Are we realy this gullible?
POSTED BY: oldenglanddry
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 01:53
VIEWED: 13731
PAGE 2 of 2
And here's the end goal anyway, same as it always is.
Chertoff says U.S. needs more authority
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060814/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/chertoff_terror_
plot;_ylt=At1XgCZQz4xbQW0UVPTWF1Ks0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-
Golly gee, show of hands, how many didn't see that one coming a week ago ?
Did some checkin on ole mikey boy, too...
Why is it that so *many* of these power-hungry warmongers in our gov who are soooo *eager* to get us involved in stupid things, have dual citizenship with a certain country ?
I myself don't actually have a theory on that, but it's damned suspcious looking to me, especially in light of some other things I've pulled up and researched lately for topics in other threads.
My sincerest apologies to some conspiracy folk for doubting some really obvious evidence even a cursory search will root out, how bout sendin me an honorary tinfoil fedora, cause I am beginnin to think you *MIGHT* have a point on something.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Did you know that there are gates one can walk through - similar to metal detectors - that can sniff explosives? Did you know the US STILL doesn't screen checked baggage - at all?
Um... late is better than never I guess.
Yes there are gates that can sniff explosives. They are still in the testing phase with the TSA because hand lotion will set them off. (there is Nitro in most hand lotions). Some deoderant can also set them off. Same reason. they are a great many things that can set one of those thing off at the moment and the company that makes them are trying to tweek it so that the sensor can be adjusted. Is there not enough complaints ablout shoes having to be removed? Would you like to ride next to some guy for eight hours that did not use deoderant? Would you like people to complain that they cannot moisturize for days before so that they can get on a plane?
As far as the US not screening checked bags. Every bag that is scheduled to go on an airplane gets screened with a device that performs a multitude of tests or they are pardon the term "dump searched" where everything is removed from the bag and is searched and then repacked.
I speak from experiance. I worked for the TSA for 3 years. I opened airports during the Federal Take-over, I screened passengers and baggage, and I trained new hires on procedure.
These people always get a bad rap about doing this job. They always will. Because they are the face that people see when they are searched, not the terrorist who will do them harm. They forget what those men looked like. The Screeners for the TSA never will. It is their job to remember!
kelkhil
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem... wha..? Please elucidate.
Kelkhil- Always glad to have someone with boots-on-ground experience. Welcome aboard! BTW- I've always felt sorry for the folks with "shoes" duty.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Frem... wha..? Please elucidate.
Well, I had previously dismissed the concept of a foreign countries espionage and certain friends being all that influential beyond the level of bribing congress via AIPAC, but I have to tell ya, Siggy, some of the hard evidence I've tripped over while checking on Chertoff and some things for another thread has given me one hell of a moment of pause.
Finding out that a lot of our worst pushers for getting involved in downright malicious stupidity possess dual citizenship, a divided loyalty I would have thought unacceptable for an american official in a critical position capable of dictating policy.. on top of finding proof and admittance of that same country's massive history of misdeeds directed specifically at us...
It ain't a smoking gun, but damn it's a sure handful of fresh shell casings, and I am willing to at least acknowledge the possibility that a foreign intelligence agency has been warping OUR government to it's own ends on multiple levels for quite a while now, but only as a possibility until more direct evidence exists.
There's one holy hell of a lot of circumstantial evidence, mind you... enough that I feel ill right now and somewhat stupid for dismissing the idea out of hand, but I want something a little more substantial before I take such a thing as given, cause if it is... nuking would be too good for em.
Pardon me while I go be disgusted with all of humanity for a little while, k ?
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Kelkhil:
You're right. I was trusting CBS News for the information. I should remember to always confirm my information.
As to detection systems, there are quite a number of new and very specific ones developed at PNL and other places. However, they haven't gotten beyond the prototype stage as there is no real $$ behind them.
Back to baggage screening, I did get alerted to some gaps through gcn, which led me to look up these:
What the TSA says:
http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/screening/checked_baggage.shtm
Behind the scenes, we have fielded sophisticated technology solutions to screen all their luggage as well. We electronically screen millions of bags for explosives and other dangerous items each day at over 7,000 baggage screening locations and at over 450 airports nationwide.
What the GAO says:
http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d06869high.pdf
TSA has conducted covert tests (undercover, unannounced) of standard procedures, but has not conducted this testing for alternative screening procedures. TSA cited logistical difficulties in conducting covert tests for alternative screening procedures. TSA cannot identify the percentage of checked baggage screened using standard versus alternative screening procedures because TSA records standard procedures in terms of the number of bags screened in its management information system, but records alternative procedures in terms of the number of occasions and hours of use.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What I mean is this:
What is the legal basis for murder laws if not in the Consitution? (since the Constitution only addresses the relationship of Federal government to people)
Thats easy. The Constitution of the various states give the legislatures of those states the power to pass legislation. Some states and more recently, the Federal government, have chosen to specifically enumerate a code of criminal law. This code, among other things, includes various types of murder. Murder is not a protected Constitutional right, so challenges to such laws under the Constitution have not been upheld and thus in most states murder is still a crime.
The Constitution does more then address the government's relationship to the people, it also outlines the basic organizational structure and assigns power to the various parts...including the implied power to outlaw murder.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Cool. So this is my question - if the Consitution only protects people from the Federal government, and the States can pass whatever laws they like that devolve to them - how can the Supreme Court rule on the Constitutionality of any state law?
That was true until the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment was established. Thats the idea that the 14th Amendment protects a person's rights under the Bill of Rights, regardless of what state they live in. In other words, black people are equal in Mississippi and Ohio.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok, now I really DO feel ill.
Every time I kick over a rock at this point, i'm finding the same thing under it.
Michael Chertoff - dual citizenship, on top of which two of his most noteable hires for homeland security were Yevgeni Primakov, formerly of the KGB, and Markus Wolfe, formerly of east german STASI fame, a man so vile he was once refused entry into the uS because he was considered a terrorist.
Paul Wolfowitz - Confirmed straussian, significant connections to Israel, assistant to Senator Henry M Jackson, and longtime associates with Richard Perle and Lewis "scooter" Libbry.. historically worked on cooking intel for George HW Bush as head of CIA as part of "Team B", an effort to get intel that matched what they WANTED to be true, rather than what WAS true, successfully derailing peace efforts and influencing Donald Rumsfeld and Ronald Reagan in particular.
As early as 1977 he was pushing for the US Seizing persian gulf oil fields, and most specifically wanted us to invade Iraq.
He also worked under Dick Cheney directly from 1989-1993 and during that period worked with Lewis "scooter" Libby on the PNAC agenda, and after a brief dissappearance from the political scene because Clinton hated him, came right back to shovelling bullshit intel with the help of the OSP.
And now this monster is in charge of the World Bank ?
Richard Perle - Worked for Senator Henry M Jackson, PNAC member, close associates with Douglas Feith, heavy connections to Israel and fanatic supporter of the Likud party, a man so vile his nickname even to those close to him was "The prince of darkness", caught in 1970 passing classified information to Israel, but pleaded ignorance of the materials classification and nothing came of it, in 1978 Stan Turner, current CIA director, asked Jackson to fire Perle over another, similar leak.
Called on the carpet in 1983 after taking a $50,000 bribe from an Israeli arms company as "Consulting Fees" in exchange for his reccommendation that the Army purchase their weapons system, this is not the first, nor the only time he's been accused and investigated for corruption and conflict of interest, merely the most noteable.
Currently also a director of the Jerusalem Post, an Israeli english-language newspaper.
Lewis "scooter" Libby - Former student and current associate of Paul Wolfowitz, founding member of PNAC, indicted on felony charges related to 'Plamegate' and sent packing from affairs of state, currently awaiting trial, reputed to be an extremely perverse individual.
Douglas Feith - Radical Zionist, formerly employed by Richard Perle, also one of Donald Rumsfelds little crew of "reliable" people, board member of Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), and suspected of passing classified information to Israel, which resulted in the revokation of his security clearance, he also stood against certain peace agreements and specifically the ICC as dangerous to american interests, while pushing for the invasion of Iraq, also director of the shit-shovelling factory known as the OSP, or Office of Special Plans, which was the root of much of the flat-lies we were told in order to get us militarily involved in the middle east.
This bastard is also currently under investigation for both the shoveljob that OSP foisted on us, AND deep involvement in the AIPAC espionage issue both for his own suspected actions and because he is the employer of Larry Franklin.
Larry Franklin - Employee of Douglas Feith, Employee of Paul Wolfowitz, convicted of passing classified information to Israel via AIPAC specifically, given an unusually light sentance in respect to the crime in exchange for implicating certain of his co-workers, and fined a mere $10,000
Donald Rumsfeld - Founding member of PNAC, long history of misusing government posts to his own profit or that of corporations he serves on the board of, suspected of chicanery relating to FDA approval of Neurotoxin Aspartame as an artifical sweetener, previous histor
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem,
I know this kind of leg-work is taxing. Thanks for digging this up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:From that I presume that states passed laws based on English Law and English Common Law.
What is the legal basis for murder laws if not in the Consitution?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Constitution does more then address the government's relationship to the people, it also outlines the basic organizational structure and assigns power to the various parts...including the implied power to outlaw murder.
Quote:Despite the Fourteenth Amendment's recognition of federal “privileges and immunities,” and its guarantee of “due process” and “equal protection,” the Supreme Court majority held the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) cannot be enforced against states because the Supreme Court itself never said discrimination against older workers violates the Constitution.
if the Consitution only protects people from the Federal government, and the States can pass whatever laws they like that devolve to them - how can the Supreme Court rule on the Constitutionality of any state law?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was true until the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment was established. (Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think what Hero and Rap can't understand is that we DO understand the threat- we're just not running around messing our pants because of it.
