Sunday, July 17, 2005

Scientology and Politology

Meanwhile, the London Times reports:
58 die in suicide attack
Some residents who rushed to the scene made gruesome discoveries in the blazing wreckage. "After the bomb I went over there and found my son's head. I could not find his body," said Mohsen Jassim, whose son was 18.
Ho, hum, you say. Just another day in Iraq. And yes, it is just another day in Iraq, one filled with flying bits of blood, bone and other assorted organs. It doesn't say how many were children. Ho, hum. It does say that it was "crowded with people buying tea, soft drinks and snacks." Guess there were children there. Ho, hum.

George Bush doesn't believe in Science (that's with a capital S). Oh, of course, he does trust his staff to patch up his bicycle wounds (I wouldn't advise a child to ride his bike again if that child had as many accidents as our Pres; I'd get a head scan). One assumes that his medical staff aren't witch doctors or shamen, though that would be something that might have kept us out of Iraq. What G.W. doesn't believe in is the scientific method. That is, one that postulates a theory, e.g. Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger, then collects evidence, e.g. sends a former ambassador to scout it out, and then makes a decision based on the evidence at hand, e.g. Iraq didn't try to buy uranium in Niger in the late 90's since there was little evidence to support the theory. It doesn't work that way in G.W. World, where the laws of Science don't hold. As Josh Marshall says, in G.W. World, up is down.

What G.W. believes in is a type of Scientology called Politology. He has constructed a view of the world that has everything revolve around the planet "himself" and his tight circle of wealthy pols. Things aren't based on evidence, they are based on whatever is politically expedient. Exhibit A in this is, of course, the great, past shenanigans of Karl Rove and the Iraq War gang in their movie, "How I Subverted the Constitution of the U. S. of A. while looking like Porky Pig."

Children should not be getting blown to bits anywhere in the world, particularly where we are somehow responsible for their well being, e.g. Iraq. It is a simple, scientific problem.

Theory1: Children are getting blown to bits because men and women have decided that this is the only thing they can do to rid themselves of an occupying force (Americm Britain and a few others in Iraq and Afghanistan; Israel and America in Palestine). It has extended to America on 9/11 and London on 7/7. It has extended to multiple other sites in the last 35 years (it started in 1971 on the tarmac of the airport in Cairo).

Theory2: Children are getting blown to bits ..... etc. because "they hate our freedom."

Evidence: The men and women who do this appear to have an inexhaustible supply of explosives and there appears to be an inexhaustible supply of recruits. Forays into Afghanistan, first hailed as a success, but more recently sinking back into chaos, and Iraq have done nothing but exacerbate the problem. However, we have no real insight into the psychology of the terrorist.

Conclusion1: We have little or no evidence if this theory is correct. However, it has not been proven wrong. It is an open theory.

Conclusion2: There is no evidence to support theory2. We have been operating on a probably faulty theory for four years. Any real scientist in his right mind would go back to the drawing boards.

We need lots more information as to why those who will give their lives as a suicide bomber will do it. I confess that I don't understand. But then, I'm sitting here in a comfortable room without the threat of flying body parts.

And G.W. can go talk to Tom Cruise. I'm not interested in what either of them says. Its all Politology.

The only people who have benefited from this are the stockholders of Haliburton. If Haliburton is anything like medical insurance companies, i.e. if it follows the corporate rule, then "stockholders" are principally a small coterie of men and women who are on the Board of Directors and who own almost all the assets and receive most of the wealth. Incidentally, they also got G.W. elected. But, that is our problem, not the problem of the children of Iraq.

Final thought: Freedom is an abstract. You don't care about abstracts if your child is sailing past you along with the body parts of other children. You simply want "it" to stop.

5 comments:

mikey said...

Wow. It's amazing how you've made it G.W.'s fault that those kids in Iraq got blown up. It's amazing because of how illogical your conclusion is.

Theory 1 is not correct because blowing up people, including little kids, is not the only thing a group of people can do to remove an occupying force. Is that the way it works in your neck of the woods? This supposition is also incorrect because you're assuming these Muslim murderers in Iraq would be nice if we just left.

Not to get into the whole link between 9/11 and Iraq (BTW, have you read the references to Iraq in the 9/11 commission report?) but whether these murderers are in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, they have similar intentions. There is something about us they don't like.

Why were attacked on 9/11? We were just minding our own business at that point. I think you are incredibly naive to think that if we "left everyone alone," that these evil people wouldn't kill.

