Military Comissions Act 2006

[Caste]

You know, it's one thing to have a debate, but it's something totally different when people make up bullshit quotes and claim someone said it when they didn't.

DocRock wrote:
"85% are backing me! lol, but I don't know how to interpret data or actually comprehend what I'm reading so please, ignore me. lmfao wtf"

I didn't write that.

Either grow up and get into the debate here or get out. Posting crap like that just proves how much of a child you are and how insecure you are when trying to debate your opinion.

It's called satire, look it up.
And once AGAIN, stop avoiding the question.
Explain to us, in your own post, 1 or 2 smoking guns that 9/11 was an inside job/controlled demolition/whatever, and we'll see how well they stand up when they're not buried amongst piles of other useless theories

No I dont remember any statement the president made where he said he went on a crusade from God into Iraq

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1 ... 78,00.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internat ... 50,00.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1007-03.htm
uhh...yeah...

These shells took so long to surface because we didnt want to rat out 3 members of the UN security council: France(big surprise), China, and Russia. Whom we may find out that Russia aided saddam in removal of other WMDs before we got there.

I highly doubt that. If the US had found real honest to god WMDs in Iraq, they would've pushed that story to the forefront and it would essentially be common knowledge. The fact remains, sure, Iraq had some, but not to the point where they could do considerable damage, nor to the point the US administration told its people.

Flip-flopping is something for John Kerry not Bush.

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

That right there is the very definition of flip-flopping good sir

We went in under the banner of getting the terrorists and any responsible for helping them and we got in and did that for the most part(only two of the 54 involved aren't caught yet, Osama[who may be dead already] and al Zawahiri[if I remember correctly]) and we're helping to rebuild the countries now. Far from a war-mongering theocracy.

Yeah, about that...
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/leopold.php?articleid=1521
Still no solid connection between Iraq and Al-Queda. I'm sorry, but you simply don't go to war, killing thousands of foreigners and your own people, over a hunch.
And saying we didn't go into Iraq on the cause of WMDs is pure doublethink, straight out of 1984. I myself can easily remember Colin Powell going before the UN pointing out scud launchers and the like.
And you're only rebuilding countries you've messed up in the first place. Well, actually, you're rebuilding Iraq. You left Afghanistan to the Canadians and everyone else.

[compy905]

I don't agree with the Bush agenda and the current Republican agenda. I am a Republican. Yes, I voted for Bush over Kerry. To be honest I didn't like either of the candidates and I am smart enough to know that in our two-party system you are throwing away your vote if you vote for an independent. Don't give me the Ross Perot, independent bs, because he didn't win and that is the closest an independent will ever get, unless some serious changes are made.

To be honest there are some things I have a "liberal" view on. Health care, gay marriage, and our prison system. I would go as far as saying that I think a democrat needs to be our next president, since the Republicans are so far up Bush's ass that it would be like voting for him again, which was a mistake. The party needs a reality check right now. It could happen with the upcoming elections, but I doubt losing the senate majority will be enough, since Bush will still be in office.

Now back to the poor people, most of my family are poor and live in "the bottoms"(area in Columbus, OH, it's no Compton, but it's shitty.) Now I love my family to death, but I can honestly say that most of them are poor because they have put themselves in that posistion. They have all made bad decisions and have no education. I myself work in the restaurant industry, which is full of poor people and students, such as myself. The same can be said for a lot my fellow employees. Now don't get me wrong, that doesn't make them bad people. They are all great and I couldn't imagine working in a different environment at this point in my life.

Of course there are exceptions, like the ones you mentioned and those people do need help. There are also people who have made mistakes when they were younger that ruin their lives and shouldn't have to pay for it for the rest of their lives. There are people that don't get a chance to go to a college and it is partly the government's fault and there should be some changes made to our education system.

Another thing is everyone seems to confuse the Christian-right-wing with the Republican party, which is like confusing Muslims with terrorists. Believe it or not I am not an extremely rich bastard, that eats babies and conspires to take over the world. I am a Republican becuase I am a realist, not an idealist. I am also a Republican because to be honest anymore the Democrats are becoming more and more liberal/socialist each year and I don't have much of a choice due to our two-party system. There are many things I disagree with in the Republican party and even some things I agree with the Democrats on. It's just I am more of a Republican than a Democrat and there isn't any other choices in America.

P.S. I don't get my news from Fox. I watch all of the channels, use the internet and form my own oppinion from the news I have gathered. Fox is a little too much for me, every now and then they might have someone intelligent on there who isn't up Bush's ass, but not too often.

[Meotwister]

oh geez, i ignore this thread half a day and I get a couple of attacks on me... *sigh*

well here goes.

