"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11&

[Chaerophon]

Apologies, this was definitely a bit snarky and presumptuous:

The American ethos of militant individualism and unilateralism isn't going to adapt any time soon, so I guess you're right, Kandrathe, buy as many guns as you can, and pray, because common sense flew out the window a long time ago.

...and a hearty "cheers" to you and your good nature in the face of my pre-exam, post-"all-nighter" aggression.

[Minionman]

Many of the detainee's in Abu Garib and Guantanamo are not POW's, so in a strict legal sense the GC does not apply. They should be treated humanely, but I disagree that they should not be aggressively interrogated. We are not fighting the Boy Scouts here, many of these people are ruthless terrorists. I would prefer we could all act civilized, but we need to realistically look at who we are dealing with here. Unfortunately, Abu Garib happened, and that was a mistake -- those responsible are being held accountable.

The attitude of "they are terrorists, so everyone else can sink to a lower level" coming from enough people is much more supportive of abu garib than the idea of they should be dealt wiht like others, and that attitude probably helped abu garib happen. If the U.S. is supposed to be one of the freer countries on the planet, I say since people in it think terrorism is an important issue, they should focus on ways of handling it by loosing as little of the freedoms as possible, which partially means keeping prisoner abuse low. Considering that a lot of people hate the U.S. because they think of it as a bad place in general, people here have to prove that it isn't, and the prisoner abuse and the attitude about terrorists help show the opposite.

[Minionman]

Rather than solving the problem at its root, mainstream American libertarian response is to "protect one's self" rather than source the problem. Consequently, everyone buys a gun, the state incarcerates 10s of thousands more people, and yet no one is willing to address the human security issue by attacking the problem at its source, which is the pervasive social inequality and ghettoism of the cities. Frankly, this is the same reason that the American response to their domestic "human security" issues post-9/11 was to spend more money on the military and "close up ranks" rather than say, for example, relieve third world debt or adapt their foreign policy in a more positive way. To my view, the positive human security externalities to be derived from a redistributionist state far outweigh any inconvenience imposed by higher taxation. In addition, it's probably worth adding that corporate tax fraud costs the average taxpayer far more than does welfare fraud.

Agree with this. The idea of "protect yourself" sounds less safe than the idea of "reduce crime". Having a bunch of people fearing for their safety without weapons gives them itchy fingers, knowing there's low crime is much les stressful. "Protect yourself" without any help also screws over people who will have trouble with it, and I say it's our responsibility to help protect everyone. Not going to the root of the problem screws over future generations, who instead of getting handed a better world, get handed the same stuff people before had to deal with. For those libertarians who don't want government control, instead of tellign people to get guns, help organize buisinesses, better schools, etc. that get less people going criminal instead of waiting for them to go criminal than hoping to shoot, stab, beat up ,etc. them befre they get you.

[Nystul]

For those libertarians who don't want government control, instead of tellign people to get guns, help organize buisinesses, better schools, etc. that get less people going criminal instead of waiting for them to go criminal than hoping to shoot, stab, beat up ,etc. them befre they get you.


Unless you can show some indication that reducing crime and preserving the right to bear arms are mutually exclusive, this is going nowhere. You may as well say that people should stop using anti-virus software, because the real solution is to create a world where nobody would want to make a virus.

[Minionman]

For those libertarians who don't want government control, instead of tellign people to get guns, help organize buisinesses, better schools, etc. that get less people going criminal instead of waiting for them to go criminal than hoping to shoot, stab, beat up ,etc. them befre they get you.


Unless you can show some indication that reducing crime and preserving the right to bear arms are mutually exclusive, this is going nowhere.  You may as well say that people should stop using anti-virus software, because the real solution is to create a world where nobody would want to make a virus.

I was just agreeing with and adding to what Chaerphon said. The right to have guns has nothing to do with the feeling people have that they need guns to deal with crime. If few people feel a need to make a virus of their own free will, there will be less viruses and the viruses won't be at good at what they do.

The libertarian quote is from the post I replied to which wrote libertarian in it. Because libertarians are supposedto want less government, I'm writing ways they can lower crime without getting the government involved and without the "everyone for themself" type of opinion than the "getting guns and protect yourself" is.

And about your anti-virus software analogy, if there weren't nearly this many viruses, there wouldn't be as big a need for antivirus software taking up computer space, and people who aren't as smart with computers, even some who are, get them screwed up by viruses. Most viruses are supposed to get made by borec people, and I'm sure there are useful things that need people with those kinds of skills to do with computers. The internet will run better than it does now and less computers will get screwed up than the situation now when everyone needs anti-virus. Switching to crime now, there are plenty of areas where people feel they don't need guns so obviously it is possible, and I think it should be aimed for.

I don't feel like turing this into two people repeating the same stuff, so if we start repeating the same stuff, I'll be stopping posting. This is just an explanation of how I'll be writing, I'm not trying to threaten or trash talk.

[kandrathe]

I would say keep prisoner abuse to zero, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't use sophisticated interrogation techniques. Interrogation is a psychological exercise that takes time and patience. There are very good psychological techniques that don't require any abuse or physical or mental trauma.

[kandrathe]

As a Libertarian I offer this defense; It's not a black and white world, there are graduations of grey in the middle. Libertarians favor less government and more personal responsibility and liberty. That does not mean we would eliminate the police or fire departments, or even under fund them. But, also libertarians stand for the right to defend themselves and their neighborhoods as well. We are in opposition to the notion that government has all the answers if we just raise enough taxes for them. There is a happy middle ground between too much and not enough. I don't know many people who think we have too little government.

Except...

Take the new DHS, or the new Terrorism Czar position from the 9/11 commission recommendation -- more government. It seems neccesary to augment our national defense. In opposition to what Chaerphon suggested about reducing the need for national defense by being a kindler, gentler America I would suggest the the Osama Bin Laden's of this world would not stop if we were just a little nicer. In their world view America is the root of all evil in the world.

Excerpt from the 9-11 Commission Report;

Bin Ladin shares Qutb’s stark view, permitting him and his followers to rationalize even unprovoked mass murder as righteous defense of an embattled faith.  Many Americans have wondered,“Why do ‘they’ hate us?” Some also ask, “What can we do to stop these attacks?” Bin Ladin and al Qaeda have given answers to both these questions. To the first, they say that America had attacked Islam; America is responsible for all conflicts involving Muslims. Thus Americans are blamed when Israelis fight with Palestinians, when Russians fight with Chechens, when Indians fight with Kashmiri Muslims, and when the Philippine government fights ethnic Muslims in its southern islands.America is also held responsible for the governments of Muslim countries, derided by al Qaeda as “your agents.”Bin Ladin has stated flatly,“Our fight against these governments is not separate from our fight against you.”(14) These charges found a ready audience among millions of Arabs and Muslims angry at the United States because of issues ranging from Iraq to Palestine to America’s support for their countries’ repressive rulers.

They are against everything America stands for, not just a Bush, or a Clinton. It doesn't matter what we do or do not do. We are not Islam, and are therefore jahiliyya (the chaos of evil) and must be destroyed.

[Minionman]

Those I'm fine with, as long as the interrogations are only about terrorism and as long as other laws are being taken care of. My problem is maily with the attitude about it. If you're opinion is written clearly, I think we wrapped this up good.

[Minionman]

The libertarian was sort of used sarcastically. The rest of the post actually means what it says, I think if people don't trust police enough they should still work together to keep crime down by the ways I described, setting examples of not being criminals, etc. instead letting people go criminal, getting a gun, getting scared all the time, and hoping they can shoot firrst if someone attacks.