Regarding theory 2, there is something about us these Muslim fanatics don't like. Why couldn't it be our freedom? I think that's as good a theory as any. So to say there is NO evidence that they hate our freedom is very, very presumptuous. In fact, you sound very politological (not sure how to use that word as an adjective) to me, as opposed to being scientific.

You are correct that children (and adults) shouldn't be getting blown to bits anywhere in the world. I wholeheartedly agree with you on that point. But it's not G.W.'s fault these radical Muslims are so evil that they have no respect for human life. They did these same things before G.W., they will do these same things after G.W.

These Muslim terrorists are nothing more than bullies. And there is a point at which bullies need to be dealt with. Saddam was a bully, and he had links with other bullies, including Bin Laden as documented in an ABC news story back in 1998 (here's the link:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/rm/cyber/2004/binladen061704/segment1.ram

After 9/11 and after 12(?) years of Saddams antics, I think G.W. was absolutely correct in carrying out Bill Clintons policy of regime change in Iraq.

Final thought: Just like love, evil, grace,... freedom is an abstract. It is an abstract that is worthy of being protected. If we are unwilling to fight and destroy the kind of evil that blows up innocent children, then our cowardice dishonors the memory of those children and we are no longer masters over evil, but slaves to it.

Redjalapeno said...

mikey,

If the United States had not invaded Iraq, would there be an occupying American force?

Do you think that Muslim extremists would be committing the same acts of terror in Iraq had we not gone in and removed all structure of that society? You do know that the level of terror attacks have increased some %300+ world wide since we tore up Iraq? Remember when Condi Rice tried to suppress that report?

What options do ‘a group’ have in Iraq, as far as removing the occupying force? What group are you talking about specifically?

Ditto the question in the Israel/Palestine conflict.

“This supposition is also incorrect because you're assuming these Muslim murderers in Iraq would be nice if we just left.”

Why did these Muslim extremists begin their campaign in Iraq and what is the goal of this campaign?

“There is something about us they don't like.” “…there is something about us these Muslim fanatics don't like. Why couldn't it be our freedom? I think that's as good a theory as any.”

As good a theory as any. You just made Doc’s point about the lack of rational thinking that went into the rush to achieve regime change in a country we know very little if anything about. Case in point: the completely false intelligence that was the basis for the Iraq invasion, or at least what was sold to the American public. Also, if Muslim extremists hate us so much, why are they killing mostly Iraqi's now?

How’s this for a ‘theory that is as good as any’: Bush’s sole intent was to remove Saddam Hussein from power militarily. Mission Accomplished. Bush and his gang want to control the oil in the middle east for U.S purposes. They couldn’t invade Saudi Arabia, or any other oil rich nation in the middle east, other than Iraq. Iraq is no match for us militarily so this would be easy. All we have to do is come up with a plan that will sell the world on removal of Hussein. Being just a threat to the U.S. may not garner enough world-wide support to invade. We need something that suggests Hussein is a mad man bent on destroying the world.

WMD’s! Yes, he will acquire nuclear capability and destroy us all. Colin Powell puts together a slide show for the U.N. showing aluminum tubes and a couple of trucks traveling through the desert. A threat indeed!

Now, reference 9-11 to Iraq as often as you can. Aka ‘scare tactic’.

Mission Accomplished; Saddam is removed.

No WMD’s found? How ‘bout that. Ain’t that something.

Connections between Iraq and 9-11? Tenuous at the very best, but no matter. The faithful Bush followers will always see a connection between 9-11 and Iraq.

Osama: religious figure, lives in caves, organizes jihad against western interests

Saddam: dictator, sectarian, lives in plain view in opulence, a bully by appearance, but really just a saber-rattler once he got his butt kicked the first time.

These two are ideologically opposed, but no matter. They’re both from the middle east so there ya go!

Was Saddam involved in 9-11? No, but neither were those Palestinians that jumped for joy when the Towers came down. Think about that if you can.

Interesting how you cite ABC when attempting to link 9-11 to Saddam. Isn’t the mainstream media full of liberal bias and cannot be trusted? The link did not work for me by the way, so if you could post another link to another credible article, that would be appreciated.

Also, could you show me Bill Clinton’s plan on militarily invading Iraq and forcefully removing Saddam? Really, I would like to see that plan. I thought liberals were all sissies and want to offer therapy and understanding for terrorists, or at least that’s what Karl Rove said. You know him don’t you, Bush refers to him as The Architect.

“If we are unwilling to fight and destroy the kind of evil that blows up innocent children…” Again I ask you, were these innocent children, women and men being blown up prior to the U.S. led invasion into Iraq?

How many innocent children, women and men were killed during our invasion? How do you reconcile those deaths? Collateral damage that is justified in removing Saddam over WMD’s he did not possess? Is it justifiable to say they must die in order for the United States to instill democracy at the butt of a gun in Mesopotamia? Or is it ok that those people died because we lost people on 9-11, even though Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11? Saddam does have a criminal trial coming up, it will be interesting to see how much involvement he had in 9-11 and what the charges will be, don’t you think mikey? Oh wait, those are crimes he committed against the people of Iraq, and has nothing to do with us. Do you think there will be a trial to attempt to convict him for his actions surrounding 9-11? Really, that's a serious question, just like everything else here I've asked.

Did you stop to think that the violence that is occurring now is because we ARE an occupying force, instilling a hand picked puppet government that is attempting to force a way of life on a culture that is so vastly different than ours?

Is bloodshed the only way to win the ideological war between good and evil that so many on the right seem to be absorbed in? Is that the answer: war?

If that were the answer, would not there be but just one war, and that would be the end of evil? Why then do we continue to have wars, around the globe? Can evil ever be defeated by war if we continue to have war after war after war?

“If we are unwilling to fight and destroy the kind of evil that blows up innocent children, then our cowardice dishonors the memory of those children and we are no longer masters over evil, but slaves to it.”

Did you ever stop to think that is exactly how the civilians of Iraq view the occupying force of the U.S and Britain?

Are we masters over evil? Is that what this war in Iraq is about? If we ‘win’ this war does that mean we will be masters over evil and we will no longer have to fight these wars?

Did you ever stop and look at the amount of evil the U.S. has committed in this war against Saddam and his non-existent WMD’s that were so evangelically sold to the American public while collectively still suffering from Osama bin Laden’s attack in New York?

Did you ever stop and look at the world through the eyes of people that have borne the brunt or fallout from U.S. aggression?

“After 9/11 and after 12(?) years of Saddam's antics, I think G.W. was absolutely correct in carrying out Bill Clintons policy of regime change in Iraq.” This is called transference. Inside your head, you know that Iraq is a complete debacle, and was and is unjustifiable by any standard. Rather than suck it up, admit your man was wrong, and hold him accountable, you want to transfer all of it to Clinton, that it was his idea and Bush is just a stooge that fell prey to Clinton’s policies. I could be wrong about that but if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, well then, it's most likely a duck. One cannot be sure of that unless the matter is investigated thoroughly, so I apologize if I am mistaken.

Dr. C is dead on when showing how Bush used his own mindset, his own way of thinking, as opposed to what is reality. Bush thinks ideologically, not with reality. The reality is staring us all in the face and it would do you as well as the rest of America that refuses to see what is before them, a great deal of good to learn how to think critically and then apply that scientific standard to the current situation in Iraq.

You can keep tweeting the party line all you want, but the facts are showing us something entirely different. That is what reality does, it rears it’s ugly head sooner or later. That rosy Mission Accomplished picture faded pretty fast didn’t it?

Why is that?

mikey, I have been advised to ignore you, as your posts seem only to incite, not debate. You are full of hatred for liberals, and reference Clinton in every post you make. In short; a troll.

I am hestitant to engage you further due to this being Dr. C's website, not mine or yours.

Here is your chance to construct true debate. Show that the reasons for going to war with Iraq are factual, truthful, and necessary. Show that Hussein had WMD's. Show that he had nuclear capability or was acquiring nuclear capability. Show the timeline of such capability. Show that Saddam was complicit in 9-11. Show that Bush had foresight into Iraq and had a plan once the dictator was deposed.

Better yet, why not construct a post with all of this factual data you possess and post it on your blog? I'll be the first one there to debate your findings.

mikey said...

Yo Red,

Missed ya buddy. Not really though. I always have a hard time finding any point in your posts. They usually consist of a lot of angry suspicions regarding G.W., the establishment, or whatever. You been smoking some of those peppers?

I'll stick to your last little bit and respond to that. You said: Here is your chance to construct true debate. Show that the reasons for going to war with Iraq are factual, truthful, and necessary.

The reasons for going to war with Iraq were because
1. Every intelligence agency in the world believed that Saddam had WMD
2. Saddam had proven he was willing to use WMD since he used chemical weapons on the Kurds
3. Saddam had known connections with terrorists

There may be more reasons, but these are the only ones that I think are important for our discussion.

Show that Hussein had WMD's. Show that he had nuclear capability or was acquiring nuclear capability. Point #2 should be proof enough for showing that Saddam had WMD's since he actually used them on his own people. Do WMD have to be nuclear, or can they be chemical? I think I've proven he had chemical WMD. As for nuclear, I don't think he did have them. We did find 500 pounds of yellow cake in one of Saddams munitions dumps after we invaded. Is that proof that he was acquiring the capability? Seems like a pretty good starting point. All he needed was the know-how.

Show the timeline of such capability. Who knows? Who cares? If it was within 10 years, that's too soon for me.

Show that Saddam was complicit in 9-11. How is this even relevant? This was never an issue for going to war. If you think it was, then you're making this up in your conspiracy-crazy mind. G.W. said a thousand times if he said it once that he never implicated Saddam in what happened on 9/11. He investigated the possibility (that's just smart), but he said he never found a connection.

Show that Bush had foresight into Iraq and had a plan once the dictator was deposed. I'm not sure how this pertains to your argument, but I'm sure they had a plan, just like you probably have a plan when you start your posts. But then, somewhere along the way you decide to change direction, emphasize things differently, etc. I think if you look at the quick success the U.S. military had in overtaking Bagdad, the fact that Saddam and so many of his henchmen have been killed or captured, as well as so many al-qaeda leaders, that a democratic government has been set up, that an Iraqi police force and army is being trained and growing every day, and that Iraq's economy is growing by leaps and bounds is all evidence that there is a plan.

And Red, since I've responded to your "challenge," when are you going to respond to mine? I've never heard from you how George Bush actually lied. Remember, lying is different than being wrong. And please, no more long lists of complaints.

Redjalapeno said...

mikey says:

“I always have a hard time finding any point in your posts. They usually consist of a lot of angry suspicions regarding G.W., the establishment, or whatever.” – If you can’t see the points, well that’s that, and not a surprise either. The 'establishment' or 'whatever'? What the hell are you talking about?

Here is some info regarding my “angry suspicions regarding GW”:

Bush: Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

Reality: Zero Chemical Weapons Found.
Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq.

Bush: “U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein
had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable
of delivering chemical agents.”
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

Reality: Zero Munitions Found.
Not a single chemical weapon’s munitions has been found anywhere in Iraq.

Bush: “We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

Reality: Zero Aerial Vehicles Found.
Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq.

Bush: "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people
now in custody reveal that
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

Reality: Zero Al Qaeda Connection.
To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations have been revealed.
(besides certain Palestinian groups who represent no direct threat to the US)

Bush: "Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

Reality: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production -- months before the war.

Bush: "Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."
Bush speech to the nation – 10/7/2002

Reality: Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there.
IAEA report to UN Security Council – 1/27/2003

Bush: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

Reality: The documents implied were known at the time by Bush to be forged and not credible.

Cheney: "We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
VP Dick Cheney – “Meet the Press” 3/16/2003

Reality: “The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."
IAEA report to UN Security Council – 3/7/2003 (The
500 tons of yellowcake had been inventoried by the IAEA under UNSCOM. It was reinventoried by the IAEA under UNMOVIC. It was intact up until the inspectors left shortly before the invasion began.)

These quotes alone should provide enough for you to see that Bush was lying to the American people about the reasons for war. Those quotes should answer your nuclear questions as well, which I am surprised you were unaware of, being a pro-Bushie.

“1. Every intelligence agency in the world believed that Saddam had WMD”
Excellent point. If everyone believes that jumping in the fire is the right thing to do, then we should do it, while everybody else watches.

Who’s intelligence agency constructed the case for war based on WMD? Answer: THE UNITED STATES.

Who went before the U.N. and made the case for war based on WMD’s and nuclear capabilities that Saddam possessed? Answer: THE UNITED STATES.

Who’s ‘evidence’ of such accusations have been debunked completely? Answer: THE UNITED STATES.

Who is the President of the United States? Answer: GEORGE BUSH

Who is the Commander in Chief of the United States: Answer: GEORGE BUSH

Who gave the order to invade Iraq: GEORGE BUSH

Who do you say lied about Iraq: NOBODY, Bush just got it wrong.

By your logic, Bush makes a pretty weak leader. He was wrong. His being wrong is sure costing us a lot of lives and money and allies, not to mention generating a whole new generation of extremists with an axe to grind with the U.S. Ooh, I feel safer already.

Can you find any fault with Bush, mikey?

“2. Saddam had proven he was willing to use WMD since he used chemical weapons on the Kurds”

Yes, he proved that he was willing to gas a group of Kurds that had no military power in which to defend themselves. One hell of a long stretch from that to using WMD’s or nuclear weapons against the world’s number one military power, the UNITED STATES.
Do you honestly think Saddam Hussien was going to pick a fight with the United States? The one thing about bullies mikey, they pick fights with people that are weaker than they are. Hmmm...we did invade Iraq...

