babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » The awful question

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The awful question
marty raw
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1137

posted 17 September 2001 08:16 PM      Profile for marty raw     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I can't shake this feeling.
Did they do it themselves? Did they allow it to happen?
It's an "historical fact" that Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbour and he let it happen, to give the U.S. a reason to enter the war.
Am I crazy? (Yes, I am. Next question.)
I'd like some feedback on this.

From: Toronto, baby | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 17 September 2001 08:21 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wow. That IS an awful question. I never thought of that.

Is that thing about Roosevelt an actual fact or a conspiracy theory? (I'm not asking to be sarcastic, I just really don't know.)


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eddie Lear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 362

posted 17 September 2001 08:25 PM      Profile for Eddie Lear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Marty are you sure it was roosevelt? I know churchill intercepted and coded message and was able to de-code it,it spoke out an iminent attack on the U.S. navy in the pacific.He decided not to warn them because he really doubted that he could win the war without their help.It was a moral question of the hardest sort and with the advantage of hindsight it's easy but at the time....Whoah Man,heavy stuff.
If you do nothing thousands will die,if you do something millions might die,

What do you think?


From: Port Colborne, Ont | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 17 September 2001 08:26 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's not a historical fact. There's no good evidence for it, and it's been repeatedly, and recently, debunked. I'll post links to that presently.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 17 September 2001 08:44 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gore Vidal recently resurected the "Roosevelt Knew" theory. While I've always respected Vidal's research, his wit and insight; the debunkings of this leave me embarassed for him.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 17 September 2001 09:00 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I like Ms Vidal too, but I'm wondering if he's starting to lose it. His recent T. McVeigh piece in Vanity Fair, for all it nailed the absurd hollowness of the death-penalty ritual and the media's response to it, and of much of the general outrage, veered dangerously close to an apologia for McVeigh.

The rhetoric's a little overheated, but this recent Salon piece about Robert Stinnett's "Day of Deceit" sums it up pretty well. Of Stinnett's book, Judith Greer writes:

quote:
As with other such conspiracy books, "Day of Deceit" received reviews in responsible academic journals like Intelligence and National Security that demolished it, citing its nonexistent documentation, misdirection, ignorance, misstatements, wormy insinuations and outright falsehoods. The consensus among intelligence scholars was "pretty much absolute," CIA senior historian Donald Steury told me in an e-mail. Stinnett "concocted this theory pretty much from whole cloth. Those who have been able to check his alleged sources also are unanimous in their condemnation of his methodology. Basically, the author has made up his sources; when he does not make up the source, he lies about what the source says." In other words, even if Roosevelt were genuinely guilty of these charges, "Day of Deceit" couldn't possibly convict him.

Greer also debunks most of the rest of the supposed "evidence" against FDR, and points out that there have been ten -- 10 -- Congressional investigations into the matter. The most recent was organized in 1995 by Senator Strom Thurmond, and concluded, as did the others, that it was simply a massive intelligence/operational failure, and not a conspiracy.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
marty raw
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1137

posted 18 September 2001 08:21 PM      Profile for marty raw     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, it was Roosevelt. And trust me, he knew. Besides, as for conspiracies? Jesus was killed by a conspiracy.
An awful lot of people I've spoken to have thaought the same thing I did.

Think with me now :

1. L'il Georgie Bush gets INSTANT LEGITIMACY. Forget that election fiasco, he is now king of the world.

2. The parallels with the Book of Revelations are frightning : the world will be united (well, isn't it?) by a false prophet (if L'il Georgie won't fit the bill for you, how about THE MEDIA??!!?) who will bring about the End Times. That's a capsule review of the last seven days right there.
(Written by St. John of Patmos, who was a little too fond of mushrooms he found growing in the corner of his cell.)

3. This gives them carte blanche to do WHATEVER THEY WANT next time...., hell forget next time. WHENEVER THEY WANT. This is martial law, served with a spoonful of sugar and a spoonful of poison. We'll all go through checkpoints because that keeps us safe, we don't want this to happen again....

WHETHER YOU BELIEVE THIS IS IRRELEVANT. THEY BELIEVE IT AND SO, IT WILL HAPPEN.

Sorry to shout, but I'm passionate.


From: Toronto, baby | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 18 September 2001 08:32 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Oh, it was Roosevelt. And trust me, he knew.

