RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


50% of Americans believe 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq!(44 posts)

50% of Americans believe 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq!czardonic
Feb 6, 2003 12:07 PM
Say what you want about Saddam. Draw any strained connection you want about his connection to Al Queda. None of the 9/11 hijackers are believed to be Iraqi -- a fact that excapes most Americans. According to a Knight Ridder survey, 44% beleive that most or some were Iraqi, 6% believe that at least one was Iraqi, and 33% don't know. And they are supporting war based on this kind of ignorance and revisionism?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/02/06/iraq_poll/print.html
They sure know how to poll moronsKristin
Feb 6, 2003 12:09 PM
I don't know a single person with so few brain cells that they could say they believed that the 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq. Really, where do pollsters dig up thier subjects?
What does that say about Bush's approval ratings? (nm)czardonic
Feb 6, 2003 12:18 PM
Clinton had good ratings, too (nm)DougSloan
Feb 6, 2003 1:25 PM
He also won the popular vote. (nm)czardonic
Feb 6, 2003 1:38 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but................................chopper
Feb 6, 2003 1:43 PM
Didn't Clinton get 48 or 49% in 92 due to Perot and barely got 50% in 96 also due to Perot?
He still won. No other candidate got more. (nm)czardonic
Feb 6, 2003 1:44 PM
really dredging for arguments now (nm)DougSloan
Feb 6, 2003 1:56 PM
Yeah. But your point about Clinton was right on. (nm)czardonic
Feb 6, 2003 2:17 PM
Gallup pollsTig
Feb 6, 2003 2:44 PM
The margin of error is usually ± 5%, but how can that be confirmed?! LOL

Check out the Gallup site's State of the Nation polls over the last few years http://www.gallup.com/poll/stateNation/

And the Latest Findings poll http://www.gallup.com/poll/inTheNews/
now that's scary! (nm)velocity
Feb 6, 2003 12:24 PM
Ironicmoneyman
Feb 6, 2003 12:34 PM
That you should post something about ignorance and revisionism. You are pretty good at that trade.

Most facts tend to excape(sic) you as well.

$$
In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan...velocity
Feb 6, 2003 12:41 PM
"Facts are stupid things."
Tell me something...moneyman
Feb 6, 2003 1:18 PM
What "facts" were established here?

And Ronald Reagan is 92 years old today.

$$
Don't waste your time aguing "facts" with moneyman.czardonic
Feb 6, 2003 1:32 PM
He is too sophisticated to belive in so quaint a notion as a "fact" and will gleefully point out that anything you might mistake for a "fact" is merely an "interpretation", no more credible than any other interpretation.

For example, moneyman personally demonstrated to me that it is a "fact" that Abraham Lincoln was convicted of "murdering" Confederate "citizens". In a world (or at least the world in a mind) where this is true, "fact" has no meaning.
You're right. It's a factmoneyman
Feb 6, 2003 1:46 PM
That you have just displayed "ignorance" and "revisionism" with your continued confusion regarding my earlier posts questioning the validity of facts.

Please provide the link to the post where I stated that Lincoln was "convicted", using that exact word.

As Doug Sloan said, polls are not facts. Not even close. Their accuracy has certainly been called into question recently, as well. Just look at the results from the 2002 election and contrast them with the poll numbers published before the election. And to take a poll done by the Princeton Review and published by Salon as a "fact" and use it as a source of credible information is just, well, incredible.

$$
You asked for it.czardonic
Feb 6, 2003 2:04 PM
The fun starts here: moneyman "anybody heard about the Poindexter appointment?" 11/19/02 7:22am

I'm sure you will fall back on your lame claim that you never said "convicted". True. (I never said that you said that exact word, but never mind.) What you did say is that Abraham Lincoln was "responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands". "Murder", as I explained to you later in the thread (to no apparent avail) is a legal term for unlawful killing. As such, it seems to me that one can not assert that someone is "responsible" for murder unless a) they believe that legal guilt has been established, i.e. the party in question has been convicted or b) they are talking out of their a$$. Of course, that is just my "interpretation" of the "facts"

And of course, your notion of a Confederate citizenry was long ago revealed to a misguided "interpretation" of the "facts".
What does it take?moneyman
Feb 6, 2003 2:32 PM
Let's try this again. I wrote:

"Please provide the link to the post where I stated that Lincoln was "convicted", using that exact word."

You responded:

"You asked for it."

And then produced no evidence, justifying it with:

"I'm sure you will fall back on your lame claim that you never said "convicted"."

