Science Undecided on Room Temperature Superconductors

[pErvinalia]

Yes.

[Forty Two]

tl;dr. Invading Iraq was wrong. Invading A'stan was arguably a waste of time. Saudi Arabia is the giant elephant in the room. Nothing gets sorted in the middle east till SA gets cut off the teat.

O.k., what would you suggest would have been right to do to Saudi Arabia in late 2001-2002, and/or the ensuing years? And, what's the basis for such action? Saudi Arabian WMD? Was Saudi Arabia behind 9/11/01? (and if so, what's the evidence for it?)

[Forty Two]

Yes.

Well, then he would be supporting terrorism by supporting the bombing of Islamic schools, wouldn't he?

[pErvinalia]

Yes.

[pErvinalia]

tl;dr. Invading Iraq was wrong. Invading A'stan was arguably a waste of time. Saudi Arabia is the giant elephant in the room. Nothing gets sorted in the middle east till SA gets cut off the teat.

O.k., what would you suggest would have been right to do to Saudi Arabia in late 2001-2002, and/or the ensuing years? And, what's the basis for such action? Saudi Arabian WMD? Was Saudi Arabia behind 9/11/01? (and if so, what's the evidence for it?)

"Evidence"? Lol. Umm, Iraq. Ideally no one would have been bombed or invaded, but money trails from the Saudis should have been investigated with a microscope and frozen and seized and then sanctions placed on the Saudis.

[Forty Two]

tl;dr. Invading Iraq was wrong. Invading A'stan was arguably a waste of time. Saudi Arabia is the giant elephant in the room. Nothing gets sorted in the middle east till SA gets cut off the teat.

O.k., what would you suggest would have been right to do to Saudi Arabia in late 2001-2002, and/or the ensuing years? And, what's the basis for such action? Saudi Arabian WMD? Was Saudi Arabia behind 9/11/01? (and if so, what's the evidence for it?)

"Evidence"? Lol. Umm, Iraq. Ideally no one would have been bombed or invaded, but money trails from the Saudis should have been investigated with a microscope and frozen and seized and then sanctions placed on the Saudis.

So, you have evidence of these money trails? You know they exist, and have not been addressed via counterterrorism methods?

Would there have been UN support for military action or sanctions against Saudi Arabia? If not, should the US have "gone it alone?" Why didn't Australia take such action, if it was clear that Saudi Arabia was funding Al Qaeta? Did Australia seize or freeze bank accounts?

[Hermit]

What ought to have been done in the aftermath of 9/11/2001?

Bomb Saudi Arabia' Madrassas. Liquidate the Saudi princes. Stop Raegan from arming the Mujahadeen.

Reagan was President from 1980 to 1988, and arms were provided to the Afghans at that time in order to fight off the Soviet Union which had invaded the country in a war of conquest. That's not the "aftermath" of 9/11/01.

Yes, and in doing so gave Islamic fundamentalism muscle in the region. No, that's not the aftermath of 9/11. Just one of the biggest contribution one could imagine to enabling the trouble and strife besetting that region now. Supporting the enemy of one's enemy always seems to backfire, and nobody seems to learn from past mistakes. Another one was "regime change". What the fuck were the President and the Secretary of State thinking would happen when they eliminated the strongest bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism, the dictator Saddam Hussein and his army?

You'd suggest a better course of action than going after the culprits of 9/11/01 in the location where the culprits were located would be to have just murder children in Islamic schools in Saudi Arabia?

The madrassas I speak of are not schools in which little children are imparted with knowledge and wisdom. They are breeding and training grounds for Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. The teachers are nothing more than Wahabbi zealots.

The madrassas that are said to have focused on warring against infidels developed mainly in Pakistan and Afghanistan, by the way.

Financed by the house of Saud right up to the level of the current king, and this is not about to change any time soon.

I was a little bit tongue in cheek with my previous post. In my opinion the very question "What ought to have been done in the aftermath of 9/11/2001?" is much akin to asking "Oh what to do now that the horse has well and truly bolted?"

[Hermit]

tl;dr. Invading Iraq was wrong. Invading A'stan was arguably a waste of time. Saudi Arabia is the giant elephant in the room. Nothing gets sorted in the middle east till SA gets cut off the teat.

O.k., what would you suggest would have been right to do to Saudi Arabia in late 2001-2002, and/or the ensuing years? And, what's the basis for such action? Saudi Arabian WMD? Was Saudi Arabia behind 9/11/01? (and if so, what's the evidence for it?)

"Evidence"? Lol. Umm, Iraq. Ideally no one would have been bombed or invaded, but money trails from the Saudis should have been investigated with a microscope and frozen and seized and then sanctions placed on the Saudis.

So, you have evidence of these money trails?

Yes.

[Forty Two]

What ought to have been done in the aftermath of 9/11/2001?

Bomb Saudi Arabia' Madrassas. Liquidate the Saudi princes. Stop Raegan from arming the Mujahadeen.

Reagan was President from 1980 to 1988, and arms were provided to the Afghans at that time in order to fight off the Soviet Union which had invaded the country in a war of conquest. That's not the "aftermath" of 9/11/01.

Yes, and in doing so gave Islamic fundamentalism muscle in the region. No, that's not the aftermath of 9/11. Just one of the biggest contribution one could imagine to enabling the trouble and strife besetting that region now. Supporting the enemy of one's enemy always seems to backfire, and nobody seems to learn from past mistakes. Another one was "regime change". What the fuck were the President and the Secretary of State thinking would happen when they eliminated the strongest bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism, the dictator Saddam Hussein and his army?

In the early 1980s, nobody thought the Afghanis had anything against the US, and they were our friend. We were helping our friend fend off an invasion. Would it have been moral to let them be conquered?

I suppose what they were thinking was that Saddam Hussein's regime was a rogue, totalitarian dictatorship, which was guilty of a host of international crimes, and which had designs on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and/or the continued trade in said technology, and along with other countries like Iran, Syria and North Korea, represented a major destablizing force in the world. It's the global war on terrorism idea, which targeted international terrorist organizations of global scale, together with state sponsors of global terrorism.

You'd suggest a better course of action than going after the culprits of 9/11/01 in the location where the culprits were located would be to have just murder children in Islamic schools in Saudi Arabia?

The madrassas I speak of are not schools in which little children are imparted with knowledge and wisdom. They are breeding and training grounds for Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. The teachers are nothing more than Wahabbi zealots.

Well, if you can identify the ones that only train and breed terrorists, then we can see about bombing them. Madrassas generally are schools, and children go there from a young age through about age 18. But, if there were terrorist breeding grounds in Saudi Arabia that were ignored, I'm sure they're identifiable somewhere and it's just a link away....

The madrassas that are said to have focused on warring against infidels developed mainly in Pakistan and Afghanistan, by the way.

Financed by the house of Saud right up to the level of the current king, and this is not about to change any time soon.

Do we need proof of this, or is it just enough to take Michael Moore's word?

I was a little bit tongue in cheek with my previous post. In my opinion the very question "What ought to have been done in the aftermath of 9/11/2001?" is much akin to asking "Oh what to do now that the horse has well and truly bolted?"

Not exactly, since we can all remember what the circumstances were in the fall of 9/11/01, and suggest viable options based on what we knew and later came to know.

[Forty Two]

tl;dr. Invading Iraq was wrong. Invading A'stan was arguably a waste of time. Saudi Arabia is the giant elephant in the room. Nothing gets sorted in the middle east till SA gets cut off the teat.

O.k., what would you suggest would have been right to do to Saudi Arabia in late 2001-2002, and/or the ensuing years? And, what's the basis for such action? Saudi Arabian WMD? Was Saudi Arabia behind 9/11/01? (and if so, what's the evidence for it?)

"Evidence"? Lol. Umm, Iraq. Ideally no one would have been bombed or invaded, but money trails from the Saudis should have been investigated with a microscope and frozen and seized and then sanctions placed on the Saudis.

So, you have evidence of these money trails?

Yes.

Looks like an allegation to me, and one which the 9/11 Commission and the FBI have both discounted.

[Hermit]

We were helping our friend fend off an invasion. Would it have been moral to let them be conquered?

The US was doing no such moral thing. It saw an opportunity to inflict some serious damage on its arch rival and took advantage of it. That's all there was to it. You fucking well know it too, so don't try to bullshit me.

I suppose what they were thinking was that Saddam Hussein's regime was a rogue, totalitarian dictatorship, which was guilty of a host of international crimes

That's a bit rich. Not only has the US materially supported any and every dictator it found advantageous to support, but it also has repeatedly toppled democratically elected governments and replaced them with dictatorships.

Well, if you can identify the ones that only train and breed terrorists, then we can see about bombing them.

Is this why the US never bombs clearly identifiable hospitals that have not moved from the place they were built four years earlier?

The madrassas that are said to have focused on warring against infidels developed mainly in Pakistan and Afghanistan, by the way.

Financed by the house of Saud right up to the level of the current king, and this is not about to change any time soon.

Do we need proof of this, or is it just enough to take Michael Moore's word?

The article was not written by Michael Moore. He does not appear among the Florida Bulldog's board of directors either, nor among its board of advisors.

I have noticed that whenever people cannot find anything to counter an argument with, they resort to attacking the messenger. This is justifiable when the messenger is a shill or the organisation is a cover for a lobby, but in this case neither seems to apply.

[Hermit]

Invading Iraq was wrong. Invading A'stan was arguably a waste of time. Saudi Arabia is the giant elephant in the room. Nothing gets sorted in the middle east till SA gets cut off the teat.

O.k., what would you suggest would have been right to do to Saudi Arabia in late 2001-2002, and/or the ensuing years? And, what's the basis for such action? Saudi Arabian WMD? Was Saudi Arabia behind 9/11/01? (and if so, what's the evidence for it?)

