taks

nonsense. compartmentalization only works with things that do not require massive coordination. that's why the basics of nsa operation, for example, are rather easy to figure out with a little research. not out of the realm of possibility is a far cry from "it happened." you saying so don't make it so. i don't disagree that there is more to the story and the forensics seem to indicate as such. but when you take the forensics as evidence that there was a conspiracy that is indeed circumstantial. the point is that it is not only difficult, but impossible to keep things secret on such a grand scale. the argument isn't circular at all. taks

what fact? look at what this thread is about. stb thinks bush should be before the hague? based on what fact other than emotion? nobody (exaggerated) can understand why a security team would tackle someone that assaulted the POTUS? everyone continues to argue about WMDs but they all fail to remember that everyone thought he had them and everyone agreed that he would use them given the opportunity and they all forget the myriad other violations saddam committed (hildegard laughed out loud even). then you have the nonsense complaints about legality of a war. give me a break. pure ideology. ideology: bending or ignoring the facts to fit within a belief. rationality: bending the belief to fit within the facts. taks

yeah, might as well blame the manufacturers of the weapons, too, since they wouldn't be able to shoot bullets without the guns. oh yeah, bullet manufacturers, as well, since there'd be no ammo. ^awesomeness: this is textbook ideology. an inability to look directly at who perpetrated the crime. the bottom line, only those that actually pull the trigger (metaphorically) are responsible for killing innocent lives. no matter what conditions the US created, the terrorists were not obligated to kill innocents simply to prove a point. no, it does not come down to international law, whatever that phrase means. the US and any other occupying force does share a responsibility to help repair the lawlessness, which is actually improving (in spite of the media's unwillingness to report it), though they don't share the blame for what the terrorists are doing. taks

there you go with another strawman. everyone speaks ideologically on occasion, the difference is that when rational people notice that the facts change, they change their opinions. that's what i do, how about you? yes, they probably would. the US bashing is not based on fact or logic, just ideology. it is tiring. taks

holy shemoligans. nice rig. what's up with the ATI gfx card, however? so what do you think of this monitor? i have a syncmaster 21T at home (i think that's what it is) that i really like. for $1000 at newegg i hope it's worth it. of course, 72 out of 89 reviews give it a 5 out of 5. i recently switched my office one to a 24" dell widescreen POS. i can't get the colors right. grrr. i'm tempted to switch back to my original 4by3 monitor. taks

that is why i call people ideologues: they'd rather blame bush simply because their ideological belief system does not like him rather than the actual perpetrators of the crimes. any of these middle eastern countries that actually care about their people should be trying their damnedest to stop the insurgents and other terrorists (some are, sort of). they don't care, in general, as it makes the US look bad. in fact, by and large, they support such actions. yeah, those are better countries to be running the world and i'm racist for disagreeing. taks

btw, i should add rosjberg, if you haven't noticed, people like me (or with similar beliefs) are outnumbered like 100 to 1 in here. that's fine, but the US bashing is non-stop, so it's hardly a surprise when someone vocal like me gets bent out of shape and fights back. particularly when the bashing comes from folks like stb, a freaking moderator in here. you'll notice too, the difference in tone i take with you compared to someone like brdavs. quite frankly, i respect your opinion, even when i disagree with it, whereas there is very little hope i would ever respect someone like brdavs. taks

and i made it clear that my "sweeping generalizations" aren't so sweeping and that your bull**** argument is strawman nonsense. furthermore, you point out that everyone has a right to speak his opinion which means SO DO I! those are the only ones i'm going rambo with, rosbjerg. why is that so hard to see even after i've repeatedly made that point clear? taks

it's not just about an economic interest, they were violating terms of a treaty. what part of that gave them any right to have any vote on the matter? taks

wow... again, take a look around at who i accuse of having a narrow or blind ideological view, then give up your strawman. stb is one of those constant US-bashers, a serial offender in fact, referring to bush and US actions in general in ideological terms, devoid of fact and/or substance. brdavs, i'm sorry, is one of the biggest. shall i go on? yet another strawman. unbelievable. i'm curious, how many of you are capable of taking me on without a strawman? you'll notice that i don't get bent out of shape with those that do, btw. taks

looks like mickey dees for me. taks

wow, strawman alert. really, are you just another one of those people that has a starring role in the wizard of oz? this is becoming a ridiculous joke. and people like rosbjerg wonder why i show so much contempt in here. taks

you're not making sense. shall i list all your problems in this one statement? 1) i'm not a republican, the closest would be libertarian but i'm atheist so even that one doesn't fit. 2) read, not red. 3) not sure what your point about "red up on world" is anyway. the middle east is ruled by dictatorships in one fashion or another. china is communist. there's no "racism" in the fact that i think democratic rule is better. really, and now you're a psychologist or psychiatrist? exactly what have i said that indicates i need such help other than a differing opinion on world matters than your narrow ideology allows? perhaps you're jealous? not sure what shift in world power balance you're referring to, either. no kidding. i made that pretty clear that i understood such a point, but apparently your blind ideological belief system does not allow you to notice such nuances. the point i made, however, was that in acting the way they did, they pretty much tipped their respective hands as not allies of ours. duh. taks

