A Philosopher's Blog

Are Guns Analogous to Cars?

Posted in Ethics, Law, Philosophy by Michael LaBossiere on February 8, 2013
Case O' Guns

Case O’ Guns (Photo credit: Gregory Wild-Smith)

One common strategy in the various gun debates is to compare guns and other dangerous things, such as cars. Interestingly, both those who favor and those who oppose increased limitations make use of this comparison.

Since this is an age of micro-communication, the comparison is often made rapidly and without adequate development. However, it does seem useful to expand a bit on the comparison and present some properly developed arguments.

An analogical argument is an argument in which one concludes that two things are alike in a certain respect because they are alike in other respects. Formally, an argument by analogy looks like this:

  • Premise 1: X and Y have properties P,Q,R.
  • Premise 2: X has property Z.
  • Conclusion: Y has property Z.


The first premise establishes the analogy by showing that the things (X and Y) in question are similar in certain respects (properties P, Q, R, etc.).  The second premise establishes that X has an additional quality, Z. The conclusion asserts that Y has property or feature Z as well. Since this is an inductive argument, the truth of the premises is supposed to make the conclusion likely to be true rather than certainly true.

A Škoda Superb II car. Français : Une automobi...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The strength (quality) of an analogical argument depends on three factors. First, the more properties X and Y have in common, the better the argument. Second, the more relevant the shared properties are to property Z, the better the argument. Third, it must be determined whether X and Y have relevant dissimilarities as well as similarities. The more dissimilarities and the more relevant they are, the weaker the argument. Now the basics of the argument by analogy have been presented, I can proceed to the main attraction—comparing guns and cars.

Those who favor increased limitations on guns can avail themselves of an analogy between guns and cars that involves the fact that driving is highly regulated. To be specific, the argument for more restrictions on guns could be framed as follows:



  • Premise 1: Cars and guns are dangerous machines that can cause harm or death intentionally or accidentally.
  • Premise 2: The operation of a car is extensively regulated by law and requires that the operator be properly trained and licensed.
  • Conclusion: Therefore, the operation of a gun should be extensively regulated by law and require that the operator be properly trained and licensed.

Since this is a very brief argument, the specific regulations, licensing and so on would need to be properly specified in a very extensive case for more extensively regulating guns. Despite its concise presentation, the argument does seem appealing. After all, if I cannot drive my truck around without having a license and insurance, it would seem to make sense that (for similar reasons) I should not be able to have a gun without being properly licensed and insured. At the core of the justification is, of course, the fact that both guns and cars are machines that can cause considerable damage either by accident or intent.

Despite the appeal of this comparison, there are differences between cars and guns that could break the analogy. The most obvious is, at least in the United States, that gun ownership is taken to be a legal and moral right, whereas driving is regarded as a privilege. Intuitively, restricting a right would require stronger justification than restricting a privilege.

Interestingly, the analogy can be accepted but it could be claimed that it does not justify more limitations on guns. After all, the regulation of cars covers the operation of the car in public—that is, on roads where there are other people. If I wish to drive my truck around only on my own land, then I do not require a license and the regulations governing this are rather limited.

In the case of guns, a person who wishes to bring a gun into public places generally needs a concealed weapon permit (which requires training and an extensive background check). Hunting, even on private land, also requires a license (which requires proof of training). A person can, however, travel to a legitimate shooting range with her gun without a license—but the gun must be properly stored (typically in a case). A person can also have a weapon in her dwelling (with some exceptions) and even fire it on her property, provided that the discharge of firearms is not restricted there (which is most often the case anywhere but out in the country).

Because of this, it could be concluded that the gun laws are already comparable to the laws governing cars and hence there is no need to increase the restrictions on guns. This could, of course be countered by arguing that guns are different from cars in ways that would warrant more extensive regulations. However, this would obviously involve abandoning the argument by analogy that compared cars and guns.

As noted above, it is also possible to draw a comparison between cars and guns aimed at showing that there should not be severe restrictions on gun ownership.


  • Premise 1: Guns and cars are dangerous machines that can cause harm or death intentionally or accidentally.
  • Premise 2: Private ownership of guns should be severely restricted.
  • Conclusion: Therefore, the private ownership of cars should be severely restricted.


Obviously enough, those taking a pro-gun position would take this analogy to lead to what they would hope most would regard as an absurdity or at least unacceptable, namely that the private ownership of cars should be severely restricted. Behind the argument is, of course, the principle that what justifies severely restricting ownership of a dangerous machine is its capacity to cause harm intentionally or accidentally. By this principle, if gun ownership should be severely restricted on the grounds that doing so will avoid harm, then car ownership should also be severely restricted on the grounds that doing so will avoid harm. Guns and cars both have causal roles in the harms caused intentionally or accidentally by people (and cars also contribute extensively to pollution and climate change making them potentially more damaging than guns).

Just as those who favor severe restrictions on guns tend to claim that the police can provide the protection citizens require, it could be claimed that public transport would provide the transportation that citizens require. Obviously enough, someone who favors severe restrictions on cars and is in favor of public transportation might regard this argument as reasonable rather than a reduction to absurdity.

This analogy can be countered by pointing out differences between guns and cars. One obvious difference is that guns are designed to cause harm while cars are designed to transport people. Cars are lethal weapons—but unintentionally so. However, it is not clear that this difference is relevant to the matter of regulation. After all, the fact that a car is not designed to kill people does not make those killed by cars any less dead. What seems to matter is the impact of the machine and not its intended function.

This can be countered by contending that guns do not have a legitimate use in civilian hands that would justify tolerating the harms involving guns. In contrast, the value of cars warrants tolerating the harms and deaths involving cars. This case can be made and would involve assessing the value of guns and cars relative to the harms done by allowing people to privately own them. That is, how many deaths it is acceptable to pay for private ownership of cars versus private ownership of guns. If cars are worth the cost and guns are not, then the analogy would break, thus allowing private ownership of guns to be severely restricted while allowing far less restriction on the private ownership of cars.

My Amazon Author Page

Enhanced by Zemanta

105 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 8, 2013 at 6:37 pm

    This is correct: “guns are designed to cause harm while cars are designed to transport people”, which means the two are not analogous. Both should be regulated, operators properly trained and licensed. High schools today are taking driver education OUT of the classroom, and government does nothing to federalize and standardize driver education and licensing, even though this is an interstate matter. The federal government does nothing to stop the deadly menace of bad drivers, which it should, and over 30,000 people are killed and tens of thousands are injured every year, due to accidents and bad driving.

  2. T. J. Babson said, on February 8, 2013 at 7:26 pm

    Good discussion about the limits of reasoning by analogy. Nothing is exactly the same as anything else, but they bear family resemblances.

    Vehicles are indeed dangerous, but if a school-bus accident took the lives of 20 kids there would be no call for “schoolbus control.”

    Likewise, swimming pools kill far more kids than guns, but nobody wants to ban swimming pools.

    Probably the closest things to guns are fireworks.

  3. FRE said, on February 8, 2013 at 9:23 pm

    I take issue with the idea that driving a vehicle is a privilege and not a right.

    In general, one can easily live without a gun. I have never owned one and have not shot one once since target shooting in a police rifle range during by boy scouting days. Living without a gun has not adversely impacted my life in any way.

    On the other hand, we have developed the country in such a way that in most areas, living without being able to drive would be a serious handicap. It can be next to impossible to live in an area where one can get to work and do the necessary shopping without a car. Urban development generally assumes that everyone has convenient access to a car. Employers, when deciding where to locate, do not even consider that some potential employees may not be able to drive. For that reason, I consider being able to drive as not a privilege, but rather, a limited right contingent upon being able and willing to drive safely and meet one’s moral obligations if, through human error, one causes an accident.

    From the purely practical standpoint, being unable to drive is far more serious than being unable to own a gun. I would certainly agree to tightening driving standards since a huge number of drivers fail to recognize that driving is a serious responsibility requiring adequate knowledge (which should be refreshed from time to time) and skill to drive safely, but believe that the vast majority of drivers could meet much stricter standards if they had to to keep their licenses.