@Dionysos

The difference between Iraq and North Korea is while yes they have supposedly tested a nuke underground, they dont have connections with an terrorist organization that has flown 3 planes into the pentagon/WTC. Iraq had connections with Al Qaeda and I'm sure the thinking back in '01/'02 was that he was a silent partner in a lot of what was going on with al qaeda and that he could give WMDs (remember wmds are not just nukes, so like sarin/mustard gas, we also believed there were Iraqi scientists in the region working to develop VX nerve gas) to al qaeda and unleash them on multiple locations in america.

And we dont need to invade Korea because guess what... we already did in the '50s, thats why there is a North/South Korea, the north decided it wanted to stay communist. Plus theres no reason to rush into a country when you could easily pressure it into not doing anything.

@Sorrow
I'll direct you and Caste to a definition of the word crusade
1.Any of the military expeditions undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries for the recovery of the Holy Land from the Muslims. (nope)
2.Any war carried on under papal sanction. (nope)
3.Any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement of an idea, cause, etc.: a crusade against child abuse. (if any it's this one and this is not religious in any manner.)

I dont consider myself republican because like compy I dont agree 100% with republicans. I consider myself leaning conservative on issues but not all. People's views arent soo black and white, and its not good practice to insult someone in an opposing view especially using "republican" as if its some kind of insult.

Now with the "conversations to God", while I'm not religious at all I understand that protestants have a thing where the talk to god (not literally "hey how are you how's jesus?" but usually in times of stress/trouble or when they're confused in life they look to god for answers) Now i think in the instances you are linking to aren't literal. Bush isn't saying that one day he woke up God was looking through his window and said 'George go into Iraq' or whatever. It was just a way of explaining his reasoning religiously and it figures that people would go in and distort this to make Bush into some crazy manifest destiny crusader.

removing Saddam was ok, but your work is done now right? apparently not. but ok.

Yeah we removed Saddam but we cant go in screw up the country in the sense of a WAR and just leave without helping to rebuild/set up a government that can fend for itself because if we can't then all the soldiers who've died for that cause will have died in vain. Plus if we left right now the insurgency would rebuild and reorganize and Im positive there would be another 9/11 on the rise subsequent to that.

@Caste

Dude, that's bullshit. This isn't democrats vs republicans in the military. Bush has the same reports from the military/intelligence that Clinton had.

But since you seem to be attacking the democrats, it's only fair:
You seem to be forgetting that Clinton was taking action. Clinton raised the point of terrorism in almost every speach his last term. When he did attack, republicans attacked him for 'changing the subject' from Monica.

It wasnt a hollow attack on democrats... if you read why I said that you wouldve realized that I was responding to a comment (by sorrow I believe) that this administration has been the worst EVER. Think about it... back then terrorism wasnt the big thing in the public, it was the drug war. So its not that surprising that Clinton wouldnt put full focus on it, but I'm not blaming Clinton entirely for anything. And is it hard to believe that clinton was bringing up terrorism to detract from monica? I think it was kinda obvious, regardless if it was the right act... he all of a sudden started doing what he was supposed to do just when his big scandal was unfolding.

You're right I was a bit confused on the 500 shells found... there were buried during the gulf war. WMDs include nukes but do not exclude biological/chemical weapons. And the fact that we have larger stockpiles of nerve gas from the cold war era is completely irrellevant because we dont sell/give em to terrorist organizations.

And the flip-flopping thing...
1)is an opinion you have that he could be doing (not shared by me obviously)
2)same as one, opinion that remains to be seen.

I'm sorry, we killed a couple hundred-thousand people to catch 54? Wow, I feel better now :/

Well one we didnt kill 200,000 people I'm sure that was from all sides involved. And I'm not sure where you got that number from. So I cant accurately argue against that one. I looked up a couple of casualty counts but didnt see anything like 200k.

They're bragging they have nukes but, I sincerely that they are just blowing out their ass. Japan sure as hell wont like how North Korea has been acting (or I should say Kim Jung Il) with their nukes.

oh sorrow my mom in on disability as well for depression. So I know where you're coming from. My family pretty much depended on it in combination with my dads to survive our shitty financial situation. Speaking party-wise the dems want to raise the taxes all the time and we've gotten considerable tax cuts from Bush.

I also love to hear the dissent against FOX news, the only news network that leans right, in a sea of left leaning networks. You've seen that recent insurgent propaganda video CNN has no probs showing, Keith Olbermann on MSNBC is so left he's about to explode, and CBS has a big history of being left.

And the comment on leaving secrets as they are on candidates is the same across the board since politics began. And you're stereotypical view of a party you really know nothing about is a little amusing as well.

Corruption is also a multi party problem not just Reps as you seem to hint at.

We dont have things like socialized health care not because we dont care its because we believe in competition. Where hospitals strive to be the best because if they are they can be paid more etc etc the whole capitalistic thing. Not because we whore it on the Defense budget.

Now i need to close this one before my computer dies!
:\ sorry for such a long post... trying to fit everyone in.

[DocRock]

And once AGAIN, stop avoiding the question.
Explain to us, in your own post, 1 or 2 smoking guns that 9/11 was an inside job/controlled demolition/whatever, and we'll see how well they stand up when they're not buried amongst piles of other useless theories

Here is a theory. These are not my own words, but are taken from an excerpt from Webster Tarpley's book, 911 Synthetic Terror

This is what is written about the controlled demolition of the towers:

"The twin towers did not simply collapse as a result of gravity; they were violently
pulverized in mid-air in an explosive process which hurled debris hundreds of meters in
all directions – they were vaporized by an explosive force. Anomalies abound. The North
Tower was hit first, was hit hardest in its core columns, and had more jet fuel burn inside
its structure than the South Tower – but the North Tower exploded later. The South
Tower was hit later, with a more glancing blow which had less impact on its core
columns, and which also caused more jet fuel to be consumed outside of the building in a
spectacular plume; the South Tower’s fires were less severe – but the South Tower fell
first. WTC 7 was never hit by anything, and had fires only on two floors (there are no
photos of WTC 7 enveloped in flames and smoke) – but WTC 7 fell anyway. WTC 6
witnessed an explosion and fire which has never been explained or even addressed.
Finally, we have the embarrassing fact that steel frame skyscrapers are virtually
indestructible by fire. The official version of events argues that, at least as far as the
towers are concerned, it was the combined effect of crash impact plus fire which caused
the collapses. But even the South Tower collapsed well after most of the jet fuel had
burned away, and a fire based on paper, rugs, and furniture melts steel even less than one
based on jet fuel. By all indications, the South Tower began the collapse sequence
precisely at the moment when, well after the impact had been absorbed, the fires too were
subsiding. The hole made in the North Tower by American 11 had cooled so much that,
just before the collapse of the North Tower, survivors were observed looking out through
the gash in the side of the building. (Marr 41)
The upper floors of both towers, after showing symptoms of high pressure which forced
smoke out through the widows, exploded into spectacular mushroom clouds. Debris and
other ejecta were thrown at speeds of 200 feet per second to distances of up to 500 feet in
all directions. The clouds then descended, always emanating from the towers as these fell.
The mushroom clouds had expanded to two or three times the diameter of the towers
after five seconds, and had expanded to five times the diameter of the towers after 15
seconds. Blast waves broke windows in buildings over 400 feet away. In the thick
mushroom clouds, solid objects were hurled out ahead of the dust, another telltale sign of
explosive demolition.
One might have expected the buildings to tip over at an angle starting at the points where
they had been hit like a tree which leaves a stump as it falls towards the side where it has
been most chopped, but instead they did not topple and there were no stumps; apart from
some initial asymmetry in the top of the South Tower, the two towers both collapsed
down on themselves in a perfectly symmetrical way – a suspicious sign, since this is one
of the prime goals and hallmarks of controlled demolition.
The fall of the twin towers took place at breathtaking speed. The tops of the buildings
reached the ground as rubble no more than 16 seconds after the collapse process had
begun. A weight in a vacuum would have taken 9.2 seconds to cover the same distance.
This meant that air resistance and little else had slowed the fall of the upper stories. This
indicates that the lower floors must have been demolished and pulverized before the
upper stories fell on them. The building, in other words, had been pulverized, and in
many areas vaporized, in mid-air. No gravity collapse could have created this
phenomenon."

This is a wikipedia on Webster Tarpley :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_G._Tarpley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Synt3ed.jpg

[OneShotOneKill]

First and foremost

This article or section does not cite sources or references that appear in a credible, third-party publication. The sources provided are primary sources, such as websites and publications affiliated with the subject of the article.

The twin towers did not simply collapse as a result of gravity

Really... so what did the weak nuclear force take it down, or was it electromagnetic somehow? Thats just the start.

explosive force

An explosive force is the result of a pressure wave and the high pressure was referenced later in the article.

Why does the order the towers are hit or the size of the visible flames dictate which tower should fall first? There is no substantiation for this arguements.

precisely at the moment when, well after the impact had been absorbed, the fires too were
subsiding

When is this moment precisely? Since flames usually resonate the are many precise moments when the flames subside so that is poorly phrased.

One might have expected the buildings to tip over at an angle starting at the points where
they had been hit like a tree which leaves a stump as it falls towards the side where it has
been most chopped

No not really. The towers were designed amazingly well. The outside of the structure acted as a large solid support while the inside was mainly composed of the I-beams. If the outside is there it holds itself up, but if the middle becomes unstable due to heat it will collapse onto itself. Did you ever think maybe they just designed the towers well.

the two towers both collapsed
down on themselves in a perfectly symmetrical way – a suspicious sign, since this is one
of the prime goals and hallmarks of controlled demolition.

This isn't the true hallmark of controlled demolition. Controlled demolitions are designed such that the building falls into itself, where the inside falls and the outside follows into the space, while the towers fell onto themselves where the disconnected top section fell ontop of the bottom section and crushed it into the ground.

. The tops of the buildings
reached the ground as rubble no more than 16 seconds after the collapse process had
begun. A weight in a vacuum would have taken 9.2 seconds to cover the same distance.

And now for some actual physics, not just random number with no information. My first problem with this statement is that the tops of the towers did not land on the ground but ontop of a huge pile of rubble. This implies that the 9.2s is not the acurrate falling time. So even if the equivalent fall was 8s by s=(at^2)/2 the acelration was 1/4 that of gravity, which acounting for the situation was quite slow. Simple math and physics show that just throwing out numbers does not mean anyting without analysis.

PS If you are quoting someone it is not in your own words. That is a distinction you really should learn.

[Dead-Inside]

@ DocRock

I'm still waiting for you to come up with something yourself.

You've done nothing so far, will you continue to do nothing?

Edit: On a side note, I saw Penn & Teller's Bullshit yesterday here in Sweden. One of the two episodes were about conspiracy theories. How people want to believe that it is all part of some master plan, that stuff just "doesn't happen".

Midway through the episode Penn goes on to say something along the lines of;
"But isn't the actual story amazing enough in itself? A few extremeist talibans decide to take down a landmark of the most powerful nation in the world to collapse the economy and spirit of the people. They are on a tight budget and use their wits and an unreal commitment to the cause to hijack planes to accomplish this goal."

Or something to that effect. I would have wanted to quote him completely but unless it's on Youtube it will be hard to find. Was a good episode none the less.

[DocRock]

@ DocRock

I'm still waiting for you to come up with something yourself.

You're kidding, right? I don't claim to be an expert on any of this. How can I come up with something on my own?

Let me ask you this: where do you get your information from? Is it something you make up on your own to debunk a scientist or a scholar or someone who's specialty is contolled demolition?

I get my information mostly from sources on the web. I think it's better for an expert to tell his opinion on the fall of the towers and not me; which is why I quoted Webster Tarpley's book.

This is turning into nothing but another stupid internet flame war. I've got better things to do than argue with strangers on an internet chat board.

I'll ask you again: where do you get your information from? and what makes you think that your information is any better than anyone elses?
What makes your information better than Webster Tarpleys? or Stephen Jones'? or any other expert who has come forward?

Lol, don't tell me you get your information from Bill O'Reilly!!

[Sorrow]

I've got better things to do than argue with strangers on an internet chat board.

woah there
who doesn't? and who started this?

you.


lol

[Dead-Inside]

I get my information mostly from sources on the web. I think it's better for an expert to tell his opinion on the fall of the towers and not me; which is why I quoted Webster Tarpley's book.

Wow, you get it from sources on the web? Sources who got their information from real people, changed it to what they liked, and posted it you say?

You also trust unreliable sites in general. You've linked to several as if they contain any truth.

An oppinion (wish/theory) is not the same thing as facts either. We've provided you *facts*. These are undisputeable facts. A really good recent one is by OneShotOneKill and goes like "This implies that the 9.2s is not the acurrate falling time. So even if the equivalent fall was 8s by s=(at^2)/2 the acelration was 1/4 that of gravity, which acounting for the situation was quite slow. Simple math and physics show that just throwing out numbers does not mean anyting without analysis." so. This isn't something he made up, or had an oppinion about.

Furthermore you've been provided with countless information on how the towers were constructed throughout this thread. You've also recieved several explanations of the same thing concerning how they collapsed and why they did so in the manner that they did.

I'm only waiting for you to start telling us that "The videos are actually edited. In the real footage (This is where you link to some random site, who has *an edited video*), avavible here, show how blabla was really a bla bla and blah did bleh so that strengthens mine and everyone elses conspiracy theory on this!"

