32 replies to this topic

[Tucson Frog]

[Deep Purple]

Was the mis-rigged car bomb in Times Square a water bottle?  Relying on the amateurish incompetence of terrorist recruits is not a security policy.  The harmless cooler (containing only water bottles and magazines) that later prompted a second evacuation of Times Square could well have turned out to be something different.  If it had been a bomb, if our security had discounted it, and if it had wound up killing a substantial number of Americans, would you not now be railing about the incompetence of our security?

It's pretty easy to ridicule security in the aftermath of a false alarm.  It's also easy to second-guess them after a tragedy they failed to circumvent due to inadequate response.  People like you get the best of both worlds.  You can be superior and criticize in two out of three potential scenarios: 1) if they failed to detect a real threat, 2) if they detected it and failed to prevent it.  It's only when they detect and prevent a real threat that you lose.  The odds are in your favor.

You kind of remind me of a businessman I encountered on a connecting flight that was grounded 40 minutes in Atlanta due to suspicion of mechanical problems.  This guy ridiculed and cursed the ground crew as they checked out the engines.  Then when we were told we had to transfer to another plane because the one we were on had been grounded, he really ripped out and cussed them up and down.  I asked him, "Would you rather they had allowed this plane to take off without first assuring that it was safe to fly?  I wouldn't.  I'm glad they're taking precautions to make sure we're safe."

So he turned to cursing me.  But our fellow-passengers loudly ridiculed him and agreed with me.  He shut up and got red in the face.

Second-guessers are invariably fools who ought to be called down.  Lives are at stake.  Their inconvenience matters little in comparison.

[Tucson Frog]

Was the mis-rigged car bomb in Times Square a water bottle?  Relying on the amateurish incompetence of terrorist recruits is not a security policy.  The harmless cooler (containing only water bottles and magazines) that later prompted a second evacuation of Times Square could well have turned out to be something different.  If it had been a bomb, if our security had discounted it, and if it had wound up killing a substantial number of Americans, would you not now be railing about the incompetence of our security?

It's pretty easy to ridicule security in the aftermath of a false alarm.  It's also easy to second-guess them after a tragedy they failed to circumvent due to inadequate response.  People like you get the best of both worlds.  You can be superior and criticize in two out of three potential scenarios: 1) if they failed to detect a real threat, 2) if they detected it and failed to prevent it.  It's only when they detect and prevent a real threat that you lose.  The odds are in your favor.

You kind of remind me of a businessman I encountered on a connecting flight that was grounded 40 minutes in Atlanta due to suspicion of mechanical problems.  This guy ridiculed and cursed the ground crew as they checked out the engines.  Then when we were told we had to transfer to another plane because the one we were on had been grounded, he really ripped out and cussed them up and down.  I asked him, "Would you rather they had allowed this plane to take off without first assuring that it was safe to fly?  I wouldn't.  I'm glad they're taking precautions to make sure we're safe."

So he turned to cursing me.  But our fellow-passengers loudly ridiculed him and agreed with me.  He shut up and got red in the face.

Second-guessers are invariably fools who ought to be called down.  Lives are at stake.  Their inconvenience matters little in comparison.

How stupid of me. I didn't realize the cartoon was about a water bottle.

[HFrog71]

The reaction now being seen in New York City is identical to what has been going on at military installations since the bombing of the Khobar Towers in 1996.

Reports of "suspicious packages" and the scrambling of police/explosive ordinance disposal crews became almost an everyday event.  Many a briefcase and "package from home" left attended for even a few minutes were cordoned off, inspected by an EOD robot, and blown up.

Of course, all buildings in the surrounding area had to be evacuated.

- - - -

If you're interested in a good read--provided you can still find the book--I recommend "The Final Jihad" by Martin Keating.  Published in 1996 by Logical Figments Books, it provides a prophetic look at radical terror attacks within the United States.

[Tucson Frog]

The reaction now being seen in New York City is identical to what has been going on at military installations since the bombing of the Khobar Towers in 1996.

Reports of "suspicious packages" and the scrambling of police/explosive ordinance disposal crews became almost an everyday event.  Many a briefcase and "package from home" left attended for even a few minutes were cordoned off, inspected by an EOD robot, and blown up.

Of course, all buildings in the surrounding area had to be evacuated.

- - - -

If you're interested in a good read--provided you can still find the book--I recommend "The Final Jihad" by Martin Keating.  Published in 1996 by Logical Figments Books, it provides a prophetic look at radical terror attacks within the United States.