    Obviously there is the constitutional matter of the right to bear arms whereas the constitution does not mention driving, possibly only because the Founding Fathers had no way to anticipate it. But most constitutional rights are not absolute; generally there are limits. Surely it is reasonable to limit gun ownership and use to people who will probably not put others at risk. Also, it seems reasonable to put limits on the kinds of guns that people can own, such as not having guns that can accommodate magazines holding an excessive number of rounds or having far more power than would be required for hunting or self-defense. Probably few would assert that the constitution requires that people be able to own hand grenades, mortars, or Sherman tanks, even though the constitution does not state exactly what kinds of arms people are entitled to bear. Moreover, the Founding Fathers had no way to anticipate the development of the types of weapons that are currently available.

    • ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 9, 2013 at 12:28 pm

      You have the right to earn the privilege to drive. Driving is a skill that must be taught, learned, developed, and proven by a test. And if you don’t drive properly and safely you will lose that privilege. Then you can work somewhere along a bus route.

      Driving is a public safety matter, because we all share public roads. Guns are a public safety matter to, although not as important a matter as is safe driving.

      You also have the right to work for whoever and wherever you wish. If you chose to work for someone and somewhere you will need a car that’s your choice. People in the big cities (urban areas) use public transportation, It’s the suburbs and rural areas where people use cars, or, in some places: horse drawn buggies, which is their choice, and right, although I think they should not be allowed to do so, because it’s too dangerous.

      • FRE said, on February 9, 2013 at 4:07 pm

        “You also have the right to work for whoever and wherever you wish. If you chose to work for someone and somewhere you will need a car that’s your choice.”
        “If you chose to work for someone and somewhere you will need a car that’s your choice.”

        It ISN’T always a choice. Saying that it is a choice indicates a lack of understanding of the problems faced by poor people who cannot own a car and have no way to get where the jobs are, and also people who, for various reasons, are unable to drive.

        In 1978, when I moved to San Diego, I was very careful to buy a condominium as close as possible to where I would be working; I did not want to be dependent on motorized transportation. When the gasoline crisis hit, I was able to ride my bicycle to work (it was only three miles), although it was unnerving riding on the shoulder of the freeway. When my employer moved out farther, it would have been impossible to continue working there without owning a car because there was no public transportation. And, there were no other opportunities available without driving.

        You seem to think that anyone can easily find suitable employment in any location or be able to move easily to where there is suitable employment. That is most definitely not the case which is one of the reasons that it is hard to get incompetent drivers off of the roads.

        In earlier times, employers were careful to locate on public transportation lines but that is no longer a consideration. Moving to where employment is available is not always a choice either since if people did that, there would be no place to buy groceries and there might be no way for their children to get to school. Also, they may own a house and that can greatly complicate moving. Thus, many people are forced to own a car and drive whether they want to or not; for many people, driving is a matter of survival.

        Again, we have permitted urban development to occur in such a way that being able to drive is almost essential for survival. For that reason, driving has become a right instead of a privilege, although when people are unable or unwilling to drive safely, it is necessary to take that right away from them.

        • WTP said, on February 9, 2013 at 5:47 pm

          Moving to where employment is available is not always a choice either since if people did that, there would be no place to buy groceries and there might be no way for their children to get to school. Also, they may own a home…

          Get a job in the grocery store? How do employers chase out grocery stores? Seems it would be the other way around. You are simply looking for excuses to define rights in terms of needs. There’s so much muddled thinking here it’s hard to know where to start. Though I would hazard a guess that the muddled thinking starts by viewing the world through a prism of class and privilege. It is folly to start with a philosophy and then try to shoe-horn reality to fit what you think should be.

          • FRE said, on February 10, 2013 at 2:39 am

            Do you think really think that you could adequately support a family by working in a grocery store? On the other hand, perhaps it is a personal choice on whether to have a family.

            • WTP said, on February 10, 2013 at 10:34 am

              Yes. And I know people who have done it. You’re looking for excuses for failure instead of opportunities to succeed.

            • ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 10, 2013 at 10:04 pm

              You have standards, or requirements, that are very high. You’re very much a first world spoiled brat, are you not? I’m in Juarez, Mexico today and there are many people here supporting a family, on what you would consider impossible means, by doing what you would consider beneath your dignity, I’m sure. I have ZERO sympathy for you. Get over yourself. Most of the world would never even consider saying the stupid things you say, and I find it annoying.

        • ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 9, 2013 at 6:49 pm

          All people have a choice regarding where they will live and who they will work for. Just because some people never move doesn’t mean they haven’t a choice to move… they simply choose not to.

          I have walked to work, ridden a bicycle, taken the bus, and driven a vehicle as well. I was also an over-the-road truck driver for many years and, guess what? I lived in my truck, had no commute to work, had free transportation, and traveled all over the USA. You are free to do the same, as is everyone who can pass the driving and physical examinations. No sympathy for you bud!

          • FRE said, on February 10, 2013 at 2:46 am

            Do you think that people live in high crime areas purely because of choice and enjoy having their children killed in drive-by shootings?

            Decades ago, when I was poor, I walked or rode a bicycle to work. It wasn’t much of a problem in those days, but there have been changes since then since employers have moved out to remote suburbs where distances are too great to walk, riding a bicycle is unsafe, and public transportation is non-existent. And, had I been unable to drive, completing my degree by taking night classes for six years would have been impossible.

            I’m not the one who needs sympathy; I am better off financially than most people. However, I have not lived a sheltered life and am well aware of the problems that the less well-off face, including people who have inadequate access to transportation.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on February 9, 2013 at 9:42 pm


      Driving could be seen as connected to a more general right, perhaps the liberty to travel as one will. Of course, the driving right would be one that would have to be “activated” by receiving the proper training and licensing.

      • FRE said, on February 10, 2013 at 2:51 am

        Good point.

        In some cities, including NYC, Philadelphia, and San Francisco, public transportation is very good and even some people who could afford cars choose not to. In those cities, many people don’t even have a driver’s license and see no need to have one.

        As I said, although I see driving as a right, I see it as a limited right contingent upon the willingness and ability to drive safely. There are many rights that we as citizens ordinarily have, some of which can be legally taken away for various justifiable reasons.

        • WTP said, on February 11, 2013 at 11:09 pm

          You have a right to own a car. You have a right to own a gun. You do NOT have a right to drive that car anywhere you please. You do NOT have a right to fire that gun anywhere you please.

  4. WTP said, on February 9, 2013 at 9:18 am

    I take issue with the idea that driving a vehicle is a privilege and not a right.

    You do have a right to own a car. So long as you drive your car on your own property, it is your right. Once you drive that car on roads paid for by a society of other car owners and drivers, a society that requires you to follow certain rules in order to operate that machine in the company of said other drivers, you must be licensed to do so. Thus, it is a privilege. The blind do not drive. Are their rights being violate? They still have the right to own a car. Or a gun, for that matter.

    You seem to be defining rights vs privileges in terms of need.

    • FRE said, on February 9, 2013 at 3:22 pm

      I see driving as a right. It is a limited right, but a right nevertheless.

      • ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 9, 2013 at 3:40 pm

        It’s a right as much as any learned skill is, such as carpentry or dentistry. Once you go to school and pass the tests you can do all three. But I think you’re confusing rights and choices. We are free to chose to drive of not drive… to be carpenters or not, but there’s no inherent right as a human person to drive, as there is, say, the right to life. You have the freedom to chose to drive, but you have no right to drive. When you chose to drive, and when you’re properly trained, you can drive, unless and until you screw up and lose the ability to make this choice. Then your choices will be limited to walking, riding a bike, or a bus. The right to life, for example, can never be taken away, except when someone forfeits it by taking away the life of another unjustly, when the state executes a convicted murderer, which I don’t, by the way, support. Likewise, if you commit a crime you can lose your liberty, but not your right to live, meaning to be fed and cared for while in prison.

        • FRE said, on February 10, 2013 at 2:59 am

          “We are free to chose to drive of not drive…”

          But for many people, the choice not to drive would require living on welfare payments or putting their children up for adoption because of inability to support them. The inability to afford a car, or the need to buy a car that cannot really be afforded, has a strong negative impact on millions of people.

          Driving would cease to be a right if we had adequate public transportation. But, because of short-sighted and myopic policies, which are creating serious economic, environmental, and other problems, we have woefully inadequate public transportation thereby making survival almost contingent upon the ability to drive.

    • T. J. Babson said, on February 9, 2013 at 4:29 pm

      WTP is correct: you have a right to own a car, but being allowed to drive it on the public roadways is a privilege.

