Originally posted by Observor
I didn't say Rumsfeld desrired a terrorist attack for itself. He wanted people to be terrorised about an impending attack and felt that nothing short
of another attack would achieve that.
He made no mention of wanting people to be "terrorized". It seems he is speaking of being "aware" or "conscious" of potential threat.
I missed the other means he mentioned. Can you remind me about what they are?
The maturity to recognize the threat and acknowledge it as existing is what he says he wishes would happen. The "maturity" indicates being able to
seize an idea or concept intellectually, without needing direct physical experience of it. His point being that apparently, communicating this concept
verbally is not proving to be an effective means.
That does not automatically indicate that he is ready or willing to carry out this event himself. Allowing that correction to come (without any effort
to provoke it) is sometimes what we are obligated to do when met with a person(s) who do not heed our warning.
example- I can percieve and state that despite all my efforts to explain to him, my kid doesn't grasp the importance of doing his homework! (I could
even give a frustrated laugh at the idiocy of youth there) and say that if he does not graduate.. then he will "get it". He will stand corrected.
That does not mean I would wish that that happens, nor does it mean I would put forth any effort to make that happen. But at some point I may be
forced to give up my efforts and just let the effects of his choices come upon him.
I am not a mind reader, so exactly what a pro-choice guy wishes on the pro-lifers, I can't tell. But sure I didn't read that enough pro-lifers ending
up with unwanted pregancnies would be the correction. If you did, I would infer you desired it.
That would be a mistaken assumption then.
You didn't. But what does it prove? That Rumsfeld didn't desire it? Didn't plan it? That the low threat perception was right? Or something
else?
Oh, it doesn't "prove" anything.... I don't have much taste for wild claims of smoking guns!
It just made me consider that whether Rumsfeld wanted to create a terrorist attack or not (which we cannot ascertain from this recording either way)
he was either unsuccessful, or he was wrong about the threat being such a high probability, or the government was successful in avoiding it.
In any of those cases, arguing about what the man desired back then doesn't have much meaning now.
At least to me. I guess that realization just made me lose interest in this question, is all.
Over and out!
edit on 1-9-2011 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)
Are you sure you want that analogy applied to Rumsfeld's state of mind? That would imply Rumsfeld giving up on preventing any terrorist attacks
from happening, so people would "get it". 