Well, if you want to suggest George W. Bush is capable of something of this magnitude, and invoke the Book of Revelations besides, I'm afraid I, for one, will have to decline your request.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 18 September 2001 10:04 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Back to the original question, did America do it to themselves, I just finished the watching the Osama bin Laden special on the CBC.
Some points:
There was plans afoot for a Muslim response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Apparently there was a big consensus about this in the Arab world (minus the Saudi’s and other American friendly states, which Osama and other Muslims view as illegitimate regimes). Of course, we all know what happened (imagine, bin Laden could have been an American hero!)
Bin Laden views the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia as evil (infidels on the holy land, etc)
While bin Laden was staying in the Sudan, the Sudanese government tried to resist Saudi (and American, I think) pressure to get him expelled. They argued that keeping him the Sudan gives let’s them keep an eye on him. His subsequent move to Afghanistan was compared to, by an U.S. security dude, as Germany expelling Lenin to St. Petersburg.
A commando raid on Osama bin Laden was called off by the U.S. at the last minute in the mid 90’s.
There was pressure within the U.S. government to prosecute the bombers of the embassy bombings in Nairobi but others in the U.S. government successfully got the U.S. to respond “militarily,” hence the cruise missile attacks. These attacks apparently helped bin Laden, Muslim’s all over the Middle East had a new appreciation for a man that could get the U.S. to respond in this way. The missile strike also stoked anti-American sentiment.
Muslims view Osama bin Laden as a hero, for he is willing to fight for Islam. He is not a terrorist.
Osama bin Laden has issued fatwa’s against every American citizen, and has declared war on our friendly super power to the south.

The more I am starting to understand the Middle East, the more I’m starting to understand that we have an ignorant superpower trouncing around, offending everyone in sight.
It was an interesting special, anyone else catch it?


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 18 September 2001 10:17 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Didn't see it, but this New Yorker feature from last year made many of the same points:

The Real bin Laden


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 18 September 2001 11:15 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, Marty, the world has ended before, and I see no reason why it can't end again, so sooner or later the book of revelations might prove right, more by accident than design.

The problem with conspiracy theories in the United States is that they depend on Americans keeping their mouths shut. That alone strains credibility.

Two people can keep a secret of course. As long as one of them is dead.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 18 September 2001 11:30 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The problem with conspiracy theories in the United States is that they depend on Americans keeping their mouths shut. That alone strains credibility.

Almost a bigger problem is that everyday, ordinary reality is so bizarre. Who needs conspiracies? They're boring!


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jared
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 803

posted 19 September 2001 12:46 AM      Profile for Jared     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Back to the original question, did America do it to themselves, I just finished the watching the Osama bin Laden special on the CBC.

Dammit, I was going to watch that and forgot .

quote:
1. L'il Georgie Bush gets INSTANT LEGITIMACY. Forget that election fiasco, he is now king of the world.

This is bad, but while watching the shit going down live, one of the first things I said to my roomie was "well, looks like that little Bush kid's gonna be a two-termer after all." With the scent of war in the air, it would be absolutely shocking if the Republicans did not hold the presidency throughout the '00s.

That being said, I couldn't even see this crooked rerun administration stage a disaster of this magnitude merely in order to push their pet views to the fore of the national agenda. Still, I couldn't help supressing the same thoughts...


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 19 September 2001 01:04 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Jared, I know you were still in your nappies then , but they said much the same thing about Poppy back in 1990. Then came Clinton's slogan, "It's the economy, stupid." Hang on to your seats, kiddies, cause this is going to be one helluva ride.


PS Jared how's school going?


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 19 September 2001 01:41 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Did they do it?
We considered this question on Tuesday evening, circa the second round of scotch (hoo, boy, did it go fast that night!) and i maintain that's impossible: they wouldn't have done it that way. They would have 'foiled' an 'attempt', or used a plane with fake Lybian registration and crashed it to tiny, forensically useless, bits just short of the white house, or something. Mainly, they wouldn't have hit that particular target. Kill pedestrians, okay, but kill the money - never!
Did they know it?
They may have, but i doubt it. As for him, i don't credit Baby Bush with knowing much about anything. FDR could know things, or know and not know, in any combination he chose, at any given moment. I don't think they tell this guy what state he's in or what day of the week it is, except on a NTK basis.
There are more than enough conspiracies, real, potential and imaginary, to go around; we don't really need another one.
n

From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jared
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 803

posted 19 September 2001 01:42 AM      Profile for Jared     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Jared, I know you were still in your nappies then , but they said much the same thing about Poppy back in 1990. Then came Clinton's slogan, "It's the economy, stupid." Hang on to your seats, kiddies, cause this is going to be one helluva ride.