  5. T.J. Babson said, on February 9, 2013 at 9:53 pm

    Too good not to share 🙂

    • WTP said, on February 9, 2013 at 11:14 pm

      That whole interview was an embarrassment on so many levels. Did you see Peggy Noonan’s column in today’s wsj?

  6. Douglas Moore said, on February 9, 2013 at 11:05 pm


    Hope you’re still Enjoying The Decline.



    • WTP said, on February 9, 2013 at 11:12 pm

      I’m not a navy man, and granted neither are you, but don’t you find something unsettling about having 5 of our, what, 12(?) carriers sitting in the same port?

      • ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 9, 2013 at 11:45 pm

        The USS GHW Bush cost $6.2 billion and the heads didn’t work. That’s the toilets, for non navy personnel.

        “The collection tanks of Bush were modified to accommodate both the VCHT (Vacuum CHT) equipment and the elements of a marine sanitization device to treat the waste prior to discharge. Bush is the first and only aircraft carrier in the U.S. Navy to combine the two technologies.

        This new VC/MSD driven waste management system has, however, not been without problems. Reports began surfacing immediately after delivery in May 2009 of issues with the ships toilet system. As of November, 2011, the entire system has gone down at least twice, rendering all 423 commodes in the ship’s 130 heads inoperable, with many more incidents that have rendered either half of the ship, or sections of the ship, without operating sanitary facilities. In one ship-wide incident, a repair crew spent 35 non-stop hours attempting to return the system to working order. The system is said to suffer breakdowns when inappropriate materials such as feminine hygiene products are flushed down the toilets.[12] During a four-month maintenance period in dock in 2012, anti-clog measures were installed in the ship’s toilet disposal systems.[13]”

        Only in America.

        • WTP said, on February 10, 2013 at 12:34 pm

          Only in America
          Oh, I’m sure you will find much worse in most other countries. Inefficient systems are a product of too much central control and decreased responsibility. The socialist countries had/have far worse operational readiness in their military.

      • FRE said, on February 10, 2013 at 3:06 am

        Yes. As one commenter asserted, we should have learned from Pearl Harbor.

        It seems odd that more of them don’t run on nuclear power. If they did, they’d have sufficient fuel for the life of the vessels since those reactors run on fuel enriched to 20% U235. However, there should be another thread for nuclear energy; this really isn’t the place for it.

    • T. J. Babson said, on February 10, 2013 at 11:58 am

      Magus could have written this:

      Whenever this topic comes up I hear the same statement from what seems like the vast majority of Americans. It goes something like this, “Hold them to the same standard and if they can hack it then let them do the job.” Intellectually I can look at this subject from an abstract standpoint and agree. Why not let job positions be delegated to soldiers based on their ability to meet the qualifications rather than their gender? This is probably the correct way to think about this subject, have one high standard which all must meet.

      However, I did the job and there are some practical issues that we need to overcome. Here is one of the ugly ones: the Army just doesn’t have a lot of integrity when it comes to maintaining standards. They are often lowered for political reasons as commanders are expected to fill quotas or more understandably, units get understrength and need to be plused up on warm bodies. This is the wrong way to go about the problem because letting sub-standard personnel in causes huge problems down the line ranging from degraded operational capabilities to unit morale. Special Operations units are no exception to these internal politics I’m afraid.

      But that isn’t fair to female soldiers, right? The problem isn’t women in combat but rather that the institution of the Army needs to get their house in order and stand by their own core values, namely, upholding high standards of combat readiness. I would agree with that argument as well and would be willing to work with anyone, man or woman, on this issue however I can. I feel strongly about this and have written about it previously.

      The fact of the matter is, standards will be lowered, not just a little but a lot. There will be tremendous political pressure on commanders to get women in Infantry and Special Operations units, to show positive statistics about women in this new positions, and to demonstrate “success stories” about female soldiers to Congress and to the media. Standards will plummet along with combat capabilities and unit morale. Non-official quotas will be mandated.

      Read more: http://sofrep.com/16753/truth-about-women-combat/#ixzz2KVpY369N


      • WTP said, on February 10, 2013 at 12:28 pm


      • Douglas Moore said, on February 10, 2013 at 1:29 pm

        This article is absolutely correct. The military is a broken organization, because of what retired Col. Yingling states:

        “In 2007, Iraq’s grave and deteriorating condition offers diminishing hope for an American victory and portends risk of an even wider and more destructive regional war.

        These debacles are not attributable to individual failures, but rather to a crisis in an entire institution: America’s general officer corps. America’s generals have failed to prepare our armed forces for war and advise civilian authorities on the application of force to achieve the aims of policy.”


        I am convinced that the Army is broken. It’s culture is a disaster. There is the rare inddividual who is not swallowed by it–my battalion commander is one of them–but by in large, it is filled with people who do not consider what is the right thing to do, they consider what the person *above them* considers is the right thing. It not only creates a mass of ass-kissers, it creates a really stupid mob. I’ve figured out now why some cultures can’t pull themselves out of death-spirals: each collapse of the system’s node creates more pressure on the next node and so on, until you have a cascade effect, then it all crashes. It has crashed. The doubling of military suicides since 2004–with no end in sight–is not a cooincidence. What was General Casey’s solution? NCOs should search Soldiers’ rooms more often. What an ignorant Army answer.

        My cynicism has reached new heights. I have *zero* faith that senior military leaders will do the right thing in any circumstance. From the smallest to the greatest issue, this is the case. As I’ve stated before, I’ve promised myself that I won’t become like the many. I guess I’m just not cut out for it what it really is. I’ve been to Afghanistan twice in under 2 years; I agree 100% with President Obama’s decision to take us out of Afghanistan. Our military leaders never told the truth to the civilian leadership, and not becuase they lied; they’re just not sophisticated enough to figure out what the truth is.

        • biomass2 said, on February 10, 2013 at 8:07 pm

          Douglas : @ Racism, Sexism, and Military Service TJ asked the question “should the military decide how it wants to use each person? ” I responded with a question: :Do you feel the military leadership (including those who can’t keep it in their pants ), are capable of making wise decisions as to who , what, when, where, why, and how an individual should be used in any military role?”
          Are you saying that the answer to that question is, for the most part, “No” ? So to back up nearly a week on the blog, I’d have to respond to TJ this way. An intelligent and physically capable woman, shouldn’t want to enter the military under the conditions you describe.

          • magus71 said, on February 11, 2013 at 12:01 am

            biomass2: The Army needs a huge over hall. Notice I said the Army. It’s all about culture. The Marine Corps has remained everything a military branch should be: A machine meant to kill people and break things. It is lean in every sense. The do not wear unit patches and myriad ornaments on their uniforms. They are Marines, not from this unit or that. Their budget is much, much smaller than the Army’s but it is a better organization. It’s people are more capable, better trained, they have more ‘elan–that thing that the Army is utterly lacking. Which is why I’m actually for cutting the Army budget–lean times can force an organization to be better–well, it can if you have the right decision makers…

            No, I do not believe that Senior Army leadership is capable of making the right decision when it comes to using women. You said: “An intelligent and physically capable woman, shouldn’t want to enter the military under the conditions you describe.”

            I agree. And knowing what I know now, I would say the same thing is true for men.

            It will literally take a “revolution in military affairs” to change the Army. Right now, senior leadership will continue to make the most politically expedient decisions; the Army’s senior leaders are political, not military. David Patraeus was a master politician. Smart guy, sure. But I listened to him daily and learned what he was all about. He wasn’t about the Private working a checkpoint worrying about vehicle-borne IEDs, that’s for sure. He wasn’t about killing the Taliban before they killed his troops. He was about twisting puzzle boxes until the Afghan people magically came around. That ain’t war. The Taliban was at war. We were running “police actions”. Sound familiar?

            See, I could work in a broken organization without being miserable, in most cases. But the difference is, I work in a broken organization that doesn’t even allow me to decide what color socks I can wear. Since it is broken, and controls every aspect of my life, I will bitch until someone notices.

            • WTP said, on February 11, 2013 at 11:36 am

              Feeling any hope now that a Marine General is taking over coalition forces in A’stan?

  7. Douglas Moore said, on February 10, 2013 at 1:39 pm

    Please read all 3 parts of this: I simply can’t picture a woman doing it.


    • WTP said, on February 10, 2013 at 3:13 pm

      Good article, as are all of Yon’s that I’ve read. Got to the part about ambush and was hoping it was about the Brits setting up an ambush. Unfortunately, not. Question, how often do “we” set up ambushes of the Taliban relative to how often we get ambushed?