I don't know how much clearer I can be, but I guess it doesn't matter. You choose to interpret words however you want, to the extent that they justify whatever you want them to justify. You accuse me of something specific, I ask you to prove it and you can't. Yet that doesn't stop you from insisting that it is so.

$$
We can clear this up right now.czardonic
Feb 6, 2003 2:42 PM
I already explained that "convicted" is a necessary implication of your use of the word "murder". "Murder" is a legal term that one can not be said to be guilty of (or "responsible" for in a legal sense) without a conviction.

Once and for all, do you maintain that it is a "fact" that "Abraham Lincoln was responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of Confederate citizens"? Yes or no?
Watches as czardonic stomps his feet ------------------------->moneyman
Feb 6, 2003 2:56 PM
"A given interpretation is judged by its ability to reconcile what facts can be known of verified."

You wrote that.

Answer to your question? Depends on who is doing the verification.

$$
Weren't you a History teacher?czardonic
Feb 6, 2003 3:06 PM
Surely you can offer something of an authoritative answer!

Based on your verification of the facts, do you maintain that "Abraham Lincoln was responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of Confederate citizens"? Yes or no?
Yes. And your assignment is...moneyman
Feb 6, 2003 3:22 PM
To make that determination for yourself based on the "facts" available. That, in case you missed it, is the entire point of the exercise. In my teacher training, we called it "critical thinking". Don't always take the "facts" for what they appear to be.

It doesn't matter one iota what I think about Lincoln and his responibility - or not - for the murder - or not - of Confederate citizens. I can argue either in the affirmative or negative, and I can use plenty of historic "facts" to justify either position. The point of the lesson is to teach you to look at the "facts", however they may be presented, and make your judgments based on your interpretations, knowing that "facts" may be skewed by the presenter.

Class dismissed. No charge for this one.

$$
Thanks, Teach. But. . .czardonic
Feb 6, 2003 3:51 PM
. . .you made an assertion that as far as I am concerened (and as far as you have demonstrated) has absolutely no basis in fact. Which "facts" are the basis of your interpretation? As such, by looking at the facts at hand, I can only conclude that you are full of it. Some lesson, I already knew that, but I guess you get what you pay for.

Wouldn't it be easier to simply admit that you misspoke, and that you meant to say that many Confederate sympathizers hold that Lincoln was responsible for the "deaths" or "killings", not "murders", of hundreds of thousands of Confederates, omitting "citizens", instead of dragging out this charade?
If only your mastery of grammar equalled your spelling prowess!czardonic
Feb 6, 2003 12:47 PM
I think you forgot a couple quotation marks in there.
pollsDougSloan
Feb 6, 2003 1:34 PM
Polls don't establish facts. I'd bet you anything I can do a poll and have the results say anything I want. We have no idea how this was conducted, who was polled, etc.

Nonetheless, if they asked me, I'd have to say I don't have a clue. For all I know, some or all of them had dual or triple citizenship in several countries; they probably had fake passports from 10 countries. While some may have been born in S.A. or hung out in Afghanistan for a while, I couldn't begin to tell you their citizenship.

A better question, rather than the suggestive one used, would have been "what countries were the hijackers from?" -- or the like, something open ended.
Your answer backs up the poll's conclusion.czardonic
Feb 6, 2003 1:43 PM
Most Americans don't have a clue.
Based on this poll, do you believe that 50% of all Americans think that....cdale02
Feb 6, 2003 1:49 PM
the hijackers were from Iraq? If so, why?
For once you're in the majority.moneyman
Feb 6, 2003 1:50 PM
Congratulations!

$$
so what was their citizenship, smart guy? nmDougSloan
Feb 6, 2003 1:50 PM
Saudi Arabian, Egyptian, Lebanese and UAE.czardonic
Feb 6, 2003 2:11 PM
I'd assumed that it was common knowledge that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian. Even if you couldn't name the other 4 (which I couldn't, though I knew that they weren't Iraqi because that would have been made into a huge deal by now), it is impossible to call yourself even marginally informed and not know that the the 19 were dominatied by Saudi's.

And, now you have made it plain that you didn't even bother to read the story, though you somehow feel qualified to refute its claims.
50% of Americans believe salon.com is reputableCaptain Morgan
Feb 6, 2003 1:52 PM
Seriously, the opinions above about the manipulation of polls are right on the money. However, if czardonic is implying that America is filled with idiots, I have no quarrel with that.

Czardonic also said that they are "supporting war based on this kind of ignorance and revisionism." However, the article did not even address whether the pollsters were "supporting" a war with Iraq. He made that up in order to support his liberal agenda.

Again, I find it ironic that liberals use this same kind of manipulation and lying that they attack conservatives for.
Who's making up what?czardonic
Feb 6, 2003 2:15 PM
I never said that the pollsters were "supporting" a war with Iraq. I implied (never asserting it to be anything other that my own implication) that whatever popular support there is for war in Iraq is based on a flawed understanding of the connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

Seems that your sense of irony has its own shades of irony.
yes you didCaptain Morgan
Feb 6, 2003 2:31 PM
You may not have meant it, but that certainly is what you wrote. When you refer to people in the polls, then use the word "they" in the next sentence, in English it is understood that you are referring to the same subject. You are a very good writer, but you can't pin this one on me.

There is no irony in the fact that we cannot read your mind (and its probably a good thing we can't, either).
Are you talking about the pollsters or the respondents?czardonic
Feb 6, 2003 2:47 PM
I most definitely did not imply that the pollsters (which is how you originally put it) were supporting the war. On the other hand, I definitely did imply that the respondents supported the war, since war (with UN support) is broadly supported in other polls that purport to represent the opinions of the same demographic.
Thanks, now I can't feel so superior.Sintesi
Feb 6, 2003 2:41 PM
I remember rolling my eyes when something like 70% of Egyptians believed the Israelis bombed the WTC. Ignorance is eternal/universal. No one nation has that aspect of humanity trumped.

You know czardonic, most people can't find Iraq on a map, couldn't tell you what years Lincoln was president, or tell you what a prime number is. BTW, I only read two pages but it didn't look like the poll made a distinction between war supporters and pacifists. I mean someone could say "yes, I believe the attackers were Iraqi, but I don't believe we should go to war." for whatever reason. I don't detect a one-to-one connection between the popular belief that Iraqi nationals were involved in 9/11 and people supporting the war.

Furthermore, I know there were no Iraqis in the WTC bombing (most were Saudi), I've heard this said on the media repeatedly, I've heard the intelligence concerning a strong Hussein/Al Quaeda link is weak. This was discussed back before Bush first spoke to the UN. I heard this on CNN, NBC, CBS. I mean it's not like the info was hidden or played down. Who do you blame when people refuse to watch the news or read the paper? The Republicans?? Face it most people will always watch Friends over Frontline.
On doves and hawks, and polls.czardonic
Feb 6, 2003 3:00 PM
I drew my own conclusion about support for the war based on the percentage of people in general who support the war (with UN support). According the polls that hawks do want us to pay attention to, support for the war is wide-spread. According to the polls that hawks don't want us to pay attention to, there is a significant chance that the people supporting their cause have no apprehension of the facts regarding Iraq. I can't imagine why someone would believe that Iraq was behind 9/11 but not want to go to war, because I certainly would support war on Iraq if such a connection were made. (But that's just me).

Who is to blame? The people themselves, who choose to block out widely reported facts in favor of state sponsored innuendo. But, it is still state sponosored.

You raise an interesting point about American perception of public opinion in other countries. Odd that the same people who readily accept the picture that polls paint of others are quick to reject the picture polls paint about themselves.
"Lavern & Shirley" was made popular by the same 50% polled!Tig
Feb 6, 2003 2:49 PM
These same people now watch Jerry Springer and American Idol when NASCAR isn't racing!
Hey now! Watch it, Bub!jtolleson
Feb 6, 2003 5:24 PM
Laverne and Shirley makes me laugh out loud. Don't know why.

But I've never watched Jerry Springer OR American Idol. And of course I was in jr. high at the time.
Men Who Don't Shave Have Less Sex, More Strokesmohair_chair
Feb 6, 2003 3:14 PM
LONDON (Reuters) - Men who don't shave every day enjoy less sex and are 70 percent more likely to suffer a stroke than daily shavers, a new study shows.

A team at Bristol University who examined the link between shaving, coronary heart disease and stroke in 2,438 middle-aged Welsh men, said that men who did not shave every day were more likely to suffer a heart attack or stroke.
Well, that does it--my beard's coming off right now (nm)The Walrus
Feb 6, 2003 3:48 PM
guess they must be the same ones who don't vote in electionsFunston
Feb 6, 2003 6:42 PM
but what if they're the half that did vote....
50% of Americans are morons, anyway! NMRusty McNasty
Feb 7, 2003 7:37 AM
sure, but it's always the other half ;-) nmDougSloan
Feb 7, 2003 7:47 AM
Are we really that stupid? It's above and beyond the call ..nmcarnageasada
Feb 7, 2003 7:55 AM