"Evidence"? Lol. Umm, Iraq. Ideally no one would have been bombed or invaded, but money trails from the Saudis should have been investigated with a microscope and frozen and seized and then sanctions placed on the Saudis.

So, you have evidence of these money trails?

Yes.

Looks like an allegation to me, and one which the 9/11 Commission and the FBI have both discounted.

The commission has quite rightly been criticised on a few issues. The FBI is not even supposed to be concerned with international policy. As for the CIA, I trust it, the Pentagon and any other official or quasi official organisation connected with foreign policy to always say in public whatever is in the interest of the USA while preparing comprehensive reports concerning what it really knows in secret, to be seen only by a select few. Very occasionally the truth does come out. Remember Daniel Ellsberg?

[Forty Two]

We were helping our friend fend off an invasion. Would it have been moral to let them be conquered?

The US was doing no such moral thing. It saw an opportunity to inflict some serious damage on its arch rival and took advantage of it. That's all there was to it. You fucking well know it too, so don't try to bullshit me.

Both may exist together. Afghanistan was not the enemy of the US, and the US had an interest in helping Afghanistan. The Soviet Union was the US's enemy in the cold war, and the Soviet Union conducted an unprovoked invasion of Afghanistan and annexed it. What's the moral thing to do?

Note, the British were just as involved as the US in training and assisting the mujahideen against the Soviets. The British SAS provided weapons training and they even brought mujahideen to Scotland where there were training facilities. The US supplied Stinger missiles and the Brits trained the Afghans in how to use them.

I suppose what they were thinking was that Saddam Hussein's regime was a rogue, totalitarian dictatorship, which was guilty of a host of international crimes

That's a bit rich. Not only has the US materially supported any and every dictator it found advantageous to support, but it also has repeatedly toppled democratically elected governments and replaced them with dictatorships.

As has the Brits - who were very big on supporting dictators and toppling governments throughout the 20th century. The misdeeds of the US or others does not mean that Saddam was different than what he was.

Well, if you can identify the ones that only train and breed terrorists, then we can see about bombing them.

Is this why the US never bombs clearly identifiable hospitals that have not moved from the place they were built four years earlier?

I'm talking about what you've been advocating. Bombing Islamic schools. I'm not advocating that. You are. Do you think the US or the UK can identify the good schools from the bad? Do you have evidence as to which is which? Or, is this some convenient and easy explanation to hand waive away what was done as nefarious and evil, and offer a quick, obvious and supposedly common sense solution to what is really a much more difficult problem?

The madrassas that are said to have focused on warring against infidels developed mainly in Pakistan and Afghanistan, by the way.

Financed by the house of Saud right up to the level of the current king, and this is not about to change any time soon.

Do we need proof of this, or is it just enough to take Michael Moore's word?

The article was not written by Michael Moore. He does not appear among the Florida Bulldog's board of directors either, nor among its board of advisors.

The Florida Bulldog hasn't "proof" of anything, have they? Or, do they have proof that funds were earmarked by the Saudi Prince to go to a terrorist group to fund terrorism? If they have it, it wasn't in the link you provided.

I have noticed that whenever people cannot find anything to counter an argument with, they resort to attacking the messenger. This is justifiable when the messenger is a shill or the organisation is a cover for a lobby, but in this case neither seems to apply.

I'm not attacking a messenger. I'm just asking for proof. The allegations, so far, are not proof. I'm willing to be educated, but so far what I've seen is thinner than the proof set forth about Iraqi WMD back in 2003.

[Forty Two]

The commission has quite rightly been criticised on a few issues. The FBI is not even supposed to be concerned with international policy. As for the CIA, I trust it, the Pentagon and any other official or quasi official organisation connected with foreign policy to always say in public whatever is in the interest of the USA while preparing comprehensive reports concerning what it really knows in secret, to be seen only by a select few. Very occasionally the truth does come out. Remember Daniel Ellsberg?

Yes, the Commission has been criticized, which says nothing about the specific allegation at issue. And, the FBI is heavily involved in tracking money transactions.

And, yes, the truth may come out to be as you say. Or, it may not. The fact is, we don't know -- certainly not about any Saudi madrasses. You want to bomb Islamic schools because some money may have gone from a supposed charity to a terrorist group? Even if the worst is true about the charity, that says nothing about the madrasses or specific schools that would be bombed.

Heck, money from CAIR is suspected to go to Islamic radicals, too. Do we seize their accounts and bomb their offices?

[Seth]

...exactly the same argument being used by ISIS to justify their extreme behaviour.

Yes, but your moral equivalency argument fails because those against whom we take military action are, by their own actions and intentions, fundamentally and irredeemably evil cocksuckers who have no legitimate moral or ethical justification for what they do.

We are not. Our actions have always been limited to and explicitly directed towards protecting the lives and liberty of oppressed people being tyrannized and murdered by despots, tyrants and terrorists and therefore are fully morally and ethically justifiable as necessary for the preservation of world peace.