    • FRE said, on February 10, 2013 at 5:00 pm

      When I clicked on the link, I got a warning that the website may contain malware that could damage my computer. I was also provided with the following link:


      • magus71 said, on February 11, 2013 at 12:04 am

        Thanks FRE. I’m going to let Michael Yon know. He’s a professional journalist, but he has enemies. The website is legitimate, but I have no doubt some would like to harm those whom visit it.

  8. […] Are Guns Analogous to Cars? […]

  9. Douglas Moore said, on February 11, 2013 at 11:23 am

    One of the men that most formed my world-view writes about women in the military:

    “First, it’s essential that physical standards not be lowered to allow women to qualify for point-of-the-bayonet positions. And not all of the women who apply will measure up.

    Some of our trigger-pullers hump 120 pounds as they scale those Afghan ridges. You can’t give some soldiers a special dispensation to carry half that weight, or the other members of the squad or team have to lug even more. Want fairness? Start here.”


    • Douglas Moore said, on February 11, 2013 at 11:27 am

      “Senior generals and admirals will have to show some backbone on this issue — and backbone hasn’t been their salient characteristic in recent years.”

    • ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 11, 2013 at 12:47 pm

      “Some of our trigger-pullers hump 120 pounds as they scale those Afghan ridges.” #1 Humping 120 pounds is foolishness. The overburdened, top-heavy US soldier always has and always will be easily defeated, in time, by the lightweight insurgent. #2 A ten thousand mile supply line is foolishness. You get your ass handed to you by the lightweight insurgents every time. #3 We shouldn’t be in Afghanistan, because the people of Afghanistan didn’t do 9/11 and shouldn’t be killed and their nation ruined because of misplaced revenge and propaganda, especially 11 years down the road.

      Breaking things and killing people are what militaries do, and the US military is and has been the bad guy since we went on our orgy of blood after 9/11.

      Wake up and smell the coffee. You “government” is the evil doer, and has been for many years.

      See: http://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/911-iran-contra-and-treason/

      • WTP said, on February 11, 2013 at 1:35 pm

        Humping 120 pounds is foolishness. The overburdened, top-heavy US soldier always has and always will be easily defeated, in time, by the lightweight insurgent
        Aren’t our kill ratios much higher than theirs?

        We shouldn’t be in Afghanistan, because the people of Afghanistan didn’t do 9/11 and shouldn’t be killed and their nation ruined because of misplaced revenge and propaganda
        No, the Taliban were protecting those who did 9/11. Bin Laden is dead, the Taliban are now irrelevant to us, so we should now go home. The “nation” of A’stan was ruined long before we got there. Or the Russians, for that matter. All told, we will be leaving it in much better shape than we found it. Not that I trust the A’stanies to take advantage of the situation, but that’s more their loss than ours.

        • ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 11, 2013 at 10:28 pm

          You’re not very bright, are you. Kill ratios? Tell that the the NVA, if you know who that was. The Taliban? Who are you? George Bush? Jesus buddy, have a heart, and find a brain.

          • WTP said, on February 11, 2013 at 10:50 pm

            Yes, kill ratios. If you kill lots more of the enemy than they kill of you, you are not being defeated by the enemy. Only if you fail to take advantage of that fact out of misplaced shame, do you loose. Only if you fail to recognize your victories as what they are and build on them, build momentum, are those victories in vain. And speaking of losers, anyone who perpetrates this 9/11 truther bullshit is a useful idiot tool of the leftists and the real treasonous fool.

            You, like the mikeomasses, fail to back up your nonsense with solid fact. Blind faith in conspiracies, be they of the truther type or of the capitalist, free market denial type, is not a sign of significant intelligence. Thus you fall back on mocking solid facts. It’s all you really have since what you believe, if there is anything you are willing to stand behind, cannot stand up to reasonable criticism.

            • ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 12, 2013 at 12:27 am

              You forgot to mention the 10,000 mile-long supply line, Mr. Military History. Wow, enemies huh? What did the peoples of Afghanistan ever do to you? Mr. “Solid Fact”? There are none so blind as those who will not see, which includes people like you, who swallow, unthinkingly, government-media propaganda. Conspiracy is a federal crime according to the US Code, and not a theory, buddy. If you’re looking for “blind faith” then look into a mirror, Mr. Propagandized Warmonger. And try cracking a book once in a while too bud, because you have been duped: See: http://www.amazon.com/Propaganda-Formation-Attitudes-Jacques-Ellul/dp/0394718747

            • WTP said, on February 12, 2013 at 9:39 am

              Yeah, and who provides those books? Hmmm? Conspiracy theories are propagated by the Illiterati as a distraction to throw you sheeple off the scent of the REAL conspiracy. Hell, everyone knows that.

            • WTP said, on February 12, 2013 at 11:16 am

              Oh, and BTW Mr. 10,000 mile supply line, see British Empire, 18th through 20th centuries. Also, US and UK vs. Japan, 1940’s. Others available upon request.

  10. biomass2 said, on February 11, 2013 at 11:41 pm

    WTP: ” back up your nonsense with solid fact”

    In Dec. you and I had a discussion about a statement you made in response to a statement Mike made:
    ” Shuffling money from one place to another does not ‘create’ jobs.” You said you’d make an honest effort to explain and defend that , but you seemed unwilling to explain it well enough to reach a person (me) who admitted having little or no background in economics. Your excuse was somewhat predictable: You said I really wasn’t serious about understanding your explanation. To me that’s analogous to a priest telling a parishioner that her prayers failed because she didn’t believe strongly enough in God. Then you cut me off, saying you wouldn’t respond to me any more.
    Please provide the “solid facts ” to back up your claim that “Shuffling money from one place to another does not ‘create’ jobs.”

    Repeating what I wrote (with some minor alterations for clarity ).
    “1/ Man earns money
    2/ Man spends money
    3/ The goods and services man purchases with his earnings must be provided by people who are hired to produce those goods and perform those services.
    4/ If , enough goods and services are purchased by enough people who have been paid with ‘money’ ,and , at some point,the manpower and equipment available are inadequate to meet demand [production must be increased], more ^jobs are created^ to provide the services and produce the goods.
    A simple three- or-four-step shuffle of money ends up in ^job creation^.”

  11. ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 12, 2013 at 10:40 am

    NYC September 11, 2001 – WTC 7 – http://youtu.be/9VHZf9uyIJk

    Col. Alan Sabrosky PhD USMC (Ret.) – http://youtu.be/mQk4jOcV8RA

  12. magus71 said, on February 13, 2013 at 11:51 pm

    I don’t know what else to do except leave the organization:

    “Speaking from a junior officer perspective, I have seen what a toxic leadership environment and a flawed bureaucratic system can create. I have seen the most talented and motivated NCOs and junior enlisted come into my unit to quickly become depressed at the fact that they have to wake up everyday and go to work, and become excited at the idea of leaving the military.”


    • WTP said, on February 14, 2013 at 9:27 am

      Just guessing that it’s probably not an option for you, but for the younger E’s and O’s is it extremely difficult to transfer to the Marines at the end of one’s commitment to the Army? Assuming the Marines have openings, that is. And assuming the Marines would probably expect one to go through basic training again, or something similar. Which for them I presume would/could be quite problematic from a unit cohesion and discipline perspective. I think I’m answering my own question, but still, curious.

      • magus71 said, on February 14, 2013 at 9:48 am

        It’s not too difficult. Though the person would probably lose rank.

    • ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 14, 2013 at 10:11 am

      You’re right. Too bad our militaristic society holds up the military as examples and heros, huh? At this point most American kids want to be like our heros in the military and can’t wait to join up. No one bothers to tell the the truth, because we still have Syrian, Lebanon, Iran, and North Korea to take down, as per whatever Israel says, which is what our Washington politicos do: whatever Israel says. Damn the troops, Israel needs room to grow, so onward we go into the 1000 year war on terror anti-Muslim crusade in order to clear the Middle East deck of ragheads to prepare for war with Russia and China. It’s time to recalculate how many US cities (in megadeaths) we can afford to lose and still win! Sociopathic and delusional warmongers run America into hell and American kids want to grow up to be just like them. Not much of a future for America… certainly not what I would want for my kids. But hey, at least we’re telling them not to shoot peoples at school, while teaching them how to point and shoot with video games. “Kids, don’t do as we do, do as we say do. We know cheaters win and violence works, but the law doesn’t apply to us. The law does, however, apply to you, so don’t think you can cheat at school or shoot the people at you don’t like, because you will not be allowed to get away with that. We get away with these things because we’re better, smarter, richer, and more powerful than you. You’re nothing but trash, and you should thank us and praise us for what we have given you and allowed you to have… and you need to behave yourselves… or else. We have our eyes on you, your family, and your friends, and you wouldn’t want anything bad to happen to them, would you?”

