LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksПонятно: ты веришь всему, что тебе больше по вкусу.Originally Posted by Marcus
Duh == Чего ещё можно было от тебя ожидать...
Понятно: ты веришь всему, что тебе больше по вкусу.
Duh =
Спасибо.Duh = = Чего ещё можно было от тебя ожидать...
Вы думаете, я просто так к этому выводу пришёл?
Я могу аргументировать.
1. Америка обладает самыми сильными и хорошо финансируемыми спецслужбами мира, сотрудничающими со многими странами. Аль-Кайду по американской версии поддерживали только Судан, Афганистан и ещё какая-то мелочь. При этом Америка не смогла помешать террористам ни на каком этапе. Это невероятно.
2. Если спецслужбы проморгали подготовку теракта и не смогли ему помешать, то откуда Буш сразу знал, кто виноват и что делать. Как он мог знать, что это сделал именно Бен Ладен, что он находится в Афганистане и т. д.
3. Серьёзные вопросы есть к возможности осуществления теракта и к его расследованию. Здания рухнули, как взорванные изнутри. Нашли документы, Коран, которые волшебным способом уцелели.
4. Главное. События 11 сентября послужили поводом для войн в Афганистане и Ираке, принятия Патриотического акта, наращиванию оборонных расходов в течении последующих лет.
Римляне всегда начинали расследование со слов "Cui prodest?" - "Кому выгодно?". Выгодно американским властям, цели же мифических террористов вообще не поддаются логике.
Можно сказать следующее: настоящая теория заговора - это вера в международный исламский терроризм, который угрожает всему миру.
Можно добавить, что Бен Ладены - друзья и партнёры Бушей, что в 2001 году не было технической возможности разговаривать с самолётом по мобильному телефону и многое другое.
I accidentally said "some Russians". My crazy thought was that might give somebody the idea I wasn't talking about all of them.
And no, I don't say they are scared. It's just for some reason they tend to stand for those in power whatever the latter do, just like those in my metaphor about discussing a boss. Not all, but the tendency does exist.
Наоборот -- я думаю, что вы попугайничаете те же самые аргументы, которые наши американские "Troofers" предлагали уже с 12-го сентября, 2001 г. If I had hoped to hear some truly new, genuinely interesting, and originally Russian version of "9/11 Conspiracy Theories", your performance was very disappointing!
To take these briefly:
(1) Greatly overestimates the power and intelligence and overall competence of the CIA -- at best, there is often a lot of "pure guessing" involved in Intelligence work. At the same time, this argument underestimates the flexibility and ingenuity and other advantages of a very decentralized guerilla network.
(2) If a shipment of illegal alcohol was discovered in 1930s Chicago, police would have immediately named Al Capone -- not because the police "сразу знали" that Capone was truly guilty, but because Capone had a long career of activity that made him a very logical suspect. In Bin Laden's case, he had been on the FBI's "Top 10 Most Wanted" list at least since 1998, after he personally claimed credit for the US Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya.
(3) "которые волшебным способом уцелели" -- An enormous quantity of paper materials, cloth, and other easily-burned materials from the airplanes and from offices in the WTC survived the fiery crashes of the two airplanes, and the collapses of the two towers. I've personally seen photographs that were taken on the streets after the two airplanes hit, but before the buildings collapsed -- one could clearly see intact items like shoes, eyeglasses, handbags, books, airplane magazines, and other items, along with airplane engines and wheels, etc. And personal papers/documents belonging to passengers or flight crew (such as drivers' licenses and plane tickets) were recovered along with the passport of "Satam al-Suqami", one of the Saudi Arabian terrorists. So no sort of "волшебство" was necessary. Furthermore...
(4) ...if the US deliberately planned the 9/11 attacks because the Bush Administration needed a casus belli as an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, wouldn't it have been чуть-чуть по-логичнее to tell the public that the hijackers were Iraqis and Afghanis, and to "magically" find an Iraqi passport at the WTC site, instead of a Saudi passport?
On this last point, actually, I agree with you, at least partly: On the basis of the 11 September attacks that were planned and carried out by probably fewer than 100 Muslim conspirators (the hijackers, the top-level bosses, and the middlemen), the US did indeed work hard to create a mythologized "global jihad" under the umbrella term of "Al Qaeda". And every act of violence by Muslims against non-Muslims anywhere in the world (Bali, London, Madrid, Beslan, southern Thailand...) was attributed to Al-Qaeda, and taken as proof of a "global jihad", when the reality is that many of these attacks were by independent groups motivated by very localized grievances.
