Is the "caveman" meme racist?

This was posted in reply to a post of mine: "... 19 Muslims and their leader in a cave ...." The caveman argument is a common one here and one that I have always found offensive. These are are fact as we know them:

1. OBL was a university trained engineer and the hijackers were predominately middle class, educated Saudis.

2. They were well versed in the use of high technology such as computers, the internet and satellite phones. In no way were they representative of a backwards culture.

3. 911 was not conceived and directed from a cave. Al Queda had sprawling training camps in Afghanistan and moved freely throughout the country until the US attacked. OBL only retreated to the caves at Tora Bora after we attacked. In other words, 911 was conceived and directed from what was in essence a military base.

Why is so important to denigrate the ability of Muslims to pull off 911? After 4 years of Iraq is there any question how brave, resourceful, adaptable and dangerous they are? They don't seem to have any problem exploiting our military weaknesses in Iraq so why is it so hard to imagine them doing the same on 911?

Can we at least agree that the caveman theme is inaccurate and should not be used anymore?

For those who use it and swear they aren't being racist, it's still clearly true that they're being stupid. I kinda think it's stupid and racist.

How desperate are you?

It is racist and inaccurate and I've spoken out to object when I hear it raised. It's never been raised by me, or to my knowledge anyone I've worked with consistently or promoted.

"Muslims did X" is a gross and bigoted generalization, regardless. "Islamist" is a meaningful category, as would be "theocrats" or "fundamentalists" or militants of a given sect (Shia, Sunni, Wahhabi). Mujahedeen jihadists also means something.

As does the term "asset," conscious or otherwise. That is also meaningful, and perhaps quite relevant.

I don't think ObL orchestrated 9/11 from a cave, but I don't rule out the possibility that he was involved in it as the billionaire accomplice to his well-known business partners within the global elite, you know, the kind of guys who run the Carlyle Group or Halliburton.

Now that we've cleared that up:

Are you willing to foreswear the cherry-picking of given statements by individuals that you then use as a broad-brush against all 9/11 skeptics?

Will you grant to your antagonists in these debates the basic dignity of fair representation of their arguments? Of taking them as individuals with individual statements rather than some Borg-like group entity? Of avoiding strawman, ad hom and guilt-by-association fallacies? And of taking on the strongest points with logic, rather than carpet-bombing the weakest points with a ridicule that will persuade no one?

Finally:

There is an inverted version of the caveman idea, popular among certain anti-imperialists. By no means all - and I doubt you are among them (you may not even be "anti-imperialist"). This idea makes the alleged hijackers into heroes of the Third World resistance or Islam, powerful "propagandists of the deed" who struck a blow in the only language the empire will ever understand. (See: Ward Churchill. In a curious way, also Michael Scheuer, the "Anonymous" who left the CIA.)

I think this is also racist. The alleged hijackers of the official story are a self-appointed cell. Vanguardists, so to speak, who take it upon themselves to represent the Muslim or Arab cause.

I don't think describing the idea of OBL as plotting 9/11 from inside a cave is a big deal.

Only those desperate to introduce "racism" slurs alongside "anti-semitism" are really bothered about it.

I thought you were about the truth? Clearly this is far from the truth and is one step removed from calling OBL and the hijackers sand-n*rs.

So why use the term if not for the racist portrayal?

He is depicted as plotting 9/11 from there.
Caves have played a big part in his life.
It's not a big deal.

But maybe that's.. anti-semitic/homophobic/ageist/sexist... select the slur of your choice.

It doesn't matter when you want to throw shit in the hope some of it sticks.

The "caveman" slur stereotypes Arab peoples as backwards cave dwellers without the technological or intellectual acumen to plan an attack that could so devastate the most advanced country on the face of the earth. It's also exceptionalism, but that's another failing of the conspiracist mind and we'll save that for another day.

Bin Laden lived in a cave. He can legitimately be described as a caveman (I've never described him as such before - but I might now just to make a point).