  13. biomass2 said, on February 14, 2013 at 9:37 am

    I realize that schools and the military are different , but when I began teaching , I had expectations that did not fit the realities of the profession—and this after 4 years of college “training” in the field. Then, as years passed, different teaching approaches and educational policies made doing the work even less satisfying. Some thrived in that environment. Not me. I rarely met an administrator I respected.
    Sounds like your experiences have been similar. Was the job misrepresented? When you began were you seeing it through a different lens? Are new approaches and practices making your job unpalatable? Women, repeal of don’t ask don’t tell, societal changes in general? How do shifting strategies to adapt the military to circumstances post-9/11 impact on your experiences?

    • magus71 said, on February 14, 2013 at 10:09 am

      I’ve never worked for an organization in which I felt like the enemy. Until the Army. Not me personally. I see the way others are treated, and I try to remember what it was like to be a private. I’ll never treat a 19 yr old private the way I was treated. As a cop, there was a brotherhood that I’ve never felt anywhere else. In the Army, we eat our own. Again, look at the suicide rates. Why? More are dying by their own hand then the enemy. WTF is going on? I’ve never once in my career said :”Oh good, the leader is here.” Not once. As a cop, I hung out with the guys, drank beer, talked, went to the department Christmas parties, gained lots of confidence. In the Army, I want nothing to do with the organization after the work day. I want to take off my uniform and be myself.

      The wars changed the military. I’ve done a lot of research on forums about why things are the way they are. I see people writing about how things changed after 9-11. The tempo started making leaders nuts, and the trickle-down effect occured.

      In the Army, I have seen more arrogance and personal (not organizational) corruption then I have seen anywhere. I’ve had protection orders placed aaginst senior NCOs who were stalking my wife, had my car window smashed by the same NCO ( I was a cop_ I served the protection orders, and never when out of the army had to consider having one served on my behalf. My last deployment, I worked for a Major (O4) whom falsified intelligence reports all the while treating enlisted subordinates like garbage. Another NCO of mine openly bragged about using steroids, and listed the concoctions he had in his freezer at home. That same NCO–my supervisor in Germany–slept with a woman who was not his wife while we were at a hotel in Washington DC during my Best Warrior Competition attendence. In the Army, blatant infidelity will get you booted. One would think falsifying intelligence reports would, too. But nothing. Yet, if you are not the right person, don’t walk on the grass or forget to shave–you will hear what a worthless piece of excrement you are, with every derogatory comment possible thrown against you. Who thrives in such an environment? Mostly people like the ones I listed above. Look at the long list of generals lately who’ve been caught doing some incredibly immoral things. Only sublime arrogance copuld lead to this. Now imagine what they are like to work for.

      These people are nuts, and evil to boot. I’ve got a serious chip on my shoulder now. My attitude is horrible. I wouldn’t want to be my boss. But you know what? People know not to fuck with me now.

      It is a sick, sick organization.

      • ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 14, 2013 at 10:43 am

        Buddy, the Army is like this because Washington is the same, and because Americans are being taken for a ride to hell. You guys just happen to be doing the dirty work for the soft-handed chicken-hawk satanists in DC. They believe you’re schmucks, and laugh about your miseries, your dead, your wounded, and your suicides. They love death, pain, and misery, for the other guy… the love torture, war, blood, tears, and fears… for the other guy… the schmucks. The Washington politicos are doing political theatre in Washington, today, and will take their limo rides to fancy restaurants in NW DC tonight, using your tax dollars, and have a big laugh about you guys, and joke about how they are using you and you are too naive to know any better, because you, like most people, are a good person, which they will never be, because compassion and kindness doesn’t increase their wealth and power. Compassion, kindness, fairness… that’s for schmucks, like you and me…. money, power, the ability to kill whomever we want whenever we want and suffer no consequences is, for them, the only road to victory.

        • T. J. Babson said, on February 14, 2013 at 1:56 pm

          Vote for your favorite 🙂

          Magus: spaghetti-armed metrosexuals

          WTP: sophistry of the soft-headed

          ajm: soft-handed chicken-hawk satanists

      • biomass2 said, on February 14, 2013 at 11:14 am

        Thank you, magus. You’ve read the speculation, so do you think this rot within (and without?) is a consequence (intended or unintended) of 9/11, or has the organization been degenerating steadily since, say, around the time it became an all-volunteer army?
        Do the causes really matter, especially to someone like yourself who is enmeshed in the sickness of it all? If causes could be determined with any certainty, what.realistically, could be done to improve matters?

        • ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 14, 2013 at 11:52 am

          Evil is as evil does. The USG began using DU ammo during GW I, which poisoned our troops. The USG blew the Murrah building in OK City and it blew those THREE WTC towers in NYC on September 11, 2001, too. And you wonder why we’ve seen evil run amok since that time? Please. Now DU is spread all over Iraq and Afghanistan as well, which has poisoned our troops and has poisoned the innocent citizens of those countries, too. Wake up and smell the coffee my friends: Washington is run by satanists, who enjoy death, suffering, torturing, maiming, killing, terrorizing, tormenting, and the tears of their victims, who are too nice, too trusting, and too naive to know they are being used and made fools of… and they are laughing at us.

          See: http://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/satans-washington/

          We do have a way out of this, but you’ll have to get your heads out of your asses first and realize what’s going on and who the enemy is, first. I suggest you do, before it’s too late. And time, my friends, is very quickly running out.

          See: http://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/philosophy-and-plan-of-action-summer-of-justice-2012-dc/

        • magus71 said, on February 14, 2013 at 11:34 pm

          Our culture is in crisis, so our Army is in crisis. The number of moral morons is growing geometrically in America. Our Army is comprised of those same people. Now, add the heiarchal, centralized nature of the military to an immoral culture and you have a poor man’s Gulag Archipeligo. The more immoral a culture becomes, the more force must be introuced to control them. In the Army, leadership can do things to soldiers which in the normal world would and should get them punched in the throat. Here, people have to take it or be thrown in the brig. In all, it creates a massive atmosphere of distrust. TJ and I have taslked about high-trust-low-trust societies. The Army is a very, very, low-trust society. Google the ramifications of that.

          • ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 14, 2013 at 11:48 pm

            I was in the Army, and I found it to be a great place for people who aren’t great thinkers but are good order takers. I was in the brig a few times, too.

            • magus71 said, on February 14, 2013 at 11:50 pm

              “great place for people who aren’t great thinkers”


        • magus71 said, on February 14, 2013 at 11:48 pm

          And because of our moral decline, we have an increasing number of “snakes in suits” or “psychopathic careerists”. The difference in working for a psycopath in any other job, is that he does not have the power to throw you in jail and decide how you trim your mustache. The military has that power.


          • T. J. Babson said, on February 15, 2013 at 11:21 am


            Dutton claims the professions that seem to have the most psychopaths are:

            1. Chief executive officer
            2. Lawyer
            3. Media (Television/Radio)
            4. Salesperson
            5. Surgeon
            6. Journalist
            7. Police officer
            8. Clergy person
            9. Chef
            10. Civil servant

            Dutton also lists the following professions as least attractive to psychopaths:

            1. Care aide
            2. Nurse
            3. Therapist
            4. Craftsperson
            5. Beautician or stylist
            6. Charity worker
            7. Teacher
            8. Creative artist
            9. Doctor
            10. Accountant

            • ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 15, 2013 at 12:37 pm

              Interesting. I’m glad I’m a writer (=Creative artist) and a Catholic Worker (=Charity worker). Professor Mike’s a Teacher, so I guess he’s okay too 😉

            • WTP said, on February 15, 2013 at 12:50 pm

              Don’t know about the reliability of the data, but anyone who IS a surgeon but IS NOT a doctor, is damn near certain to be some sort of psychopath.