As for the terrorism issue, a kinder, gentler U.S. doesn't mean a weaker U.S., it means a U.S. that's more careful with its foreign policy. The bottom of the article that says "these charges found a ready audience among millions of angry arabs and muslims angry at the U.S. because of issues ranging from Iraq to Palestine to America's support for their countries repressive rulers" shows that the foreign ploicy of the U.S. does have an effect on whether people support the Osama types. A better planned and less controlling U.S. foreign policy would have taken away some of those millions in supporters, and I'd say that that should be a goal now. Some of those supporters could become the next Osama types in the future when the current ones are dealt with, so for the long term the U.S. could use that planning in their foreign policy.

There was an argument about this issue that I was in in the amazon basin, but apparently it's deleted now.

[Chaerophon]

Unless you can show some indication that reducing crime and preserving the right to bear arms are mutually exclusive, this is going nowhere.

It's undoubtedly going nowhere. That wasn't really the issue. The point is that the "right to bear arms" is part of an overarching cultural framework that misses some truly key issues in the search for "human security". If you want to debate that, feel free. I'm not really arguing about whether guns are "right or wrong"; I'm saying that deeply ingrained cultural forces in America stifle more meaningful and visionary human security solutions.

[kandrathe]

A better planned and less controlling U.S. foreign policy would have taken away some of those millions in supporters, and I'd say that that should be a goal now. Some of those supporters could become the next Osama types in the future when the current ones are dealt with, so for the long term the U.S. could use that planning in their foreign policy.

Some thoughts on this; I feel it is bad leadership when the US administration makes decisions based on US opinion polls, but it would be worse if the US administration was always testing the pulse of the world opinion before making a move. Most moves they make I feel are made to forward American interests, and really that is their job to look out for us. Also, I recall the old saying that you can't please all of the people all of the time. Sometimes the leaders make the very unpopular decisons for what they think is our own good, and sometimes that gets them thrown out of office.

9/11 was carried out by 20 people with mace and box cutters, with perhaps another 10-20 helping with logistics and I would estimate the total cost for the operation was less than a hundred thousand dollars. I'm not sure you can craft foreign policy such that there will not be at least a few hundred extremists still willing to use a WMD on US soil. We still need the strong defense, whether there are a million angry Islamacists, or 200. Certainly, we should not go out of our way to anger people, but neither should we be unduly influenced by international opinion -- and certainly not by extremists.

I've made the point before that it may not be the actions, so much as the delivery by the administration. This is again my criticism of the current administration's poor communication, not only to the American people, but also to the world. So when you say "better planned and less controlling U.S. foreign policy", I'm thinking that it may have just been poor communication and the implementation that was flawed. For example, Kyoto. There is a right and wrong way to tell your mother you will not be coming home to visit for the holidays. Whether you agree with the reasons, or not, this administration should have been a little more sensitive to the effort that many nations contributed to trying to craft a workable agreement on reducing the emissions of GHG's. They should have been clearer in their "preemption doctrine", in that it did not apply to states, but only to terrorists. They should have been clear that they support and will always try to work within their partnerships within NATO, and the UN.

The only US action that would temporarily mollify anger on the Arab street would be to withdraw all forces from the Middle East, end support of Isreal, and distance ourselves from the leadership of Gulf States. This capitulation might very well create a vacuum that ignites a massive chain of civil wars in the least, and an escalating world conflict in the worst. I don't know really. It is dangerous to be there, and it would be dangerous to not be there. The one thing I know is that if we are going to be there, we should walk a little softer and keep our mouths shut more.

[eppie]

Kandrathe:

first thanks for showing that the dutch drugs-policy is the best in the world.....if only everybody would realize this.

You continue saying that you say the propagandaish way of movie making of Moore is wrong, while at the same time you do not want to question reports and statement of the Bush government. (while we all know that governments, especially the US, and especially this Bush one, use a lot of propaganda for shifting the public opinion).

Take the WMD question: it was more or less shure there were no WMD left in Iraq anymore (that is what the UN weapon inspectors said), there were no WMDs used in the war by Iraq (your comments on the time it takes to prepare them in a ready to use state and that they were shipped to syria is absolute nonsense) nobody in his right mind has weapons that first cost you 10 days to prepare before using them, and there is 1 no reason to ship them to syria (what did Saddam think, if they did not find anything he would be let out on parole earlier :D ?) 2 this could never have been done with US spy satalites seeing this and 3 syria would never (and I mean NEVER) agree with that, "we see that the US is trying to get rid of a dictator, why don't we risk that they also attack us to help this dictator???." And finally nothing was found, no WMD.
(and of this I am surprised, I was right in all the WMD question before the war, but I expected that the Bush government would "plant" some WMDs somewhere in Iraq, but they didn't, this speaks in favor of Bush actually :D )

Add here the facts that a lot of data (pictures) shown by US ministers were false (the mobile chemical weapon trucks e.g.) and were already found out to be false just days after showing them.
And still you believe that teh US government did not know better and did the right thing?? To me this sounds really as lies of the highest level.

[Minionman]

Opinion polls are one of the ways information gets to the government, and from this I say world opinion, and especially the feelings of people in the countries effected by the program of the moment, should be part of how the government decides whatto do. About how you can't please all of the people all the time, sure, but you shouldn't just go do something that pisses off a ton of people. This wasn't so much about now as stuff the U.S. has done in the past, that should be avoided now that we know about it. U.S. foreign policy right now is better than it was awhile ago, but should still be planned out more carefully for the long term and for how the rest of the world thinks. Other country's support is also in U.S. interests. Your last sentence is sort of what I'm thinking.

A small group of people may have hijacked the plane, but if those people hadn't had millions of supporters they might not have, and those people who did it might not have joined up. If they don't think the effort needed is worth it, they wouldn't have done it.

[kandrathe]

You continue saying that you say the propagandaish way of movie making of Moore is wrong, while at the same time you do not want to question reports and statement of the Bush government. (while we all know that governments, especially the US, and especially this Bush one, use a lot of propaganda for shifting the public opinion).

The 9-11 Commission was a bipartisan independant group not connected with the Bush administration. Most of their hearings were public. For me, it has credibility.

Take the WMD question: it was more or less shure there were no WMD left in Iraq anymore (that is what the UN weapon inspectors said), there were no WMDs used in the war by Iraq (your comments on the time it takes to prepare them in a ready to use state and that they were shipped to syria is absolute nonsense) nobody in his right mind has weapons that first cost you 10 days to prepare before using them, and there is 1 no reason to ship them to syria (what did Saddam think, if they did not find anything he would be let out on parole earlier biggrin.gif ?)

Jordan thwarts 'massive attack'

King Abdullah: Al-Qaida WMDs Came From Syria.  Jordan's King Abdullah revealed on Saturday that vehicles reportedly containing chemical weapons and poison gas that were part of a deadly al-Qaida bomb plot came from Syria, the country named by U.S. weapons inspector David Kay last year as a likely repository for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."It was a major, major operation. It would have decapitated the government," King Abdullah told the San Francisco Chronicle. Jordanian officials estimated that the death count could have been as high as 20,000 - seven times greater than the Sept. 11 attacks.King Abdullah said that trucks containing 17.5 tons of explosives had come from Syria, though he took pains not to implicate Syrian President Bashir Assad in the al-Qaida plot, saying, "I'm completely confident that Bashir did not know about it." In his testimony before Congress last year, weapons inspector Kay said U.S. satellite surveillance showed substantial vehicular traffic going from Iraq to Syria just prior to the U.S. attack on March 19, 2003.While Kay said investigators couldn't be sure the cargo contained weapons of mass destruction, one of his top advisers described the evidence as "unquestionable." "People below the Saddam-Hussein-and-his-sons level saw what was coming and decided the best thing to do was to destroy and disperse," said James Clapper in comments reported by the New York Times on Oct. 29. Clapper heads the National Imagery and Mapping Agency.Israeli intelligence has long believed that after the U.S. delayed invasion plans to allow U.N. weapons inspectors time to search for Iraq's WMDs, Saddam moved the banned weapons to Syria, the only other country ruled by the Ba'ath Party. On April 1, Jordanian officials announced the arrest of several terrorist suspects, saying they were still hunting for two cars filled with explosives.Five days later, the State Department revealed that the attackers were linked to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian-based terrorist considered to be one of al-Qaida's most dangerous. One of Zarqawi's targets was the U.S. Embassy in Amman.By Saturday morning European news services were quoting an unnamed Jordanian official, who revealed that the al-Qaida plotters planned to use weapons of mass destruction in the foiled attack."We found primary materials to make a chemical bomb which, if it had exploded, would have made nearly 20,000 deaths ... in an area of one square kilometre," the official told Agence France-Press.Another operation planned by the network was to use "deadly gas against the US embassy and the prime minister's office in Amman," he added.A car belonging to the al-Qaida plotters, containing a chemical bomb and poisonous gas, was intercepted just 75 miles from the Syrian border.

Time will tell. For some, I would guess that, no evidence found will not be suspected of being planted.

[eppie]

I think not even michael Moore would use this articles if he was to make a pro-war-on-iraq-movie. :D

I think you should read articles like the one you quoted with the same eyes as you watch Moore movies with.

To many "likes to think" and "may have beens" if you ask me. The "we found primary materials.." quote also always works fine if you want people to believe something bad is happening.....probably the were talking abot artificial fertilizer.

It is just like the terrorist threats that every now and then pop up. If a new bill has to pass in congress, all of a sudden we have code orange. Of course you have the support of the democrats if it seems that the US is almost under attack again, if they wouldn't support Bush they would lose most of their voters.
I mean it is getting really ridiculous lately. The code orange was because they found in the computer of an Al qiada member plans to attack banks in New York......nobody mentioned that these were plans from before 9/11. I mean you are misleading your own people if you ask me.

We had this in Holland also a few weeks ago. A minister told the press that a letter turned up from al qaida which said that the west of our country (harbours, oil refineries) was threatened with an attack. A few days later it turned out that there was no such letter. (before there was the general anouncement of the ending of the ultimatum from al qaida, that they would not attack untill the 15th of july (untill that time countries could retreat from Iraq).
His explanation was the following: I confused two letters, the one about the finishing of the ultimatum and the second one that I thought was there but actually wasn't) (needless to say our present dutch government supports Bush) :D I mean this is to pathetic for words, I really wonder when this lying to your own people stops.


So if these weapons were transported to syria, why didn't they just show the satalite evidence (they love satalite evidence because you can see everything on that) and tracked down the stuff?.

[jahcs]

Some of the information found was several years old, not all of it. There was also evidence of current activity found during the search. It would be irresponsible to not take some measures to protect possible targets as specific information becomes available. The groups involved in the September 11 attacks are known for meticulous planning and show patience in the execution of thier plans.

As stated earlier one of the main faults of this administration is communication. For a long time they would just change the color of the threat level. It didn't mean anything to the average citizen. If you release the information of why you changed it you risk panic of the citizens you are trying to protect and also "tipping your hand" to the criminals you are trying to stop. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't.


Article about sarin and mustard gas found in Iraq, possible shipment of weapons to Syria:
Iraqi Insurgents detonate artilery shell, Iraq scientist say weapons may be in Syria

[kandrathe]

Jordan to charge 17 over failed attack
I think it is pretty well known that this did occur. If you don't trust CNN, fine. But even Al Jazeera ran this story. The truth stands up to the lens of scrutiny and time, lies eventually unravel when examined.

My understanding of the contents of the chemicals were that they were precursors of nerve agents, blistering agents, and sulferic acid. Jordan siezed 20 tons of chemicals from that one attempted attack. How much more is cached by these folks in Syria, or still in Iraq under their control somewhere?