Thanks for the tip about "The Final Jihad". I have not read the book but I will make it a point to do so. It is still available.

[Deep Purple]

How stupid of me. I didn't realize the cartoon was about a water bottle.

There's nothing funny about a water bottle.  The intended humor is in the police officer's supposed overreaction to the water bottle.

Of course, all reactions are overreactions until something explodes and kills people.

[Tucson Frog]

There's nothing funny about a water bottle.  The intended humor is in the police officer's supposed overreaction to the water bottle.

Of course, all reactions are overreactions until something explodes and kills people.

I am quite sure your perception is correct. It always is isn't it?

I find it tragic that they are getting the reaction from us they wanted.

How arrogant can you get. It's "people like you." You don't know what kind of people I am. I told you before that I would be glad to meet with you.

I swore to myself that I would not get into words with you again but just for the record I consider you rude to the max and I don't care at all for rude people. That's my perception.

I have tried to keep personal comments out of my comments, not always successfully but that seems to be your mode with everyone with whom you disagree.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

I am quite sure your perception is correct. It always is isn't it?

I find it tragic that they are getting the reaction from us they wanted.

How arrogant can you get. It's "people like you." You don't know what kind of people I am. I told you before that I would be glad to meet with you.

I swore to myself that I would not get into words with you again but just for the record I consider you rude to the max and I don't care at all for rude people. That's my perception.

I have tried to keep personal comments out of my comments, not always successfully but that seems to be your mode with everyone with whom you disagree.

I'm on side here as well (including--with a very few, very select, and well-deserved exceptions--your opinion of personal comments).

Bruce Schneier a noted cryptographic and cybersecurity type this week in his blog observed the following from a conference in Dallas earlier this month:

Worst-Case Thinking

At a security conference recently, the moderator asked the panel of distinguished cybersecurity leaders what their nightmare scenario was. The answers were the predictable array of large-scale attacks: against our communications infrastructure, against the power grid, against the financial system, in combination with a physical attack.

I didn't get to give my answer until the afternoon, which was: "My nightmare scenario is that people keep talking about their nightmare scenarios."

There's a certain blindness that comes from worst-case thinking. An extension of the precautionary principle, it involves imagining the worst possible outcome and then acting as if it were a certainty. It substitutes imagination for thinking, speculation for risk analysis and fear for reason. It fosters powerlessness and vulnerability and magnifies social paralysis. And it makes us more vulnerable to the effects of terrorism.

For the rest see the first article here http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-1005.html.  Subscribing to his blog is not a bad idea if you're interested in these isues.

[weklfrog]

The message of the cartoon is less about over-reaction as it is that we now must react to things that in the past were innocuous.  We live in fear of every day objects and activities and having to react to them is very disruptive and expensive.  That is were the terrorists have won. They have changed our society.  Its not that we shouldn't react to such innocent objects as a water bottle, its that we have to.

[Tucson Frog]

I'm on side here as well (including--with a very few, very select, and well-deserved exceptions--your opinion of personal comments).

Bruce Schneier a noted cryptographic and cybersecurity type this week in his blog observed the following from a conference in Dallas earlier this month:

Worst-Case Thinking

At a security conference recently, the moderator asked the panel of distinguished cybersecurity leaders what their nightmare scenario was. The answers were the predictable array of large-scale attacks: against our communications infrastructure, against the power grid, against the financial system, in combination with a physical attack.

I didn't get to give my answer until the afternoon, which was: "My nightmare scenario is that people keep talking about their nightmare scenarios."

There's a certain blindness that comes from worst-case thinking. An extension of the precautionary principle, it involves imagining the worst possible outcome and then acting as if it were a certainty. It substitutes imagination for thinking, speculation for risk analysis and fear for reason. It fosters powerlessness and vulnerability and magnifies social paralysis. And it makes us more vulnerable to the effects of terrorism.

For the rest see the first article here http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-1005.html.  Subscribing to his blog is not a bad idea if you're interested in these isues.

Thanks NewfoundlandFrog

Conclusions drawn from false premises are always false

The irrational power of the "magic magnifying mind".

There's a certain blindness that comes from worst-case thinking. An extension of the precautionary principle, it involves imagining the worst possible outcome and then acting as if it were a certainty. It substitutes imagination for thinking, speculation for risk analysis and fear for reason. It fosters powerlessness and vulnerability and magnifies social paralysis. And it makes us more vulnerable to the effects of terrorism

.

Right Donald, We know that we don't know so I guess we need to go to war.