True, but this was after twelve years of Republican administrations. I think Clinton's victory could be ascribed to a combination of lack of a major enemy (Saddam wasn't scary enough) and simple GOP fatigue. I think at this point, America has it's batteries recharged and is itching for a tussle.

quote:
PS Jared how's school going?

Busy, but me like. It beats the hell out of manual labour anyway.

[ September 19, 2001: Message edited by: Jared ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eddie Lear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 362

posted 19 September 2001 01:46 AM      Profile for Eddie Lear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
yeah they should have went after Fort Knox,that would be a real kick in the pants.

[ September 19, 2001: Message edited by: Eddie Lear ]


From: Port Colborne, Ont | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 19 September 2001 01:52 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Eddie, no industrial nation's currency is backed by gold, and in effect this hasn't been the case for the USA since (depending on how you define the de-linkage) the 1930s or the 1970s.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 19 September 2001 06:23 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There were two really interesting things in the documentary.
One was that a NY Times reporter (could be the one you referenced, lance) has been studying this story for years, but found resistance in reporting it (which means at least someone understood the threat).
The other, in the documentary, was that they interviewed an intelligence person that when asked about the religious implications of American troops on Saudi soil, he responded, “As a Christian, I can’t comment on Muslim beliefs”. That in itself tells me that the U.S. was acting without concern of what their actions might do, and hence adding to the hostility of the situation.
I figured the least the U.S. would do is hire a Muslim to review the responses in order to understand the repercussions. But, apparently I’m wrong.

P.S. manual labour is the greatest thing in the world. It leads nowhere, you gotta put up with managerial shit, and in the end you get… well, if your lucky, a descent pension. I can’t see anything wrong with it.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 September 2001 09:58 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think this conspiracy theory is a bit too far-fetched myself (although I remember thinking just after watching the second impact live, "So much for national missile defence" and "Here's your military budget on a silver platter, Georgie-boy").

Dubya may be a jerk who doesn't care about the poor in his country, or the way his policies affect people in developing countries, or even the way military actions would affect civilians in other countries. But I think that's because it's easy to think about those things in abstract instead of human terms. Doing something like this in NYC, on the other hand, would be impossible to think about in an abstract way when it's on your own turf, it's your own people, it's your economy (something he's close to) and you know your media will focus on it ad nauseum for weeks on end. I doubt he would be capable of doing that - hell, I doubt just about anyone would be capable of doing that. Well, obviously not ANYONE, because SOMEONE did it...


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 19 September 2001 11:40 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The other, in the documentary, was that they interviewed an intelligence person that when asked about the religious implications of American troops on Saudi soil, he responded, “As a Christian, I can’t comment on Muslim beliefs”. That in itself tells me that the U.S. was acting without concern of what their actions might do, and hence adding to the hostility of the situation. I figured the least the U.S. would do is hire a Muslim to review the responses in order to understand the repercussions. But, apparently I’m wrong.

Last night I heard Lewis Lapham of Harper's being interviewed on "As It Happens." He talked watching about a "60 Minutes" show on Sunday featuring three US intelligence people with responsibility for the Middle East -- none of whom spoke Arabic.

Again, he said that when the Iranian Revolution happened in 1978, none of the senior US embassy staff there spoke Farsi.

Going further back, during the Vietnam war only one US university taught Vietnamese.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 19 September 2001 12:12 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ah yes, the fabled American myopia which I have parodied and (pardon the pun) severely lanced in my posts to this board.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 19 September 2001 12:43 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Wow. That IS an awful question. I never thought of that.

And you call yourself a Canadian! I saw them interviewing military intelliegence on Newsworld and they asked the guy why the felt they could get Bin Laden now when they couldn`t before. He said that now they could send in ground troops which they couldn`t before because Americans back then were reluctant to shed American blood.

Whether they let it happen or not - they see the advantages of this event.


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 19 September 2001 01:25 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
military intelliegence

Ah, so many straight lines, so little time.

quote:
One was that a NY Times reporter (could be the one you referenced, lance) has been studying this story for years, but found resistance in reporting it (which means at least someone understood the threat).

My pointer was actually to a piece by Mary Anne Weaver of The New Yorker. Now there's a journalist with a deep understanding of her subject area, not to mention amazing access.

Around 1992 or so she got to accompany a lot of Saudi princes on their annual partridge hunt in Pakistan, and wrote about it in fascinating detail. A Western woman, and the only woman in the camp. How she managed that I'll never know.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
JCL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1387

posted 19 September 2001 03:28 PM      Profile for JCL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm sure people who are conspiracy theorists have had their stories rejected by Chris Carter, the producer and creator of the X-Files.