It is just like the terrorist threats that every now and then pop up. If a new bill has to pass in congress, all of a sudden we have code orange. Of course you have the support of the democrats if it seems that the US is almost under attack again, if they wouldn't support Bush they would lose most of their voters.
I mean it is getting really ridiculous lately. The code orange was because they found in the computer of an Al qiada member plans to attack banks in New York......nobody mentioned that these were plans from before 9/11. I mean you are misleading your own people if you ask me.

I'm not sure they knew whether the plots were active or not. The orange alert was raised until they can be certain that there is not plot in play anymore. I equate it to a bomb threat. You don't just shrug it off, because if you do nothing and the bomb detonates you are responsible for doing nothing to prevent it. So, you search the building with experts and bomb sniffing dogs until you have done what is reasonable to insure that the place is safe.

Sorry about your minister being an idiot. :) We have some here too.

So if these weapons were transported to syria, why didn't they just show the satalite evidence (they love satalite evidence because you can see everything on that) and tracked down the stuff?.

There are hundreds of trucks that pass through that desert daily bringing supplies from Jordan and Syria, finding the right ones would have meant they had advanced knowledge of what to look for. They were probably in 55 gallon oil drums, which are trucked from Iraq by smugglers all the time.

[Jester]

"My understanding of the contents of the chemicals were that they were precursors of nerve agents, blistering agents, and sulferic acid."

Perhaps my understanding of chemistry is just too feeble (and it probably is in any case), but aren't those "precursor chemicals" about as easy to obtain as any other chemicals? What is it about these chemicals, other than speculation, that makes them likely to come from Iraq, rather than just purchased elsewhere?

Given the ease with which they can be obtained, how are we supposed to keep them out of the hands of terrorists? Is that even an attainable goal?

Jester

[kandrathe]

Well, it's not like they drove into Jordan with barrels of "Deep Woods Off". :)

Here is an interesting site; I'm not sure why with all the paranoia about terrorism this knowledge is still available on the web.

Nerve Agent: VX

SELECTED PRECURSORS
Diethyl methylphosphonite
Diisopropylamine
Diisopropylaminoethyl chloride
O-Ethyl O-2-diisopropylaminoethyl methylphosphonite (code designation QL)
O-Ethyl methylphosphonothioic acid (also known as EMPTA)
Ethyl hydrogen methylphosphonite
Methylphosphonous dichloride (also known as SW)
Methylphosphonous difluoride
Methylphosphonothioic dichloride (also known as SWS)
Phosphorus pentasulfide
Phosphorus trichloride
Sulfur

COMMENTS
Binary weapons in which VX is formed at the time of use have been developed. One component in the binary is O-ethyl O-2-diisopropylaminoethyl methylphosphonite (Code QL; CAS Registry Number 57856-11-8) and the other is a source of sulfur. Sulfur sources used include materials identified by the codes NE, which is sulfur (CAS Registry Number 10544-50-0) to which an anticaking material (a silica aerogel) has been added, and NM, a mixture of dimethylpolysulfides and sulfur.

So, I hope you are not a terrorist, because I just aided and abetted you. :) Anyone with a few college level courses in chemistry could master some of these.

A cursory search for insecticide providers...
Or here...

So, yes. Hard to control, but I think import/export controls to track it to legitimate uses. I shocked my 9th grade chemistry teacher one day when I described in detail how with the chemicals and apparatus in our high school lab I could make nitroglycerin. I always wanted to try that, but never did.

[Minionman]

On a side note about chemistry, chemical burns are overrated. I've spilled some 6 molar strong bases and acids on myself a lot of times and nothing happens, maybe a thin layer of skin peels a little but that barely happens and it's less than what sunburn does. I still wouldn't try to spills stuff, and I'd watch out for cuts and eyes and swallowing is still out, but random spills are no big deal.

Back to topic. Chemicals like sulfur and clorine don't necessarily mean anything, but the organic ones if they found them at the same time seem to give it away.