However, to argue that the US government seized an opportunity by politically exploiting the 9/11 terror attacks after the fact, and by engaging in myth-creation and propaganda after the fact, is utterly different from arguing that the US government planned the attacks before the fact.
Говорит Бегемот: "Dear citizens of MR -- please correct my Russian mistakes!"
Потому что нужно было создать образ глобального и неуловимого врага, чтобы потом оправдывать им что угодно. Любую войну, любой закон и т. д.wouldn't it have been чуть-чуть по-логичнее to tell the public that the hijackers were Iraqis and Afghanis, and to "magically" find an Iraqi passport at the WTC site, instead of a Saudi passport?
Взрыв башен-близнецов (рухнули три башни, но говорят только о двух) и атака на Пентагон произвели сногсшибательный эффект, который не мог быть достигнут другим путём.
Моя версия предлагает наиболее простое объяснение всего. В вашей версии остаются совершенно неясными цели террористов.
Incidentally, I would explain the original meaning of "duh" as something like "это должно быть самоочевидно, и человеку с синдромом Дауна" -- although now it simply means "должно быть самоочевидно."
Almost without doubt, "duh" was first meant to imitate the speech of "retarded" people, or at least the cruel popular stereotyping of their speech. However, while that was the original meaning, nowadays people who say "duh" don't intend any offense towards those with real learning disabilities. (In a similar way, the word "moron" was originally a polite clinical term for persons with an IQ below 70; then it became a rude term for such people; today it means a person of normal intelligence who behaves stupidly.)
In the famous 1939 film version of John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men, the simple-minded character Lennie (as played by Lon Chaney Jr.) does not say "Duh" even once, so far as I know. However, in the many, many parodies of the 1939 film (for example, from old Bugs Bunny cartoons), the parody version of "Lennie" is always saying "Duh! Duh, George, I wanna pet the rabbits, duh!" So, at least since the early 20th century, "duh" was already associated in the popular imagination with the speech of mentally-retarded people.
А почему, по-вашему, эта версия показалась мне более убедительной, чем официальная американская?Наоборот -- я думаю, что вы попугайничаете те же самые аргументы, которые наши американские "Troofers" предлагали уже с 12-го сентября, 2001 г
Young Earth Creationists say the very same thing про свою версию.
Of course, believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old requires one to believe that God (or the Devil) planted fake fossils of non-existent trilobites and dinosaurs in the ground; that God created "light trails" from distant stars and galaxies in order to produce the FALSE appearance that a 6000-year-old Universe is more than 20 billion years old; that millions of scientists are involved in a massive worldwide conspiracy to promote the Satanic ideology of Darwinism because they hate Jesus and are probably secret homosexuals; etc.
And yet Young Earth Creationists really and sincerely believe that their Genesis-literalist "theory" has an elegant simplicity and is favored by logic -- because, to use Lampada's words, it's больше по вкусу.
At some point, one must recognize the utter futility and uselessness of arguing-- and either ignore Young Earth Creationists altogether, or simply ignore your scientific and philosophical disagreements with them, while being open to friendship.
Но вы принципиально отклоняете возможность провокации, хотя история знает бесчисленное количество подобных примеров. Особенно когда надо было начать войну или ограничить свободу жителей страны.
After thinking about it, there is one other point I want to offer for Marcus to consider, although I don't expect to change his mind.
In his meticulously detailed diary, Norwegian bomber/gunman Anders Behring Breivik describes at great length how he spent almost a year obtaining the materials needed for his carbombs -- a few chemicals here, a few electronics there -- in order to avoid attracting attention to himself by making a large purchase at one time. And also in the diary, Breivik calculates that if he had worked with four co-conspirators, he could have made the bombs in six months, and if he'd had nine co-conspirators, he could have done it in less than two months.
But, instead, ABB decided that it was better to act totally alone -- and his reasoning was that each additional co-conspirator would represent another potential "leak". A co-conspirator might have a loss of nerves and betray the conspiracy to the authorities; or he might say something careless to his wife, and she gets worried and calls the police; or perhaps he simply gets arrested for drunk driving, and in the standard background-check, the police find that he has a past connection with white-supremacist groups, which in turn leads the cops to accidentally discover his link to the conspiracy.
I think the truth of what Breivik wrote is obvious, and that any "CIA black-ops / false-flag" conspiracy theory about 9/11 must recognize the importance of minimizing the number of conspirators. But in my opinion, most of these "alternative 9/11 theories" tend to fail Breivik's "too many cooks spoil the broth" test.
For example, the theory that there were explosives inside the WTC buildings overlooks the fact that it generally takes a LARGE TEAM of demolition experts (= more co-conspirators) to place the explosives for the controlled demolition of a tall building. In principle, it could be done by fewer people, but then it requires much more time, increasing the risk that the explosives would be accidentally discovered by employees in the building.
So in my opinion, the "official American government version" has the advantage of limiting the number of conspirators -- there may have been fewer than two-dozen operating within the US, with an unknown number of middlemen engaged in money-laundering outside the US, plus a few "top bosses."
If Marcus wants an "alternative version," however, I'd suggest a somewhat simpler one: the "official version" is MOSTLY true (there were 19 hijackers on four airplanes; there were no explosives in the buildings; the towers fell because the burning jet fuel caused heat-failure of the steel, etc.), EXCEPT that the hijackers were actually fanatical American CIA agents, and not fanatical foreign Islamists.
Or, one could argue that there were, in a sense, TWO conspiracies: the "kamikaze" attacks on 9/11 planned and executed by a group of Middle Eastern fanatics of unknown identity; and a second conspiracy by Bush and the CIA after 9/11, to link the attacks specifically with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and thus create an excuse for the Afghanistan war. Indeed, there are probably millions of Americans who believe some version of this: that the 11 September terror attacks truly were carried out by Islamic terrorists, but that Bush lied and lied and lied about the the connection to "Al Qaeda" in order to justify a hunt for Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Whether you agree with this or not, it's a better "alternative interpretation" of the known facts than what Marcus has offered.
Let me emphasize very clearly that I don't personally believe this!the hijackers were actually fanatical American CIA agents, and not fanatical foreign Islamists.
But I will certainly admit to Marcus that this line of argument is "less weak", and more difficult to disprove, than many of the other "Truth About 9/11" alternative theories.
Вы думаете, что какие-то террористы смогли обмануть ЦРУ, ФБР и прочие американские структуры, а ЦРУ и ФБР не смогли бы обмануть простых работников?!For example, the theory that there were explosives inside the WTC buildings overlooks the fact that it generally takes a LARGE TEAM of demolition experts (= more co-conspirators) to place the explosives for the controlled demolition of a tall building. In principle, it could be done by fewer people, but then it requires much more time, increasing the risk that the explosives would be accidentally discovered by employees in the building.
Also...
А вы склоняетесь к необходимости провокации! As you wrote, "атаки... произвели сногсшибательный эффект, который не мог быть достигнут другим путём."
If one is predisposed to believe in the necessity of a big Machiavellian conspiracy, then every piece of evidence will seem to you to support the existence of the conspiracy -- and any contrary piece of evidence only proves that the conspiracy is even bigger than you suspected.
Just as for Young Earth Creationists, the fact that biologists, physicists, geologists, and astronomers are all in general agreement that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, simply proves that they're all participating in an atheist conspiracy to discredit the Bible!
So, while I respect Marcus for being skeptical about the "official government version", and I understand that it's important to consider alternative hypotheses, I also think that a склонность к теориям заговора -- это вредно умственному здоровью! (I'm not sure if I said that correctly -- I meant, "a tendency towards conspiracy theories is harmful to intellectual health").
Как "обмануть"? The terrorists had valid visas and were living legally in the US, along with millions of law-abiding Muslim immigrants among whom they were able to hide themselves. They wisely choose to use simple box-cutter blades, and thus avoided drawing attention by purchasing guns or materials for explosives. They purchased their plane tickets legally. In short, they were extremely well-behaved, and there was no reason for the CIA or FBI to take much notice of them, until 11 September, когда они вдруг вели себя ОЧЕНЬ некультурно и по-хамски!
Also, again, я думаю, что вы слишком высоко оцениваете способности ЦРУ. If the term "total cluster fuck" did not already exist in US military slang, the CIA would make it necessary to invent the term! Not to disrespect them, because most of them are highly conscientious people who do the best they can at a difficult job, but real life is not a Hollywood movie, and in real life, the CIA has often made embarrassing errors.
First, consider these words of wisdom from Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time."
To paraphrase this, I am doubtful that the "ЦРУ и ФБР" could have fooled enough of the "простые работники", for a long enough time, to have placed explosives in the buildings without detection (which would have probably taken several weeks at minimum, because the buildings are so large, and because the explosives would have to be smuggled in a little bit at a time).