Seriously, five times more people are killed by air pollution- AIR POLLUTION- every year than were killed in the WTC. Ten times or more are killed by automobiles. 30,000 people are killed by guns. And cigarettes - even just secondhand smoke- will do you in more surely than terrorists. I could prolly say the same about Big Macs or food poisoning, except I haven't looked up the stats.
So it's not the possibility of death that troubles Hero and Rap, because there are plenty of risks in our lives, even risks that we didn't "choose" to engage. I think it's the whole idea that some people hate us SO MUCH that they see us as mortal enemy. Facing naked hate just seems to cause an awful lot of sphincter action.
Cheney, Rummy and all the big guys... they're not afraid like that. But they stoke that gut-roiling fear because it serves them well. It is far more to their purpose to pull out the bogeyman once in a while and make sure it plays big in the papers. SEE? WE SAVED YOU ONCE AGAIN!
And somewhere between the relentless fear-mongering and the cynicism that this breeds we have to find our own way to address the very real problem of terrorism.
Folks who try to play the numbers game when comparing deaths from terrorist attacks to accidents, natural causes, or other lose what little credability they may have had. You're displaying, in great selective manner, your moral outrage at the senseless taking of innocent lives via an insane cult of death. Baby seals being clubbed to death for their fur? Lo! We MUST protest! But folks planning to indiscriminantly murder 1000's of civilians for no other reason other than to murder 1000's of civilians..... meh, folks die every day.
It's not 'fear mongering', it's called having a CONSCINCE
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh Unwrapped,
Quote:tsk, tsk tsk
Folks who try to play the numbers ... lose what little credability they may have had.
Please find me any kind of quote where SignyM protested clubbing fur seals.
In one fell swoop, you lost all credibility by failing to come up with a coherent sentence.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Oh Unwrapped,Quote:tsk, tsk tsk
Folks who try to play the numbers ... lose what little credability they may have had.
Please find me any kind of quote where SignyM protested clubbing fur seals.
In one fell swoop, you lost all credibility by failing to come up with a coherent sentence.
It's an example. Used to display the inconsistancy by which the Left picks its moral outrage of the day. Baby seals being clubbed to death? Dolphins being caught in tuna nets ? Sharks being definned for SOUP?? ALERT THE MEDIA !
Africans hacking each other to death and enslaving each other, Islamo whackos sawing off the heads of little girls on their way to Christian schools, etc... ? *yawn* Turn the page! I wonder what Paris Hilton is going to wear next, who who'll she'll sleep with this weekend.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Unwrapped,
You examples are, uhhmmm, how shall I say this - not very good. At all. In fact they are so scrambled, it's hard to know where to begin. For example, do you think 'liberals' really care about Paris Hilton? Just on the face of it, isn't she everything 'liberals' aren't supposed to like - born privileged and living the life of the idle-rich?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Sharks being definned for SOUP??
Shit!
I paid good money for discretion. Now I'm going to have to find a new supplier.
If it wasn't for those meddling kids...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Frem:
...
Ah, there are my boys! I knew someone who dig them up eventually.
I kinda like the support palestine idea. Can we lobby our congress people? Maybe they'll send troops. We could defend Lebanon, too. Lebanon is on record as a US ally. Isn't that what we do when someone invades an ally? We send troops. Like Kuwait. Like Taiwan. Ooops. Hmm. I guess we missed that one. In reality, if we sent troops to israeli occupied territory, they'd just end up as auxiallary backup for the israelis, as the allied peacekeepers in the suez did.
Quote:
Originally posted by Auraptor:
Liberal whining
Auraptor, just because democrats are wrong, doesn't make you right. It's a flaw in your logic. Sure. A lot of the liberal arguments don't make sense to me either. But Bush is still a fear monger. just because they say things that don't make sense, doesn't make whatever their opposition says true by default. This is not a game show.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:AURap, it is so easy to drop the context of any post you like to fuel your nonsensical rants, but you only make yourself look foolish.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Folks who try to play the numbers game when comparing deaths from terrorist attacks to accidents, natural causes, or other lose what little credability they may have had. You're displaying, in great selective manner, your moral outrage at the senseless taking of innocent lives via an insane cult of death. Baby seals being clubbed to death for their fur? Lo! We MUST protest! But folks planning to indiscriminantly murder 1000's of civilians for no other reason other than to murder 1000's of civilians..... meh, folks die every day.
It's not 'fear mongering', it's called having a CONSCINCE
Signy brings the statistics into the argument, not to say that terrorists should be ignored in favor of baby seals, but to refute the bizarre notion held by a whole lot of pseudo-cons like yourself that terrorists are a major threat to our nation and our way of life and therefore must be irradicated from the earth by destroying several Middle Eastern countries. They are in fact, a much lesser threat to American lives than traffic accidents and cigarettes and guns. No one is saying that they should therefore be ignored, ya idget. And unless you are very stupid, or illiterate, you know that perfectly well.
We're saying that starting WWIII to combat them is not only unnecessary but it flat out won't work. I gather that you disagree. Fine. But don't tell me that SignyM cares more about harp seals than human beings.
Your argument is really nothing but a very crude emotional appeal (google "logical fallacy," you might learn something}. You're not fooling anyone but yourself.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
But Bush is still a fear monger.
How is Bush a fear monger? From my point of view, he's bent over backwards to NOT call things as they really are, all for the sake of Political Correctness. It was only just last week did he finally come out and call the terrorist what they are - Islamo fascists. ( Islamo radicals would have worked too, for those who care )
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah he's good at that.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You're not fooling anyone but yourself.
In another thread he plays a numbers game with terrorists (IRA vs Hezbollah) then here says
"folks who try to play the numbers game when comparing deaths from terrorist attacks to accidents, natural causes, or other lose what little credability they may have had."
Obviously you don't lose 'credibility' if you play favourites with terrorists.
Then accuses other people of picking and choosing their morals lol!
EDIT:
Quote:Lol! It just gets better, he's confusing himself with other people now!
( I'll ignroe your petty ad hominems which you use to cover the fact that you have nothing supporting your view )
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Signy brings the statistics into the argument, not to say that terrorists should be ignored in favor of baby seals, but to refute the bizarre notion held by a whole lot of pseudo-cons like yourself that terrorists are a major threat to our nation and our way of life and therefore must be irradicated from the earth by destroying several Middle Eastern countries. They are in fact, a much lesser threat to American lives than traffic accidents and cigarettes and guns.
HK, Signy brought in stats sure enough, but I am right in that comparing the deaths of terrorists attacks and traffic accidents is a logical fallacy itself. And a dangerous one. ( I'll ignroe your petty ad hominems which you use to cover the fact that you have nothing supporting your view ) I suppose you think that attacks on the WTC are nothing more than a nuisance, like your buddy, Kerry ,huh? My very apt analogies are simply used to show the inconsistancy of Lib logic. Sure, baby seals are an issue worthy of public awareness, but far MORE important is the threat of Islamic terrorism, children being raised to hate their fellow human beings and think of the Jews as nothing but animals, women's right being trampled on by an entire cult/religion on a level far exceeding anything we could think of in the West....I find such matters FAR more relevent to my life.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bush is a PC fear monger. Everything the admin says comes out as 'ooh scary....'
Just watch jon stewart, he illustrates it well, I should find some good clips and post them.
Bush does everything he can to make americans afraid. terrorists, bird flu, panic panic, hey everyone, scared yet, i'll bet if you're scared enough you'll vote for me, who cares that i'm robbing the till, look, terrorists, oooh, scary....
Auraptor,
A little advice. Chill. go take a vacation, cool off, and think about how much you hate muslims. The ask yourself why you hate muslims and if it's justified. Then paint yourself a little chart of the world, and put God where you want him, in the US, and label the rest of the world "monkey people"
No, seriously, this is how some of your rants come across. Al Qaeda isn't he anti-christ and arabs aren't the canaanites. They're just a group of people looking after their own. Like you and me.. only on the other side.
Consider the possibility that you're wrong. Maybe there are other ways out of this mess, dare I say, more conservative ones.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
From that I presume that states passed laws based on English Law and English Common Law.
I would not presume anything if I were you. Only 13 states can trace their judicial origins directly to Common Law. One state is a direct decendent of the Napoleonic Code. Even allowing for two hundred plus years of variation, common law (up to 1776 anyway) merely places things in context, it does not provide a definitve answer to what is or is not legal.
For example, a Presidential pardon is not valid when signed because common law tells us it is a deed, not a warrant, and thus requires both delivery and acceptence by the pardoned person to be valid. Thats why an outgoing President can 'call back' a pardon issued in the last hour of the prior Presidency if he can do it before its delivered. An appointment on the other hand is valid when signed and does not require delivery (aka Marbury v. Madison). Common law is very usefull. Tells us what words mean, gives us traditional notions like marriage and self defense, all kinds of cool stuff that can be used or discarded as we see fit.
Quote:
Despite the Fourteenth Amendment's recognition of federal “privileges and immunities,” and its guarantee of “due process” and “equal protection,” the Supreme Court majority held the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) cannot be enforced against states because the Supreme Court itself never said discrimination against older workers violates the Constitution.
