Letters to the Editor
-
Sums what up
N'erdowell - first, I don't need to be credible, only reasonable. You are neither. Reasonable people don't express themselves through name-calling. Adults, even the unreasonable ones, usually refrain from doing so.
I have constistently addressed matters of substance, while you have cherry-picked quotes to fashion whatever epithets your dear heart desires to hurl at my incredible points.
-
Sure thing, Walt...
First you label most of the US "a public that bends its collective head in submission to a paternalistic government which feeds the masses with lowest common denominator propagandha in a systematic effort to stifle suspicion about who did what when and under what circumstances" (I'll bet you say that to all the boys!); then you accuse me of "name-calling." I guess that means we won't be getting anything relevant or sensible from you. Hell, I've heard more coherent bollocks from LaRouche...
-
Motherwell needs a refresher
I did not "label" the masses. I described their behavior and tendencies. There is a difference between a "description" (which is what I use) and a "label" (which is what you use). Descriptions are used to give an account for some purpose (in my case the purpose is to persuade). Labels are used to identify something or someone for some purpose (in your case the purpose is to smear). I don't know if this could be put on terms any starker.
For good measure, definitions:
Label - An item used to identify something or someone, as a small piece of paper or cloth attached to an article to designate its origin, owner, contents, use, or destination. A descriptive term; an epithet
Description - The act, process, or technique of describing. A statement or an account describing something
I won't charge you this time. Oh, and, you're welcome.
-
Uh huh...
So using different words makes you honest? You still haven't refuted any of gene's arguments, or told us what makes your outlook more informed or reliable than that of, say, a military officer, or even a college kid who's taken Logic 101. Nor have you offered any credible proof of your insultingly unreal conspiracy theory.
Grow up two decades and come back in the morning.
-
Critics of the Film's Existance
I can't help but wonder how many people responding angrily are from New York. Most people who dealt with the horror of that day up close will probably never be ready for any movie about 9/11, but there is a need for this film and it does serve a real purpose. I would submit that any story that is told well has potential meaning beyond itself, but some people will not ever be able to find it in United 93 because the actual event hurts them too much. I think the criticism of those angry posters for not finding offense in Hotel Rawanda and other films is right on. Movies today are made for an international audience not just Americans, so the argument that Hotel Rawanda was an unknown story here is irrelevant. That movie was probably painful for someone. Critics of the movie's existance need to recognize, unthinkable as it may be to them, that there are people whose personal pain with regard to 9/11 is not as pronounced as their own, and those people might need to see this film to be reminded. Also, no one who has posted here has been hurt by the events of 9/11 more than the families of the passengers of flight 93, and every one of them agreed that this film should be made. This tells me that at lest some people who felt pain because of 9/11 have found meaning and solace in this film. How selfish, judgemental, and self absorbed you critics of the films existance are to intimate that your reaction to this film is the only reasonable one. By all means don't see it if you feel like it is not going to do you any good, but don't presume that everyone will feel the same as you.
-
Already made my case in old posts
I apologize for using logic on you, motherwell. Perhaps we can dismiss logic altogether, but how? Let's accept the following proposition, and the job will be done for us: "Logic is useless because it is not green enough." There, all done. No more logic for you. We have banished it.
As to Gene, I've already refuted what was by his own admission the crucial issue in his argument: the missing missiles. Granted I did nothing to elaborate beyond saying "Iran Contra." But the implication is plain enough.
You don't have anything to say about flight 800? Well, it is relevant because it forms a pattern of military coverups of civilian engagements.
I'm indifferent to your opinions about the benefits of aging. But if twenty more years supplies me with a regression towards infancy and an affinity for name-calling, then maybe I will be on board with you.
-
huh?
As to Gene, I've already refuted what was by his own admission the crucial issue in his argument: the missing missiles. Granted I did nothing to elaborate beyond saying "Iran Contra." But the implication is plain enough.
Sorry, but the implication is not clear. Are you saying the missiles were somehow replaced in a scheme similar to Iran-Contra? Or are you saying that Iran-Contra was a successful cover-up? If it's the latter, you've just refuted your own argument. We know about Iran-Contra because--hey, what a concept-- someone talked!
Let me be clearer, though, Walt. Not only do you have to account for missing missiles if #93 was shot down, you have to account for the silence of:
The Wing commander, usually a 1-star general
The squadron commander, a colonel.
The pilots themselves, anywhere from a 1st lieutenant to a major, most likely.
The plane crewmen, usually two to three enlisted personnel.
The supply chief.
The ordnance chief.
... and that's just for one of the planes involved. Sorry, Walt, but in a case like this, you can't keep that many people silent. Unless [cue scary music] ... the military had them all bumped off, which means ... what? You have all those people's families to contend with.
Do you see how your argument falls apart under the harsh light of simply reasoning, Walt?
Next bit of clear thinking: if #93 was hit by a missile, it would have been either a Sidewinder, a heat-seeking missile that would have zeroed in on one of the plane's engines, or a Sparrow, a radar-guided missile that would have gone for center-mass of the target, i.e., the 767's fuselage.
In the case of a Sidewinder, it would have likely blown the wing off the plane, causing large fragments of 767 to be scattered over several square miles. If it was a Sparrow, it could have blown the fuselage into several pieces, meaning we'd have wings, engines and other bits of airplane likewise scattered over several miles of Pennsylvania.
Where are they?
But if you have a 767 that dives straight into the ground at several hundred miles per hour, you have a large crater and only a few tiny fragments of airplane left--precisely what was found in near Shanksville.
Likewise with Flight 800, if a Navy ship accidentally shot down a 747, you'd have the entire CIC (that's Combat Information Center for amateurs like you, Walt) on the ship that would know it--depending on the size of the ship, that's likely 30-plus people. And they'd talk to their shipmates who weren't in the CIC, who'd talk to their friends, and family, etc. That's the way the military is, Walt, and you'd know it if you'd ever worn the uniform.
Yet there's not a peep from anyone but conspiracy loonies to claim that a Navy ship shot down a commercial airliner.
Your theory is moonbatishness at it's worst, Walt. So, in short, Walt, get a life.