Your extrapolation of calling OBL a caveman to all Arabs are backwards cave dwellers is truely absurd.

Happy shit slinging.

...I think you're being cavemanist.

Are you insinuating there was something wrong with cavemen?

19 backward losers (Muslims) run by a man in a cave (who wasn't actually in a cave until after 9/11, if even then).

Not only is this mythology - it has racist overtones and one could easily avoid it!

One is well advised to avoid it.

I think it's much more relevant that six of these "cavemen" actually appear to have received their training... on US military bases. Don't you?

OBL used them against the Russians.

Caves have been a big part of his life.

Caveman is an understandable and easy desription. Pot Holers get called cavemen too, is that racist?

But don't worry I understand the caveman label. I also understand spin and the way OCTers are desperate to attach "ist"and "ism" labels to anyone who they disagree with.

Much ado about nothing.

That's not distraction is it?

considering how many time I have been called a Bush supporter or disinfo agent for not agreeing with the CT du jour.

Or apologize. To me. For the insinuation that I did this.

I wish to see an end to the high-school behavior on all sides. I take this issue seriously, not only as a form of gang warfare by electronic means.

Not by you that is true - however I don't see you taking on the more obnoxious CTrs in this forum. Need I remind you that not a single "OCTr" has been tombstoned in this forum while there are numerous CTrs who are no longer with us due to "high-school behavior"?

There has been at least one "OCT'er" who was tombstoned fairly recently.

and you must admit there have been many more CTrs.

When did I join the club of CTists? What do I care who was tombstoned for what reason?

When all this started, the CT term was thrown around liberally as a conversation stopper. Raise a question about 9/11, be told you are defiling the graves of the dead, or else you're a stupid woo woo anti-Semite chemtrail-believing sasquatch UFOs Vince Foster blah blah (insert non-sequitir of choice).

How many times was I told that if I thought as I do about 9/11, then I must answer for the statements of Alex Jones or Mike Rivero or the LC2 Crew?

If I successfully communicate that I come from a different place altogether, and I'm actually critical of said writers, that's when I really get the treatment. I'm sneered at as insignificant compared to them, and dismissible for that reason (as though this isn't an Internet board in which we are all equally nobodies who represent our own views and no one else's).

Finally, I join the club. I defend against the bullies (or are they more akin to barnacles?) in a natural way, and term them Official CTs. Literally, it's true. The high school cliques are born...

"Bushco is too incompetant" to carry out 9/11.

And yeah, that's sarcasm.

Only rich white people get the presumption of anything they do must be due to incompetence instead of intent. The operation is too complex for the covert policy apparatus, but it's a piece of cake for 19 amateurs (and I think one can call them that, no?).

I think possibly cakeist too.

if you buy into all the esoteric theories such as CD, stand downs, etc. When you look at it from the perspective of a group of hardened warriors who studied their enemy, found a glaring security weakness and then took advantage of it, it is not so complex. They had train four men to fly airplanes - that is not complex when you have the time, money and access to flight schools.

And don't forget that OBL didn't have to worry about a cover up - Bush did. And the cover up logically has to encompass a huge group of people.

Where is the air force person who was told to stand down and wondered "something is wrong here."?
Where is the FBI agent who saw the initial WTC investigation subverted and wondered "something is wrong here."?
Where is the Arlington fire fighter who saw the damage to the Pentagon and wondered "something is wrong here."?
Where is the NIST scientist (and every other structural engineer for that matter) who saw the NIST report subverted and wondered "something is wrong here."?

If you were to argue that the 19 hijackers were CIA patsies who actually flew airplanes into the WTC and Pentagon I would have more respect for your ideas - that strikes me as plausible plan that has the advantage of simplifying the cover up. It is the CD, stand down, Pentagon missiles, etc that lose me.

...were all the Hitler critics in Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945?