It would help the explanation if it cites the case. I suggest, as an example, Roe v. Wade, which extends the Constitutions implied right of privacy to the states because of the 14th Amendment. I note for the record that not all rights have yet to be incorporated and sometimes the Court has declined to do so for some reason or another. In the old days States could have, if they chose and if their constitution allowed which most or all would not, restricted free speech. That right has since been incorporated under the 14th Amendment giving you Federal protection against such a state action.
Edited to add: I have been reviewing Supreme Court cases regarding the ADEA and it seems you are wrong and that the states must comply with the act (although how they comply varies). Cite me the case you think denies this so I can review it and comment properly.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:As someone who once was very involved in the Libertarian Party, I'd just like to say that people who call themselves Libertarian or vote Libertarian are very diverse and do not necessarily represent Libertarian Party positions.
I'm a American, who is politically Conservative Libertarian. More times than not, I tend to vote Republican or Libertarian.
In fact, the Libertarian Party platform does not support neocon positions and calls for reduced governmental authority, not increased meddling, in all areas. The party is firm on the principle of non-intervention in foreign entanglements (including our "War on Terror" abroad).
I have to admit that in recent years, the LP has lost members to the Republican Party because they, like Auraptor, are emotionally vested in the war on terror and cannot stomach the non-interventionist position of the LP. To prevent further attrition, the LP has softened its language somewhat to not be as "in your face" about the Iraqi war--something to the effect of, "Iraq is now stable, we should withdraw our troops now."
Anyway, I had to point out Auraptor's positions are not consistent with the Libertarian Party platform, even if some Libertarians might agree with him.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
(I'm no Libertarian poster child either.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dreamtrove,
I'm with you, in that I do not believe Al-Qaeda perpetrated 9/11. I'm open to correction, but thus far, I have not seen any convincing evidence of their involvement and too many inconsistencies.
Just as one example, they have pictures of the alleged Arab terrorists, but then admit some of them were cases of stolen identity. How do we know all of them weren't cases of stolen identity? And for those whose identities were stolen, why are their pictures STILL up there on the terrorist list?
I do think though, that Al-Qaeda may be a threat now and in the future. Whereas they were a low-rent fringe operation in the past, I believe our atrocious aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq have served to advertise their operations and recruit more members for them. I think our government may have created the very terrorist group it was trying to destroy, either through incompetence or intentionally.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Which logical fallacy is that?
Originally posted by AURaptor:
HK, Signy brought in stats sure enough, but I am right in that comparing the deaths of terrorists attacks and traffic accidents is a logical fallacy itself.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If you're too stupid to work it out YOURSELF why should I complete YOUR education for you, you pinhead.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Which logical fallacy is that?
YOU use ad hominims because YOU are too STUPID to let your lies stand on their own! YOU hate America with YOUR ASSumptions and terrorist LOVE.
You're a moron, and you'd never find ME stooping to the levels of Ad hominims!
AUCitizen
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor,
i hate to call you out, but i thoroughly disagree with you about 9/11, the WTC, and the entire war on terror scenario.
for starters, you need to understand..i am not a "liberal", simply because i disagree with Bush and his agenda. i realize its hard for one to wrap their head around the concept that humans are free-thinking beings, who share common truths..but its something you should consider.
in order to believe the government, you have to assume a number of things which have been proven false:
-the government knew nothing of the attacks planned, and did everything possible to stop them.
-our government had no prior envolvement with al-qaeda, and previously did everything within their power in the past to detain BinLaden.
-NORAD and FAA were justified in their lack of response, and its perfectly normal to lose track of 4 planes at once, and customery to send military craft from the farthest possible bases to respond to incidents.
-there is no such thing as PNAC, or the Downing stree memos, nor a prior agenda to invade Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria prior to 9/11.
-its just a coincidence that: the CIA was running an identical simulation to the 9/11 attacks, the very same morning; that Bushs bro Marvin headed the WTC security company; that Fema just happened to arrive on 9/10; that rumors on the street warned employees not to show up that day; that CIA insider trading on wall street took place the morning of; the firemen and eye witnesses just "heard" explosions, and believed that they could put the fires out; its normal for 3 steel framed buildings to collapse, by fire, within hours of burning, at FREE FALL SPEEDS.
-no investigation of the buildings collapse was neccessary; its typical for random collapses to fall perfectly into their own footprints(who needs demolitionists); BYU is only lying that it has confirmed incendiary residue among the pulvarized ash; they secretly love terrorists
-the pentagon is merely withholding footage of its own impact to "protect national security"...not because the cameras show something different than what they claim
-our government, using the best possible intelligence, led us into Iraq because Saddam did have WMDs, and was working in concert with Bin Laden; no falsehoods have been proven, the government has no motive to lie to us...Iraq really planned on attacking America; muslims are the biggest threat to world peace
- there has always been a radical Islamic threat, Muslims hate freedom; it took 9/11 to bring it to the forefront of Americans minds. the government has never been shown to be complicit in other terrorist attacks, such as WTC1, Oklahoma city, Ruby Ridge, or TWA , or even considered executing terrorist attacks on its own public, as declassified Operation Northwoods documents suggest
--the Bush and Bin Laden families dont actually vacation together, Bush really didnt have an oil company with Salem Bin Laden, Osama was never a CIA asset, and we didnt actually evacuate all Saudi nationals and Bin Laden members immediately after the attacks..when all other flights were grounded
-our deficit is not increasing, inflation is a myth, our economy is actually growing, standard of living is higher than ever, America has never been more safe, liberals are evil, and the trillions of dollars in private no-bid contracts benefit everyone, including the Iraqis
- sure, Bush is in the proces of classifying more documents than any other administration in history..but only because "terrorists" hate truth, and Americans need not know what their trusting officials are up to.
- the threat of terrorism is so great, its expected that the public should submit its rights, and allow secret searches and wiretaps; meanwhile, Bushs allowance of free passage over the southern border can only help Americas security and prosperity..hey, SPPA anyone?
- the FBIs joking, when they say they have NO HARD EVIDENCE tying Bin Laden to 9/11.
do i really need to go on? ..just reiterating it is making my head spin. look, i tracked down
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTTS
Sorry,
Libertarian should be 'l' libertarian. Not the Libertarian Party. I think we need a new word.
I'm not convinced there was no al qaeda involvement at all, but I don't think they're a serious threat. They don't concern me. The bear is a bear. What you have to worry about is the guy covered in honey charging for your campsite. Shoot him, and ignore the bear. Al Qaeda is a relatively small threat to global stability. Moussad is worrisome, and China is more so. But neocons are definitely the bigest threat. That and their left wing counterparts.
I used to think that they were a threat because of all the muslim terrorism in europe, but now I strongly suspect they are not acting alone.
The bear, alone, is a bear.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
well said.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Libertarian should be 'l' libertarian. Not the Libertarian Party. I think we need a new word.
How about librarian?
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks, Hero. That works.
I'm a librarian.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And I apologize if I gave the impression that they weren't involved at all. I don't know that. Perhaps I should say I question the extent of their involvement, if any.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I'm not convinced there was no al qaeda involvement at all
I don't think Al-Qaeda perpetrated 9/11--that is not to say a small group of half-baked wannabes didn't take flight lessons with the hopes of crashing planes into the WTC and other targets. I am saying if it was really Al-Qaeda members on those planes, they could not have achieved it without some serious professional help. Without this help, the terrorist wannabes would have been stopped with normal, routine prevention measures such as enforcement of restricted airspace. Without this help, inexperienced pilots could not have hit their target of a narrow 200 ft wide building in a plane going 733 ft a sec. Without this help, I don't think the towers would have collapsed. So as far as I'm concerned, they may have tried, but they didn't make it succeed. Someone else did. That other party or parties is responsible.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:BWAHAhahahahahahaha*sigh* BWAhahahahaha
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
If it wasn't for those meddling kids...
Much needed guffaws Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I'm a librarian.
You believe in wearing glasses, the orderly and mathmatical sorting of reading material, I.D. Cards, floor length skirts, and "sshh!"
You have my vote. Laura Bush for President on the Librarian ticket!
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wow, I guess I hit a nerve. You missed the part where I said we must address terrorism. I just want the fear dial turned down.
I think what Hero and Rap can't understand is that we DO understand the threat- we're just not running around messing our pants because of it... it's not the possibility of death that troubles Hero and Rap, because there are plenty of risks in our lives... it's the whole idea that some people hate us SO MUCH that they see us as mortal enemy. And somewhere between the relentless fear-mongering and the cynicism that this breeds we have to find our own way to address the very real problem of terrorism.
You're displaying, in great selective manner, your moral outrage at the senseless taking of innocent lives via an insane cult of death. But folks planning to indiscriminantly murder 1000's of civilians for no other reason other than to murder 1000's of civilians..... meh, folks die every day. It's not 'fear mongering', it's called having a CONSCINCE
Rap, in my experience hate based in fear. You hate Muslims because you're terrified that they'll destroy our way of life. (Your own statements demonstrate your fear I'll prove it to you .... later) On the other end of this rope, I daresay that many Muslims hate the West from the very same fear. It's not an entirely unfounded fear, altho to be quite honest I think they have more to fear from us than the other way around.
The dangerous aspect of fear and hate is that people who essentially have nothing to fear from each other can be induced into total hysteria by simply mirroring each other's actions and upping the ante slightly each time.
Now here comes the kicker: THE LEADERS ARE NOT AFRAID LIKE WE ARE. Bush, Cheney, ObL, Olmert, Nasrallah use our common fear to climb even higher on our backs. Nasrallah points to Olmert, Olmert points to Ahmadinejad, Ahmadinejad points to Bush, Bush points to Nasrallah, and it goes round and round while we're all whipped up in a frenzy that does nobody (except our collective fearless leaders) any good.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:If you're too stupid to work it out YOURSELF why should I complete YOUR education for you, you pinhead.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Which logical fallacy is that?