In addition to the thousands of office workers, the WTC buildings had a huge staff of cleaning people, elevator technicians, security guards, heating/air-conditioning specialists, electricians, fire inspectors, etc. -- many of whom normally had access to the "hidden" areas where any explosives would logically be hidden. And these people did not all have the same employer -- some were actually employees of the New York Port Authority that owned the WTC, while others were employed by outside contractors, and thus the minimum number of co-conspirators is increased.
But anyway, why bother with explosives in the buildings? If the CIA/FBI team was as clever and omnipotent as you believe, then wouldn't it have been rather simple for them to "fake hijack" four FedEx cargo planes full of fertilizer, diesel fuel, and C4, instead of using passenger planes? This would have guaranteed HUGE fiery explosions without a need to put bombs in the buildings, while at the same time avoiding the risk of passenger rebellion, as in the case of United Airlines Flight 93 that failed to reach its target and crashed in a Pennsylvania field.
For that matter, they could've gotten a much higher number of deaths (your claim is that the goal was to create an artificial casus belli, remember!) by hitting the WTC towers at, say, the 25th floor, and in the early afternoon rather than in the early morning (easily 30,000 deaths that way, instead of 3,000).
когда они вдруг повели себяНасколько я знаю, погиб обслуживающий персонал - руководители не пострадали. Возможно, они хотели пожертвовать только незначительными, с их точки зрения людьми.For that matter, they could've gotten a much higher number of deaths (your claim is that the goal was to create an artificial casus belli, remember!) by hitting the WTC towers at, say, the 25th floor, and in the early afternoon rather than in the early morning (easily 30,000 deaths that way, instead of 3,000).
Один вопрос всё равно остаётся без ответа: какие цели преследовали террористы?
I don't know where the line is drawn between "обслуживающий персонал" and "руководители". What I do know is that the victims of the WTC attacks included people from illegal-immigrant restaurant workers to millionaire executives with "Vice President of..." titles, and many different levels of middle-class workers in between.
Х*й его знает, the terrorists are all dead and we can't ask them what their motivations were -- for example, did they really believe that this was the logical first step towards the establishment of a Global Caliphate, as many American conservatives claim?
However, one can suggest some more general answers:
(1) They simply wanted to "prove that it could be done", by succeeding where the 1993 truck-bombings in the WTC had failed;
(2) They hoped that the attacks would symbolically humiliate the USA, and also weaken it economically;
(3) They hoped that others would imitate their example, and encourage others to attack America;
(4) They hoped that a weakened USA would be forced to remove its military bases from Saudi Arabia and to stop supporting the Saudi regime, so that they (the terrorists) could take political control of "the holy peninsula";
(5) They truly believed that Allah would reward their efforts in the afterlife.
All of these are possible explanations even if you reject the theory that "a huge global network of Al-Qaeda jihadists is working to establish a worldwide caliphate because they're still angry about losing Andalusia"...
А на это у сторонников теории заговора есть "простой" ответ: взрывчатка была заложена в здания во время их строительства.
Согласно методу Шерлока Холмса надо отбросить неправильные версии и тогда оставшаяся, какой бы невероятной она ни была, будет ответом на загадку. Многочисленные теории заговоров показывают, что бывает, если на начальном этапе отбросить правильную версию. Приходится придумывать всё более и более невероятные объяснения. Взывать к логике бесполезно. Им кажется, что это они проводят расследование, руководствуясь логикой. Самое смешное, что в каком-то смысле так и есть, просто в основе рассуждений ошибочная предпосылка. Например, Маркус почему-то верит, что спецслужбы не могут ошибаться. В его представлении это аксиома. Поэтому любое утверждение, которое ей противоречит, включая предположение о теракте, легко опровергается с помощью логики. Если вы продолжаете считать, что это были теракты, то, значит, вы руководствуетесь не логикой, а чем-то ещё, верой.
And they waited for 30 years to blow it up?А на это у сторонников теории заговора есть "простой" ответ: взрывчатка была заложена в здания во время их строительства.
Not to mention that out of thousands of construction workers some would have noticed something suspicious.
As throbert said - "fake hijacking" 4 remote controlled cargo planes is a lot easier...
Я не помню деталей, кажется, утверждалось, что это секретное условие контракта, чтобы башни можно было быстро снести, когда на их месте захотят построить что-нибудь ещё более грандиозное. Заряды можно заложить в балки на заводе и уже в таком виде привезти на строительную площадку. Но дело не в этом. Если известно, что башни взорваны и во время эксплуатации их невозможно было заминировать, из этого логически следует, что их заминировали, когда строили. Не так ли?
Posting Permissions
Russian Lessons | Russian Tests and Quizzes | Russian Vocabulary |
Reply With Quote