Remember Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's quote? "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." And this: "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Ignorance isn't a cause for doubt; when you can fill that ignorance with imagination, it can be a call to action.

In fairness to Powell he was following the lead of George Tenet.

To make his case before the U.N., Bush dispatched the most credible official in his administration, Secretary of State Colin Powell.
By the time Powell was assigned to make the case for war, he counted himself among the growing list of officials nervous about the quality of the WMD intelligence. Indeed, Powell may have been one of the best positioned officials to know that the threat from Iraq was being exaggerated

"Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries."2
“There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction.”

.

[NatonWolf]

Thanks NewfoundlandFrog

Conclusions drawn from false premises are always false

The irrational power of the "magic magnifying mind".

.

Right Donald, We know that we don't know so I guess we need to go to war.
In fairness to Powell he was following the lead of George Tenet.
.

This may be of interest to all of you.
Knowledge, Truth and Human Action: America Hits the Wall


"Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true." [paraphrased Buddhist saying]
Americans have a problem with the truth. They seem to be unable to accept it, which is difficult to understand at a time in history when knowledge plays a larger and larger role in determining human action. Recognition of this problem is widespread. Beliefs and lies somehow always overwhelm truth, even when they are so contradictory that any effective action becomes impossible. A kind of national, psychological paralysis occurs. Nothing can be done because one belief contradicts another, and for some unknown reason, the facts don't matter. Even during those times when an overwhelming belief does compel action, Americans rush headlong into it neglecting the adage that headlong often means wrong.

The number of programs enacted by the Congress that don't work is huge. The war on drugs which began in 1969 has shown no measurable results; yet it continues unabated and has resulted in destabilizing other nations, especially Mexico. Various immigration reforms have proven so ineffective that the people are turning to their own solutions. Tough on crime programs have been enacted numerous times without any measurable reduction in criminal behavior. Educational reforms have proven to be illusionary. Inconclusive wars have been and continue to be fought. No one, it appears, ever wants to measure anything by its results. The nation continues to do the same things over and over again expecting different results, an activity Einstein described as insanity.

Paul Craig Roberts writes, "Today Americans are ruled by propaganda. Americans have little regard for truth, little access to it, and little ability to recognize it. Truth is an unwelcome entity. It is disturbing. It is off limits. Those who speak it run the risk of being branded 'anti-American,' 'anti-semite' or 'conspiracy theorist.' Truth is an inconvenience for government and for the interest groups whose campaign contributions control government. Truth is an inconvenience for prosecutors who want convictions, not the discovery of innocence or guilt. Truth is inconvenient for ideologues." Unfortunately he casts the blame on the characters of people: "economists sell their souls for filthy lucre. . . . medical doctors who, for money, have published in peer-reviewed journals concocted 'studies' that hype this or that new medicine produced by pharmaceutical companies that paid for the 'studies. . . .' Wherever one looks, truth has fallen to money."

Honoré de Balzac said, "behind every great fortune lies a great crime." So too, behind every dumb practice lies a dumb idea.

This debasement of truth stems from two misguided beliefs that many Americans hold. They affect much of American society and define the American psyche. One belief is that the truth emerges from a debate between adversaries. The other is the belief that everyone has a right to his/her own opinion.

Many American activities are based on the these beliefs. In law, the system is called adversarial. The prosecutor and defense attorneys are adversaries. Each side presents its evidence and the truth is somehow supposed to emerge. In journalism it is called balance. Two adversaries are asked to give their sides of an issue, and the truth is somehow supposed to emerge. In politics, it is called the two party system, where the majority party and the minority party, often called the opposition, are adversaries who present their sides of the issue. Again, somehow it is believed the truth will emerge and effective legislation will then be enacted. But it doesn't work, never has, never will.

Suppose two people who lived in the same community at a specific time in the past are talking about the weather on February 14th of some year. One says, "We had three inches of snow that day." The other says, "No, we had heavy rain and flash flood warnings." Who is right? Unless someone checks the weather bureau's records, the argument can't be resolved. And what if the weather bureau's records show that the weather on that day was clear with no precipitation? Neither adversary is right; the truth never emerges.

So do these adversaries have the right to their own opinions? The belief that everyone has a right to his/her own opinion is ludicrous. If your bank sends you a notice saying that you've overdrawn your account, can you counter with, "Not in my opinion"? If this maxim had any validity, truth and falsehood would have equal value. No dispute could ever be settled because the facts don't matter. Yet many in America seem to hold this view.