YOU use ad hominims because YOU are too STUPID to let your lies stand on their own! YOU hate America with YOUR ASSumptions and terrorist LOVE.
You're a moron, and you'd never find ME stooping to the levels of Ad hominims!
Citizen, the adults are trying to have a conversation. Go play in your box.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes they are, but you keep getting in the way with the ignorant rants. Now bed for you young man
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Citizen, the adults are trying to have a conversation. Go play in your box.
.Incidentally why are you replying to me and bypassing all the adults? It's because you haven't got an answer isn't it, your hoping to start a flame war so you don't need to conclusively prove you're wrong as usual aren't you.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Wow, I guess I hit a nerve. You missed the part where I said we must address terrorism. I just want the fear dial turned down.
Rap, in my experience hate based in fear. You hate Muslims because you're terrified that they'll destroy our way of life. (Your own statements demonstrate your fear I'll prove it to you .... later) On the other end of this rope, I daresay that many Muslims hate the West from the very same fear. It's not an entirely unfounded fear, altho to be quite honest I think they have more to fear from us than the other way around.
The dangerous aspect of fear and hate is that people who essentially have nothing to fear from each other can be induced into total hysteria by simply mirroring each other's actions and upping the ante slightly each time.
Now here comes the kicker: THE LEADERS ARE NOT AFRAID LIKE WE ARE. Bush, Cheney, ObL, Olmert, Nasrallah use our common fear to climb even higher on our backs. Nasrallah points to Olmert, Olmert points to Ahmadinejad, Ahmadinejad points to Bush, Bush points to Nasrallah, and it goes round and round while we're all whipped up in a frenzy that does nobody (except our collective fearless leaders) any good.
Lets see if I can spell it out any clearer for you this time, because you're still not getting it. The Islamo-nutcases ( not ALL Muslims ) want not just to convert you, me and everyone else in the world, but they're willing to KILL us and even themselves to achieve their goal. What has got me so aggitated ( sorry, not scared, as you falsly paint it ) is this passive ignorance that so many are displaying. It's as if you're more afraid of the P.C. nazis than what the Islamo-terrorist have blatently stated they WILL do. Your naive description of all the leaders using the actions of each other is so disconnected with the CAUSE of all this.... Islamic Fundamentalism.
Now a kicker for YOU is that I do think there are PLENTY of things in Western culture which are destructive to society. There is a very real threat from Western thought that, intentionally or not, does potentially challenge the cultures found in the Mid-East. Whether it's Wal-Mart or Women's Rights, OUR way of life does challenge the control of the Theistic State. But it seems what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. We allow muslims to freely practice their religion in the West. Do they reciprocate? Hell no. And rest assured, you and I might not agree as to what is good or bad for society, but I'll bet the house that what ever we think 'should' be acceptable, the Islmo-fascist would sooner cut our heads off than accept what freedoms WE have grown accustomed .
Nasrallah & Ahmadinejad have stated specifically that Israel should be wiped off the map. There's nothing remotely close that either Olmert or Bush have said in comparison in regards to Iran or Hezbollah. So there's nothing to your quid pro quo merry go round w/ the specific leaders.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTTS,
We're in total agreement then. Hmph. No room to argue. Drat.
Hero,
Laura can't win. She's too chappaquiddicky.
Quote:
The Islamo-nutcases ( not ALL Muslims )
Ah Progress!
Now this is what I like to see. (not kidding)
Quote:
Auraptor:
Nasrallah & Ahmadinejad have stated specifically that Israel should be wiped off the map.
Nah, I don't think this is reality, maybe some other Earth. But our press mistranslated these guys all the time. Nasrallah is obviously Jesus of Nazareth returned, and Ahmadinejad is way too moderate to call for the destruction of Israel. He calls for Israel out of Palestine.
Be wary of what you read. 9/10 of it may be lies. Afterall, who is translating Ahmadinejad for you? MSM. Who owns MSM? Israel. Go figure.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Auraptor,
i hate to call you out, but i thoroughly disagree with you about 9/11, the WTC, and the entire war on terror scenario.
for starters, you need to understand..i am not a "liberal", simply because i disagree with Bush and his agenda. i realize its hard for one to wrap their head around the concept that humans are free-thinking beings, who share common truths..but its something you should consider.
in order to believe the government, you have to assume a number of things which have been proven false:
-the government knew nothing of the attacks planned, and did everything possible to stop them.
False - First, there are thousands of potential threats, coming from all manner of sources, some crack-pots, others serious, and others unknown. Second, there were those in the Gov't ( which is a giagantic bureaucracy )who thought there were warning signs a plenty, but partly because of the WALL between the CIA and FBI ( thank you Amy Gorelick and the Clinton Administration ), the info was muddled. And for 3 1/2 yrs AFTER OBL decalred war on the West, no attacks succeeded.
Quote:
-our government had no prior envolvement with al-qaeda, and previously did everything within their power in the past to detain BinLaden.
We both know that's not true. OBL was wanted for, among other things, the attacks on the 2 US Embassy bombings. President Clinton had a chance to GET OBL, but opted not to - TWICE!
Quote:
-NORAD and FAA were justified in their lack of response, and its perfectly normal to lose track of 4 planes at once, and customery to send military craft from the farthest possible bases to respond to incidents.
You're talking about 2 seperate operations, the FAA definatly working w/ out-dated equipment, thrown into a chaotic, previously unrehersed situation. Sure, there was some confusion, but grounding every single plane as quickly as they did was quite an accomplishment. I'm of the opinion that 1 or more planes carrying terrorist landed during this time, and thwarted another attack.
Quote:
-there is no such thing as PNAC, or the Downing stree memos, nor a prior agenda to invade Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria prior to 9/11.
Those things have been taken WILDLY out of context. Fact is, Bill Clinton, not Bush, made it official US policy to push for regime change in Iraq.
Quote:
- its just a coincidence that: the CIA was running an identical simulation to the 9/11 attacks, the very same morning; that Bushs bro Marvin headed the WTC security company; that Fema just happened to arrive on 9/10; that rumors on the street warned employees not to show up that day; that CIA insider trading on wall street took place the morning of; the firemen and eye witnesses just "heard" explosions, and believed that they could put the fires out; its normal for 3 steel framed buildings to collapse, by fire, within hours of burning, at FREE FALL SPEEDS.
Internet rumors, kooky conspiracies and wild assumptions. I wish I could spend time on each whacko point, but there's just too many, so I'll stick to ONE.
Your ignorant claim that 3 buildings came down ONLY by fire omits a mountain of factors. WTC buildings 1 & 2 were built w/ unconventional means... — instead of bracing the buildings corner-to-corner or using internal walls, the towers were essentially hollow steel tubes surrounding a strong central core. Both towers were built to withstand an impact of a large airliner..and they did! But what WASN'T figured into the equation was the inferno which followed. The impact of a fully loaded 767( traveling at 300-400mph ? ) and fire knocked the thin insulation off of the girders and exposed them to heat. After that, it was only a matter of time. The buildings were doomed. The enclosed area became a furnace, fueld by the contents with in. Time + heat + the weight of the planes acted to weaken the inside of the buildings. Once that starts, gravity takes over. If there's nothing to support
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rap, I'm going to take your post our of order...
Quote:So it's not just our religion that challenges their way of life, it's the whole ball of wax... our economy, our individualism, mobility, laws... everything In fact, our religion has very little to do with it.
I do think there are PLENTY of things in Western culture which are destructive to {I'm sure you meant to say "their"} society. There is a very real threat from Western thought that, intentionally or not, does potentially challenge the cultures found in the Mid-East. Whether it's Wal-Mart or Women's Rights, OUR way of life does challenge the control of the Theistic State.
Quote:But it's not just religion, as you say, it's a whole way of life. And do we allow them to freely practice their way of life in the Middle East? To quote- "Hell no". Let's recap the number of overt invasions and puppet governments and interventions that we've made there. Have they done the same to us? Did they overthrow any of our Presidents? Invade California? Monkey with our elections? Force us into onerous loans?
But it seems what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. We allow muslims to freely practice their religion in the West.
Quote:Hmmm, and how many Muslim civilians have we killed in order to impose "our way of life" on them??? You know, there's only so many times you can poke someone with a sharp stick until they get pissed off. If we had been messed with as much as they were, we'd be doing the same. Heck, we ARE doing the same, only with bigger weapons and less provocation.
You're still not getting it. The Islamo-nutcases ( not ALL Muslims ) want not just to convert you, me and everyone else in the world, but they're willing to KILL us and even themselves to achieve their goal. What has got me so aggitated ( sorry, not scared, as you falsly paint it ) is this passive ignorance that so many are displaying.
Quote:YAWN! Oh... were you saying something?? Yeah, they hate us. I get it. They want to cut off our heads and roast our weenies and throw our women into jail. And if we're VERY lucky, in that order.
It's as if you're more afraid of the P.C. nazis than what the Islamo-terrorist have blatently stated they WILL do. Your naive description of all the leaders using the actions of each other is so disconnected with the CAUSE of all this.... Islamic Fundamentalism... And rest assured, you and I might not agree as to what is good or bad for society, but I'll bet the house that what ever we think 'should' be acceptable, the Islmo-fascist would sooner cut our heads off than accept what freedoms WE have grown accustomed .