fair enough. i get the distinct impression that we're both going to be tardy in completing our respective tasks. taks

i don't have anything against the french people, but their choice of leaders is about on par with ours (crap), if not worse. personally, i don't give two shakes to anything the UN does. it's all hand-waving anyway. their goals (the UN's) are directly counter to everything i value, so their worth, IMO, is zero. taks

this week. i have to turn in my paperwork to the school's office, too. i've got an acceptance letter and some sexual harassment training forms that need to be turned in and i think they want me to fill out another w2 since i've been "out of work" for more than 90 days. taks

you can't think that the french actions were those of an ally, can you? i can understand wanting to follow the path the benefits them economically, but to do it in opposition to an ally, while claiming the moral high ground as their true reason is ridiculous. the contracts the french had with saddam were "illegal" anyway, and yet i never hear anyone pointing that out. taks

HAHA! i no longer have homework. well, not to do myself. i'll have some to grade early next semester. yay. oh, speaking of grading homework, i need to get my lab re-written to fix a few errors and clear up some ambiguous areas. someone remind me later, k? walsh, you seem to be pretty on the ball... i'll let you be in charge. taks

yeah, moral standpoint. france also had contracts with saddam for cheap oil. wasn't france also trying to bribe other nations to vote against the US? such actions would otherwise be considered acts of war as well. too bad we couldn't have done their leaders in as well. the whole world is, at least economically. but still better than it has been historically. when we finally figure out that this nonsense "third way" of regulating the economy to death doesn't work, we'll actually see the same sorts of improvements we saw the first 100 years of our country's existence. till then, get used to these cycles. the next one will be either with health care or "green technology" i'm guessing. taks

exactly. openly public operations are impossible to cover up. they need the element of behind the scenes action, then massive efforts to keep things quiet. i'd be willing to bet those manhattan project guards didn't even know why they were guarding everyone, btw. taks

it's actually supposed to warm up here, already 25 F. of course, it's supposed to snow again tomorrow. yay! crested butte keeps getting pounded, and it's supposed to continue past xmas! woohoo! 30 inches since friday! sigh... i want to ski! taks

even if he did, do you think he'd care? taks

apparently you've never read the book "deep black." the nsa operations are hardly secret. furthermore, it is apparent you don't know a whole lot about how "secret" organizations keep things secret. the first is a little trick known as compartmentalization. that simply means that any given secret concept is doled out to only a few people that need to know. nobody knows everything, and most employees of the nsa only know enough to do their specific (and i mean specific) jobs. all of the menial things are all public anyway, and mixed in with the second trick called disinformation. it is difficult to piece together a "big picture" of what happens when you can't separate fact from fiction. very few outside of the actual project itself knew about it. the people working on it were isolated from outside contact. furthermore, this is a bit of a strawman since media coverage in the '40s hardly compares to today. actually, it was uncovered many times, and "disbanded" only to be reformed. this is another case of compartmentalization, btw. not sure what this has to do with "magnitude" of keeping a secret. if anything, the fact that they blew the whistle undermines your argument, i.e., the secret got out as predicted. uh, not that i've ever heard. you ought to back off terms like "proven" anyway since "proof" is a very, very difficult standard to test your theories. every bit of the evidence you've shown for anything has been circumstantial (and yes, i watched the video). doesn't meet the "magnitude" scope. not many people knew which makes it easier to keep under wraps. most of these things fall into categories that are easily compartmentalized. large operations that require lots of people to know lots of things, i.e., massive coordination efforts, cannot be compartmentalized. it's just not possible. taks

no, the guy was a self-titled "explosions expert" that was no longer working in the field. i'm a phd in engineering, but that is immaterial. no, this guy was just some worker bee that agree to be interviewed. in the interview i saw, this guy clearly did not know what he was talking about. follow-up interviews with real experts pointed out his nonsensical statements. some of the problems with his comments were basic, too, things that most of us learn in grade school. my comment was incorrect and was meant as a generalization, i.e., we keep hearing from experts that somehow don't really work in the field. "fired for incompetence" was sarcasm relating to this as the nutters that often speak out reveal their readily apparent incompetence. disagreeing with the official version and claiming that there was some conspiracy are two different things. ultimately, your appeal to authority is a bit ridiculous because the "official" review of what happened includes a whole lot more, i.e., they have a bigger appeal to authority than you do. genetics, i suppose. i didn't say it was "one of yours," just that it's one of the leading ones i keep hearing. strawman. it did begin to melt, and the explanation didn't fail. the temperatures that occurred within the towers were sufficient to sap the structural steel of most of its strength. incendiaries that nobody managed to see getting placed. the burden of proof is on you, or your kind, to prove that they were placed. said incendiaries, btw, leave behind very tell-tale residues that nobody seems to have found. taks

you'd have to try every one of the security council/UN members that voted to allow force. if they didn't want us to do what we did, they should have voted it down. taks