Just because someone isn't publicly saying "something is wrong here", doesn't mean something isn't wrong.

People have jobs, security, family and reputations to worry about.

Its called "putting your head above the parapet". Actually some have done it - but you probably missed that for some reason, maybe it wasn't on Fox news.

Some have done it and are officially gagged.

How about that.

in an all out attempt to embarrass the Bush administration and suffer no consequences yet the thousands that have knowledge of 911 live in fear? Right. In the age of digital internet anonymity it is very possible to leak extremely damaging information with little or no chance of being caught.

And it requires a very cynical view of mankind - that all these people would rather be complicit in the murder of their fellow Americans instead of taking a moral stand. Would you sit quiet? Are you a moral coward also? Or would you do the right thing regardless of the consequences?

Which I note has received no response from you yet, though perhaps you were busy. For some reason, you think I'm obligated to provide a defense, not of my own statements, but of every claim made by anyone whom you have categorized as belonging to the group you call "CTs". (My membership is enforced by you.)

Furthermore, my belief is that a "real" plot was afoot, known about, subverted and used by elements of the covert policy apparatus (not the CIA per se). To me, this is equivalent to any other idea of orchestration/false-flag (it is just as much treason). The LIHOP/MIHOP wars are a false dichotomy and an absurd waste of time.

Most importantly, my beliefs (and yours) are equally irrelevant, although your evident idealism about the system and belief in the power of whistleblowers and the possibility of transparency in a national security state is touching.

The obvious cover-up, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence and patent lying by the supposed investigating bodies invites demands for the real story and well-grounded accusations that there was criminal negligence, complicity or some kind of inside job, given the long history of such covert operations.

The ability to cover up atrocities in the past is empirical confirmation that cover-ups do happen and do work.

Where is the uncompromising investigation of 9/11 that doesn't omit uncomfortable questions, render complicity theories inconceivable from the git-go, omit contrary testimony or relegate non-conformists to a single mention in the footnotes?

Your questions:

Where is the air force person who was told to stand down and wondered "something is wrong here."?

In your version of reality, he's getting a dossier ready for the New York Times, which will front-page his revelations. After this, he gets a screenplay offer from Hollywood. In mine, it's not even clear that a standdown order as such was needed (since orchestrating confusion and encouraging CYA works a lot better). But if he exists, such a person would most likely be grateful that he kept his "sacred oath" to keep national secrets and said nothing, since the effect of speaking out would have been to get fired, to invite the blame on himself, or worse.

Where are the CIA personnel who killed people at Abu Ghraib, by the way? I notice some privates who followed (illegal) orders and happened to be in the pictures were fucked over. What about the actual killers?

Where is the FBI agent who saw the initial WTC investigation subverted and wondered "something is wrong here."?

Fired, or in some obscure field office. There were a series of personnel changes at the top of the WTC investigation during the first two months, as central hq muscled in on the New York office that initially ran the investigation. In the middle of it, half of the 3,000 investigators were pulled all at once and sent off to look for the anthrax mailer. Some guys said the evidence trail had been laid out for them to follow. (This of course, in your reality, made huge headlines and toppled Mueller III.) The examples of Wright and Edmonds serve as warnings to the rest.

And again, you're assuming such people can see subversion as anything other than an incompetence and bureaucracy they can't change.

Where are the FBI agents who "fucked up" the investigations by the way? Promoted, given medals, awaiting fat retirements.

Where is the Arlington fire fighter who saw the damage to the Pentagon and wondered "something is wrong here."?

Clearest example of how you're not interested in debating me but only engaging in broad-brush attacks by association. I never thought anything hit the Pentagon other than a 757. However, April Gallop, Karen Kwiatkowski and others on the scene did say things along these lines. (At which point they were not called conspiracy theorists and liars and told to shut the fuck up and shuttled out of service, but applauded and put on TV. In Hack89's world, anyway.)