So, if they're THAT dangerous, why were we arming the muhajedeen... re-named into so-called "freedom fighters" to make them more palatable for the West... in the '80s? I do a slow boil when I read yet another horror story of Sharia law, and it was very clear who were were funding. And Saddam, whatever else he was, was NOT an Islamic fundamentalist. So if Islamic fundamentalism is the greatest threat, why did we invade Iraq? And why are trying to impose a fundamentalist, Iran-linked government there?
Your thinking is clouded by fear of communism, of WMD, of Islamic fundamentalism. What will you be afraid of tomorrow?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Now here comes the kicker: THE LEADERS ARE NOT AFRAID LIKE WE ARE.
Quote:
The Islamo-nutcases (not ALL Muslims) want not just to convert you, me and everyone else in the world, but they're willing to KILL us and even themselves to achieve their goal.
First question - why do you specify "Islamo"? Hitler was an xtian who also wanted to remake the world to his liking - and he was willing to kill those who either wouldn't or couldn't conform. But you would not call him a Christian-fascist, would you?
Quote:
this passive ignorance that so many are displaying.
Second question - why do you presume ignorance? What would it take (short of running around saying 'the sky is falling !' for YOU to understand WE understand there's a threat?
Quote:
It's as if you're more afraid of the P.C. nazis than what the Islamo-terrorist have blatantly stated they WILL do
Third question - what P.C. nazis are we afraid of? In your book, aren't WE the P.C nazis?
Quote:
Your naive description of all the leaders using the actions of each other
Fourth question - Are you saying the leaders should be afraid? The populace should not be afraid? The leaders should not be afraid but populace should? What are you saying??
Quote:
is so disconnected with the CAUSE of all this.... Islamic Fundamentalism
Fifth question - When Afghanistan was off the map as far as most USers were concerned (remember far, far back - 8 years ago) nobody really cared if they were fundamentalist. Did you?
Quote:
the Islamo-fascist would sooner cut our heads off than accept what freedoms WE have grown accustomed.
Sixth question - what do you think is the reason for democratically elected Islamic-law republics - like Iraq?
Quote:
Nasrallah & Ahmadinejad have stated specifically that Israel should be wiped off the map ... There's nothing remotely close that either Olmert or Bush have said in comparison in regards to Iran or Hezbollah.
Seventh question - Axis of evil? You're either with us or you're with the terrorists?
So I want to ask you another question - you pretty much sidestepped SignyM's post and went on web-screaming the same old same old EVEN LOUDER !!! Can you engage in a discussion or do you always just plug your ears and say "I can't HEAR you !"
edited to add:
SignyM posted earlier, making much better sense.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
On the clinton did it first thing: regime change
Yep, he did. And clinton was evil. Still is. And this is our model for conservative govt?
Quote:
but they're willing to KILL us and even themselves to achieve their goal.
Hmm, reminds me of someone else. Hmm who would that be.
So the words are what matters? Bush's words have been soft, and his bomb oh so harsh. Ahmadinejad says some harsh words, but no bombs.
Okay, but seriously folks this debate is the sort of waste of time I was talking about. We need to level it down to discuss problems and solutions in a reasonable manner.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Religion, culture. All the same thing when you're dealing w/ Sharia Law. Your attempt to split hairs here is pretty weak. We can't practice OUR religion in THEIR country, yet they can in ours ? What don't you see wrong here ?
Quote:
Let's recap the number of overt invasions and puppet governments and interventions that we've made there. Have they done the same to us? Did they overthrow any of our Presidents? Invade California? Monkey with our elections? Force us into onerous loans?
Overt invasions? Like kicking Saddam out of Kuwait ? Or going after al Qaeda in the Taliban run Afghanistan ? Puppet Gov'ts ? Please, that piece of Leftist rhetoric is as old and tired as Fidel Castro.
Quote:
Hmmm, and how many Muslim civilians have we killed in order to impose "our way of life" on them??? You know, there's only so many times you can poke someone with a sharp stick until they get pissed off. If we had been messed with as much as they were, we'd be doing the same. Heck, we ARE doing the same, only with bigger weapons and less provocation.
Hmm...guess we've not killed enough then, have we? Certainly we've not killed as many Muslims as they have killed THEMSELVES! You realize you're taking the side of OBL, w/ the trumped up claims of us 'messing' with them. That's a load of horseshit. It all comes down to power. They want to control us, and we're not too keen on that. They want us out of there? Fine, have them petition their Gov't and get us out. Don't blow up Marine barracks or fly planes into buildings.
Quote:
So, if they're THAT dangerous, why were we arming the muhajedeen... re-named into so-called "freedom fighters" to make them more palatable for the West... in the '80s? I do a slow boil when I read yet another horror story of Sharia law, and it was very clear who were were funding. And Saddam, whatever else he was, was NOT an Islamic fundamentalist. So if Islamic fundamentalism is the greatest threat, why did we invade Iraq? And why are trying to impose a fundamentalist, Iran-linked government there?
Your thinking is clouded by fear of communism, of WMD, of Islamic fundamentalism. What will you be afraid of tomorrow?
Why ? Because , at the time, those in charge thought that giving the Soviet Union a piece of the Middle East wasn't such a great idea. You see, taking Afghanistan would have put the Soviets closer to the Mid East oil fields, as well as control of a warm water port. Somthing they DIDN'T have too much of in those days. Oil + open ports = HUGE financial gains for the Soviety Union. Fact is, the Iron Curtain might not have fallen had they succeeded. We opted to help the locals in Afghanistan, mainly to stop the Soviets, and also w/ the hopes that some gratitude would be shown our way. Boy, were WE wrong! Hell, not even helping the muslims in Bosnia during the 90's granted us any favors!
Why did we invade Iraq? You honestly don't remember the 10 + yrs of broken cease fire agreements by Saddam from the Gulf War? The 17 U.N. resolutions, the 15-0 Security Council vote ?
If you really need to ask now, I got nothin' for ya dude. It's VERY WELL documented.
What I fear more than anything is appeasement and pacifisim by the likes of you in the face of a very real danger.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rap, do you realize how unwrapped you sound?
Quote:But as old and tired as it is you can't refute it, can you? Because the fact is, "they" haven't invaded us, have they? "They" haven't installed a government in Washington. "They" haven't drawn our borders, or establised military bases in Ohio or annexed Texas, have they?
Let's recap the number of overt invasions and puppet governments and interventions that we've made there. Have they done the same to us? Did they overthrow any of our Presidents? Invade California? Monkey with our elections? Force us into onerous loans?- Signy
Overt invasions? Like kicking Saddam out of Kuwait ? Or going after al Qaeda in the Taliban run Afghanistan ? Puppet Gov'ts ? Please, that piece of Leftist rhetoric is as old and tired as Fidel Castro- Rap
Quote:Well, you just said we invaded Afghanistan, and kicked out Saddam- twice (once out of Kuwait, once out of Iraq) and we have't killed "enough" of them. That's a considersble amount of "messing" with them, wouldn't you say?
Hmm...guess we've not killed enough then, have we? Certainly we've not killed as many Muslims as they have killed THEMSELVES! You realize you're taking the side of OBL, w/ the trumped up claims of us 'messing' with them. That's a load of horseshit.
Quote:Yep
It all comes down to power.
Quote:AND WE WANT TO CONTROL THEM.
They want to control us,
Quote:Oh, you mean that our control should be so complete that they should just spread their legs any time we decide to invade? Would you not even "allow" them some feelings of nationalism? Does any act of self defense on their part become a terrible threat? Where is your perspective, man?
They want us out of there? Fine, have them petition their Gov't and get us out. Don't blow up Marine barracks or fly planes into buildings.
Quote:YAWN!!! ... Oh! You were sayin'? Rap, all you're doing is running a "Fear of the Month" club. Every fear is the BIGGEST fear ... until the next fear comes along. So today you're sweating Islamic fudamentalists... which for all I know will drive you into the arms of some dictator- maybe even Russia or China, or {gasp} France, if you get worked up enuf about it... who will then in turn become the next fear of the month.
Because , at the time, those in charge thought that giving the Soviet Union a piece of the Middle East wasn't such a great idea. You see, taking Afghanistan would have put the Soviets closer to the Mid East oil fields, as well as control of a warm water port. Somthing they DIDN'T have too much of in those days. Oil + open ports = HUGE financial gains for the Soviety Union. Fact is, the Iron Curtain might not have fallen had they succeeded. We opted to help the locals in Afghanistan, mainly to stop the Soviets, and also w/ the hopes that some gratitude would be shown our way. Boy, were WE wrong! Hell, not even helping the muslims in Bosnia during the 90's granted us any favors!
Why did we invade Iraq? You honestly don't remember the 10 + yrs of broken cease fire agreements by Saddam from the Gulf War? The 17 U.N. resolutions, the 15-0 Security Council vote ?
How can we take your fears seriously if you can't even prioritize them? GET A GRIP, MAN! You're embarassing yourself!
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just found this blog by Britain's former ambassador to Ubekistan on this recent terror plot.
Quote:
Read the entire article here:
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/08/the_uk_terror_p.html
None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.
In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.
What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.
Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth.
The gentleman being "interrogated" had fled the UK after being wanted for questioning over the murder of his uncle some years ago. That might be felt to cast some doubt on his reliability. It might also be felt that factors other than political ones might be at play within these relationships. Much is also being made of large transfers of money outside the formal economy. Not in fact too unusual in the British Muslim community, but if this activity is criminal, there are many possibilities that have nothing to do with terrorism.
We then have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing the possible arrests over the weekend. Why? I think the answer to that is plain. Both in desperate domestic political trouble, they longed for "Another 9/11". The intelligence from Pakistan, however dodgy, gave them a new 9/11 they could sell to the media. The media has bought, wholesale, all the rubbish they have been shovelled. . .
Don't know how much of this is true. But it does make one question, doesn't it, how easy it is to swallow the "next 9/11" story if enough media outlets repeat it?
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hitler wasn't a Christian, in fact in private he was anti-Christian, but he was publically pro-Christian, create a German master race Christian empire thing.
Originally posted by Rue:
First question - why do you specify "Islamo"? Hitler was an xtian who also wanted to remake the world to his liking - and he was willing to kill those who either wouldn't or couldn't conform. But you would not call him a Christian-fascist, would you?
He couldn't of done it without the Christians, and I suspect the people at the head of the 'Islamo-Fascists' are very much the same.
So I think Christian-Fascists might fit quite well.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM - I did refute your claims, if you'd just read my post. All you've done is ignroed what I said and repeated yourself. Sorry, saying it twice doesn't make it any more real.
No, we don't want to CONTROL them, we just want them to stop murdering everyone across the globe. Is that too much to ask?
Quote:
Oh, you mean that our control should be so complete that they should just spread their legs any time we decide to invade? Would you not even "allow" them some feelings of nationalism? Does any act of self defense on their part become a terrible threat? Where is your perspective, man?
Every time we invade. Wow, you're a piece of work. How DO you live in the real world wearing those blinders?
Invasion No.1 - Iraq invades Kuwait, and ignores world demands to leave Kuwaits sovereign soil. We went after Iraq, and (sadly) only did what the UN charter mandated.
Invasion No. 2 - al Qaeda attacks the US, and we were justified in going after them. ( Hell, even Clinton fired rockets at the AQ bases back in the 90's ) The Taliban didn't help us out, so we took them out. We were justified.
Invasion No. 3 - Iraq, still not playing nice, finally gets its last warning. It doesn't abide. We go in.
Hardly makes your case, now does it ?
Yawn, all you can do is repeat yourself, as you ignore the realities of the world. Why am I wasting my time ?
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:He's not the one ignoring realities, that would be you, but since you get all you're knowledge of the world from the partisan propoganda channel you probably think you're the only one who knows what he's talking about.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Yawn, all you can do is repeat yourself, as you ignore the realities of the world. Why am I wasting my time ?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Hero,
Laura can't win. She's too chappaquiddicky.
I'm willing to bet that she would never ride in a car driven by Ted Kennedy.
And she's a Librarian, so she's got the Librarian vote wrapped up.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
First question - why do you specify "Islamo"? Hitler was an xtian who also wanted to remake the world to his liking
Hitler was a fascist. In fact the term was invented to describe him. Now the Islamic fascists are not Nazis, there's is a religeous rather then a racial/governmental fascism. So to distinguish this particular form of fascism, the term Islamafascist is used. Like the difference between a Marxist and a Stalinist.
Quote:
Second question - why do you presume ignorance? What would it take (short of running around saying 'the sky is falling !' for YOU to understand WE understand there's a threat?
Because no person who truly understood the threat would be so obstructionist in opposing it. The Democrats and liberals have put more time, effort and thought into defeating Bush then they ever would consider doing to defeat Bin Laddin. Aside from shouting "you missed the turn" from the backseat, the Democrats haven't done a thing except oppose every major policy and undermine every domestic and international agenda the United States has put forth since January 20, 2001 (roughly noon EST).
Quote:
Third question - what P.C. nazis are we afraid of?
The ones who say that profiling is bad. Yes its bad, but its damned effective and should be an option in narrowly defined and strictly controlled circumstances.
Also the ones who condemn war but remain silent about terror (ie CNN International).
Quote:
Fifth question - When Afghanistan was off the map as far as most USers were concerned (remember far, far back - 8 years ago) nobody really cared if they were fundamentalist. Did you?
Some did. Those few who saw the Cole bombing and other attacks for what they were. Clinton did, thats why he dropped a couple missiles there and assumed that would do the job. A lot of people cared, but hardly any cared enough to do something about it. History has shown that democracies sleep deep. Its a weakness that our enemies have exploited time and again. But democracies also tend to kick ass (eventually), thats a lesson our enemies never seem to learn.
Quote:
Sixth question - what do you think is the reason for democratically elected Islamic-law republics - like Iraq?
A big part of it is history. Another part is that in many places the religeous oriented parties are the most organized since interest-based parties tend to form first in small groups before seeking larger alliances of common interests. In many ways the emerging Democracy in the Middle East is following the same general pattern that showed up in other emerging Democracies in the mid-20th Century. Military coups and strongmen are the next phase...then the return to popular democracy in a more effective form.
Quote:
Seventh question - Axis of evil? You're either with us or you're with the terrorists?
That pretty much sums it up. Two sides and either you are part of the solution or you are part of the problem...and you know how we treat folk who are part of the problem.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor- I'm repeating myself because you're repeating yourself.
Quote:Oh? Then what were we doing in Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia in 1950? 1960? 1970? 1980? Please go read up on it and tell me. I really do expect an answer because you're whole argument is predicated on the idea that "terrorists" just popped up de novo because of some defect in their religion and the rest of us are all innocent bystanders.
No, we don't want to CONTROL them, we just want them to stop murdering everyone across the globe. Is that too much to ask?
And, BTW, in your own words, we invaded three times in ten years. Now whether we justify it to ourselves or not- and of course we will always justify it to ourselves, even if we have to lie about it- none of our conquests are going to beat their breast saying "Yeah THANK GOD were were invaded! We deserved it" especially if we have not made a positive material difference in their lives. When the Romans invaded Gaul or Britain or Spain, they knew they were going to meet armed resistance. They didn't bother to get hysterial about it because it's part of empire- building. You, otoh, seem to think that our conquests should be thankful for the boot heel on their neck, and when that doesn't happen you mess yourself with fear.
But let's look at the history and result of our invasion of Afghanistan. You justified supporting the Taliban because of fear of communism. Then you justified the invasion because of the Taliban. And now people- but especially women are worse off in Afghanistan than under the Soviets. All those women doctors and lawyers and teachers that managed to graduate under Soviet rule are now back under the burka. Why? Because we funded the Taliban for years and they've developed a strong base. Because we're bypassing even our puppet leader (Karzai) and funding the petty warlords directly who in turn are developing a narco-state. And like Somalia, the people are going to become so tired of instability that they will WELCOME a return of the Taliban. And what do we do then? Re-invade? Overturn Karzai in favor of some bigger, meaner bastard who's killed his way up the ladder?
AND OSAMA BIN LADEN IS STILL ALIVE.
What about Iraq? For a while, we funded Saddam against Iran. Iran, as you may recall, rebelled against the Shah who we had installed after getting rid of Mossadegh. So sure, we got rid of Saddam Hussein on the pretext of WMD (which didn't exist). But now we have a theocractic Iran-allied government in power. How does THAT advance your so-called "war on terror"?
We've interfered with the Middle East and messed it up royally. I doubt that you would tolerate that kind of interference in the USA. If you saw Mexican tanks on the streets and Mexcian flags flying over four states you'd get all pissed off, wouldn't you? Of course you would.
It's the same with anyone who is occupied, whether its the Irish, Native Americans, Morrocans, or Tibetans. What I truly don't understand is why you lack the perspective to see that, and react with gibbering terror to our conquests as if they were our conquerers. In your case, I think the terrorists have won because you're in a state of terror.
EDITED TO ADD: Rap, I conclude that you're terrified because you keep reacting to situations in ways that are predictably self-defeating. I'll bet you supported Israel's invasion of Lebanon, which had the predicted effect of pissing off a lot of Lebanese and increasing Hezbollah's influence. And given what I've just said about the populations of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon reacting in predicabtly nationalistic ways to interference and invasion, what do you think would happen if we were to bomb Iran? Are we trying to line up everyone in the Middle East against us?
And it's working so well for us!
July violence in Iraq the deadliest since March 2003
www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/17/iraq.main/index.html
Bin Laden still hugely significant
www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/amanpour.answers/index.html
UN WARNS T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Firstly Hitler wasn't strictly a fascist, he was a nazi. Nazisim is an offshoot of Fascism but not the same thing entirely, and facist was not invented to describe Hitler. Fascist was a term for a follower of fascism, which was the name of the movement that was headed by Benito Mussolini and ruled Italy from 1922. It's roots come from the Itallian word Fascio used in the 19th century to describe various political groups. It's inception has absolutly nothing to do with Hitler.
Originally posted by Hero:
Hitler was a fascist. In fact the term was invented to describe him.
Quote:There being no religious component to Nazism is something you better take up with the Christians who supported Nazism to bring around a holy German Empire. You might also want to tell the Jews that the holocaust had nothing to do with them being Jewish.
Now the Islamic fascists are not Nazis, there's is a religeous rather then a racial/governmental fascism.
Quote:Not really, Marxism is a type of Communism, Stalinism is a type of Totalitarianism.
Like the difference between a Marxist and a Stalinist.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi Citizen
I agree that Christian-Fascist works for Hitler. But the US media - more importantly the ultra-right wing version Unwrapped favors - would never :aghast: use that phrase.
I was just messing with his mind, trying to run it into the wall of his own internal contradictions. 
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen,
Just another comment. I also noticed the congruencies between OhReally!, Limp-baugh, Sean Insanity - and Unwrapped. What's WORSE, dubya, that pinnacle of intellectual acumen, is ALSO now quoting those sources. Could it possibly get any better.
Quote:
He's not the one ignoring realities, that would be you, but since you get all you're knowledge of the world from the partisan propaganda channel you probably think you're the only one who knows what he's talking about.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OK Zero,
I was kinda' waiting for Unwrapped, but I'm short on time.
So here' a little teaser for now:
Quote:I'm afraid to the core. Yes. Very, very afraid. I'm so afraid that Muslims will completely take over or destroy the entire non-Muslim world I'd do anything. Anything. I demand the US join the ICC. I demand the US coordinate its policing with its European allies (who've been at this a lot longer). I demand the US secure its borders. There are so many effective things to do and the US isn't doing any of them and I don't know why.
Because no person who truly understood the threat would be so obstructionist in opposing it.
Satisfied?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero,
Wrongo goof
Fascism = Benito Mussolini
Responding to your rants is probably a waste of time, and I see Citizen already pointed this one out. Well, Seriously, if you don't know jack, do yourself a favor and look jack up on the internet before posting. The fact that you never fact check before posting stuff you're not sure of is what makes us think you're a moron. No offense to the mentally challenged, apparantly they can be elected president, and then have people much smarter than they defend the idiotic policies which they know are wrong in exchange for a hefty paycheck.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Just found this blog by Britain's former ambassador to Ubekistan on this recent terror plot.Quote:
Read the entire article here:
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/08/the_uk_terror_p.html
None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.
In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.
What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.
Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth.
The gentleman being "interrogated" had fled the UK after being wanted for questioning over the murder of his uncle some years ago. That might be felt to cast some doubt on his reliability. It might also be felt that factors other than political ones might be at play within these relationships. Much is also being made of large transfers of money outside the formal economy. Not in fact too unusual in the British Muslim community, but if this activity is criminal, there are many possibilities that have nothing to do with terrorism.
We then have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing the possible arrests over the weekend. Why? I think the answer to that is plain. Both in desperate domestic political trouble, they longed for "Another 9/11". The intelligence from Pakistan, however dodgy, gave them a new 9/11 they could sell to the media. The media has bought, wholesale, all the rubbish they have been shovelled. . .
Don't know how much of this is true. But it does make one question, doesn't it, how easy it is to swallow the "next 9/11" story if enough media outlets repeat it?
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
Thanks for posting this.
Strangely though, it seems that Auraptor does'nt want to comment on it.
I suppose theres a first time for everything.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
YEAH !!
I want dubya to talk about 9/11 some more !
CBS 11-13
36 up
57 down
7 uncertain
-21
Newsweek 7-10
37 up
59 down
4 uncertain
-22
Fox 8-9
36 up
56 down
8 uncertain
-20
http://www.pollingreport.com/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Aurapter- i find the "pancake theory" a real stretch; i understand its believed that the temperatures from the Jet fuel melted hundreds of thousands of welds and trusses, simultaneously, to allow a perfectly level free fall of the proceeding floors, but its a mathematical improbability..especially to happen on both buildings as it did. why have other steel buildings, throughout history, burned for DAYS, and white hot temperatures, and remained standing..yet our buildings burn for a few hours, and the entire lower portions, which were intact let me remind you, pulvarize and implode perfectly? why did the firemen claim they could put the fires out? what about the explosions that they heard, which brought gag orders against them? why did Larry Silverstein imply that building 7 was "pulled"? i realize a plane hit each building, but Jet fuel does not melt and pulvarize and entire building, and bring it down next to free fall speeds, perfectly into its base! it just doesnt happen like that...especially when so many other pieces of the governments story is suspect. do you honostly believe American elements had nothing at all to do with this?>
and Christian fascism is an oxy moron. American fascism is more appropriate...yet is that not a threat aswell? why no fearmongering about that
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Antimason,
9-11 official story doesn't work on about 100 different points. I find there's no point with even arguing with these apologists, they're right up there with holocaust deniers in the level of malicious misinformation they tout. They also sort of remind me of those trekkies who explain away the logical and technological inconsistancies so the writers don't have to do it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Anything. I demand the US join the ICC. I demand the US coordinate its policing with its European allies (who've been at this a lot longer).
They've been at it alot longer because they are so ineffective.
Lets look at Lebanon for example. The UN urges...urges Lebanon disarm and deploys Peacekeepers to assist and by assist they mean do nothing as Iran and Syria ships ten thousand missiles to Hezbollah which then drives by the local UN outpost (waving) on their way across the border (and under the cover of a missile attack on an Isreali village) to kidnap Isreali soldiers. Then...time's up and they get ready to leave in the middle of a war they were put there to prevent. Then a ceasefire that aggrees to disarm Hezbollah...I mean urges them to disarm...again, maybe, they need to read it one more time to be sure...and sends 15,000 peacekeeper mostly French...I mean 10 officers and 200 unarmed French engineers to sit around and watch while Syria and Iran ship ten thousand new missiles to Hezbollah who, in a day, a week or perhaps a few months will drive by the UN outpost (waving) on their way across the border to capture or kill more Isreali soldiers. So I guess the answer to the original question is that you folk are as gullible as they come.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Zero,
WTF are you babbling about? Are you hallucinating again? You're not even close to what I was saying ...
This is what I was talking about. The Brits had the 'suspects' under police surveillance for nearly a year. They must be pretty good. Don't you think that if the British police have such good intelligence and capability that it would behove the US to cooperate with them? Another example: the Germans were suspicious of money transfers involving the supposed 9/11 hijackers. Don't you think that kind of information, if shared, would have been useful to the US?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Oh? Then what were we doing in Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia in 1950? 1960? 1970? 1980? Please go read up on it and tell me.
Gee. Hmm..what do all those nations have in common? Could it be....OIL? We weren't doing anything in those nations that every other modernized nation in the West wasn't doing. Building those Mid-East nations an entire infrastructure so they could pump oil and sell is to everyone on the planet. With out the West, that wouldn't have happened. You seem to be from the camp which thinks that " no blood for oil " is a nice little foreign policy that fits on a bumper sticker. But the hard fact of the matter is, Oil IS important, not just to those who USE it, but to the nations that PRODUCE it.
Now, never mind that fact that those nations eventaully stole all the materials and equipment from the companies which spent so much time and effort. But they had to have someone who knew how to work the machinery , so it all worked out. Sorta.
Quote:
'll bet you supported Israel's invasion of Lebanon, which had the predicted effect of pissing off a lot of Lebanese and increasing Hezbollah's influence. And given what I've just said about the populations of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon reacting in predicabtly nationalistic ways to interference and invasion, what do you think would happen if we were to bomb Iran? Are we trying to line up everyone in the Middle East against us?
Yep, I was completely for Israel protecting itself from the terrorist attacks of Hezbollah. Too bad they stopped before they accomplished their goal. Sadly, the Liberal leaders of Israel were swayed by the phony, biased news reporting out of Lebanon. Look for Act 2 to start production soon enough.
Who is going to bomb Iran? 'We' ?? Sorry, you really have me lost now.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
antimason wrote:
Thursday, August 17, 2006 09:23
Aurapter- i find the "pancake theory" a real stretch; i understand its believed that the temperatures from the Jet fuel melted hundreds of thousands of welds and trusses, simultaneously, to allow a perfectly level free fall of the proceeding floors, but its a mathematical improbability..especially to happen on both buildings as it did.
A 767 rams into a building and turns the impact site into what amounts to a kiln. There doesn't NEED to be a melting of " hundreds of thousands of welds and strusses, simultaneously,...blah blah blah " The outside of the WTC, unlike other sky scrapers, acts as a support structure in place of the walls and beams in the interior of the building which is so common in other designs. At the point of impact, from where the hottest temps were found , and at where the weight of the planes rested, THAT is the focal point of the structure failure. Remember... both towers were like steel tubes ? The collaps didn't have to occur as you described, because the exteriors of the buildings were essentialy in tact. Much like what happens when a screen door is punctured. There's a hole, sure, but the rest of the screen stays pretty much in the same place.
Quote:That's what Firemen do ? And possibly, they assumed the building's sprinkler system of be of some use. It wasn't. Also, no one had a clue as to how bad it was up there. Not at first. The firemen went up to fight the fire but also get people OUT
why did the firemen claim they could put the fires out?
Quote:Don't know of any 'gag orders',sounds like great internet tripe to me. But when major stress fractures occur, like in large buildings, there will be what sounds like explosions. Unless you think the TITANIC was also destroyed in like fashion. Survivors in the boats there also said they heard 'explosions', as the metal creaked and pushed to the limits, before finally breaking.
what about the explosions that they heard, which brought gag orders against them?
I'm guessing you're no architect, huh?
Quote:The evidence would suggest otherwise, for the reasons explained above.
i realize a plane hit each building, but Jet fuel does not melt and pulvarize and entire building, and bring it down next to free fall speeds, perfectly into its base! it just doesnt happen like that.
Quote:Sorry, but you've not proven your case. Your ignorance of physics and the structural qualities of the WTC 1 and 2 don't in any way amount to a hill of beans on this matter.
especially when so many other pieces of the governments story is suspect. do you honostly believe American elements had nothing at all to do with this?
And as for the 'demolition' angle, you've overlooked one last crucial element. In every demolition I've witnessed, there's always is a flash of light as each detonation goes off. Or a puff of smoke.... SOMETHING! But I dare you to find a sequential pattern , from top to bottom in any of the videos showing the WTC towers fall.
You can't do it, because there were no 'bombs' perfectly set to drop the building as you claim.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Rap, why do you bother to answer? Not only don't you know what you're talking about, you won't even bother to google up simple facts before you post. How do you expect us to take you seriously?
