihad in Iraq. Muadh, it seems, had decided with some friends to go and fight America. "God permitting," he said in a message to his family, "we have an appointment with paradise." In an effort to prevent him from keeping this date, Mr. al-Awdah contacted Prince Muhammad bin Nayef, No. 2 at the Saudi ministry of Interior. The authorities quickly found the young men, and returned them safely to their families.
Mr. Al-Awdah's frantic call for help revealed two levels of hypocrisy. First, it shattered his carefully crafted image as a courageous fighter for Islam, a man who speaks truth to power. For someone supposedly independent of the regime, he has cozy ties with the Saudi secret police. Second, it unmasked his true feeling about the anti-American jihad: Let Iraqis kill themselves.
Mr. al-Awdah is today less concerned about fueling the jihad than he is about saving his reputation. He is quibbling over the details of al-Watan's report, claiming defamation and threatening a lawsuit. Al-Watan has responded by saying, in effect: Bring it on. If he dares to do so, Mr. al-Awdah may well find himself with more legal burdens than he cares to shoulder. The father of a Saudi boy who did in fact find his death in Iraq has gone to the media expressing his intention to sue Mr. al-Awdah and the other 25 clerics who issued the fatwa supporting the jihad. And to make matters worse, the government of Kuwait--a predominantly Sunni country--has banned the offending clerics from its soil. |
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006014
Al Qaeda fights for the Caliphate from Spain to Timor.
I can show it upon request.
Q: Did the US create Al Qaeda?
Answer: NO
| Quote: |
| While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA. Former CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency's Afghan operation in the late 1980s, says, "The CIA did not recruit Arabs," as there was no need to do so. There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight, and the Arabs who did come for jihad were "very disruptive . . . the Afghans thought they were a pain in the ass." Similar sentiments from Afghans who appreciated the money that flowed from the Gulf but did not appreciate the Arabs' holier-than-thou attempts to convert them to their ultra-purist version of Islam. ... There was simply no point in the CIA and the Afghan Arabs being in contact with each other. ... the Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding. The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA. So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading. The 'let's blame everything bad that happens on the CIA' school of thought vastly overestimates the Agency's powers, both for good and ill." [Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (New York: The Free Press, 2001), pp. 64-66.] |
Q: Why does Al Qaeda fight?
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ladin.htm
| Quote: |
al-Qa'ida (The Base)
Qadat al-Jihad
Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Places
World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
Islamic Salvation Foundation
Usama bin Laden Network
Al-Qa'ida is multi-national, with members from numerous countries and with a worldwide presence. Senior leaders in the organization are also senior leaders in other terrorist organizations, including those designated by the Department of State as foreign terrorist organizations, such as the Egyptian al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya and the Egyptian al-Jihad. Al-Qa'ida seeks a global radicalization of existing Islamic groups and the creation of radical Islamic groups where none exist.
Al-Qa'ida supports Muslim fighters in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Kosovo. It also trains members of terrorist organizations from such diverse countries as the Philippines, Algeria, and Eritrea.
Al-Qa'ida's goal is to "unite all Muslims and to establish a government which follows the rule of the Caliphs." Bin Laden has stated that the only way to establish the Caliphate is by force. Al-Qa'ida's goal, therefore, is to overthrow nearly all Muslim governments, which are viewed as corrupt, to drive Western influence from those countries, and eventually to abolish state boundaries. |
| Quote: |
Al Qaeda Has a Plan and Here It Is
by James Dunnigan
September 24, 2005
Discussion Board on this DLS topic
Al Qaeda has a plan, and it뭩 been published in a book (Al-Zarqawi: al Qaeda's Second Generation) by Jordanian journalist, Fouad Hussein. Several al Qaeda leaders were interviewed for the book, including al Qaeda뭩 man in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The book is only available in Arabic, but it does lay out a very straightforward strategy for world conquest. Actually, it sounds a lot like what the nazis and communists had in mind last century. The only difference is that, while the nazis killed you for who you were, and the communists killed you for what you believed,al Qaeda kills you for religious differences. No matter which zealot gets you, you're still dead.
According to Fouad Hussein, al Qaeda has a seven phase plan for world conquest. It goes like this.
Phase 1, the 뱖akeup call.?Spectacular terrorist attacks on the West (like September 11, 2001) get the infidels (non-Moslems) to make war on Islamic nations. This arouses Moslems, and causes them to flock to al Qaedas banner. This phase is considered complete.
Phase 2, the 밻ye opening.?This is the phase we are in, where al Qaeda does battle with the infidels, and shows over a billion Moslems how it뭩 done. This phase is supposed to be completed by next year.
Phase 3, 뱓he rising.?Millions of aroused (in a terrorist sense) Moslems go to war against Islam뭩 enemies for the rest of the decade. Especially heavy attacks are made against Israel. It is believed that major damage in Israel will force the world to acknowledge al Qaeda as a major power, and negotiate with it.
Phase 4, 뱓he downfall.?By 2013, al Qaeda will control the Persian Gulf, and all its oil, as well as most of the Middle East. This will enable al Qaeda to cripple the American economy, and American military power.
Phase 5, 뱓he Caliphate.?By 2016, the Caliphate (one government for all Moslem nations) will be established. At this point, nearly all Western cultural influences will be eliminated from Islamic nations. The Caliphate will organize a mighty army for the next phase.
Phase 6, 뱖orld conquest.?By 2022, the rest of the world will be conquered by the righteous and unstoppable armies of Islam. This is the phase that Osama bin Laden has been talking about for years.
Phase 7, 밼inal victory.?All the world뭩 inhabitants will be forced to either convert to Islam, or submit (as second class citizens) to Islamic rule. This will be completed by 2025 or thereabouts.
Nothing really new in all this. Al Qaeda has been talking openly about this (the global Islamic state) for years. These Islamic terrorists are true believers. God is on their side, and they believe all obstacles will be swept aside by the power of the Lord. Will al Qaeda뭩 plan work? Ask the nazis and communists. |
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20059240226.asp
Osama bin Laden's Scary Vision of a Grand Muslim Super State
By Juan Cole
| Quote: |
For al-Qaeda to succeed, it must overthrow the individual nation-states in the Middle East, most of them colonial creations, and unite them into a single, pan-Islamic state. But Ayman al-Zawahiri's organization, al-Jihad al-Islami, had tried very hard to overthrow the Egyptian state, and was always checked. Al-Zawahiri thought it was because of U.S. backing for Egypt. They believed that the U.S. also keeps Israel dominant in the Levant, and backs Saudi Arabia's royal family.
Al-Zawahiri then hit upon the idea of attacking the "far enemy" first. That is, since the United States was propping up the governments of Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc., all of which al-Qaeda wanted to overthrow so as to meld them into a single, Islamic super-state, then it would hit the United States first.
The attack on the World Trade Center was exactly analogous to Pearl Harbor. The Japanese generals had to neutralize the U.S. fleet so that they could sweep into Southeast Asia and appropriate Indonesian petroleum. The U.S. was going to cut off imperial Japan from petroleum, and without fuel the Japanese could not maintain their empire in China and Korea. So they pushed the U.S. out of the way and took an alternative source of petroleum away from the Dutch (which then ruled what later became Indonesia).
Likewise, al-Qaeda was attempting to push the United States out of the Middle East so that Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Saudi Arabia would become more vulnerable to overthrow, lacking a superpower patron. Secondarily, the attack was conceived as revenge on the United States and American Jews for supporting Israel and the severe oppression of the Palestinians. Bin Laden wanted to move the timing of the operation up to spring of 2001 so as to "punish" the Israelis for their actions against the Palestinians in the second Intifadah. Khalid Shaikh Muhammad was mainly driven in planning the attack by his rage at Israel over the Palestinian issue. Another goal is to destroy the U.S. economy, so weakening it that it cannot prevent the emergence of the Islamic superpower.
Al-Qaeda wanted to build enthusiasm for the Islamic superstate among the Muslim populace, to convince ordinary Muslims that the U.S. could be defeated and they did not have to accept the small, largely secular, and powerless Middle Eastern states erected in the wake of colonialism. Jordan's population, e.g. is 5.6 million. Tunisia, a former French colony, is 10 million, less than Michigan. Most Muslims have been convinced of the naturalness of the nation-state model and are proud of their new nations, however small and weak. Bin Laden had to do a big demonstration project to convince them that another model is possible.
Bin Laden hoped the U.S. would timidly withdraw from the Middle East. But he appears to have been aware that an aggressive U.S. response to 9/11 was entirely possible. In that case, he had a Plan B: al-Qaeda hoped to draw the U.S. into a debilitating guerrilla war in Afghanistan and do to the U.S. military what they had earlier done to the Soviets. Al-Zawahiri's recent message shows that he still has faith in that strategy |
http://hnn.us/articles/7378.html#
| Quote: |
| It is a jihad for God's sake and will last until religion prevails ... from Spain to Iraq," al-Zawahiri said |
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1D608570-C11E-4AEB-B14B-84B47DC401E7.htm
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:46 pm; edited 5 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roch
Joined: 24 Apr 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:29 pm Post subject: Re: Poll: More Americans blame Bush for 9/11 |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Pligganease wrote: |
I don't really like Bush, but this is a skewed headline with skewed results made to show what CNN wants it to show. What a joke. CNN should change its name to "Reuters." |
There are two people who think Reuters is biased:
1. you
2. good ol' Derrek. |
Add me to the list. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happeningthang
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:52 pm Post subject: Re: Poll: More Americans blame Bush for 9/11 |
|
|
| Roch wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Pligganease wrote: |
I don't really like Bush, but this is a skewed headline with skewed results made to show what CNN wants it to show. What a joke. CNN should change its name to "Reuters." |
There are two people who think Reuters is biased:
1. you
2. good ol' Derrek. |
Add me to the list. |
Moonbat!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:56 pm Post subject: Re: Poll: More Americans blame Bush for 9/11 |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Thanks. Basically they were right-wing blogs and, in the case of "honest reporting" a pro-Israeli organization. |
Yes, guys. I realize it is much easier to say "right-wing blog" or "pro-Israeli organization" rather than look at the facts that are presented and deal with them.
I guess if you think that an anti-Israeli, left-wing organization (Wow! It is easy!) like Reuters is "fair and honest reporting," then I guess you are correct. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's obvious what's really responsible for 9/11...
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happeningthang
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 4:17 am Post subject: Re: Poll: More Americans blame Bush for 9/11 |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Thanks. Basically they were right-wing blogs and, in the case of "honest reporting" a pro-Israeli organization. |
Yes, guys. I realize it is much easier to say "right-wing blog" or "pro-Israeli organization" rather than look at the facts that are presented and deal with them.
I guess if you think that an anti-Israeli, left-wing organization (Wow! It is easy!) like Reuters is "fair and honest reporting," then I guess you are correct. |
It's also quicker!!
These "facts" (highly subjective, unproven, hysterical theories) have been debunked thoroughly, and aren't considered to be even remotely plausible, except for those who write or subscribe to the right wing conspiracy blogs. You know, people who will suspend commonsense and rationality to follow some conspiracy nuts because the bollocks they put forth is more in tune with what you wish was true. People like you.
Please, don't interpret this as more partisan behaviour (like you accepting 'unlikely to the point of being ludicrous' talking points proffered by right wing hacks). I have even less time for the fools who will demonise their political enemies as being involved in 11/9.
Muck raking, mud slinging, playing the man not the game...Time was people despised politicians for this kind of behaviour. Now everyone is getting in on the act.
You're as bad as each other - partisan politics and the yelling, slinging match it's evolved into is more of a threat to America than George Bush and terrorism combined. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 5:47 am Post subject: Re: Poll: More Americans blame Bush for 9/11 |
|
|
| happeningthang wrote: |
| These "facts" (highly subjective, unproven, hysterical theories) have been debunked thoroughly, and aren't considered to be even remotely plausible, except for those who write or subscribe to the right wing conspiracy blogs. You know, people who will suspend commonsense and rationality to follow some conspiracy nuts because the bollocks they put forth is more in tune with what you wish was true. |
You mean "facts" like the whole Israeli targeting of ambulances, which was gobbled up by agencies other than and including Reuters, that was totally debunked? Or, do you mean the factual photography that Reuters was using until they were caught by some "idiot" who "will suspend commonsense and rationality to follow some conspiracy nuts because the bollocks they put forth is more in tune with what you wish was true?"
| happeningthang wrote: |
| People like you. |
What sound is made when a vinegar truck and a water truck collide?
DOUCHE!
| happeningthang wrote: |
| Please, don't interpret this as more partisan behaviour (like you accepting 'unlikely to the point of being ludicrous' talking points proffered by right wing hacks). |
Just because I believe that Reuters is biased doesn't mean I buy into "'unlikely to the point of being ludicrous' talking points proffered by right wing hacks." There is evidence, and it is legitimate. But, if you don't agree with it, I guess it is "ludicrous." 
| happeningthang wrote: |
| Muck raking, mud slinging, playing the man not the game...Time was people despised politicians for this kind of behaviour. Now everyone is getting in on the act. |
I am not a politician. I can say whatever I want. If you don't have anything to offer besides calling people "moonbats," then find another port to troll.
| happeningthang wrote: |
| You're as bad as each other - partisan politics and the yelling, slinging match it's evolved into is more of a threat to America than George Bush and terrorism combined. |
Among politicians, yes. However, debate among citizens is what makes America great. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:28 am Post subject: Re: Poll: More Americans blame Bush for 9/11 |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Thanks. Basically they were right-wing blogs and, in the case of "honest reporting" a pro-Israeli organization. |
Yes, guys. I realize it is much easier to say "right-wing blog" or "pro-Israeli organization" rather than look at the facts that are presented and deal with them.
I guess if you think that an anti-Israeli, left-wing organization (Wow! It is easy!) like Reuters is "fair and honest reporting," then I guess you are correct. |
well in regards to "honest reporting" it explicitly says its whole raison d'etre was to bring to light the bias towards israel in the international media. So obviously it is going to seek out that bias in any way it can; once it can't find that bias, adios organization.
If it had a more diverse interest and drive, I'd be more open to it.
The belarus blog: SO authoritive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happeningthang
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:04 am Post subject: Re: Poll: More Americans blame Bush for 9/11 |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
You mean "facts" like the whole Israeli targeting of ambulances, which was gobbled up by agencies other than and including Reuters, that was totally debunked? Or, do you mean the factual photography that Reuters was using until they were caught by some "idiot" who "will suspend commonsense and rationality to follow some conspiracy nuts because the bollocks they put forth is more in tune with what you wish was true?" |
You don't seem to realise that this has already been thoroughly debated on this board. Where were you? You're just the latest in a roster of like minded posters to bring up this up....again. So, I apologise for making name calling my starting point on this thread, but to my mind this isue has already been discussed.
To summarise, for you, the discussion so far....
The like minded bloggers like the ones you linked earlier, as well as sites like LittleGreenFootballs, Michelle Malkin, FrontPage, Neo Neo Con are the only sites on the internet who are running these theories. They are also the sites where these theories of widespread media bias emerged.
They all link each other, they all quote each other, they all march lockstep and say the same thing, repeatedly... My assumption is that they subscribe to the school of thought that says, If you repeat something often enough it will become truth. It seems obvious to me that these sites (who are pro Israeli, pro Republican, generally American conservatives) have a common goal of discrediting critics of Israel. It would suggest to me that, perhaps, they have an agenda in creating mistrust in the media.
The ambulance thing does show evidence of laziness, and gullibillity of some news providers. It shows that Palestinians do attempt to manipulate the media for favorable coverage. BIG surprise! There isn't any one involved in any sizable enterprise who doesn't. This case does demonstrate that some in the media aren't discerning enough, it's not proof of inherent bias.
The 'smoke+photoshop= MORE smoke' hysteria from LGF is laughable. As an attempt to provoke anti Israeli feeling it is ineffectual, and to try and use it as proof of a institutionalised bias is equally ineffective.
| Pligganese wrote: |
Just because I believe that Reuters is biased doesn't mean I buy into "'unlikely to the point of being ludicrous' talking points proffered by right wing hacks." There is evidence, and it is legitimate. But, if you don't agree with it, I guess it is "ludicrous."
|
Well, by the points that I've argued here, and elsewhere before, to my mind you have accepted the analysis of the (very possibly biased) only people/blogs online who are pushing this line of thinking. Personally, I think of these ideas (as well as the idea that Bush helped the 11/9 attacks along) as partisan, unproven and hysterical ie ludicrous. I will accept that no media source is immune from mistakes, and sloppy, lazy, gullible journalism is an everyday occurence. But even with this considered Reuters is still better at delivering fair and honest reporting than any of the links you've offered up.
| Pligganease wrote: |
I am not a politician. I can say whatever I want. If you don't have anything to offer besides calling people "moonbats," then find another port to troll ...
Among politicians, yes. However, debate among citizens is what makes America great. |
Fair enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