The point is that no debate between adversaries will reveal the truth if neither is willing to check the facts, or as is often the case in politics, just lying. But why would adversaries do that? In a legal action, because both sides want to win and will reveal only what is favorable to their sides. "As everybody knows, at least one of the lawyers in every case in which the facts are in dispute is out to hide or distort the truth or part of the truth, not to help the court discover it. . . . The notion that in a clash between two trained principle-wielders, one of whom is wearing the colors of inaccuracy and falsehood, the truth will always or usually prevail is in essence nothing but a hang-over from the medieval custom of trial by battle and is in essence equally absurd."

Peter Murphy in his Practical Guide to Evidence cites this story (likely apocryphal): A frustrated judge in an English adversarial court, after witnesses had produced conflicting accounts, finally asked a barrister, "Am I never to hear the truth?" "No, my lord, replied counsel, merely the evidence."

In politics, each side has a favored constituency to protect. In journalism, the journalist doesn't want to be accused of bias. In 2006, Dan Froomkin, former columnist at the Washington Post, wrote, "There’s the fear of being labeled partisan. . . ." But that fear would be dispelled if journalists checked the facts.

Listening to politicians or pundits debate issues should prompt listeners to ask, "Am I never to hear the truth?" The answer would always the same, "No, just our opinions." Yet basing public policy on the opinions of journalists, pundits, politicians, and even jurists is a hazardous endeavor. Since everyone has a right to his/her own opinion, why should anyone care about the opinions of others? None of us should, but somehow the establishment believes we do.

Consider so called experts, for example. Can two "experts," each with different points of view really be experts? "Expert" economists contradict each other all the time. One "thinks" this and another "thinks" that, but neither "knows" anything. Writing teachers routinely tell students, "Don’t tell me what you think. Tell me what you know." Apparently our economists never studied composition. Harry Truman once said, "If you took all the economists in the world and laid them end to end, they'd still point in different directions!" Right up until the economic crash of 2007, experts were telling us that "the economic fundamentals were sound." After the crash occurred, the logical thing to do would have been to conclude that the fundamental economic indicators were misleading at best and shouldn't be relied upon. Yet three years hence, economists are still basing their conclusions (estimates, opinions) on the same fundamental economic indicators. But suppose a chef had an oven that consistently undercooked his baking. Would s/he continue to rely on the thermostat's readings or would s/he replace it? How can such people be considered experts? Nevertheless they are.

Republican politicians, political consultants, and political commentators are fond of saying that Social Security was never meant to serve as a retirement program but only as a supplement. Ed Rollins made this claim on CNN even though the claim can't possibly be true, not even in one's wildest imagination, and Ed Rollins and others should know it. Social Security was signed into law in 1935, but in the 1930s, fewer than 25 percent of workers were covered by private pension plans. So exactly what was Social Security supposed to supplement? Only the pension plans of this 25 percent of workers? What about the 75 percent of workers not covered by private plans? Social Security certainly applied to them too, but they had no private plans to supplement. Even by 1960, only about 30 percent of the labor force had private pension plans, which means that 70 percent had no plans to supplement, and 1960 was a good year. Surely, in the 1930s Social Security was not meant to supplement personal savings, since there were hardly any, and IRAs were not authorized until 1974.Yet Ed Rollins, politicians, and political consultants are still considered "experts." No interviewing journalist ever questions their veracity even when all s/he would have to do is look up some facts.

Military officers, especially generals, are often cited as experts. But for every general who wins a battle there is another on the other side who loses. Is the losing general an expert too? And what general, facing a upcoming battle would have the integrity to say he can't win it?

By calling people with opinions experts and relying on adversarial debate between them, not only is the language debased, so is thought. Conclusions drawn from false premises are always false. Just as something cannot be created from nothing, truth cannot be revealed by falsehood. Belief never yields knowledge, but questioning belief often does.

Public policy based on mere beliefs or opinions sooner or later crashes headlong into the wall of reality causing disastrous consequences, for in the end, the truth cannot be denied. "Trust, but verify," a phrase often used by Ronald Reagan when discussing relations with the Soviet Union is a translation of the Russian proverb Доверяй, но проверяй. Perhaps better maxims would be, "Reject when suspect" and "Belief brings grief." Yet the fundamental question that goes unanswered is why so many people continue to trust all those "experts" who have shown themselves to be inveterate liars? Has the populace really become that dumb? If the truth is emancipating, the false is enslaving. Indeed Americans are serfs ruled by an oligarchy devoted to the promotion of dumb ideas.