            • T. J. Babson said, on February 15, 2013 at 1:48 pm

              I think “Chef” is interesting, too. Who knew that food preparation appealed to psychopaths?

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on February 15, 2013 at 1:50 pm

              Knifes and other cutting tools might be appealing…

            • WTP said, on February 15, 2013 at 1:58 pm

              Don’t watch the show but from what I’ve seen, I’ve suspected that whoever thought it was a good idea to let that reality show chef near sharp implements must work remotely.

  14. ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 15, 2013 at 4:17 pm

    On psychopaths running our governments and our societies, see: http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2009/01/psycopathic-gangsters-who-run-society.html

  15. magus71 said, on February 15, 2013 at 11:33 pm

    Ok–I know this has gone way off topic. But yesterday I got into yet another skirmish with the officers. The two officers in my office want to give an E4 an order not to eat junk food. The guy is a chronic under-performer; fat, slow, no common sense, etc. I tried to explain to them that the regulations do not give them the power to make someone stop drinking a can of coke just to protect him from himself. One of the officers is a lawyer outside the army, but he’s only a 1Lt so he doesn’t think for himself (just like in Vietnam) and was agreeing with the Captain. The lawyer stated he could make the argument that making the E4 eat “correctly” was for the good of the army thus it was legal. It immediately brought to mind the arguments liberals make when they want another regulation. they can make a narrow argument at a specific time for having the rule, but fail to understand the cost for implementing it, let alone that it may not work or be enforceable.

    I tried to explain that the army does not measure how much junk food you eat–it measures your weight, bodyfat and physical capabilities. How do we measure junk food consumption? I asked them how I would enforce such a rule. Does he go before a military court if he drinks a Coke? The process in the army is, be chronically overweight, fail PT tests, get written counselings, get chaptered out of the army. That’s it.

    And here’s the kicker: They both stated he could be court-martialed for drinking a Coke after a “lawful” (it’s not) order. So by their definition of their own abilities, they have infinite power, just like the liberal view of governmental power. Lots of things can be descibed as being for our own good–but who wants laws requiring us to do them? Laws requiring we all wear knee pads, all the time? I mean, you never know when you’ll trip..I told them they should march around the base giving such orders to all the smokers, too. The first general officer they see eating a Snickers, try that crap and see what happens.

    These are the quality thinkers the Army is producing. Not a lick of philosophic sense. Meanwhile, the Taliban rolls on.

    • ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 16, 2013 at 11:12 am

      Soldiers are USG property. You can receive and Article 15 for getting a sunburn if it adversely affects your ability to do your job.

      The “Taliban”?

      Ever here of Operation Cyclone?

      Seriously brother, you need to do your homework. You can start here:

      1979 – The USG creates Islamist fighters (Mujahideen) in Afghanistan, which are later known as al Qaeda. (Operation Cyclone)

      1993 – WTC bombing, by USG and Israeli, using Islamist patsies with FBI assistance.

      1995 – OKC bombing, by USG and Israel which attempts to blame it on Iraqis, and force Clinton to invade Iraq. This fails, and McVey, a CIA patsy, takes the fall.

      1998 – Al Qaeda perpetrates embassy bombings in Africa with USG knowledge, consent, and assistance.

      2001 – The USG and Israel perpetrated 9/11 in order to perpetuate a 100 year-long war on Muslims, whom they scapegoated for 9/11. Bush and Cheney invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

      2001 – Present – The American people buy the USG-media propaganda… lock, stock, and barrel.

      2011 – Present – The US, NATO, Israel, and various NGOs run the Arab Spring so they could replace moderate regimes with Islamist regimes, which would give them an excuse to continue their 100 year-long war on terrorism.

      They also run the Occupy Movement to support and imitate the Arab Spring.

      And the American people buy the propaganda… lock, stock, and barrel.

      “There has been Iraq and Afghanistan….and Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, where … our country has been ‘first in line’ to participate in crimes against humanity, in each case overthrowing progressive and moderate regimes and to replace them with Islamist regimes…”

      See: http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2013/01/parliament-is-told-truth-about-al-qaeda.html

      Operation Cyclone: See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

      See: http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/

      See: Peter Lance 9/11 Timeline: http://www.peterlance.com/Triple_Cross_PB_Timeline_2009.pdf

      See: http://www.democracynow.org/2006/11/29/triple_cross_journalist_peter_lance_on

      See: http://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/911-iran-contra-and-treason/

      See: http://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/fake-democracy-revolutions-canvas-usipicnc-washington-egypt-ows-and-israel-did-911/

      • T. J. Babson said, on February 18, 2013 at 1:53 pm

        “…in each case overthrowing progressive and moderate regimes…”

        Sorry, ajm, the only “progressive and moderate” regime that was ever in the Middle East can be found in your favorite country, Israel.

        • ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 18, 2013 at 2:14 pm

          So what, then, have all the Middle East regimes been? Iraq was the most western and secular state in the Middle East, until we destroyed it for no good (=just) reason. Libya was a decent place too. As was Syria. As was Afghanistan, before we destroyed those too. Unjustly, of course.

          • WTP said, on February 18, 2013 at 3:19 pm

            Yes, it was all us. Libya too, eh? And A’stan. Wonderful countries. Odd that Iraq was flying Migs and running Soviet tanks. Libya too. Odd. Read a book sometime, you might find out just how odd many of the things you believe are.

            • ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 18, 2013 at 6:38 pm

              Do you understand the purpose for government> Do you understand the difference between order and chaos? Were you alive in 1979 when Afghanistan was an orderly society? and was when the coup d’ etat took place, both in Nicaragua and covertly in the US? I was serving in the US Army in Panama in 1979. I get the impression you weren’t even born in 1979. Do you understand the difference between justice and injustice? A just war and an unjust war. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria… these are unjust wars. Why are you defending injustice and mass murder? Are naive? propagandized? not well educated? not well-read? without real-world life-experience? not very bright?

            • WTP said, on February 18, 2013 at 9:58 pm

              Do you understand that you need to critically assess the information you read on the internet, or in books? I’ve been around long before 1979. Afghanistan was always an ass-backward state, likely always will be. This is the best chance they’ve had to crawl out of the 13th century. Not that such was our driving purpose there. I get the impression you got hold of a little too much Panama Red during your time there. Again, consider the sources of the conspiratorial view of the world that you seem immersed in. Who is really profiting from perpetuating such stilted nonsense? Are you following a false prophet of some sort? Or just a conglomeration of leftist propaganda?

  16. ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 18, 2013 at 10:34 pm

    You’re a fool.

  17. magus71 said, on February 19, 2013 at 12:05 am

    I’ll write something about this. But America did not create al-Qaeda, nor the Taliban. In fact, the rise of the Taliban was an answer to the rampant warlordism that occured when the Najibullah regime fell. Most of the people we supported were people like Gulbaddin Hekmatyar (admittedly, he is a terrorist) but he is not “Taliban”. His group, an insurgent group here in Afghanistan is Hekmatyar-islami-Gulbaddin, (HiG).

    Suffice to say, it is a mess here, just as it was 100 years ago. And suffice to say that we should learn from our mistakes in trusting Islamists of any sort. But we still haven’t–look at Egypt.

    For the best story on this, read “Ghost Wars”, by Steven Coll. It won a Pulitzer and deserve it.

    • ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 19, 2013 at 12:40 pm

      America did not create al Qaeda?

      Believe the USG lies then.

      Operation Cyclone never happened huh?

      You need to read Peter Lance’s three books on this subject my friend.

      Here’s just a brief list of what the FBI knew and when they knew it, according to five-time Emmy Award winning investigative journalist Peter Lance.

      Ali Mohamed was a former Egyptian military officer and highly trained Egyptian military commando who would take leave from his active duty service with the U. S. Army, while assigned to the JFK Special Warfare Center in Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, in order to travel to Afghanistan to help his Muslim brothers fight the Soviets, during the late 1980’s.

      What did the FBI know, and when did they know it?

      They knew Ali Mohamed was training al-Qaeda terrorists in New York in 1992.

      They knew about the al Qaeda cell that planned and executed the first attack on the World Trade Center (i.e., the bombing of the WTC in 1993) before it happened.

      They knew that Ali Mohamed traveled to Nairobi, Kenya in order to do surveillance on the U. S. embassy located there in preparation for a future al Qaeda terrorist attack (the bombing of which actually occurred in 1998, killing 213 people).