Where is the NIST scientist (and every other structural engineer for that matter) who saw the NIST report subverted and wondered "something is wrong here."?

Again, I am a CD agnostic. But: They admit to the "subversion" every day, man. It requires no special subterfuge and very minimal cognitive dissonance, if any. There is no need to "subvert" an examination that has already had its conclusions determined in the definition of the charge it is given.

Their task was to model the collapse from plane impact and fire. The report makes it clear NIST had zero scraps from WTC 7 (although FEMA still had a couple) and one total from the WTC 1 impact zone. Dr. Sunder, when I asked him if there were any tests for explosive residues, told me with a note of pride: "No such tests were done." It's great that he knew they were unnecessary in advance.

They didn't even start until almost two years have passed. If they must do some song-and-dance about how the plane impact blew off the fireproofing (another thing they cannot know but is necessary to their collapse hypothesis), so be it. They fiddle around with a computer model until it produces a plausible collapse scenario (without knowing actual damage, since this is unknowable). Then collect their paychecks. What the hell do you expect, the Russian Revolution on the basis of a guess there may have been foul play? (A guess that goes against the mindset of nearly everyone in the government agencies and corporations involved?)

Then, bizarrely, they delay the presumably much easier task of a WTC 7 report by two years and counting.

there was nothing complex about 911. The idea that Al Queda pulled off 911 is simpler then any CT. And the thing is, you can still be MIHOP and still think that Al Queda did it.

I will never accept your cynical view of people that accepts without question that thousands of Americans would rather be complicit in the murder of their fellow Americans rather then make a moral stand. I know what choice I would make - if you are a moral person I assume you would also make the same choice I would. Is everyone else around us moral cowards? I don't think so.

That is not my view. You seem to be incapable of arguing with me without misrepresenting my position.

Does not require "thousands." Or witting complicity.

You ignore what happened to Col. Anthony Shaffer and Sibel Edmonds, among those who did take a moral stand. These real world examples are worth a lot more than your theorizing about what you think Americans would do. An Edmonds is fired and gagged, a Frasca is promoted, a Tenet gets a medal of honor. The broadcast media cover the only the last, as a heartwarming ceremony.

But you ignore the real Edmondses and pretend a fictional Edmonds would get honorable treatment, because America is a good place. You ignore that so many points you brought up have been countered or shown to be plainly untrue. Your world view relies on denial of facts. You prefer to think you'd do the right thing, which you might, rather than look at what actually happens, case by case.

Where is the investigation that would settle these questions?

So the CIA and NSA leak like sieves in an all out attempt to embarrass the Bush administration and suffer no consequences yet the thousands that have knowledge of 911 live in fear? Right. In the age of digital internet anonymity it is very possible to leak extremely damaging information with little or no chance of being caught. Where are the anonymous and damaging leaks?

You know as well as I do that both parties will never allow an investigation - they both have too much to lose. If we are to believe the truth movement the Democrats are just as complicit in the cover up as the BFEE so why do you then turn around and believe for a second that they will permit an investigation? They know that there is not public outcry for one. They also know that if they want Bush's scalp, the Iraq war is much better way to go with much less chance of collateral damage.

That's in your scheme, your caricature of 9/11 skeptic scenarios. Always the "thousands." (Like the thousands who must have known about Gladio, by the way - so I guess it didn't happen.)

Answer two simple questions:

1) Has there been an exhaustive and adequate investigation of 9/11. Did the 9/11 Commission (for example) conduct a serious investigation that pursued all relevant avenues with regard to potential criminality associated with 9/11? Did it answer the questions about 9/11 that a people would need to know to remain sovereign in a democracy?

2) If no: Are you for or against a real investigation that settles these debates, not by way of mutually repetition of biases about how we think things are (as on this board), but by way of open and fearless examination, acknowledgment of all potential scenarios, admission of all potentially relevant evdience, open testimony (show hearings of selected officials do not count), subpoenas, cross-examination?

Otherwise we're done. Readers of this thread can judge.

or have the expertise to expose the cover up. All those NIST scientist, for example, that know bad science when they see it. All those military people that were stood down and knew that procedures were ignored.

My entire point is that it is the cover up that is your weak spot - not the conspiracy. Think of all the government agencies involved in the investigation and you see my point. The government is not a monolithic block of faceless bureaucratic drones. They are full of people like you and me - many are democrats hired during the Clinton administration. The idea that they could keep it secret is nonsense.

..they have "Sibel Edmonds Dyslexia"... they can't see her apparently.

9/11 Commission is a whitewash and a farce, a scam on the American people, I'm not going along with this, comparison to Warren Commission as also looking only at "partial information."

It doesn't matter what he thinks happened: he's saying the investigation is a joke and refusing to go along with the scam.

But there are no whistleblowers! No skeptics among officials. No, no no!

Whose treatment is exemplary. An advertisement, a warning to anyone contemplating similar behavior.

The formula is to discipline a Shaffer, make a public example of a Wright, fire an Edmonds, then promote an Eberhard, a Maltbie, a Frasca, and top it off with a medal to Tenet - obviously a combination that makes whistleblowers want to run out and say, yeah! I know some little piece of something that sounds suspicious! It's not much but please, ridicule me! Fire me! Hound me on the Internet! Leave my testimony out of the 9/11 Commission Report! Pretend you forgot you talked to me! I *must* make a moral stand with the little piece of the puzzle I think I know! Etc. etc.

Of course, as we see, by the sickening, amoral reckoning of a Hack89, one debunker strategy is simply to IGNORE the existence of the whistleblowers, and then to argue they don't exist. Add some reassurances to oneself about what a good people we are, how we'd expose such evils (if they were even thinkable, which they're not).

And then, to top it off, pick some scenario written by a blogger about "19 cave men" and act morally outraged by THAT. Your government is lying about the justification for all of its policies? No big deal. Some guy on the Internet peddling misconceptions about structural engineering? Horrible, horrible! It needs years and years of debunking work, it cannot be tolerated!

Concerning bureaucratic incompetence and infighting - I just don't think she is supports MIHOP. I have no doubt that she was retaliated against.

...that's racist against White Male Protestants.

Surely.

I still think people are being unfair to Cavemen personally.

But, seriously I think it is pretty demeaning, but I doubt the fearless troothers see it that way. It's their way of implying OBL and his crew of radicals were not really smart enough to pull off 9/11 without help. What do you expect from them, it's not like those that use the meme are intellectual giants.

Oops, that might be demeaning.

it was planned by a guy in Pakistan - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (or at least that's where he was when he was arrested).

As for Afghanistan - the Taliban are not exactly cavemen but they were pretty much amongst the poorest and most primitive govt and culture on the planet. Even OBL was known for iving a very simple and spartan life in Afghanistan devoid of the comforts that he could have taken for granted if he'd in SA.

But "ist" and "ism" got thrown about, so it depends what you're trying to do.

Don't they have a cave too?

OCTers are scoring lots of points here.

The main point being that all CTers are obviously racist.

Obviously.

the real question is why the obvious attempt to down play the ability of Al Queda to pull off 911. I don't thing that racism is intended but rather the by-product of trying to minimize the abilities of the hijackers - call it the soft racism of lowered expectations if you will.

I do think people uncritically parrot these pithy phrases. They don't take the time to actually think about what they're saying. More to the point though, there are a number of groups (Hezbollah via Al Manar TV and the Nation of Aztlán via La Voz de Aztlan to name just two) using the shock, outrage and relative feelings of helplessness that are common to many people (not just truthers) to advance agendas which are most decidedly racist, anti-semitic or otherwise bigoted. When we bandy about memes such as '19 Arabs in caves...' we're helping these people to spread their message.

