Secret Recording: 9/11 Effects Wearing Off, Need Another Attack - Rumsfeld

Originally posted by Observor
1. People have a low threat perception.
2. Rumsfeld believes it needs a "correction". (meaning it is wrong and desires to change it)
3. He also believes the correction would be another attack.

How is that not desiring it/planning it?

At best he is desiring it and at worst he was planning it.

I disagree. Often when looking for a solution to a problem, I must face the reality that the most effective solution is actually something I do not want.
He very clearly is expressing that he wishes people could change this problem (their complacancy) without having an attack do it for them! He says his frustration is that people don't understand and become aware without this having to make them aware.

Originally posted by Bluesma
I disagree. Often when looking for a solution to a problem, I must face the reality that the most effective solution is actually something I do not want.
He very clearly is expressing that he wishes people could change this problem (their complacancy) without having an attack do it for them! He says his frustration is that people don't understand and become aware without this having to make them aware.

If he were talking about a means for "correction" that would make them aware without another attack, you would be right. The only "correction" he mentions is an another attack. So you are wrong.

However he was probably discussing many other means of "correction" too and the edited clip was showing only one. If that is the case, the full clip is needed to know the other mechanisms of "correction" he was discussing.

ETA: What is the problem to which a terror attack is the "most effective solution"? A low threat perception. Sounds exceedingly funny.

Another brick in the wall...

The entire MOSAIC is absolutely CLEAR!

We walk among demons!

S&F!

Originally posted by Observor

Originally posted by Bluesma
I disagree. Often when looking for a solution to a problem, I must face the reality that the most effective solution is actually something I do not want.
He very clearly is expressing that he wishes people could change this problem (their complacancy) without having an attack do it for them! He says his frustration is that people don't understand and become aware without this having to make them aware.

If he were talking about a means for "correction" that would make them aware without another attack, you would be right. The only "correction" he mentions is an another attack. So you are wrong.

However he was probably discussing many other means of "correction" too and the edited clip was showing only one. If that is the case, the full clip is needed to know the other mechanisms of "correction" he was discussing.

His point is that he doesn't see a better correction (To set straight an error, clarify a misunderstanding;To rectify an illogical state). He percieves that the people will only believe there is a threat if it actually hits them. Hence the frustration and difficulty.

If you've raised a teen, you know the feeling- you can tell your kid that doing something is risky, and in some cases, run into the very frustrating realization that they are not heeding your warnings, and will only believe you if when it has actually happened to them. You want to protect them, but you reach an end to your ability to do so (without getting to the point of locking them up in their rooms for the rest of their lives).

When the frustrated parent sees this and describes this perception, does that automatically mean they WANT the kid to hit that brick wall they are running towards? I don't think so. I think they see the paradox of wanting to protect vs. having to acknowledge the ultimate freewill of others to make their own mistakes- and sometimes get hurt. It is a very frustrating position. He may be wanting to find a different way of rectifying the illogical state and clarifying their misunderstanding, but can't see one at that time.

From that statement of how he percieves the situation to be at that time, to concluding that he is wanting to have an attack upon the people happen, or is suggesting that they cause one, the road is crooked and lacking connection.

You claim I am wrong, I do not see how any of us can make such firm claims either way upon the inner desires of the man based upon what was recorded here.

reply to post by Bluesma


What follows logically from his statements is that he desires/was planning it.

That he was feeling like a frustrated parent raising a teen is a creative attribution, which would require a profound faith in/knowledge of his good nature, which I don't have.

If 911 was not an inside job why wasn't anyone in the power elite targeted?
The victims were nobodies to them, no loss and the start of a big payoff.

As far as Rumsfeld being a monster is concerned; there's one particular element of Right wing thinking here, first expressed by Mussolini, and later by the Project for the New American Century.

Fascists tend to believe that human society, and an economy, is like an engine; and an externally originating threat to the country is the fuel. Mussolini said that he didn't think anything else was capable of stimulating a national economy, or of uniting the people, like an external threat.

When there's an external threat, the economy is stimulated, (due to a need to produce weapons, munitions, military uniforms, tanks, planes etc) and the people are more willing to come together and suspend conflict among themselves, because they're focused on defending themselves and each other from the common threat.