      They knew Ali Mohamed traveled to Khartoum, Sudan, in 1993, in order to arrange a terror summit between (Sunni) al Qaeda and (Shiite) Hezbollah leaders, including Osama bin Laden, which led to the Khobar Towers bombing (Saudi Arabia) in 1996, and facilitated the future Sunni-Shiite insurgency alliance in Iraq (2003).

      They knew, in 1993, that Ali Mohamed was training al-Qaeda terrorists how to hijack commercial airliners.

      They knew, in 1995, that terror mastermind Ramzi Yousef, and his uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, were planning to use airliners as missiles; plotting to hijack and then crash commercial airliners into buildings (e.g., the Transamerica building, the Sears Tower, the Pentagon, and the World Trade Center towers) in the U. S.

      They knew, in 1995, that terror mastermind Ramzi Yousef, and his uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, were planning to blow up a dozen airliners over the Pacific by using small, easily concealed, liquid-based, time-activated bombs, which were to be placed near the center fuel tanks of Boeing 747’s, causing the airliners’ fuel (and the airliner itself) to explode.

      They knew, in 1995, that Ali Mohamed had gotten Ayman al-Zawahiri (al Qaeda’s number-two man) into the U. S. for an al Qaeda fundraising tour; the purpose of which was to raise funds for the bombing of the Egyptian embassy in Pakistan.

      They knew that Oklahoma City bomber Terry Nichols had been in contact with al Qaeda members in the Philippines before the bombing of the Murrah federal building on April 19, 1995.

      They knew al Qaeda was planning to blow up a U. S. airliner, via a small, liquid-based, time-activated bomb, which was to be placed near the center fuel tank of a Boeing 747 (in order to cause a mistrial) during terror mastermind Ramzi Yousef’s federal trial in New York City, during July 1996. (This event actually did occur, when TWA flight 800 blew up in mid-air just after taking off (bound for Paris, France) from JFK International airport (Long Island, New York) on July 17, 1996, killing all 230 people on-board; including an entire high school French Club, from Pennsylvania, who were on their way to Paris; killing sixteen students and five adults).

      They knew of, and were monitoring, the al Qaeda cell (in Africa) that was plotting to bomb, simultaneously, the U. S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania in 1998 (killing 224 people and injuring thousands) before it happened.

      They knew, during late 1999-early 2000, that al Qaeda held a meeting (in the Philippines) to plan the execution of terror mastermind Ramzi Yousef’s (9/11 style) airliners-as-missiles plot.

      They knew, in 2000, that two of the 9/11 hijackers had entered the U. S. and that they were living in a room they had rented from an FBI informant in San Diego, California.

      They knew of, and were monitoring, in 2000, at least four of the 9/11 hijackers who were then living in the U. S., including lead hijacker Mohamed Atta, whose picture was also included in a link chart, which was produced by Defense Intelligence Agency analysts (the results of a vast data-mining project which they had developed).

      VIDEO – The 911 Cover up with Peter Lance Part 1: http://youtu.be/YRzX_h_HVN8

      VIDEO – The 911 Cover up with Peter Lance Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGrdKGts8Mc&feature=colike (5th SFG connection to 9/11)

      Peter’s books, including his latest and most important book: “Triple Cross”, are on Peter’s Amazon Author Page: http://www.amazon.com/Peter-Lance/e/B001HD1116

      My review of “Triple Cross”: http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/AUA817NZQUD44/ref=cm_cr_pr_auth_rev?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview

      Website of Peter Lance: http://peterlance.com/wordpress/

      Peter Lance’s 9/11 Timeline (1981 – 2006): http://www.peterlance.com/Triple_Cross_PB_Timeline_2009.pdf

    • ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 22, 2013 at 3:30 pm

      1986-1992: CIA and British Recruit and Train Militants Worldwide to Help Fight Afghan War

      William Casey [Source: CIA]

      Following an agreement between the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI to make more use of Arabs in the Soviet-Afghan War, recruitment of potential fighters increases significantly. The agreement was a result of CIA dissatisfaction at infighting between indigenous Afghan rebels (see 1985-1986).

      According to Australian journalist John Pilger, in this year, “CIA Director William Casey [gives] his backing to a plan put forward by Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI, to recruit people from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. More than 100,000 Islamic militants [are] trained in Pakistan between 1986 and 1992, in camps overseen by the CIA and [the British intelligence agency] MI6, with the [British special forces unit] SAS training future al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters in bomb-making and other black arts. Their leaders [are] trained at a CIA camp in Virginia.” [GUARDIAN, 9/20/2003]

      Eventually, around 35,000 Muslim radicals from 43 Islamic countries will fight with the Afghan mujaheddin. Tens of thousands more will study in the hundreds of new madrassas (Islamic schools) funded by the ISI and CIA in Pakistan. Their main logistical base is in the Pakistani city of Peshawar. [WASHINGTON POST, 7/19/1992; PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, 9/23/2001]

      Ironically, although many are trained, it seems only a small percentage actually take part fight in serious fighting in Afghanistan, so their impact on the war is small. [NEW YORKER, 9/9/2002]

      Richard Murphy, assistant secretary of state for Near East and South Asian relations during the Reagan administration, will later say, “We did spawn a monster in Afghanistan. Once the Soviets were gone [the people trained and/or funded by the US] were looking around for other targets, and Osama bin Laden has settled on the United States as the source of all evil. Irony? Irony is all over the place.” [ASSOCIATED PRESS, 8/23/1998]

      In the late 1980s, Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, feeling the mujaheddin network has grown too strong, tells President George H. W. Bush, “You are creating a Frankenstein.” However, the warning goes unheeded. [NEWSWEEK, 10/1/2001]

      By 1993, President Bhutto tells Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak that Peshawar is under de facto control of the mujaheddin, and unsuccessfully asks for military help in reasserting Pakistani control over the city. Thousands of mujaheddin fighters return to their home countries after the war is over and engage in multiple acts of violence. One Western diplomat notes these thousands would never have been trained or united without US help, and says, “The consequences for all of us are astronomical.” [ATLANTIC MONTHLY, 5/1996]


  18. ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 24, 2013 at 10:35 am

    This is a good analysis you should read: Zero Dark Thirty – http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2013/02/zero-dark-thirty.html

    • WTP said, on February 24, 2013 at 10:47 am

      I like how the titty pics lend a certain gravitas to yet another hare-brained conspiracy theory. This one seems to be a mashup of fake-moon-landing and 9-11 with a little JFK thrown in. Personally, I like a little more originality in my art. Especially if its going to play into the hands of those who hate this country.

      • ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 24, 2013 at 12:09 pm

        Dear WTP,

        The only hare-brain on this site is you.

        Conspiracy isn’t a theory, Mr. Hare-Brain, it’s a federal crime: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371

        Try reading, thinking, and doing your homework… instead of reacting with trite, state-sponsored, media-inculcated cliches… such as “conspiracy theory.”


        Someone who can read, think, and has done his homework… and loves America enough to do so… as opposed to traitors, tools, and dupes who parrot the government-media propaganda and ridicule true patriots.

  19. WTP said, on February 24, 2013 at 3:19 pm

    Actually it’s a noun, used in this case as an adjective. When used in such a way, the noun is called a “modifier”.

    Disagreement with belief in wild conspiracy theories, many of which are actively encouraged by the media-endorsed state, does not in itself justify an ad hominem attack. Nor is it an indication of ignorance nor a lack of a broad-based education nor an inability to think. One might consider such a position to be quite the contrary. Perhaps your friend Mike can help you out here, as he is a self-appointed authority on logical fallacies.

    • ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 24, 2013 at 4:33 pm

      Perhaps Mike can explain to you the meaning of “philosophy”?

      Not that it would do any good, since you wouldn’t listen to wisdom, because you’re are a fool, which is the opposite of a philosopher… although, these day, much foolishness is falsely called: “philosophy”.

      Let’s subject you to “the fool test” WTP –

      “The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice” ~ Pr.12:15

      WTP never listens to advice, and his ways always seem right to him.

      “A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult.” ~ Pr.12:16

      WTP always show his annoyance immediately, and he never takes the time to listen to – or to read – a wise man’s advice.

      “A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions.” ~ Pr.18:2

      WTP finds no pleasure in understanding, but delights in airing his own opinions.

      3 out of 3 = you are a fool WTP,

  20. WTP said, on February 24, 2013 at 4:51 pm

    Mike, be a lamb and help our dear friend AJ out by explaining logical fallacies. He seems quite confused and I suspect his confusion is leading him into anger and projection. I understand the latter are not in your domain, but you do like to teach, right? Obviously you don’t just do it for the money, as you have repeatedly indicated here. Just a little effort on your part would go a great way to helping to heal another human being.

    • ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 24, 2013 at 4:57 pm

      Calling a fool a fool is not committing an ad hominem fallacy when it’s true, as it is in this case, whereas calling an honest researcher and writer (me) a “conspiracy theorist” is the commission of the ad hominem fallacy.

      You really are a fool, and it’s obvious to anyone who reads this.

      “The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice” ~ Pr.12:15

      WTP never listens to advice, and his ways always seem right to him.

      “A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult.” ~ Pr.12:16

      WTP always show his annoyance immediately, and he never takes the time to listen to – or to read – a wise man’s advice.

      “A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions.” ~ Pr.18:2

      WTP finds no pleasure in understanding, but delights in airing his own opinions.

      • WTP said, on February 25, 2013 at 12:13 am

        Hmm…I’ve often puzzled whether ’twas wisdom or cowardice behind Voltaire’s extension of his observation that A man should never pretend to inform a lover of his mistress’s faults, no more than one who is at law, of the badness of his cause; nor attempt to win over a fanatic by strength of reasoning.

        • ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 25, 2013 at 12:22 pm

          Will you admit to your committing the ad hominem fallacy by calling me a “conspiracy theorist”?

          You offer no proof that I am such.

          You show no effort to study the subjects in question.

          I have set forth numerous referenced articles concerning the crimes committed, which, under the US Code, include the commission of the federal crime of conspiracy.

          Are US prosecutors “conspiracy theorists” too? Since they prosecute peoples for conspiracy?

          Or do you just call people names like “conspiracy theorist” in order to discredit them and what they say, which is the commission of the ad hominem fallacy?

          • WTP said, on February 26, 2013 at 9:33 am

            Heh…didn’t say you were, did I? I just pointed out that the things you link to and the things you have on your blog are conspiracy theories. Are you saying they are absolute proof of conspiracies? Again, I refer to Votaire’s observation above.

            • ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 26, 2013 at 10:53 am

              So you’re calling me a “fanatic”, who is unreasonable, because I have a “belief in wild conspiracy theories”, and accusing me of using the ad hominem fallacy?

              What is absolute proof?

              NIST said, officially, WTC collapsed due to fires.

              The video and physical evidence reveals this is impossible.

              NIST is lying.


              “The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.” ~ NIST WTC 7 Final Report

              WTC 7 Implosion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VHZf9uyIJk

              NIST WTC 7 Final Report: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

            • WTP said, on February 26, 2013 at 11:15 am

              “The video and physical evidence reveals this is impossible.”

              No, numerous engineers, scientists, and construction experts have repeatedly explained that the physical evidence reveals that this is quite possible and indeed what happened. Can’t recall if it was Popular Mechanics or Popular Science that did an excellent analysis of the various theories. Any understanding of how the WTC was constructed, a basic understanding of structural engineering, and an application of common sense is all that is required. There are numerous other sources you can find if you’re willing to look and willing to think critically. Or you and Rosie O’Donnell can believe what you want. The conspiracy theorists are the ones lying, or just burying their heads in the sand would be a more than generous explanation.

            • ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 26, 2013 at 11:42 am

              You’re incorrect. This was a controlled demolition. Watch the video. Fires, alone, cannot do this.

  21. WTP said, on February 26, 2013 at 11:50 am

    You are incorrect. Study science…and math…

    FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn’t need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. “I have never seen melted steel in a building fire,” says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. “But I’ve seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks.”

    “Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F,” notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. “And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent.” NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

    But jet fuel wasn’t the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

    “The jet fuel was the ignition source,” Williams tells PM. “It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down.”

    Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories – Debunking the Myths – World Trade Center – Popular Mechanics


    There’s much more, but again I refer to Voltaire…

    • ajmacdonaldjr said, on February 26, 2013 at 12:21 pm

      In this case, 9/11, periodicals like Popular Mechanics, which is edited by a cousin of US Homeland Security head, Michael Chertoff, don’t interest me, because they can’t be trusted. PM is not presenting accurate science or engineering, in this case, but lies and propaganda, which you, unfortunately, have fallen for.

      But then, since I’m a fanatical, unreasonable, conspiracy theorist, it matters not what I say.

      You’re mind is made up.. and your mind was made up before this discussion began 😦

      You’re a fool to believe the media-government propaganda, and there’s no reasoning with fools who are convinced they’re right.

      Do yourself, and me, a favor: read Jaques Ellul’s book: “Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes” so that you can understand what’s happened to you. Please and thank you.

      You’re part of a mass of individuals who have been psychologically unified through psychological manipulations, and who have been unwittingly incorporated in a massive warmongering organization.

      “The goal of modern propaganda is no longer to transform opinion but to arouse an active and mythical belief.” ~ Jaques Ellul in: “Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes”

      “Hate, hunger, and pride make better levers of propaganda than do love or impartiality.” ~ Jaques Ellul in: “Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes”

      “Propaganda is a set of methods employed by an organized group that wants to bring about the active or passive participation in its actions of a mass of individuals, psychologically unified through psychological manipulations and incorporated in an organization.” ~ Jaques Ellul in: “Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes”

      “The most favorable moment to seize a man and influence him is when he is alone in the mass. It is at this point that propaganda can be most effective.” ~ Jaques Ellul in: “Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes”

      “Propaganda tries to surround man by all possible routes in the realm of feelings as well as ideas, by playing on his will or on his needs, through his conscious and his unconscious, assailing him in both his private and his public life. It furnishes him with a complete system for explaining the world, and provides immediate incentives to action. We are here in the presence of an organized myth that tries to take hold of the entire person. Through the myth it creates, propaganda imposes a complete range of intuitive knowledge, susceptible of only one interpretation, unique and one-sided, and precluding any divergence. This myth becomes so powerful that it invades every arena of consciousness, leaving no faculty or motivation intact. It stimulates in the individual a feeling of exclusiveness, and produces a biased attitude.” ~ Jaques Ellul in: “Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes”

      “In the midst of increasing mechanization and technological organization, propaganda is simply the means used to prevent these things from being felt as too oppressive and to persuade man to submit with good grace. When man will be fully adapted to this technological society, when he will end by obeying with enthusiasm, convinced of the excellence of what he is forced to do, the constraint of the organization will no longer be felt by him; the truth is, it will no longer be a constraint, and the police will have nothing to do. The civic and technological good will and the enthusiasm for the right social myths — both created by propaganda — will finally have solved the problem of man.” ~ Jaques Ellul in: “Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes”

      “Propaganda must be total. The propagandist must utilize all of the technical means at his disposal — the press, radio, TV, movies, posters, meetings, door-to-door canvassing. Modern propaganda must utilize all of these media. There is no propaganda as long as one makes use, in sporadic fashion and at random, of a newspaper article here, a poster or a radio program there, organizes a few meetings and lectures, writes a few slogans on walls: that is not propaganda.” ~ Jaques Ellul in: “Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes”

      See: “The Technological Society” – http://www.amazon.com/Technological-Society-Jacques-Ellul/dp/0394703901

      See: “Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes” – http://www.amazon.com/Propaganda-Formation-Attitudes-Jacques-Ellul/dp/0394718747

      See: “Excerpted from Jacques Ellul. Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes” -http://www.swaraj.org/shikshantar/propaganda.htm

  22. WTP said, on February 26, 2013 at 1:17 pm

    Wikipedia must be in on it too:

    Proponents of the 9-11 conspiracy theories have claimed that one of the researchers at Popular Mechanics, Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of former Department of Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff because they share the same last name.[11] However, Chertoff has repeatedly denied this claim, most notably in the September 11, 2006 issue of U.S. News & World Report, stating “No one in my family has ever met anyone related to Michael Chertoff”.[11] In an audio interview, he noted that any possible relationship would likely only be found in “19th-century Belarus”, and that his mother has described any such possible relationship as “distant”

    This conspiracy is HUGE.

    Of course as any descent shrink will tell you denial is one of the signs. But then again, everybody is somebody’s x cousing y removed.

  23. ajmacdonaldjr said, on March 3, 2013 at 8:23 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: