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

Originally posted by Observor

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?

Yes! I do! A correction is an event or action which brings about a desired change- it is NOT the desired change itself.

He expresses his wish that the desired change come about through a different means, before getting to that specific event or action. Through intellectual grasp of (his view) of the reality of the situation instead.

The pro-life example was very good in using it in that way.
Pointing out the fact that having the event of an unwanted pregnancy would cause a desired shift in consciousness in someone does not imply the speaker desires this to happen to them (much less that they would make an effort to make it happen to them).



But you guys, when was this recorded?? Rumsfeld retired in what- 2006 I believe?
Did we have another terrorist attack after 911?

reply to post by imeddieone4202003


Not a Rumsfeld fan, and I did listen.

He did nothing more than state 2 facts:
1. The shock has warn off, of that there is no doubt.
2. There WILL be another attack. It is just the when that nobody knows.

Originally posted by Bluesma

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

Yes! I do! A correction is an event or action which brings about a desired change- it is NOT the desired change itself.

But, of course! I didn't say Rumsfeld desrired a terrorist attack for itself. He wanted people to be terrorised about an impending attack and felt that nothing short of another attack would achieve that.

He expresses his wish that the desired change come about through a different means, before getting to that specific event or action. Through intellectual grasp of (his view) of the reality of the situation instead.

I missed the other means he mentioned. Can you remind me about what they are?

The pro-life example was very good in using it in that way.
Pointing out the fact that having the event of an unwanted pregnancy would cause a desired shift in consciousness in someone does not imply the speaker desires this to happen to them (much less that they would make an effort to make it happen to them).

I am not a mind reader, so exactly what a pro-choice guy wishes on the pro-lifers, I can't tell. But sure I didn't read that enough pro-lifers ending up with unwanted pregancnies would be the correction. If you did, I would infer you desired it.

But you guys, when was this recorded?? Rumsfeld retired in what- 2006 I believe?
Did we have another terrorist attack after 911?

You didn't. But what does it prove? That Rumsfeld didn't desire it? Didn't plan it? That the low threat perception was right? Or something else?

ETA: Hell, there has been no "bioterrorism" attack on the US since the "amerithrax" attacks although everyone including the media completely forgot about it as soon as it became clear the Anthrax used was of US origin

Originally posted by Observor
I didn't say Rumsfeld desrired a terrorist attack for itself. He wanted people to be terrorised about an impending attack and felt that nothing short of another attack would achieve that.

He made no mention of wanting people to be "terrorized". It seems he is speaking of being "aware" or "conscious" of potential threat.

I missed the other means he mentioned. Can you remind me about what they are?

The maturity to recognize the threat and acknowledge it as existing is what he says he wishes would happen. The "maturity" indicates being able to seize an idea or concept intellectually, without needing direct physical experience of it. His point being that apparently, communicating this concept verbally is not proving to be an effective means.

That does not automatically indicate that he is ready or willing to carry out this event himself. Allowing that correction to come (without any effort to provoke it) is sometimes what we are obligated to do when met with a person(s) who do not heed our warning.
example- I can percieve and state that despite all my efforts to explain to him, my kid doesn't grasp the importance of doing his homework! (I could even give a frustrated laugh at the idiocy of youth there) and say that if he does not graduate.. then he will "get it". He will stand corrected. That does not mean I would wish that that happens, nor does it mean I would put forth any effort to make that happen. But at some point I may be forced to give up my efforts and just let the effects of his choices come upon him.

I am not a mind reader, so exactly what a pro-choice guy wishes on the pro-lifers, I can't tell. But sure I didn't read that enough pro-lifers ending up with unwanted pregancnies would be the correction. If you did, I would infer you desired it.

That would be a mistaken assumption then.

You didn't. But what does it prove? That Rumsfeld didn't desire it? Didn't plan it? That the low threat perception was right? Or something else?

Oh, it doesn't "prove" anything.... I don't have much taste for wild claims of smoking guns!

It just made me consider that whether Rumsfeld wanted to create a terrorist attack or not (which we cannot ascertain from this recording either way) he was either unsuccessful, or he was wrong about the threat being such a high probability, or the government was successful in avoiding it.
In any of those cases, arguing about what the man desired back then doesn't have much meaning now.
At least to me. I guess that realization just made me lose interest in this question, is all.
Over and out!

This thread seems to be comprised of two groups of people:

- People that hate Donald Rumsfeld, but are not desperate to read into his words to justify a pre-existing belief

- People that hate Donald Rumsfeld and think everything he says is some evidence of some larger conspiracy

Originally posted by Bluesma

Originally posted by Observor
I didn't say Rumsfeld desrired a terrorist attack for itself. He wanted people to be terrorised about an impending attack and felt that nothing short of another attack would achieve that.

He made no mention of wanting people to be "terrorized". It seems he is speaking of being "aware" or "conscious" of potential threat.

Sure! Constantly being "aware" and "conscious" of a potential terrorist attack is what I implied by being "terrorised" too

I missed the other means he mentioned. Can you remind me about what they are?

The maturity to recognize the threat and acknowledge it as existing is what he says he wishes would happen. The "maturity" indicates being able to seize an idea or concept intellectually, without needing direct physical experience of it. His point being that apparently, communicating this concept verbally is not proving to be an effective means.

Maturity is a state of being, not a means.

That does not automatically indicate that he is ready or willing to carry out this event himself. Allowing that correction to come (without any effort to provoke it) is sometimes what we are obligated to do when met with a person(s) who do not heed our warning.
example- I can percieve and state that despite all my efforts to explain to him, my kid doesn't grasp the importance of doing his homework! (I could even give a frustrated laugh at the idiocy of youth there) and say that if he does not graduate.. then he will "get it". He will stand corrected. That does not mean I would wish that that happens, nor does it mean I would put forth any effort to make that happen. But at some point I may be forced to give up my efforts and just let the effects of his choices come upon him.

Are you sure you want that analogy applied to Rumsfeld's state of mind? That would imply Rumsfeld giving up on preventing any terrorist attacks from happening, so people would "get it".

I am not a mind reader, so exactly what a pro-choice guy wishes on the pro-lifers, I can't tell. But sure I didn't read that enough pro-lifers ending up with unwanted pregancnies would be the correction. If you did, I would infer you desired it.

That would be a mistaken assumption then.

You know your mind. How do you know Rumsfeld's?

Oh, it doesn't "prove" anything.... I don't have much taste for wild claims of smoking guns!

OK. We can ignore it then.

reply to post by Plan2exist18


Just curious. Have you ever heard of us stopping a potential air attack via the TSA? How can you stop a man from blowing up a bomb in times square? You can't. The real issue to me is, if they wanted to, they could. So why not more attacks? Seems like maybe the hype is overdone?

CJ

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by Plan2exist18

 

Just curious. Have you ever heard of us stopping a potential air attack via the TSA? How can you stop a man from blowing up a bomb in times square? You can't. The real issue to me is, if they wanted to, they could. So why not more attacks? Seems like maybe the hype is overdone?

CJ

I already pointed out that the "terrorist threat" is a fairy tale, or at least, its fueled by the same people that wants you to hand over your freedoms to them.

reply to post by Juanxlink


I partially disagree... The terrorist threat is a real and continuing problem. But when the end justifies the means- As when a poltical entity, like the W. Bush administrations "success," on 9/11, by failing to warn the American public, when they "knew" of an impending suicide by passenger airliner attack on U.S. shores!!!

The 9/11 attack was the holy grail of the Bush administrations prayer's, which was to proceed on full speed to a "divide and conquer" spree, that has left tens of thousands people dead!!!

I'm not sure... But W. Bush, might have known of the date of the attack, when he was safely tucked away in a elementary school in Texas on 9/11, with V.P., Dick Cheney, taking the bit of "fall guy" at the White House.

One of the main reasons for W. Bush'es failure to give a pre- 9/11 terrorist warning - Was to guarantee continuing profits of the passenger airline industry.

So when W. Bush & Company, needed to pass legislation meant to take away basic American freedom's, and create a bureaucratic nightmare by forming TSA, and the Department of Homeland Insecurity; they just put the shoe on the other foot, by staging "false flag" terrorist warning's to pursue their imperialist 1984 aggenda.

So whats the clicking in the background? Sounds like camera shutters to me. Could this secret recording be from a press conference? Or am I hearing things?

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
This thread seems to be comprised of two groups of people:

- People that hate Donald Rumsfeld, but are not desperate to read into his words to justify a pre-existing belief

- People that hate Donald Rumsfeld and think everything he says is some evidence of some larger conspiracy

lol. yeah, shame on you guise. if y'all stop "hating" good ol' rummie, you'll understand better
what he says. duh!

Originally posted by psyop911

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
This thread seems to be comprised of two groups of people:

- People that hate Donald Rumsfeld, but are not desperate to read into his words to justify a pre-existing belief

- People that hate Donald Rumsfeld and think everything he says is some evidence of some larger conspiracy

lol. yeah, shame on you guise. if y'all stop "hating" good ol' rummie, you'll understand better
what he says. duh!

In fairness, I don't think it's possible NOT to hate Rummy.

Rumsfelt didn't say anything out of the ordinary here, what he is saying is that the society is so asleep, that they are totally unaware of what can happen. What he is stating that the population in the US, and in Europe are like the characters in "Independence day". The sinister aliens arive, place themselves above the city ... and the population goes to greet them, with a lightshow and standing beneath the alien craft waving posters.

Of course, Mr. Rumsfelts idea is that the enemy is as evil as the Aliens in "The independence day" and that pretty much makes him a certified paranoid schizofrenic, along with most of the rest of the cabinet. But, what he is correct about is that the idiocy being played by the public, to go and "welcome" the aliens, is ignorant and stupid beyond belief.

Originally posted by Gwampo
In an ever increasing police-state of a country.... another terror attack is EXACTLY what we don't need....

There you go. Now are we clear about who's "Team A" and who's "Team B"?

Those vehemently opposed to an ever increasing police state and find unwavering vigilance in this area trumps mindless, hyper-partisanship-- line up over here, you're Team A.

Those who rabidly adhere to a laissez faire attitude towards a one party's actions, regardless of how egregious/suspicious, while breathing fire about Big Government ONLY when the other party is in power, you're Team B. Enjoy the Fascist, malevolent, fear-mongering, war-profiteering corporatocracy you've helped to usher in.

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by Plan2exist18

 

Just curious. Have you ever heard of us stopping a potential air attack via the TSA? How can you stop a man from blowing up a bomb in times square? You can't. The real issue to me is, if they wanted to, they could. So why not more attacks? Seems like maybe the hype is overdone?

CJ

I've said it a billion times. Detonating a bomb in Time Square is as easier than swiping your Metro card. Will people please wake up and smell the coffee? The War on Terror is a scam. You've been bamboozled, hoodwinked. Stop being mind-controlled by the weapon of mass destruction known as hyper-partisanship and WAKE UP.

Does anyone here think his words were taken out of context...?