Archived material Access restricted Article

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 10/15/2003 View Tue 10/14/2003 View Mon 10/13/2003 View Sun 10/12/2003 View Sat 10/11/2003 View Fri 10/10/2003 View Thu 10/09/2003
2003-10-15 Fifth Column
Lunacy from ro’Moore
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Atrus 2003-10-15 12:16:17 PM|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [433 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Dear Michael Moron,

It was a terrorist attack because innocent civilians were deliberately targetted and murdered in cold blood.
Posted by CrazyFool  2003-10-15 12:44:29 PM||   2003-10-15 12:44:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 I actually agree with moore that it is a military attack. When two sides are unevenly matched, terrorism works (right up until the point where we trashed afganistan for it)

Terrorists count on being anonymous or hard to trace. Bin Laden tried to deny he had anything to do with it, but we knew and he got the big stick upside his head.

Other than that I think Michael Moore is a pinhead.
Posted by flash91 2003-10-15 1:05:26 PM||   2003-10-15 1:05:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Hey! That's not nice!
Posted by Pin 2003-10-15 1:06:48 PM||   2003-10-15 1:06:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 How is it that this moron is popular with the left? If anyone else said the moronic things this scum bag says he would be ostracized by society... but somehow he has gotten the left to embrace him no matter what drivel and assinine hate speech he spouts. It's a really disturbing statement about the extreme to which the left has lost it's way.
Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2003-10-15 1:08:40 PM||   2003-10-15 1:08:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 flash91,

basically you're saying all terroist attacks are military attacks... why even have the word terrorism then?
Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2003-10-15 1:10:08 PM||   2003-10-15 1:10:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Flash91, your logic fails in another place too. In order to be a pinhead, one needs to have at least some intellect.
Posted by Atrus 2003-10-15 1:17:03 PM||   2003-10-15 1:17:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 "And you know, when you go up 500 miles an hour, if you’re off by this much, you’re in the Potomac. You don’t hit a five-store building like that."

Um, they barely hit the building, I think the plane hit the grass first which limited the damage to the Pentagon. And lets not forget that many believe that plane was actually aiming for the White House but couldn't see it so it went for the highly recognizable backup target.
Posted by Yank 2003-10-15 1:33:36 PM||   2003-10-15 1:33:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 The thing that amazes me about Michael Moore is why the media bother to give him any ink and air time at all. He's an expert in what? (Bitter idioacy doesn't count.)
Posted by Gasse Katze 2003-10-15 1:48:13 PM||   2003-10-15 1:48:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 I would've read this, but the only opinions of Mike's I pay attention to are those he has on polyunsaturated foods. His expertise on that subject is obvious and has great merit. Let me know when "Porking Out For Columbine" gets released.
Posted by tu3031 2003-10-15 2:39:53 PM||   2003-10-15 2:39:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Damn_proud_american:

1) I didnt coin the word terrorism. Nor did I coin the term fifth column.

2) No, I didnt say all terrorist attacks were military attacks - although most are. Contra's and Sandinistas for example.

My simple brain looks at it this way:

Sustained terrorism requires a sustaining source of capital. Opium, oil etc.

That means a group supporting the activity.

Groups with lands are called nations.

Nations promoting hostility is called war.

The trick to fighting terrorism is not to play it down, but to immediately escalate to full combat.
Posted by flash91 2003-10-15 2:44:03 PM||   2003-10-15 2:44:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Michael Moore has hit upon a grain of truth (as all liars can do) with his ruminating about 9-11.

I find it hard to believe that these 'pilots', as incompetent as they were, managed to fly three aircraft exactly on target first time. I am not talking about what Moore is talking about, but rather being 100s of miles away and being able to fly an aircraft into a narrow target like the twin tower first time.

I know nothing about modern aircraft. If it is possible to punch in coordinates into a navigation computer and then just ride it in, I can understand that, but how did they get the original coordinates to be able to hit those three targets so closely from a starting point 100s of miles away?

All this leads me to believe that they did have some help from a hostile government in at least gaining the coordinates and then guiding the plane in so accurately.

Maybe a radio signal from inside the building? Maybe a radio station, but even then they would have to know how to rdf the signal and then fly it in.

Someone pease help me out in this.
Posted by badanov  2003-10-15 3:41:04 PM|| []  2003-10-15 3:41:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Flash - Okay, I see the error here.

Only SOME groups with land are called nations. _That's_ the error. You can be a land-owning/controlling group and NOT be a nation. Hell's bells, the Roman Catholic Church owns more land than some small countries, but they're not a nation, 'merely' a religion. There are a number of narco-terrorists who own land, but don't seek to govern it, merely harvest their crops. They don't really form a nation either. A _tribe_ perhaps, given their family connections and tendency towards blood-based loyalty, but not a nation.

Unless, of course, you're using the word "nation" in the same sense that Native Americans often do. (The Cheyenne or Commanche nations, for example). And having a number of Indian grandparents/great-grandparents, I can say - without being slammed as a white bigot - that such use is really _silly_, if not entirely obsolete.

The modern meaning of the word "nation" has long since outgrown such minor, tribalistic definitions.

*shrugs* It happens. The world changes, words change with the world. Oh, well. ^_^

Posted by Ed Becerra 2003-10-15 3:43:13 PM||   2003-10-15 3:43:13 PM|| Front Page Top

Badanov, I hate to disillusion you, but modern jetliners are rather easy to fly, and most of them have nav computers that are quite powerful. Look around a cockpit of a jetliner sometime. At LEAST 60%, and likely as high as 90% of all the gauges, dials, switches and controls are _safety_ gear. Including the obvious, such as "are the engines running too hot? too cold?"

_FLYING_ a plane is easy. The _HARD_ part is taking off and landing, Bad. Once you're in the air, a bright 12 year-old with a good sense of balance and a calm, patient, willing attitude can fly a passenger jet through the air. Many actually _have_.

Many pilots would like their profession to APPEAR to be like brain surgery.. "One slip of my hands and EVERYBODY DIES! AHHHHHHHHH!" Not true.

They do deserve credit, it IS a highly skilled profession. But most of that skill applies ONLY during three occasions. Taking off, landing, and the rare in-flight emergency caused by weather, mechanical problems, or some loon with a cause/grudge and a weapon.

Don't believe me? Well, do you drive a car? That's a "highly technical skill", isn't it?

Where I live, in Colorado, children as young as 8 regularly drive tractors on their family farms with no problems. But, you argue, there's no traffic on a farm! The kids have it easy!

EXACTLY! And there's no traffic in the vast majority of the sky. As long as you stay away from the high traffic areas, try to NOT hit the ground, and don't run out of fuel, _any_ idiot can stay up in the air with ease. Straight level flight is pathetically easy as long as you stay calm.

Now, aerial acrobatics, fighter combat, bad weather flight, and other such high risk items ARE hard and dangerous. You're quite correct there.

But flying straight and level in clear air, and hitting a target as huge as the Pentagon? *I* can do that, and I'm not a pilot.

And the Pentagon IS a huge target, mind you. Most folks hear "five stories tall", and think "short is small". The Pentagon is one of the largest buildings in the _world_. You just don't notice because it's low and spread out instead of tall and narrow. It can, and does, hold more people than many middle sized cities, has its own shopping mall, subway station, post office, small hospital.. I could go on, but I hope you get the idea. I don't have the numbers at hand, but the Pentagon holds more people than many COUNTIES in Colorado. Not "it can hold", it DOES hold. It's a city in it's own right.

Posted by Ed Becerra 2003-10-15 4:03:14 PM||   2003-10-15 4:03:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Forgive my ignorance, I didn't fly planes.

But I thought that for these modern jets all you have to do is dial in the GPS coordiantes of where you want to go and the plane essentially takes you there.

That is how my buddy's Cherokee works. He can play cards while it flies, if he was so inclined. He's not though, that's why I'll fly with him.
Posted by Penguin 2003-10-15 4:19:32 PM||   2003-10-15 4:19:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Any links on what Mark Taylor said?
Posted by Michael 2003-10-15 4:28:40 PM||   2003-10-15 4:28:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 The quotes are at the link.
Posted by Atrus 2003-10-15 4:30:18 PM||   2003-10-15 4:30:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Ed,

>Hell's bells, the Roman Catholic Church owns

They used to have armies as well if memory serves

>number of narco-terrorists who own land, but

If you have to pay yearly for the land, you are renting.

Narco terrorism is used to paralyse government activities. I dont agree that they dont seek to govern it. If they could topple an adversarial government, they would.

The point really isnt about nations, it's about being able to respond to terrorism. Groups (pre-internet) are in close geography, that means a nation or two.

Tell them to crack down on their groups, it they dont they are complicite.
Posted by flash91 2003-10-15 4:31:07 PM||   2003-10-15 4:31:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 badanov, GPS will get you to the target city, after that you need to pick a recognizable target. Something huge, standing out high against the skyline would be good. Two would be better. Either that or a massive building along a riverside so that its not hidden, something with a unique geometric shape would do nicely.

Clearly they chose targets that were not only symbolic but that would be visibly obvious from some distance away. As I noted before many believe the Pentagon plane was tasked with hitting the white house, also visible obvious but luckily not from the direction they came in from.
Posted by Yank 2003-10-15 5:19:08 PM||   2003-10-15 5:19:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Mr Atrus

There is a low life who happens to my utter shame happens to be French, who wrote a book telling the Pentagon was hit not with a jet but with a US cruise

But the lie about Jews in WTC not going to work on 9/11 is not from him or from any French. It is something invented by the Islamists from Pakistan
or Arabia.

Posted by JFM  2003-10-15 5:50:31 PM||   2003-10-15 5:50:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 It first appeared on the Hezbollah TV network in Lebanon and spread from there.
Posted by Fred  2003-10-15 8:26:25 PM||   2003-10-15 8:26:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Flying a "heavy" airliner is not that particularly hard, unless you're trying to takeoff, land, or fly at low altitude in adverse weather conditions. Then you do have to know your stuff. The murderers who flew on 9-11 probably had portable GPS units, which although are not precise enough for landings, are good enough to follow Jet routes or V-routes accurately. A Jeppesen high or low altitude chart (available for purchase publicly) will show you which routes to follow to put you in the vicinity of Manhattan. The GPS unit, basic flying skills and good visibility will do the rest. *it is not that difficult* The hardest part was subduing the crew and passengers.
Posted by Rafael 2003-10-15 11:04:11 PM||   2003-10-15 11:04:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 I regularlly use a GPS to mark and return to the best fishing spots.
Posted by Raptor  2003-10-16 10:45:02 AM||   2003-10-16 10:45:02 AM|| Front Page Top

11:02 Raptor
10:55 Raptor
10:45 Raptor
07:36 Bulldog
05:48 The Dodo
01:23 Earthquake McGoon
23:50 .com
23:39 Korora
23:35 Bomb-a-rama
23:28 Robert Crawford
23:04 Rafael
22:34 Yank
22:32 tu3031
22:31 Yank
22:31 Old Patriot
22:25 Old Patriot
22:19 Frank G
22:17 Frank G
22:14 Frank G
22:14 Old Patriot
22:13 Aris Katsaris
22:12 Frank G
22:10 Zhang Fei
22:03 Mercutio

Search WWW Search