I'm sure some of these people have had watched one too many X-Files episodes in one day or sitting.


From: Winnipeg. 35 days to Christmas yet no snow here. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 19 September 2001 08:30 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
‘lance, I just thought the name of your NewYorker reporter sounded like the NY Times one. Just a conspiracy theory (oops, mistake).

Why is this a “conspiracy theory”? This is my operating assumption: things don’t appear from thin air, quarks and other sub atomic particles notwithstanding. Things happen for a reason. So, wouldn’t it be important to understand what the U.S. has done to generate this much resentment that allows Osama bin Laden to exist. Having troops on Saudi soil is not the reason the WTC was blown up. Lobbing missiles is not the reason the WTC happened. Funding terrorists and regimes viewed as illegitimate among the population did not cause this. Providing military weapons that are killing Palestinians did not cause this. But the International Court of clockwork dismisses the claim that this is a result of ‘global terrorism’ and that this was an unprovoked attacked (well, not to say it was provoked, though) on a benevolent and innocent United States, a government so munificent that all the world should prostrate itself to America for their contribution to peace, safety, and the instantiation of the ideal international citizen.

Put it another way, do you dismiss N. Ireland when talking about terrorism in Britain? Do you ignore Algeria when considering French terrorism? Chechnya and Russia? Occupied territories and Israel?
Maybe the conspiracy theory is that “global terrorism” is divorced of politics.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 September 2001 08:39 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
He talked watching about a "60 Minutes" show on Sunday featuring three US intelligence people with responsibility for the Middle East -- none of whom spoke Arabic.

I would assume that they are likely higher-up people who have Arabic-speaking spies reporting to them...how else would you gather intelligence??

quote:
Again, he said that when the Iranian Revolution happened in 1978, none of the senior US embassy staff there spoke Farsi.

I know one of those senior embassy staff (in fact, he was one of the hostages when the US embassy was taken in Iran in 1979). He is a friend of my husband's and speaks fluent Farsi. He did then too.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 19 September 2001 08:45 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Michelle, I have heard it apocryphally said that the State Department did not have a Canada desk until the middle-1970s.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 19 September 2001 08:46 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I would assume that they are likely higher-up people who have Arabic-speaking spies reporting to them...how else would you gather intelligence??

Oh, no doubt they have Arabic-speaking "assets." Lapham wasn't suggesting these people should put on native costume and slink around the bazaars, British "Great Game" style.

But the fact they don't speak or even read Arabic speaks to their relative ignorance of the societies they're supposed to be reporting on. If they couldn't even read the local newspapers, let alone talk to the cab drivers, they can't really arrive at any independent insights. All interpretation of local events would have to be done farther down the line.

As for Farsi speakers at the US Embassy, it appears Mr. Lapham was misinformed.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ian the second
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 732

posted 19 September 2001 08:58 PM      Profile for Ian the second   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I heard that U.S. Intelligence had knowledge of the attacks in the week or weeks leading up to them, and that there was increased security at the WTC and Pentagon.

I also heard that a prison inmate in Germany knew of the attacks beforehand too, and tried to tell prison officials, but was disregarded as a crank.

Anyone else heard this?


..?
<
=

Ian


From: Toronto City, Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kelly
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1416

posted 20 September 2001 07:02 AM      Profile for Kelly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Whether or not the gov't knew of the planned attacks, there is no question that Bush is benefitting from them. And of course he would not be frightened -- his interests, and family, will be protected even in the most dire war.
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 20 September 2001 09:49 AM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What I want to know is why we apparently received no warning at at from Miss Cleo!
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 20 September 2001 01:45 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
What I want to know is why we apparently received no warning at at from Miss Cleo!

My cat? But she never says anything. Doesn't even meow. Climbs, catches flies. Odd beast. Sweet, though.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wide Eyes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1414

posted 20 September 2001 02:02 PM      Profile for Wide Eyes        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wonder if the timing of the release of "Pearl Harbour" was to get the American mind set primed for a rally call to war...hmmm
American officials were also quick to make the comparisons of the NY attack to the "Pearl Harbour of the 21st century"
If the FDR theory (which I also believe to be true: There is a book out about this based on released gov't docs) they (the officials) should be wary about making these comparisons.

Or perhaps they're trying to tell us something.


