Purdue computer simulation of 9/11 attacks

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Burninator

That's actually a pretty high number considereding the Jewish population is only about 2% percent of the American population. Although New York may have a high Jewish population.

From the article:

This 10-15% estimate of Jewish fatalities tracks closely with the percentage of Jews living in the New York area. According to the 2002 American Jewish Year Book, 9% of the population of New York State, where 64% of the WTC victims lived, is Jewish. A 2002 study estimated that New York City's population was 12% Jewish. Forty-three percent of the WTC victims lived in New York City. Thus, the number of Jewish victims correlates very closely with the number of Jewish residents in New York. If 4,000 Jews had not reported for work on September 11, the number of Jewish victims would have been much lower than 10-15%.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by lifer

But it is not your fault if you have people who are supposed to gather and check those facts for you, they do so, and you report what they told you. It certainly doesn't make your "misrepresentation" deliberate.

If that is true then any leader, in any forum isn't accountable for much.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by lifer

But it is not your fault if you have people who are supposed to gather and check those facts for you, they do so, and you report what they told you. It certainly doesn't make your "misrepresentation" deliberate.

Oh, the old 'plausible deniabilty' defence. Here's some links I just found mostly about Abu Ghraib, but the strategy is the same.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/0...e-deniability/

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the..._plausibl.html

What ever happened to ' The buck stops here.'

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

From the article:

Ah, well there you go.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What he said was true turned out not to be true. By definition he either lied or "misrepresented the facts" because he obviously didn't have facts.

If you say "X is true and I have facts" and "X" turns out to not be true then you didn't have the facts in the first place, so it's a lie or it's a misrepresentation.

He was a bit eager to go to war...partly because of influence within the administration, and the evidence the CIA presented, making it seem like a 'slam dunk' case. Now...a few years later...that evidence has been proven as laughable at best, especially the evidence the Germans provided leading up to the war. Did Bush lie? I don't think so...rather, he was suckered into doing something by certain people who presented the evidence as cold, hard fact. Bob Woodward has written extensively about this.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Oh, the old 'plausible deniabilty' defence. Here's some links I just found mostly about Abu Ghraib, but the strategy is the same.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/0...e-deniability/

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the..._plausibl.html

What ever happened to ' The buck stops here.'

How is this any different from any other President who has ever held office? They all have their fall guys.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

If that is true then any leader, in any forum isn't accountable for much.

They are accountable because in the end, they make the final decision. Say what you will about the Bush administration, but most of the evidence regarding Saddam and his WMD came from outside sources.
The Mossad, German Intelligence, INC...defectors from Iraq...etc, etc. Very little was actually collected by the US and their intelligence agencies. Even the Niger claim came from British intelligence, who are still standing by their initial claim.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

They are accountable because in the end, they make the final decision. Say what you will about the Bush administration, but most of the evidence regarding Saddam and his WMD came from outside sources.
The Mossad, German Intelligence, INC...defectors from Iraq...etc, etc. Very little was actually collected by the US and their intelligence agencies. Even the Niger claim came from British intelligence, who are still standing by their initial claim.

What's my problem is the Bush regime's selective use of sources to back their plan to invade Iraq. They even went out of their way to discredit their own sources [NIger Claim] by outing the guy's CIA wife. The fallguy for this deed is doing time now, I believe.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

How is this any different from any other President who has ever held office? They all have their fall guys.

This isn't about covering up a president bopping some bimbo, this is about starting a war costing maybe a million lives and billions of dollars for a start. NO telling what the final cost will be to the US and the Middle east.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

He was a bit eager to go to war...partly because of influence within the administration, and the evidence the CIA presented, making it seem like a 'slam dunk' case. Now...a few years later...that evidence has been proven as laughable at best, especially the evidence the Germans provided leading up to the war. Did Bush lie? I don't think so...rather, he was suckered into doing something by certain people who presented the evidence as cold, hard fact. Bob Woodward has written extensively about this.

A few of the higher ups have come out and stated that George and his staff listened to only what they wanted to hear and based their policy only on information that would further their cause.

The Bush administration did the suckering, they weren't suckered into anything.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

What's my problem is the Bush regime's selective use of sources to back their plan to invade Iraq. They even went out of their way to discredit their own sources [NIger Claim] by outing the guy's CIA wife. The fallguy for this deed is doing time now, I believe.

The official evidence on the Niger claim came from British intelligence, not Joe Wilson.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

This isn't about covering up a president bopping some bimbo, this is about starting a war costing maybe a million lives and billions of dollars for a start. NO telling what the final cost will be to the US and the Middle east.

A million?
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

A few of the higher ups have come out and stated that George and his staff listened to only what they wanted to hear and based their policy only on information that would further their cause.

The Bush administration did the suckering, they weren't suckered into anything.

Sure. And Bob Woodward has written numerous articles about that. In fact, he has some pretty indepth stuff about the process leading up to the war. It is pretty obvious some people within the Bush administration wanted war pretty badly.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

A million?
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

The Iraqi War is maybe far from over yet and I was going by memory of a discussion or rather a war conducted here maybe last summer that linked to some 600,000 casualties. Here's one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101001442.html

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

The Iraqi War is maybe far from over yet and I was going by memory of a discussion or rather a war conducted here maybe last summer that linked to some 600,000 casualties. Here's one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101001442.html

And? I just showed you the official count. 600,000 is stretching it, a lot. And even if it were true...600,000 is still a long way from a million.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

The official evidence on the Niger claim came from British intelligence, not Joe Wilson.

And who decided what the official evidence was. Give me a break.

Still Azure, at the risk of sounding like a knob, your understanding of what's going on is miles ahead of when I first ran across your posts. You just need a little more pessimism when it comes to politicians real aims.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

And? I just showed you the official count. 600,000 is stretching it, a lot. And even if it were true...600,000 is still a long way from a million.

In fact, the real number of people that have been killed in Iraq is a lot more difficult to measure than you'd think. There's "official" counts which record deaths that were reported, and for which paperwork was filed. There's counts that include newspaper accounts (which in the fog of war are not always dependable). There's the "survey" method which asks people to report on the number of people they know who have been killed and extrapolates the data, drawing conclusions from that.... the list goes on.

What's very clear is this: "official" body counts are laughably low. Others, in all likelihood, are too high. The moral of the story, though? 600,000, 400,000, a million, 200,000--any way you slice it, that's a lot of lives that have been ended by this conflict. You can't lay all of them at Bush's doorstep--many have been killed by insurgents or militants in the growing civil war--but if I were him, I'd have the mirrors taken out of my house, and order a truckload full of Ambien.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

And who decided what the official evidence was. Give me a break.

Still Azure, at the risk of sounding like a knob, your understanding of what's going on is miles ahead of when I first ran across your posts. You just need a little more pessimism when it comes to politicians real aims.

What does that have to do with what you said? The official evidence was collected by the CIA from numerous other sources. Not from Joe Wilson. And for the record, I don't particularly like Bush or what he has done either, but I don't think he lied on purpose in order to start a war. The intelligence was flawed, something all of us, including the Bush administration figured out a little too late. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess.