Is one of my former professors a lunatic nutjob?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yep.

Thing I really hate about these arguements is that they give Bush's supporters a handy strawman to attack so they can ignore more legitimate critisisms (that he failed to take terrorism very seriously until 9/11, that he exploited it ruthlessly for political gain, that he implied - though never directly claimed, nonetheless intentionally misled - the public into linking the attacks with Iraq, etc).

Please don't lump all Bush supporters into one pile.  I have never posted here (nor do I feel) that Saddam Hussein had known about al-Qaeda's plans for 9/11 prior to the attack. 

I have also criticized the prior administration for it emphasis and response to prior terrorist attacks.  If you want to say that there was no major anti-terror effort in the first 8 months of the Bush administration, I'll agree (though they were in the planning stage).  I'll add that there was no effective anti-terror policy in the prior 8 years of the Clinton administration.  The difference was that Bush, prior to 9/11, was moving more quickly in that direction.

I've also tried to draw a distinction between the Democrats and the Loony Left on this site.  You'll note that I've not referred to you as the latter.

Loony left according to J.J. = 940 heads and 60 tails being statistically significant.

[phk]

Well, there's one thing for sure - most of us enjoy classes where we hear whatever we want to hear.

Well of course, if you disagree with something, you'll think its biased.

I disagree with your idea that we should turn Mecca into a pig farm, you biased...

Of course, thats a great example.

I dont want to turn Mecca into a pig farm just because, I'd only endorse the move after the next suicide bombing incident takes place in North America or Europe.

Well, the problem is, how do you intend to go about turning Mecca into a pig farm?

We'd need a lot of mud and a lot of pig breeding.

And how would you propose to deal with all the additional enraged Muslims, many of whom would become suicide bombers?

The US and Israel have enough nukes for a genocide, oh and my math teacher went on an anti-Turkey tirade before class because he is Armenian.

[Citizen James]

Yep.

Thing I really hate about these arguements is that they give Bush's supporters a handy strawman to attack so they can ignore more legitimate critisisms (that he failed to take terrorism very seriously until 9/11, that he exploited it ruthlessly for political gain, that he implied - though never directly claimed, nonetheless intentionally misled - the public into linking the attacks with Iraq, etc).

Please don't lump all Bush supporters into one pile.  I have never posted here (nor do I feel) that Saddam Hussein had known about al-Qaeda's plans for 9/11 prior to the attack. 

I have also criticized the prior administration for it emphasis and response to prior terrorist attacks.  If you want to say that there was no major anti-terror effort in the first 8 months of the Bush administration, I'll agree (though they were in the planning stage).  I'll add that there was no effective anti-terror policy in the prior 8 years of the Clinton administration.  The difference was that Bush, prior to 9/11, was moving more quickly in that direction.

I've also tried to draw a distinction between the Democrats and the Loony Left on this site.  You'll note that I've not referred to you as the latter.

I appologize.  You are correct, it is wrong to oversimplify matters by placing individuals in only two binary groups.

The hardcore fanatics on both sides are annoying and distract from the more relevent questions.

OTOH, I think Clinton did a lot more on the anti-terror front than you may realize.  Other than the foiled millenium bomb plot it just didn't get much media attention.  Things like increasing border security make for little more than a short blurb in the news, and covert operations - by their very nature - are largely hidden from public view.

[John Dibble]

The US and Israel have enough nukes for a genocide, oh and my math teacher went on an anti-Turkey tirade before class because he is Armenian.

So much for the idea of tolerance, eh?

BTW, seeing as how many oil producing areas will be unliveable, where will we get the replacement oil? Seriously, this'll raise oil prices big time, not to mention turn the world against us - if they launch nukes themselves, what the hell do you plan to do?

[phk]

The US and Israel have enough nukes for a genocide, oh and my math teacher went on an anti-Turkey tirade before class because he is Armenian.

So much for the idea of tolerance, eh?

Tolerance shouldn't extend to delinquent troublemakers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We have enough nukes to take care of surplus oil consumers, aka India and China.

[John Dibble]

The US and Israel have enough nukes for a genocide, oh and my math teacher went on an anti-Turkey tirade before class because he is Armenian.

So much for the idea of tolerance, eh?

Tolerance shouldn't extend to delinquent troublemakers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We have enough nukes to take care of surplus oil consumers, aka India and China.

Once again - WHAT ABOUT THE COUNTRIES THAT WILL START TRYING TO NUKE US!? Do you honestly think this is a viable plan? Are you daft?

[phk]

The US and Israel have enough nukes for a genocide, oh and my math teacher went on an anti-Turkey tirade before class because he is Armenian.

So much for the idea of tolerance, eh?

Tolerance shouldn't extend to delinquent troublemakers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We have enough nukes to take care of surplus oil consumers, aka India and China.

Once again - WHAT ABOUT THE COUNTRIES THAT WILL START TRYING TO NUKE US!? Do you honestly think this is a viable plan? Are you daft?

England and France are our bitches, China will be taken care of as will North Korea.

[John Dibble]

England and France are our bitches, China will be taken care of as will North Korea.

England and France won't be our bitches once we start launching nukes at other countries, and you're forgetting Russia. Seriously, this is an extremely dumb plan.

[phk]

England and France are our bitches, China will be taken care of as will North Korea.

England and France won't be our bitches once we start launching nukes at other countries, and you're forgetting Russia. Seriously, this is an extremely dumb plan.

What do you support terrorism now?

[John Dibble]

England and France are our bitches, China will be taken care of as will North Korea.

England and France won't be our bitches once we start launching nukes at other countries, and you're forgetting Russia. Seriously, this is an extremely dumb plan.

What do you support terrorism now?

No, I just don't support shooting off nukes like a moron - if we did, we'd get nuked too. If not by other countries, then by the surviving muslims who then will be completely justified in their notions that the 'great satan' that is the US is really out to get them. Further, the hatred of the US across the world will expand exponentially. Only a fool who ignores the realities of the world would think such a plan is a good idea.

[phk]

England and France are our bitches, China will be taken care of as will North Korea.

England and France won't be our bitches once we start launching nukes at other countries, and you're forgetting Russia. Seriously, this is an extremely dumb plan.

What do you support terrorism now?

No, I just don't support shooting off nukes like a moron - if we did, we'd get nuked too. If not by other countries, then by the surviving muslims who then will be completely justified in their notions that the 'great satan' that is the US is really out to get them. Further, the hatred of the US across the world will expand exponentially. Only a fool who ignores the realities of the world would think such a plan is a good idea.

If you siezed Pakistan's nukes, than that fixes that problem. Muslims are too stupid to build a nuclear missle.

[Blue Rectangle]

Muslims are too stupid to build a nuclear missle.

Wow.

Yeah, they're pretty stupid.  I bet they can't even spell missle.

[Gabu]

England and France are our bitches, China will be taken care of as will North Korea.

England and France won't be our bitches once we start launching nukes at other countries, and you're forgetting Russia. Seriously, this is an extremely dumb plan.

What do you support terrorism now?

No, I just don't support shooting off nukes like a moron - if we did, we'd get nuked too. If not by other countries, then by the surviving muslims who then will be completely justified in their notions that the 'great satan' that is the US is really out to get them. Further, the hatred of the US across the world will expand exponentially. Only a fool who ignores the realities of the world would think such a plan is a good idea.

If you siezed Pakistan's nukes, than that fixes that problem. Muslims are too stupid to build a nuclear missle.

I guess AQ Khan is not a Muslim, then.

[John Dibble]

If you siezed Pakistan's nukes, than that fixes that problem. Muslims are too stupid to build a nuclear missle.

Only a fool would underestimate his enemies like that - keep in mind that the Muslims were more advanced than the Europeans at one point. As has been shown by other posters, they can build them, but quite frankly they don't have to in this situation you're setting up. If the US starts using nukes and the other nations that have them don't send theirs as a present to us, there's still a much higher likeliness that those nations would sell nukes to terrorists to hit us indirectly - I'm sure Russia would sell a few off, and North Korea likely wouldn't have a problem with it either.

[Cubby]

I voted No


You shouldn't tell people about this, Left of the Dial, it'll only vindicate the whole notion of colleges as "Ivory Towers" of liberalism.

Yes, he should keep his mouth shut.  God forbid that people should know the truth.  We can't let the people who say that colleges are "ivory towers" of liberalism know that they're right.

I had you in mind when I wrote that

[dazzleman]

I voted No


You shouldn't tell people about this, Left of the Dial, it'll only vindicate the whole notion of colleges as "Ivory Towers" of liberalism.

Yes, he should keep his mouth shut.  God forbid that people should know the truth.  We can't let the people who say that colleges are "ivory towers" of liberalism know that they're right.

I had you in mind when I wrote that

In any case, BRTD's little story about his nutjob teacher is not news to me, or a surprise to me.  It only confirms my worst suspicions about some colleges, but those suspicions were already there to begin with.  It's a shame that there are weak-minded people who actually fall for this nonsense.

[phk]

I voted No


You shouldn't tell people about this, Left of the Dial, it'll only vindicate the whole notion of colleges as "Ivory Towers" of liberalism.

Yes, he should keep his mouth shut.  God forbid that people should know the truth.  We can't let the people who say that colleges are "ivory towers" of liberalism know that they're right.

I had you in mind when I wrote that

In any case, BRTD's little story about his nutjob teacher is not news to me, or a surprise to me.  It only confirms my worst suspicions about some colleges, but those suspicions were already there to begin with.  It's a shame that there are weak-minded people who actually fall for this nonsense.

So what do you advocate? Affirmitive Action for conservatives?

[J. J.]

Yep.

Thing I really hate about these arguements is that they give Bush's supporters a handy strawman to attack so they can ignore more legitimate critisisms (that he failed to take terrorism very seriously until 9/11, that he exploited it ruthlessly for political gain, that he implied - though never directly claimed, nonetheless intentionally misled - the public into linking the attacks with Iraq, etc).

Please don't lump all Bush supporters into one pile.  I have never posted here (nor do I feel) that Saddam Hussein had known about al-Qaeda's plans for 9/11 prior to the attack. 

I have also criticized the prior administration for it emphasis and response to prior terrorist attacks.  If you want to say that there was no major anti-terror effort in the first 8 months of the Bush administration, I'll agree (though they were in the planning stage).  I'll add that there was no effective anti-terror policy in the prior 8 years of the Clinton administration.  The difference was that Bush, prior to 9/11, was moving more quickly in that direction.

I've also tried to draw a distinction between the Democrats and the Loony Left on this site.  You'll note that I've not referred to you as the latter.

Loony left according to J.J. = 940 heads and 60 tails being statistically significant.

No, I define "loony" as someone who doesn't read what he claims supports his position, and doesn't understand simple things like what a Rolodex is or how a calendar works.  I define "loony left" as someone who does that based on leftist ideology.

[J. J.]

I'll add that there was no effective anti-terror policy in the prior 8 years of the Clinton administration.  The difference was that Bush, prior to 9/11, was moving more quickly in that direction.

OTOH, I think Clinton did a lot more on the anti-terror front than you may realize.  Other than the foiled millenium bomb plot it just didn't get much media attention.  Things like increasing border security make for little more than a short blurb in the news, and covert operations - by their very nature - are largely hidden from public view.

Please note that I used the term "effective anti-terror policy."  A lot of the problem, IMO, was that Clinton treated al-Qaeda (and Iraq) for that matter as law enforcement problems.  He never seriously went after the root core of the problem.

[dazzleman]

Please note that I used the term "effective anti-terror policy."  A lot of the problem, IMO, was that Clinton treated al-Qaeda (and Iraq) for that matter as law enforcement problems.  He never seriously went after the root core of the problem.

The big problem with Clinton, and many Democrats still, is that they look at terrorism as a law enforcement problem.  In general, Democrats are legalistic and Republicans are moralistic.  Legalism in general is a narrow discipline in which the process is often more important than the result.  This was certainly the case with Clinton's policies on terrorism, and with the policies advocated by many Democrats today, even after Sept. 11th.

[Inverted Things]

Please note that I used the term "effective anti-terror policy."  A lot of the problem, IMO, was that Clinton treated al-Qaeda (and Iraq) for that matter as law enforcement problems.  He never seriously went after the root core of the problem.

The big problem with Clinton, and many Democrats still, is that they look at terrorism as a law enforcement problem.  In general, Democrats are legalistic and Republicans are moralistic.  Legalism in general is a narrow discipline in which the process is often more important than the result.  This was certainly the case with Clinton's policies on terrorism, and with the policies advocated by many Democrats today, even after Sept. 11th.

Terrorism is not much of a problem. The deaths due to terrorism are tiny compared to deaths by car, guns, alcohol, tobacco, hunger, etc.

[dazzleman]

Please note that I used the term "effective anti-terror policy."  A lot of the problem, IMO, was that Clinton treated al-Qaeda (and Iraq) for that matter as law enforcement problems.  He never seriously went after the root core of the problem.

The big problem with Clinton, and many Democrats still, is that they look at terrorism as a law enforcement problem.  In general, Democrats are legalistic and Republicans are moralistic.  Legalism in general is a narrow discipline in which the process is often more important than the result.  This was certainly the case with Clinton's policies on terrorism, and with the policies advocated by many Democrats today, even after Sept. 11th.

Terrorism is not much of a problem. The deaths due to terrorism are tiny compared to deaths by car, guns, alcohol, tobacco, hunger, etc.

Terrorists have the intent and ability to kill many more people in one shot than any of these other things.  This will be especially true if they acquire a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb.

[Inverted Things]

Please note that I used the term "effective anti-terror policy."  A lot of the problem, IMO, was that Clinton treated al-Qaeda (and Iraq) for that matter as law enforcement problems.  He never seriously went after the root core of the problem.

The big problem with Clinton, and many Democrats still, is that they look at terrorism as a law enforcement problem.  In general, Democrats are legalistic and Republicans are moralistic.  Legalism in general is a narrow discipline in which the process is often more important than the result.  This was certainly the case with Clinton's policies on terrorism, and with the policies advocated by many Democrats today, even after Sept. 11th.

Terrorism is not much of a problem. The deaths due to terrorism are tiny compared to deaths by car, guns, alcohol, tobacco, hunger, etc.

Terrorists have the intent and ability to kill many more people in one shot than any of these other things.  This will be especially true if they acquire a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb.

True. Going after the countries they most relate to at considerable cost in money and human life makes them angrier and waste our resources. I'm not saying no to military action. I'm just saying that some diplomacy is needed as well. It will help us be percieved as being somewhat nice, and therefore deter terrorism.

We can't be complete assholes, but we can't be pushovers either. I'm seeing that we're overdoing the asshole bit at this point.

[dazzleman]

True. Going after the countries they most relate to at considerable cost in money and human life makes them angrier and waste our resources. I'm not saying no to military action. I'm just saying that some diplomacy is needed as well. It will help us be percieved as being somewhat nice, and therefore deter terrorism.

We can't be complete assholes, but we can't be pushovers either. I'm seeing that we're overdoing the asshole bit at this point.

Maybe that's a correction for what came before.

I don't buy that going after terrorists makes them madder.  If they were mad enough to launch unprovoked attacks before we went after them, clearly not going after them isn't going to assauge their anger, which is irrational in any case.  These are people that respond to force only.

I agree that diplomacy plays a role, but it can't be counted on to get the job done totally.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's not that it makes current terrorists "madder", it's that it gives them more support. There's a lot more potential Al-Qaeda recruits in Iraq now than there was prior to invading.