From: a lofty perch in my basement | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 September 2001 04:22 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have a Jamaican-Canadian friend who HATES Miss Cleo. She writhes every time that commercial comes on the air...
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 20 September 2001 04:58 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I have a Jamaican-Canadian friend who HATES Miss Cleo. She writhes every time that commercial comes on the air...

O dear, out of the loop again. Can someone please clue me in?


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 September 2001 05:07 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Miss Cleo is a "psychic" who advertises on trash tv in the daytime. She wears traditional Jamaican clothing (wears a wrap in her hair, etc.), and she speaks with a kind of mock-patois that sounds somewhat Jamaican but that my friend says sounds a bit artifically emphasized to those who know.

I think it annoys her because the woman is such a caricature of Jamaican women, a way of portraying them in an unflattering light.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 20 September 2001 05:18 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ah. Sounds like I'm not missing much.

Our cat's really just Cleo, after Cleo Lane. Her big sister's Ella, after Miss Fitzgerald.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 20 September 2001 05:37 PM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What fascists rely on is the Big Lie. Hitler told Germans that Jews were simply being put somewhere for there own good almost suggesting that he was somehow protecting society from the excesses of racial prejudice.

Eisenhower warned Americans after the War that the military was a threat to democracy. Since Vietnam the citizen in the US has been largely skeptical of any cause that meant going abroad and risking one's life in a military crusade. The standard fear mongering goes that Americans, unlike Russians, or Germans, or Afghanistan freedom fighters do not have the guts for war and so we heard much clamouring for valour in arms in this present crisis. One might see the motivation of the Stangelovian psychotic deep in the bowels of the Norad bunker sonewhere thinking that this would be the perfect means to fire up the population and change their attitudes to militarism. Bush senior said of his military service in one of the debates with Clinton that going to war in 1941 was not an option but an inescapable duty when one's country called. But he lost because Clinton argued that the moral issues were different in the 1960s. What are the moral issues here? Is the terrorist evil less that the Hitlerian one? I don't think so. The point though is exactly the same. Killing innocent civilians will not kill a belief antagonistic to the American belief system. And as Neitchze points out what doesn't kill something makes it stronger, particularly on the ideological front. Myself though, I believe that you can wound something so badly that it will never recover in the real world. It has taken decades for South East Asia to recover from the bombings and destructions rained down on it by the US military. Afghanistan is utterly wasted by the Soviet assault of 1980 and remains desolate and empverished.

The irony is that what has been evident from the start is the utter futility of military might in this type of situation. Missles and bombs and aircraft carriers are ineffective against the so called "enemy". The only effective way to eliminate terrorism involves what the H/R girls and boys call the "thinking challenge" but on a socio-political scale far beyond the theoretical capability of the strategical thinkers in Washington.

To me it seems therefore that if this was somehow allowed to happen or as preposterous as it sounds, caused by sinister psychotic American officials in the military or elsewhwere, it has ultimately back fired.

Most Americans are first and formost grieving deeply for this loss of life, the loss of loved ones and loss of freedom, for that is what they believe it is. The spin doctors around Bush know this and repeatedly I would speculate urge him to talk about "defending freedom". But it is not easy to empathize with an ideology or a slogan when one's deepest values and feelings are in flux.

There was a report in the paper today that Bush had instructed fighter planes to shoot down any aircraft approaching Washington, the White House or the Pentagon. In fact there were initial reports that that is what happened to the plane that went down in Philadelphia.

But these are huge moral dilemas even if there is no grandiose conspiracy. One has to ask the question still. If there is no proof that directly points to Bin Laden or even and more damingly if there is, how did he get away with it ?

And there is the other question among the thousands that pop up. If he didn't do it who did?


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
marty raw
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1137

posted 23 September 2001 08:10 PM      Profile for marty raw     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Conspiracy theory. Did you know that Jesus was killed by a conspiracy? Some people have no problem believing that. It's been part of the historical record for two thousand years.
A wise man once said " Sometimes paranoia is just being cautious."
Remember, loose lips sink ships.

From: Toronto, baby | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 25 September 2001 02:13 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Who did it? Who knew?
It makes no difference to the outcome.
The ones who did it knew it was wrong (by the rules of every religion, by the moral values taught in every society) and did it anyway.
The response is just as inevitable.
To punish the innocent is wrong (by the rules.. etc); they know it's wrong, and they'll do it anyway.
Ruling elites (and the elite of the opposing faction) are above questions of right and wrong: they want what they want; nothing else matters. The rest of us are merely consumers, tax-payers, employees, ground-troops, incidental casualties - chattels.

From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca