Loose Change, 2nd Edition

[Uri]

Hello Reza.

The denying of the Holocaust is an ultimate crime in my book. The fact that I'm a Jew and that the vast majority of my extended family was perished in Poland and the west-south of Russia has a lot to do with this conviction. Most of those who did survive were those who, for Zionist reasons, arrived here earlier. The formation of a Jewish National movement in the late 19th century was an inevitable act in view of the disastrous social and political undercurrents in Europe which eventually led to the Final Solution. Zionism, (as well as the much larger Jewish action of that period – immigrating to America), was a logic, and in its way moral, result of the conscious or subconscious acknowledgment of these undercurrents. And the exposure to the horrors of World War II was indeed a major factor in the international acceptance of the formation of the state of Israel.

Now - I do believe that the fundamental issue which is in the base of the Arab-Israel conflict is the Colonialist aspects of the Zionist enterprise – the nature of the Jewish settling in Palestine and the fact that it was enabled by the colonialist Superpowers at the time, both for wanting to get rid of the Jews in Europe and for seeing them as kind of agents for the western culture in the Levant. I find that the fact that this pattern is in many ways still valid today, that Israel is used by the USA to represent its agenda here, and the joyful embracement of this role by Israel, is the main obstacle in the road to some kind of resolution in the Middle East.

I guess my last paragraph could be fully endorsed by the Iranian president. This is his main argument in de legitimizing the existence of Israel. But for him, it must be accompanied by the denial of the Holocaust. The complicity of a situation in which there could be two conflicting motivations or valid and just interests does not serve Ahmadinejad's view of the world. Nor Bush's, for that matter.

I'm afraid you're fascination with this film is a manifestation of this very natural and deeply human mechanism. If I got your point of view right over the years, you'd agree with me that the way the USA (and the west as a whole) abused/abuses the third world, developing countries, or any other of these degrading terms, is at least as immoral and as lethal as the actions of the likes of Al Qaeda. What happened on 11/9 was an inevitable outcome of a grotesque distribution of resources in our globalized civilization. Deal with this tragic and confusing matrix, don't avoid it.

[criddic3]

Be wary of putting words in my mouth. NOWHERE in my post did I say Bush was LIKE Hitler. I said that you are reacting exactly the way Hitler's followers did. They believed their leader was not a villain, regardless of exterior perception. They believed everything they were told.

I was combatting your opinion that it wasn't possible for an American, in this case Bush, to be at all like that. I'm just combatting your lame leap in logic. Regardless of my opinions of Bush himself, I cannot stand by and watch people completely DISMISS the potential that Bush and Co. are using these "thwarted" "terrorist" attacks for their own personal gain. You dismiss the thought entirely as if it's not possible! You KNOW it's possible, you just don't want to ADMIT that it's possible because that would make your Bush-god fallable and wrong and that just bothers the #### out of you.

Stop putting words in other peoples' mouths. Learn to read. Ask anyone else here if they thought this was a direct comparison between Bush and Hitler or whether it was one of TWO examples of people not believing their government could be so deceitful.

Actually, yes it is possible for an American to blindly follow someone. It is also possible for an American President to have fascist attitudes.

The problem is that neither of these things are at play in the real world today. Certainly if I had a reason to disbelieve what the President says or does, I would be very disappointed and disillusioned. I have yet to see this happen, since nothing that the President has done has alarmed me on the scale of seeing him as the cause of the world's problems. Also, if Bush were another Hitler, I doubt he'd be willing to give up his post in 2008. He'd try something to change this and then he'd create a state of military rule. This is far from a likely scenario, since any signs of this would result in swift reaction from Congress. And I doubt that most of the volunteer military forces would go along with such an action.

I see no similarities between Bush's actions in the War on Terror and Hitler's pre-WWII actions. We aren't taking over any countries or deceiving our allies into doing things that would help us to do so. The comparison doesn't hold water once you really seriously consider the possibility.

The notion that bringing up the terrorist activities in and of itself is fear-mongering or trying to gain points is ludicrous. The President isn't going to gain wide-spread 10-point jumps in his approvals from a thwarted terrorist plot stopped mostly by British intelligence. Nor is the Republican Party likely to sail to victory this fall over such pronouncements. Instead, I believe those who are feining anger over the public statements about the event are the ones who are trying to gain something. It's reverse psychology. "They are using the incident to gain votes...," they say. This sounds to me like jumping on an opportunity to sway public opinion away from the President by planting the false assumption of deception. It's like saying there is no terrorist threat out there. It's like saying that we'll never be attacked again if only we don't send troops to Iraq or some other place. It's like saying 9/11 was a government conspiracy so they could go to war with Iraq. They didn't need 9/11 to do that.

The Democrats stand to gain if the voters think that Republicans are "using fear" to gain poll points. Very clever idea, and I suppose it can work. People are preconditioned to be skeptical of everything the government does. There's nothing wrong with questioning things, but to assume the worst in people isn't the best way to deal with reality. I say if someone gives to a specific reason to not trust them, then you should watch them carefully. If that person hasn't done anything wrong, but nevertheless controversial, I don't find that a reason to abandon support.

Do I think that Republicans have sometimes used recent events to help them? Yes, but usually by pointing out what they see as their strong-suit. Citing the acheivement of not having an attack five years after 9/11 or praising the British for preventing another attack is not an attempt at scaring people to vote for them, but reminds people that terrorism exists and they believe they are better able to handle the threat. They aren't saying that if you don't vote for them, we'll be attacked the next day or something. That's a fear-tactic.

Some say that every mention of 9/11 or Iraq when an attack happens, or is foiled, it is an attempt to gain something. I just don't see that. What should they do? Not say that this is part of the War on Terror?

[Damien]

Yes this documentary may be ''horsecrap'' but it still warrants a viewing. I'm surprised nobody on this board has tried down loading it off the net. Is it because it is easy to get into a denial mode than face facts which may be true?

Life's too short to waste time on a horse crap piece of work like this, especially when I haven't even yet seen all the Blondie or Ma and Pa Kettle pictures.

[OscarGuy]

So Americans aren't capable of great depravity or intense, anti-people selfishness? So it's not POSSIBLE for the Bush Administration to be like Hitler, Idi Amin or any of the world's harsh dictators? If you believe that, then perhaps you need to check yourself into the psych evaluation center because that kind of thinking is what kept those types of people in power.

"oh they wouldn't be that unthinking, that uncaring!" I guarantee you there were plenty who didn't think that of Hitler or Amin among other world dictators.

This assumes that Bush can accurately be compared to Hitler in this manner. Thanks but no thanks. You say this because you don't like Bush, but saying he's another Hitler is going too far.

Be wary of putting words in my mouth. NOWHERE in my post did I say Bush was LIKE Hitler. I said that you are reacting exactly the way Hitler's followers did. They believed their leader was not a villain, regardless of exterior perception. They believed everything they were told.

I was combatting your opinion that it wasn't possible for an American, in this case Bush, to be at all like that. I'm just combatting your lame leap in logic. Regardless of my opinions of Bush himself, I cannot stand by and watch people completely DISMISS the potential that Bush and Co. are using these "thwarted" "terrorist" attacks for their own personal gain. You dismiss the thought entirely as if it's not possible! You KNOW it's possible, you just don't want to ADMIT that it's possible because that would make your Bush-god fallable and wrong and that just bothers the #### out of you.

Stop putting words in other peoples' mouths. Learn to read. Ask anyone else here if they thought this was a direct comparison between Bush and Hitler or whether it was one of TWO examples of people not believing their government could be so deceitful.

[kaytodd]

I downloaded it off the internet and saw it for free. I suppose I saw the entire film for it was over and hour and twenty minutes.

I am no expert on engineering so it was hard for me to know if there are innocent explanations for the discrepancies noted in the film. But it made for very interesting viewing and it was educational as well. I know I learned things, even if I do not agree with the conclusion. The extensive use of film of on the scene reports from CNN, Fox News, NBC, etc. reporters brought back for me the queasiness and fear, mixed with excitement, of that day.

[criddic3]

So Americans aren't capable of great depravity or intense, anti-people selfishness? So it's not POSSIBLE for the Bush Administration to be like Hitler, Idi Amin or any of the world's harsh dictators? If you believe that, then perhaps you need to check yourself into the psych evaluation center because that kind of thinking is what kept those types of people in power.

"oh they wouldn't be that unthinking, that uncaring!" I guarantee you there were plenty who didn't think that of Hitler or Amin among other world dictators.

This assumes that Bush can accurately be compared to Hitler in this manner. Thanks but no thanks. You say this because you don't like Bush, but saying he's another Hitler is going too far.

[Greg]

because it shows what they want to believe is more important to them than what is true.

Criddic, here's the wikipedia entry for "psychological projection."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

[Reza]

Yes this documentary may be ''horsecrap'' but it still warrants a viewing. I'm surprised nobody on this board has tried down loading it off the net. Is it because it is easy to get into a denial mode than face facts which may be true?

[Mister Tee]

A few things:

1) This "documentary" sounds like fringe horsecrap to me.

2) I find it very easy to believe the Bush folk, desirous of a way to motivate an Iraq invasion, had an idea something might be coming, and didn't bust their tails trying to head it off. (Someone of the PNAC group -- can't remember who -- was on record as saying they needed "a modern-day Pearl Harbor") I very much doubt they imagined it would be something on the scale of the Trade Center horror; even they would probably have been more attentive had they envisioned that. But a small-scale provocation would have suited their needs just fine.

3) criddic, as usual you accept right-wing explanations and wave off all evidence to the contrary. It wasn't just "bin Laden Deternined to Strike". It was Richard Clarke and George Tenet going into the Oval Office with, as the phrase goes, their hair on fire. It was John O'Neil. It was Colleen Rowley. All sorts of people were saying, Red Alert -- and the Bush people chose to ignore it (despite the warning from departing Clinton folk that al Qaeda was a huge looming danger). That adds up to either criminal incompetence or criminal negligence -- only kool-aid drinkers like yourself are so willing to absolve.

[OscarGuy]

So Americans aren't capable of great depravity or intense, anti-people selfishness? So it's not POSSIBLE for the Bush Administration to be like Hitler, Idi Amin or any of the world's harsh dictators? If you believe that, then perhaps you need to check yourself into the psych evaluation center because that kind of thinking is what kept those types of people in power.

"oh they wouldn't be that unthinking, that uncaring!" I guarantee you there were plenty who didn't think that of Hitler or Amin among other world dictators.

[criddic3]

There's all the stupid quoting of that memo headline. You know people who quote that headline are as ignorant of the facts as anyone I ever come across and do not take them seriously, because it shows what they want to believe is more important to them than what is true.

In hearings about 9/11, several high-level people stated and made clear that there were no sustained warnings or trails that could have led to the prevention of the attack with the agencies set up the way they were. (The in-house competition within the CIA, for instance.)

Had we had a Homeland Security back then, maybe I could believe that a co-ordinated effort might have stopped 9/11. Today, major attack plans are thwarted because we are looking for them. Back then no one seriously thought that such an attack was possible. The event itself seemed much like a plot out of a movie. Were it not so tragic in real life, it would have seemed like a natural for a blockbuster story. Today we know what it is to be attacked like that. So we never want it to happen again and are much more in-tuned to the possibility of similar attempts.

The scope of the tragedy of that day is felt because we feel at times that there must have been a way to prevent it. In hindsight, if they knew all we know now, maybe they could have. But such exercises in time-travel are futile and hurt us more than help us. Loose Change's premise is ludicrous conspiracy theory, and one I do not wish to see pushed on fragile impressionable minds.

People can choose to believe that the Bush administration is incredibly corrupt, that they don't care and that they are inept, but to say that they were either in on 9/11 or "let it happen" is completely out of the realm of reality. It is the sick wish of depraved conspiracy theorists who have to make-up an alternate reality in order to prove to themselves that they have access to information that no one else has. And I guess they do, since they thought of it in the first place.

[dws1982]

We know they exploited it. It doesn't mean they necessarily let it happen.

A Mossad agent flew to DC in late August of 2001 with a warning of some sort for the Government and CIA. The warning was pretty specific, mentioning some of the alleged hijackers (at least four, possibly all) by name. It couldn't have been hard to keep track of these guys either, because in the last weeks before 9/11, after years off the radar, they started leaving a paper trail.

Plus there was an ONI officer, Delmart Vreeland who wrote a report (while in Canadian custody) about an upcoming terror attack few months before 9/11.

At the very least, I think they knew that a threat was imminent, and either didn't take it seriously enough, or didn't care.

[Big Magilla]

We know they exploited it. It doesn't mean they necessarily let it happen.

[Damien]

I do, however, believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice deliberately ignored warnings, such as the "bin Laden determined to stirke" memo, in the hopes that something would happen that they could then exploit; and, in their minds, they hit the jackpot with 9-11.

I think you're spot on, Greg. In today;s New York Times, Paul Krugman has an excellent article about how this gang exploits terrorism for their own ends:

HOPING FOR FEAR
By PAUL KRUGMAN
August 14, 2006

Just two days after 9/11, I learned from Congressional staffers that Republicans on Capitol Hill were already exploiting the atrocity, trying to use it to push through tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. I wrote about the subject the next day, warning that “politicians who wrap themselves in the flag while relentlessly pursuing their usual partisan agenda are not true patriots.”

The response from readers was furious — fury not at the politicians but at me, for suggesting that such an outrage was even possible. “How can I say that to my young son?” demanded one angry correspondent.

I wonder what he says to his son these days.

We now know that from the very beginning, the Bush administration and its allies in Congress saw the terrorist threat not as a problem to be solved, but as a political opportunity to be exploited. The story of the latest terror plot makes the administration’s fecklessness and cynicism on terrorism clearer than ever.

Fecklessness: the administration has always pinched pennies when it comes to actually defending America against terrorist attacks. Now we learn that terrorism experts have known about the threat of liquid explosives for years, but that the Bush administration did nothing about that threat until now, and tried to divert funds from programs that might have helped protect us. “As the British terror plot was unfolding,” reports The Associated Press, “the Bush administration quietly tried to take away $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new explosives detection technology.”

Cynicism: Republicans have consistently portrayed their opponents as weak on terrorism, if not actually in sympathy with the terrorists. Remember the 2002 TV ad in which Senator Max Cleland of Georgia was pictured with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? Now we have Dick Cheney suggesting that voters in the Democratic primary in Connecticut were lending aid and comfort to “Al Qaeda types.” There they go again.

More fecklessness, and maybe more cynicism, too: NBC reports that there was a dispute between the British and the Americans over when to make arrests in the latest plot. Since the alleged plotters weren’t ready to go — they hadn’t purchased airline tickets, and some didn’t even have passports yet — British officials wanted to watch and wait, hoping to gather more evidence. But according to NBC, the Americans insisted on early arrests.

Suspicions that the Bush administration might have had political motives in wanting the arrests made prematurely are fed by memories of events two years ago: the Department of Homeland Security declared a terror alert just after the Democratic National Convention, shifting the spotlight away from John Kerry — and, according to Pakistani intelligence officials, blowing the cover of a mole inside Al Qaeda.

But whether or not there was something fishy about the timing of the latest terror announcement, there’s the question of whether the administration’s scare tactics will work. If current polls are any indication, Republicans are on the verge of losing control of at least one house of Congress. And “on every issue other than terrorism and homeland security,” says Newsweek about its latest poll, “the Dems win.” Can a last-minute effort to make a big splash on terror stave off electoral disaster?

Many political analysts think it will. But even on terrorism, and even after the latest news, polls give Republicans at best a slight advantage. And Democrats are finally doing what they should have done long ago: calling foul on the administration’s attempt to take partisan advantage of the terrorist threat.

It was significant both that President Bush felt obliged to defend himself against that accusation in his Saturday radio address, and that his standard defense — attacking a straw man by declaring that “there should be no disagreement about the dangers we face” — came off sounding so weak.

Above all, many Americans now understand the extent to which Mr. Bush abused the trust the nation placed in him after 9/11. Americans no longer believe that he is someone who will keep them safe, as many did even in 2004; the pathetic response to Hurricane Katrina and the disaster in Iraq have seen to that.

All Mr. Bush and his party can do at this point is demonize their opposition. And my guess is that the public won’t go for it, that Americans are fed up with leadership that has nothing to hope for but fear itself.

[Big Magilla]

I don't believe that. I believe that Bush, Cheney and Rumsefeld were so fixated on Iraq that they couldn't see the danger in anything else.