John Kozy is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global Research Articles by John Kozy

[STL Frog]

Right Donald, We know that we don't know so I guess we need to go to war.
In fairness to Powell he was following the lead of George Tenet.

Please provide factual record or proof of the destruction of Iraq's WMD arsenal.  If you have none, then please provide the reaononing for why we should presume these weapons magically vanished into thin air.

[oldscribe]

Please provide factual record or proof of the destruction of Iraq's WMD arsenal.  If you have none, then please provide the reaononing for why we should presume these weapons magically vanished into thin air.

I figure if Dick Cheney couldn't find any WMDs, whether they existed or not, then they must not exist.

[weklfrog]

Please provide factual record or proof of the destruction of Iraq's WMD arsenal.  If you have none, then please provide the reaononing for why we should presume these weapons magically vanished into thin air.

please provide evidence that they exist.  we have been there for some time now and haven't found any yet.

[Tucson Frog]

please provide evidence that they exist.  we have been there for some time now and haven't found any yet.

Shoot, I can't even prove they ever existed. I live in Arizona. I guess I could believe the two or three past administrations. I know they wouldn't lie.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

please provide evidence that they exist.  we have been there for some time now and haven't found any yet.

[Deep Purple]

I am quite sure your perception is correct. It always is isn't it?

I find it tragic that they are getting the reaction from us they wanted.

How arrogant can you get. It's "people like you." You don't know what kind of people I am. I told you before that I would be glad to meet with you.

I swore to myself that I would not get into words with you again but just for the record I consider you rude to the max and I don't care at all for rude people. That's my perception.

I have tried to keep personal comments out of my comments, not always successfully but that seems to be your mode with everyone with whom you disagree.

I apologize for my rudeness to you, Tucson.  I have a bad habit of speaking bluntly, and I know it's rude, but it never occurs to me at the time.  If I were our ambassador to the UN, we'd be at war with half the world by now.  Just know that I recognize the fault and I'm a work in progress.

However, you're still wrong and I'm still right.  

[Tucson Frog]

I apologize for my rudeness to you, Tucson.  I have a bad habit of speaking bluntly, and I know it's rude, but it never occurs to me at the time.  If I were our ambassador to the UN, we'd be at war with half the world by now.  Just know that I recognize the fault and I'm a work in progress.

However, you're still wrong and I'm still right.  

Thanks Deep, I appreciate it.

"Just know that I recognize the fault and I'm a work in progress." Aren't we all?

I can handle the right and wrong stuff.   

[STL Frog]

please provide evidence that they exist.  we have been there for some time now and haven't found any yet.

Fact 1:  In the 1980's, 100,000 - 150,000 Kurdish civilians were killed by the deployment of chemical weapons under Saddam Hussein.

Fact 2:  Throughout the 1990's UN weapons inspectors located substantial amounts of Iraqi WMD until inspectors were prohibited to enter the country beginning in 1998.

Fact 3:  Saddam Hussein issued a false weapons declaration in 2002 claiming that all WMD were destroyed (he provided no accounting of their destruction).

Bottom line:  not only was Saddam willing to weaponize chemical and biological agents, he was willing to use them on a mass scale.  

Shoot, I can't even prove they ever existed. I live in Arizona. I guess I could believe the two or three past administrations. I know they wouldn't lie.

Yes, those Kurdish civilians weren't murdered.  They just had a really bad flu season.  

Snide remarks are one thing.  Facts are another.  I prefer the latter.

[pcf]

Fact 1:  In the 1980's, 100,000 - 150,000 Kurdish civilians were killed by the deployment of chemical weapons under Saddam Hussein.

Fact 2:  Throughout the 1990's UN weapons inspectors located substantial amounts of Iraqi WMD until inspectors were prohibited to enter the country beginning in 1998.

Fact 3:  Saddam Hussein issued a false weapons declaration in 2002 claiming that all WMD were destroyed and then provided no accounting of theri destruction.

Bottom line:  not only was Saddam willing to weaponize chemical and biological agents, he was willing to use them on a mass scale.  

Yes, those Kurdish civilians weren't murdered.  They just had a really bad flu season.  

Snide remarks are one thing.  Facts are another.  I prefer the latter.

1) Ongoing inspections never found the weapons. Post-invasion inspections never found them.

2) Those types of weapons would have naturally degraded over the time span in dispute and would have been unusable anyway.

3) Saddam was more likely to lie about having them as a bluff to his enemies.

4) You are confusing a document problem with a real threat and getting Americans and Iraqis killed and maimed. You are wasting trillions of dollars as well.