Another thing that I can't seem to grasp really is why anyone would do this? It's an insanely stupid idea to bring down your own economy to go to war. Why go to war in the first place? There's no use. Iraq at least serves a purpose (Oil), but that's only possible because Bush is Bush and not because of 9/11. Unless there's a motive there is rarely a crime. And there isn't a crime on this scale without a motive.

Unlike someone who commits a murder out of rage or just randomly decides to kill people, something on this scale would have been stopped, and leaked if that was the case.

Which brings me to the last, amazing, point. If this was planned, why haven't we heard it from anyone who planned it? Where's the logic in that? Were they killed? If they weren't killed, why not? I'd like to refer to the funny, and at the same time very true, page by maddox at this adress.

Unless you actually plan on setting me straight on any of these points just don't bother to post at all. You haven't provided anything we've asked from you nor looked at anything we've provided you long enough other than to say "NO, I don't want to believe this. It's too simple".

Thank you for your time.

Edit: I also don't have Fox, and I don't live in the US. But good try, mate, good try.

[Shr3d]

DocRock your avatar is too big.

[DocRock]

I'm only waiting for you to start telling us that "The videos are actually edited. In the real footage (This is where you link to some random site, who has *an edited video*), avavible here, show how blabla was really a bla bla and blah did bleh so that strengthens mine and everyone elses conspiracy theory on this!"

You want information?

Quit looking for me to tell you the answers.

Go to http://www.google.com and type in what you're looking for. I'm sure there is a wealth of information there for you to scroll through.

Maybe then you can find what you're looking for. Don't look to me for answers. Like I said, I am no expert, but I am entitled to my opinion.

[Dead-Inside]

I'm only waiting for you to start telling us that "The videos are actually edited. In the real footage (This is where you link to some random site, who has *an edited video*), avavible here, show how blabla was really a bla bla and blah did bleh so that strengthens mine and everyone elses conspiracy theory on this!"

You want information?

Quit looking for me to tell you the answers.

Go to http://www.google.com and type in what you're looking for. I'm sure there is a wealth of information there for you to scroll through.

Maybe then you can find what you're looking for. Don't look to me for answers. Like I said, I am no expert, but I am entitled to my opinion.

Actually, we've provided information to you. Spoon fed even.

Are you completely missing the point or is that just me?

Come to think about it you pretty much summed up yourself, google what you're looking for (9/11 was a conspiracy + Search) and you'll find the answers you want. That's not the truth, or both sides of the story, it's what you want.

As for looking to you for information, what the hell are you doing in this thread at all if you won't even provide information to prove your point? Just keep your uninformed oppinion to yourself if that's your case because you can't discuss with an "I think" when confronted with "We know citing this and this that this and that happened for this and those reasons".

[Generalvivi]

DocRock your avatar is too big.

i concure with this

[DocRock]

Congratulations on patting yourself on the back. You've done a great job of convincing yourself that there is no government cover-up of 911 and that no one destroyed the twin towers on puprose. You've proven to yourself that yep the steel melted and drooped and caused the building to pancake down on itself and that killed the poor people who worked there. You've convinced yourself. Well done.

And for those who are experts in the field, I guess they might as well go hang their hats up and forget their papers that they've written, because they don't agree with you, because you are right - or so you've convinced yourself to such.

Who am I to even suggest anything different? My half-witted, half-assed excuses don't even match to your knowledge. Obviously you know every thing possible about 911.

And since now you've answered all my questions; excuse me, since you've spoonfed me all this information, my quest now is complete for the truth.

Thank you and goodbye.

[zombie@computer]

god, this discussion went from offtopic to 'i can argue better than you'. Why isnt this shit locked?

# an extended communication (often interactive) dealing with some particular topic; "the book contains an excellent discussion of modal logic"; "his treatment of the race question is badly biased"
# an exchange of views on some topic

So, just to give an example, you dont argue with

Code: Select all

this is a quote from www.blabla.com
"jadajadajada, bladiebladiebla"

see, you are wrong?


nor with

Code: Select all

heres proof:
[url]www.largepagewithallarguments.com[/url]


but with

Code: Select all

Farts can kill people, [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh5_0Ju352A]source[/url])


even if you dont give a fullproof source, you are arguing. Dont make other people do the arguing for you, you are old enough to make your own arguments and backing them up yourself (with or without respected sources). Especially, never link to http://www.largepagewithallarguments.com or pages like that, you might as wel link to http://www.google.com and see what comes out. Again you are discussing, not the pages or sources you link to

Im not even going to talk about the difference between http://www.omgalienskidnappedelvis.org and http://www.nasa.gov/aliens or http://www.cnn.com/elvisdies

k. Now either discuss, get ontopic, or go away
(meh, im so bored i came up with this post, kablah)