Hating the Jewish race because they're Jews is anti-semitic.

Questioning the actions Israel and of particular Jews involved in 9/11 is not anti-semitic.

Silverstein is a Jew.
The dancing Israelis were Jews - some of them were Mossad agents - presumably working for Israel (but who knows in the world of Intelligence).

Questioning what they were up to is not equated with hating all Jews. It's NOT anti-semitic. So you can cut that crap.

It's called shit slinging.

..ah well.. at least it's still an "ism".

As for playing down the ability of Al Queda, just how do you avoid having four hijacked planes being intercepted by US Miltary jets?

How do you get on board said planes en masse when you are on terrorist watch lists and the authorities have been warned over and over about likely attacks?

Now maybe the stupid Al Queda thing is overplayed a bit, but only because people genuinely have a problem believing they could do this unaided.

First off, since there have been no interceptions by armed fighters over US land for decades, it was a reasonable assumption that the air force's response would be slow.

Secondly, they knew that once they turned off their transponders that their position would not be visible to the ATCs - they knew that the FAA system is a cooperative system that depends on transponders and is designed to efficiently control aircraft not detect planes without transponders. They also knew that the military radars have no coverage over the mainland - they are oriented out to sea to detect foreign threats.

Thirdly, without a accurate position from the ATC there is no way for the fighters to find the airliners. Fighter radars have limited coverage (usually 45 degrees either side of the nose) and depend on accurate direction from either a land or airborne radar - the military usually depends on AWACS for this task.

You have an amazingly positive view of the competency of US government agencies. They have fucked up everything since 911 yet we are supposed to accept perfection before?

First off, since there have been no interceptions by armed fighters over US land for decades, it was a reasonable assumption that the air force's response would be slow.

Simply not true.. they practice this stuff for God's sake... and there were also some high profile interceptions in the news prior to 9/11. No "reasonable assumption there...

Secondly, they knew that once they turned off their transponders that their position would not be visible to the ATCs

Simply not true, their identity is invisible, the plane as a object is still visible - Flight 77 was tracked for instance from at the very least 50 miles out of DC and had appeared back on radar (apparently unnoticed - yeah right) 8 minutes after the transponder was turned off.

- they knew that the FAA system is a cooperative system that depends on transponders and is designed to efficiently control aircraft not detect planes without transponders.

Garbage - they can track objects without transponders - you know they can.

They also knew that the military radars have no coverage over the mainland - they are oriented out to sea to detect foreign threats.

Garbage - The Military taps into mainland ATC radar (or is it the other way around - who knows) and has its own radar systems anyway, airborne and ground based.

Thirdly, without a accurate position from the ATC there is no way for the fighters to find the airliners.

50 miles, 40 miles, 30 miles, 20 miles, 10 miles... you need to speak to Mineta.

Fighter radars have limited coverage (usually 45 degrees either side of the nose) and depend on accurate direction from either a land or airborne radar - the military usually depends on AWACS for this task.

The planes were never lost so I don't see the relevance of fighter plane radar here.

You have an amazingly positive view of the competency of US government agencies.

Ah.. the incompetency argument. It was all incompetancy.... ok... who got fired?

1. I have asked many times and no one has ever shown me proof of intercepts over land (Payne Stewart doesn't count). If they were high profile surely you have some links.

2. As pointed out many times here, the actual ATC displays do not show actual radar returns - they show synthetic video that is stitched together from various radar sites. All the ATCs see is transponder information. They reconstructed the plane's flight path after the fact by going back and looking at tapes of the raw radar returns the computers use to create the ATC picture.

3. Military did not tap into the FAA system until post 911. Military radars are only on the coasts - they do not duplicate the FAA system.

Here is a good history:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/searching_the_skies.htm

4. Of course no one got fired - that's the point. The entire administration is incompetent from the top down. Why do you expect them to fire anyone - time and time again they have shown that their reflexive response in to stonewall.

Go on.