“3. Saddam had known connections with terrorists”
Simply parroting the party line does not make it so. You simply state this. Where is your proof of such connections? A single meeting between Bin Laden and some of Saddam's generals in 1990 does not a connection make.

“There may be more reasons, but these are the only ones that I think are important for our discussion.” I beg to differ. It’s in your best interest to bring every factual reason for invading Iraq to the table, along with verifiable proof. Oh wait, you're pro-Bush, all you need is a reason, doesn't have to be factual or supported by any evidence.

“I think I've proven he had chemical WMD”

How did you prove that? By saying the he had it? Where are these chemicals mikey? Why isn’t the administration showing the world the trophy chemical WMD’s that were the reason for this war? Seems that would silence the critics the world over would it not? Also, ‘had’ as in had them a long time ago when he gassed the Kurds, or ‘had’ as in he ‘had’ them when we invaded.

If he did have them, why didn’t he use them on the invading forces?

If Saddam was a madman bent on destroying the world or the United States through chemical or nuclear WMD’s, then surely he would have used them against the very invading force that he was going to use them against in the first place, right? That's why we went in wasn't it? Oh wait, it was to liberate the Iraqi people and spread democracy, at the butt of a gun.

“Who knows? Who cares? If it was within 10 years, that's too soon for me.”

In other words, you don’t know, and that’s enough reason to go to war and let the innocents die.
Using that logic dear little mikey, we should be invading every freaking country on the planet. That same logic would never stand up to scrutiny in any scientific arena, but it makes huge gains in heresay land.

"‘Show that Saddam was complicit in 9-11’. How is this even relevant? This was never an issue for going to war. If you think it was, then you're making this up in your conspiracy-crazy mind. G.W. said a thousand times if he said it once that he never implicated Saddam in what happened on 9/11.”

Really? Go here, here, here, here and here.

What was that? “…G.W. said a thousand times if he said it once that he never implicated Saddam in what happened on 9/11.”

So who was the Washington Post quoting in that first link? Looks like George Bush, sounds like George Bush, golly, I think it’s George Bush.

“I've never heard from you how George Bush actually lied.”

And you never will. You don’t and won’t believe anything else, even though the facts are staring you in the face. We have pointed it out to you over and over and over again, and thus you have earned your troll status.

mikey said...

Red,

You really like long posts, don't you? You mention many of Bush's statements regarding Iraq's weapons, then you conclude that none of them are right. Now, there are several of your statements that are flat out wrong.

Zero chemical weapons? Wrong. Chemical weapons were found, just in very small numbers. No stockpile to be sure. This is the one thing we know for sure that Saddam had since we know he used them on the Kurds! Have you not seen the pictures of dead Kurds strewn about villages after Saddam used chemical WMD on them? Isn't that proof enough for you? Do you think he just ran out of them by the time we got there?

Zero aerial vehicles? Wrong again, some missiles with long range potential were found. Still nothing in great quantities, but they were there.

Zero al-qaeda connection? Wrong again. Definite connections have been found. The 9/11 report mentions a few. Did they involve Saddam directly? The 9/11 report says no. The other point the 9/11 commission makes is that there is no evidence that the relationship between al-qaeda and Iraq was collaborative. The only thing Bush differs on is that he believes Saddam must have directly known about some of theses meetings between al-qaeda and high-ranking Iraqi gov't officials. Bush has no proof, but it's not that wild of an assumption, and it's also not the reason he went to war.

No link between Saddam and terrorists? Wrong. If your computer worked, you could have followed the link in my previous post to see ABC news mention 3 high profile terrorists with connections to Iraq.

The British intelligence documents regarding Saddam seeking uranium were found to be forged? Very wrong! Were do you get this? The British STILL stand by that document today!

I also visited the 5 links you provided to "prove" Bush linked Saddam with 9/11. Have you read any of them? Two of them explicitly state the Bush made it clear that Saddam/Iraq and al-qaeda did not have a collaborative relationship with regards to 9/11. Get this through those peppers in your brain. Bush believed that Iraq was linked with al-qaeda. Bush did NOT believe Iraq was linked with 9/11. See the difference? You find me anywhere in your articles that quotes Bush saying anything different.

And I see you are running away from my challenge. Why will I never hear anything about how Bush lied. That's the charge you made. Why don't you back it up?