It's important to understand, that fascists actually want to achieve positive ends here, in terms of growth of the economy and national unity. It's just that with war, they have a very misguided and counterproductive idea of how to go about that. Mussolini and Patton both expressed that they thought war was the highest and most meaningful form of human activity. They thought that in addition to achieving the above goals, war also stimulates natural selection, and encourages people to accomplish things that they think they wouldn't during peacetime.

So when fascists want war, a lot of the time they honestly believe that they're acting in humanity's best interests. It's just that they're wrong.

Originally posted by Observor
reply to post by Bluesma

 

What follows logically from his statements is that he desires/was planning it.

That he was feeling like a frustrated parent raising a teen is a creative attribution, which would require a profound faith in/knowledge of his good nature, which I don't have.

I see no logical way to conclude that he desires/was planning it at all. In fact his wording and his way of speaking indicate the opposite. I have no preconceived notions about his inner desires or motivations, as honestly I haven't followed his career closely. But just on the evidence of what he says here, there is no suggestion of anything other than what he actually said.
I guess we just disagree on that point.

Originally posted by Bluesma
I see no logical way to conclude that he desires/was planning it at all.

I have shown it on my first post on the thread. That assumes absolutely nothing about the person making the statements. To avoid the conclusion, you need to make assumptions about the person.

reply to post by Observor


ACTUALLY, unless he specifically states his desire YOU are the one making the assumption.

His words-

"It’s a shame that we don’t have the maturity to recognize the seriousness of the threat.....the lethality, the carnage, that can be imposed on our society is so real and so present and so serious that you’d think we’d be able to understand it."

Says that he believes the threat to be real.
It says it is a shame (which usually is used to express that a person wishes that this was not the case), indicating he would prefer to see people recognize this as real and avoid being victims of a terrorist attack.

One would have to assume he is lying here, and disregard what was actually said in favor of what one assumes he REALLY believes and wants, to say that he is wanting or planning to create an attack in order to stimulate the economy or other political reasons.

reply to post by Bluesma


One wouldn't have to assume any such thing.

Originally posted by Bluesma
His words-

"It’s a shame that we don’t have the maturity to recognize the seriousness of the threat.....the lethality, the carnage, that can be imposed on our society is so real and so present and so serious that you’d think we’d be able to understand it."

Says that he believes the threat to be real.
It says it is a shame (which usually is used to express that a person wishes that this was not the case), indicating he would prefer to see people recognize this as real and avoid being victims of a terrorist attack.

One would have to assume he is lying here, and disregard what was actually said in favor of what one assumes he REALLY believes and wants, to say that he is wanting or planning to create an attack in order to stimulate the economy or other political reasons.

He didn't stop there. He went on to discuss how this could be "corrected", through another attack.

A terror attack is a correction (a desired change) only when you welcome it. Otherwise you can't talk of it being a correction.

reply to post by Observor


Yeah, but that word doesn't actually mean he wants more attacks.

HE thinks people's attitudes are wrong.

He thinks they can be "corrected" from "wrong" to what he consider to be "right" by a terrorist attack.

That DOES NOT mean he wants another terror attack. In fact he says it's a SHAME that people will only behave in a way he thinks is "right" via a terror attack. In other words, he doesn't LIKE terror attacks.

Here you go:

I am pro-choice.

I think it's a SHAME that people often are pro-life until they have to deal with unwanted pregnancy, then they suddenly "get" why people are pro-choice.

That DOES NOT mean I am PRO-abortion and want people to have abortions.

At least it is a very sick logic... But it reminded me of that part:

President Bush told us that before 9/11 there was an appetite in the government for killing Bin Ladin, not for war. Looking back in 2004, he equated the presidential directive with a readiness to invade Afghanistan.The problem, he said, would have been how to do that if there had not been another attack on America. To many people, he said, it would have seemed like an ultimate act of unilateralism. But he said that he was prepared to take that on.

That one is from "The 9/11 Comission Report", page 209, Official Government Edition.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

I didn't say he "liked" it, just that his statements mean he desired it. Everything that you desire is not necessarily what you like. Faced with two options both of which you dislike, you may desire the less disliked option.

reply to post by Observor


I would disagree that this could be read as "desire" either.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Bluesma

 

One wouldn't have to assume any such thing.

If they wanted to make claims about Rumsfeld desiring and planning an attack, based upon this recording only, yes they would have to.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Observor

 

I would disagree that this could be read as "desire" either.

A correction is a desired change. Do you have a different meaning for correction in this context?