Gee. Hmm..what do all those nations have in common? Could it be....OIL? We weren't doing anything in those nations that every other modernized nation in the West wasn't doing.
Quote:www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss17/booknotes-All.shtml
Any analysis of America’s position in the Middle East would be incomplete without a thorough understanding of the U.S. role in overthrowing Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, the democratically elected and revered Prime Minister
Or, try reading this, which details decades of interference, provocation, and assasination plots involving Egypt and Syria.
www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zepezauer_Mark/Egypt_Boomerang.html
But, I'll but you won't read any of it, because your world view is so shaky it can't stand a few fdacts.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry Sig, but I don't intermix facts w/ kooky, Michael Moore type conspiracy nonsense.
You can't deny anything I said, but you're more than willing to direct me to the holy internet to back up your so called 'facts', eh?
Nice try. Game over.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Eh? HARVARD law school is a kooky conspiracy site??? Heck even the CIA admits to overthrowing Mossadegh in 1953!
And FYI I grabbed Third-World Traveler because it has everything all nicely summarized. But the facts can be verified individually using... yep, google. You should try using it sometime. You might learn something (snicker).
So, I'm going to reiterate- we've been messing around in the Mideast since whenever. No wonder the folks there are a might tetchy.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
So, I'm going to reiterate- we've been messing around in the Mideast since whenever. No wonder the folks there are a might tetchy
You seemingly missed my post where I admitted our interest in the region, but that it wasn't any more , and in fact far LESS than that of other Western European countries. Oh, and then there's Russsia, who blatently tried to annex a path to the Arabian Sea.
Funny, but wasn't it England who controled the lands of Israel and Iraq? Why the HELL aren't they doing mnore to solve these problems? After all, it was they who started all this mess. A bit of gratitude is due for the USA, in trying to clean up the mess that other's left behind.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
WTF are you babbling about? Are you hallucinating again? You're not even close to what I was saying ...
You said we should coordinate with our allies, I pointed out the fallacy of relying on international action.
Here I'll make it simple.
You: We join world to solve world problems.
Me: We sit around till hell freezes over waiting for world to show up.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, what you said was
You seemingly missed my post where I admitted our interest in the region, but that it wasn't any more , and in fact far LESS than that of other Western European countries.
Quote:Oh, yeah... and running coups, setting up secret police (like Savak), attempting assasinations, corrupting various governments and using Israel as proxy. And (your words) kicking Saddam out of Kuwait Or going after al Qaeda in the Taliban run Afghanistan
We weren't doing anything in those nations that every other modernized nation in the West wasn't doing. Building those Mid-East nations an entire infrastructure so they could pump oil and sell is to everyone on the planet.
Quote:Also, don't forget Lawrence of Arabia. Sadly, the root of many of these problems traces back to the British empire. But I'm curious- in your mind, what constitutes "cleaning up the mess"? Or, perhaps to rephrase it a little differently- what do YOU see as "the mess" that needs to be cleaned?
Funny, but wasn't it England who controled the lands of Israel and Iraq? Why the HELL aren't they doing mnore to solve these problems? After all, it was they who started all this mess. A bit of gratitude is due for the USA, in trying to clean up the mess that other's left behind.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hero, I don't normally jump in for Rue, but this is not what Rue said.
You: We join world to solve world problems.
Me: We sit around till hell freezes over waiting for world to show up.
I had to drop a line of discusison bc of lack of time, but I'm going to pick it up again. You said
Quote:You also said
If your talking to terrorists...you really can't be trusted and you should be tapped. Nobody else has anything to worry about.
Quote:Do I have a right to privacy calling my niece in Phoenix? My mom in France? Googling the internet for the decomposition temperature of ammonium nitrate and urea (to find out if we can safely dry them in an oven)? Do I have a right to be secure in my person and effects unless there is probable cause to think otherwise? Are invasions of privacy subject to law? Your statements seem to say "yes".
Also a person's right to privacy extends only to a zone in which they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Does a person making an overseas phonecall to Osama Bin Ladden have that reasonable expectation? I think not. How about a payphone to call the local Mafia boss to arrange a hit on PirateNews? Maybe. Talking to your lawyer? Definately. Sending a message via your lawyer to Osama Bin Ladden or the Mafia? No (and a great Law and Order episode).
However, the Administration is saying that Bush can do anything now that he's King... er, I mean Commander in Chief in time of war... and that he isn't bound by law, apparently not even the Constitution. So, where do you stand on warrantless wiretapping? (I'm sure you're aware of yesterday's ruling). And why?
If you feel that warrantless wiretapping is -or should be- legal, what areas does FISA fail to address that should be remedied?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Do I have a right to privacy calling my niece in Phoenix? My mom in France?
If they are terrorists, then...maybe?
If you know they are terrorists, then no, you have no expectation. If you don't know then, yes...YOU have the expectation. But since they certainly know then they have no expectation of privacy and while we can't use the call against you, we certainly can use it against them, after all we're not really monitoring you, we are monitoring them.
If they are not terrorists, then you have nothing to worry about, your call will not be monitored. Its the Terrorist Surveillance Program, not the Signy Calling His Mommy Program. And if you choose not to believe that, then there is really no argument you will accept.
Quote:
Googling the internet for the decomposition temperature of ammonium nitrate and urea (to find out if we can safely dry them in an oven)?
For what purpose? I'm no chemist, but if your purpose is benign, then any inadvertant monitoring does no harm.
Quote:
Do I have a right to be secure in my person and effects unless there is probable cause to think otherwise?
Certainly you do. Go be all secure. You have my permission, not withstanding stop and frisk, plain sight, plain smell (for the local drug dog...he's a good boy, yes he is), etc.
Quote:
Are invasions of privacy subject to law? Your statements seem to say "yes".
However, the Administration is saying that Bush can do anything now that he's King... er, I mean Commander in Chief in time of war... and that he isn't bound by law
Actually the President has some very clearly defined war making powers. For example, he can confiscate property (sorry sir, we need you house for a command post), blow things up, draft all the coal miners (you cannot strike against the public interest), gather signals intellegence and monitor the communications of the enemy (Hello Mr. Signy from Rhode Island, I have a long distance call from a Mister Admiral Yamamoto for you calling to discuss the upcoming surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, will you accept the charges?).
These powers are implied and have been identified through precedents stretching all the way back to the Whiskey Rebellion (the most fun rebellion we ever had).
Quote:
So, where do you stand on warrantless wiretapping? (I'm sure you're aware of yesterday's ruling). And why?
I'm in favor of listening in on all international communication involving at least one party that is either a known or suspected terrorist or affiliate (or celebrity cause we need reliable gossip). Also good for non-hostile foriegn agents (ie spies). Just makes good sense. Purely domestic calls should require a warrant same as always.
Quote:
If you feel that warrantless wiretapping is -or should be- legal, what areas does FISA fail to address that should be remedied?
The authorizing legislation needs to be periodically revised to allow for changes in both technology and the efforts of the enemy to adapt their habits to better hide their activities. Kinda like moving the flashlight around to try and see all the corners.
I advise you check my thread on the ruling yesterday, but in the short, the ruling will fail on appeal because the petitioners lack standing to make a claim in that they have not been the subject of the program and thus suffered no harm (its like the bar claiming unfair harm from the State's DUI law). Also, I noted today that they apparently forum shopped to find a sypathetic judge and that one of the ACLU lawyers regularly represents accused terrorists and money launderers a fact he managed to both confirm and deny and seperate court filings.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Is tehre any reason that these should be warrantless as well? Doesn't FISA provide for 72-hour after-the- fact warrant? Seems to me that if someone is a suspected terrorist then a FISA warrant should be easy to get... and historically they have been extremely easy. Also, yes, it seems as if this is in another thread. I'll move my questions there.
I'm in favor of listening in on all international communication involving at least one party that is either a known or suspected terrorist or affiliate (or celebrity cause we need reliable gossip). Also good for non-hostile foriegn agents (ie spies). Just makes good sense.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas. uote]
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Zero,
Let's see .....
I said: "I demand the US join the ICC. I demand the US coordinate its policing with its European allies (who've been at this a lot longer). I demand the US secure its borders."
you said: Blah blah blah "Lets look at Lebanon for example. The UN urges...urges Lebanon disarm and deploys Peacekeepers to assist and by assist they mean do nothing as Iran and Syria .. blah blah blah"
I said: "The Brits had the 'suspects' under police surveillance for nearly a year. Germans ... money transfers
you said: "I pointed out the fallacy of relying on international action.
In actual fact I talked about police work, England, Germany, the ICC and US borders. You talked about the UN, Lebanon, Syria and Iran. And then you tried to shift your debate to cover up your error, by pretending I said the US should rely on the int'l community. What I actually said was coordinate. You've mistaken my posts for someone else's. In fact, you've mistaken your posts for someone else's. Please let me know when you're ready to debate me and not some phantom poster.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So anyway, here we are.
Quote:Waiting to see if there is enough evidence to charge anyone with aything. In the meantime, Zero, Unwrapped, et al are hysterically channeling Oh Really !, Limp-baugh, et al while US security - uncoordinated with allies, borders gaping open, and more people than ever pissed at the US - sinks deeper into unaddressed threat.
On Wednesday, a court gave permission for the (British) police to question 21 suspects until next Wednesday before filing charges, and until Monday for 2 others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Get back to me in a month or six weeks time and tell me how many of the 24 people so far arrested have actually been charged with an offence relating to terrorism.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5273104.stm
Like this thread wasn't long enough already.
De-lurking to keep thread current.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME