Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Habu on September 11, 2006, 07:54:00 PM
-
I see it every day. In this forum, on other forums, in the media and even among people I know. There are many who believe that they US or Israel were behind the 9-11 attacks. And these people actually believe this to be true.
I guess when the facts don't support your point of view of the world you need to change the facts to do so. So they do.
How is it that a religion that is in no way peaceful can be widely held in Western media to be so. But when a blatant terrorist attack is carried out on live TV and the people behind the attack open admit so many times people still do not believe it?
Really it just makes me shake my head. People are like sheep. They want to be believe that the US is evil so badly they will choose to believe the biggest lies told by people who should be laughed at but instead are listened intently to.
-
it all started with the PC movement.
-
Originally posted by Habu
I see it every day. In this forum, on other forums, in the media and even among people I know. There are many who believe that they US or Israel were behind the 9-11 attacks. And these people actually believe this to be true.
I guess when the facts don't support your point of view of the world you need to change the facts to do so. So they do.
How is it that a religion that is in no way peaceful can be widely held in Western media to be so. But when a blatant terrorist attack is carried out on live TV and the people behind the attack open admit so many times people still do not believe it?
Really it just makes me shake my head. People are like sheep. They want to be believe that the US is evil so badly they will choose to believe the biggest lies told by people who should be laughed at but instead are listened intently to.
Sad isn't it?
-
Originally posted by Habu
How is it that a religion that is in no way peaceful can be widely held in Western media to be so. But when a blatant terrorist attack is carried out on live TV and the people behind the attack open admit so many times people still do not believe it?
Agreed! Despite the Oklahoma City bombing, abortion clinic bombings, killing doctors, etc, the media continues to push the same old story.
Well, despite that, I still think they're good people. The actions of a few radicals don't represent their religion in whole.
-
Well I guess when the Caliphate happens you will be spared Chairboy.
-
as long as leaders in the democratic parts of the globe are elected by people who see the truth, know the truth and share views/morals/beliefs of those they elect, we have a chance
if we are less committed than our enemies or lose sight of this war, we will fail
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Agreed! Despite the Oklahoma City bombing, abortion clinic bombings, killing doctors, etc, the media continues to push the same old story.
Well, despite that, I still think they're good people. The actions of a few radicals don't represent their religion in whole.
McVeigh was 1 guy, and there have been a total of 24 people killed in abortion clinic bombings since 1988, none in the past 6 years--most those attributed to a select few. And the media sure as hell doesnt ignore them. I've seen this a lot, and it really isnt a valid comparison
-
The actions of radical religious fanatics may not represent the bahavioral patterns of the majority, but they do, in many cases, represent the repressed desires of that same majority. Remember, without the moderates, there would be no radicals, and not the other way around.
-
Hello Chair,
Originally posted by Chairboy
Agreed! Despite the Oklahoma City bombing, abortion clinic bombings, killing doctors, etc, the media continues to push the same old story.
Well, despite that, I still think they're good people. The actions of a few radicals don't represent their religion in whole.
Tim McVeigh was a nominal Catholic and there is no evidence that he ever attended church as an adult. He never once claimed to be anything approaching an evangelical Christian and told his biographers Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck that he was an agnostic, here is a quote to that effect from the transcript of their CNN Interview:
"Question from chat room: Does McVeigh have any spiritual-religious beliefs?
Lou Michel: McVeigh is agnostic. He doesn't believe in God, but he won't rule out the possibility. I asked him, "What if there is a heaven and hell?"
He said that once he crosses over the line from life to death, if there is something on the other side, he will -- and this is using his military jargon -- "adapt, improvise, and overcome." Death to him is all part of the adventure." (from: http://www.cnn.com/COMMUNITY/transcripts/2001/04/04/michelherbeck/)
McVeigh never once indicated that the bombing of the Murrah building had any religious component whatsoever. He also wasn't much of a "Moralist" given that during his trial it became apparent that a good part of his life after the army involved the use and sale of Crystal Meth.
Additionally, he sympathized with Saddam and the Iraqis and espoused many of the same talkingpoints that are now popular in anti-Bush rhetoric. For instance:
If Saddam is such a demon, and people are calling for war crimes charges and trials against him and his nation, why do we not hear the same cry for blood directed at those responsible for even greater amounts of "mass destruction" -- like those responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned above? (from: An Essay on Hypocrisy by Timothy McVeigh (http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/mcveigh/okcaug98.htm) )
Additionally, the abortion clinic bombings took very few lives, and are now almost entirely a thing of the past and definitely not gathering momentum.
Chair, I know that there is a mindset that desperately wants to believe that there must be some sort of Christian terrorist movement out there because of the caricature that we are all seething with murderous hatred and rage, but the fact is that evangelicals are more often on the receiving than the throwing end of the stones precisely because we do make people so very, very, angry.
So why not just detest us because we are all so ignorant and narrow minded and uptight and uncool - isn't that enough? Why is there a need to invent other justifications for disliking Christians? When I loathed Christians with a passion, I had my own justifications for doing so, which I though sufficient, but I never loathed them because I thought they were violent or likely to engage in terrorist activities. I recall thinking they were far too wimpy and useless for that kind of thing.
- SEAGOON
-
Nah, I just think these generalizations are silly. All blacks are not lazy, all gays are not pansies, and all islamics are not bloodthirsty maniacs.
It's funny how it feels when y'all are on the receiving end instead of dishing it out. That's a constant across the entire human condition.
-
I recall thinking they were far too wimpy and useless for that kind of thing.
- SEAGOON
I have the benefit of having history to refer to. Christians have in the past, particularly before the Reformation, been prone to being powerhungry, torture, abductions, murder and disappearances.
Nowadays in my country at least, they're rather meek, forgiving and tolerant. I like this about the Christians here - they seem content to practise their faith without unduly messing around in the secular world, although as of late we've seen increasing political activism by state paid and sponsored priests.
This I disagree with. While I recognize faith and action go hand in hand, using faith as a force on what is contemporary, short lived political matters is an abuse of authority. Priests should be above that, because their faith and message is.
Since that I pay church taxes (we have a state run church here), I do have a ríght to voice my opposition to such matters.
But anyway, my point is that although Christianity overall is beneficial to the Danish society as a whole in its current form, I can see that there are possibilites that it will transform into something malevolent. Right now I kinda support it and its charities but if it starts meddling in my affairs as a secular humanist, our goals no longer match and I must act according to my beliefs as a humanist.
-
Originally posted by Habu
I see it every day. In this forum, on other forums, in the media and even among people I know. There are many who believe that they US or Israel were behind the 9-11 attacks. And these people actually believe this to be true.
You just gotta wake up that US dug themeselves in deeep hole by invading Iraq.
The Afghan war was supported by everyone in the world however the Iraqi sequel was terrible. Like most movies a sequel tend to do poorly in theaters.
-
The terrorists hope to rally all of Islam against the west. That would be failure for them as it would be the end of Islam. Their faliure to rally Islam as they hope is the most success they can attain as it means more of the same which is really their only effective action.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
I have the benefit of having history to refer to. Christians have in the past, particularly before the Reformation, been prone to being powerhungry, torture, abductions, murder and disappearances.
Nowadays in my country at least, they're rather meek, forgiving and tolerant. I like this about the Christians here - they seem content to practise their faith without unduly messing around in the secular world, although as of late we've seen increasing political activism by state paid and sponsored priests.
This I disagree with. While I recognize faith and action go hand in hand, using faith as a force on what is contemporary, short lived political matters is an abuse of authority. Priests should be above that, because their faith and message is.
Since that I pay church taxes (we have a state run church here), I do have a ríght to voice my opposition to such matters.
But anyway, my point is that although Christianity overall is beneficial to the Danish society as a whole in its current form, I can see that there are possibilites that it will transform into something malevolent. Right now I kinda support it and its charities but if it starts meddling in my affairs as a secular humanist, our goals no longer match and I must act according to my beliefs as a humanist.
So..you have to go back centuries to find stuff to criticise Christians about, and thus create moral relativism for the untold thousands of Muslim terrorists who are killing untold thousands of people TODAY.
What do you suppose would happen to someone who defamed Muhammad? Hmm..you probably already have an idea of that. As for Christ..the cartoon Southpark has Him as a game show host, and the University of Virgina TAX payer-funded school newspaper showed this (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06090503.html) :
The August 23rd edition showed a drawing of Jesus crucified on a mathematical graph with the inscription, "Christ on a Cartesian Coordinate Plane." On August 24, the newspaper ran a cartoon of Mary and Joseph, with Mary holding baby Jesus. "Mary…I don't mean to ruin this special moment," Joseph says, "but how did you get that bumpy rash?" To which Mary says, "I swear, it was Immaculately Transmitted."
Hmm...no riots, no bombings...but a DAStardly letter. Those Christian right-wingrs never know when to stop.
-
I'm actually not going to even remotely claim to guess as to "who" did anything, however I do believe that the information that we have been given is absolutely not correct in terms of the physics aspects of the collapses of WTC Towers 1,2 and 7...especially 7.
Though it will avail nothing, I served 6 years in the military, have 2 sons in the Navy and regardless of how patriotic I am, I am absolutely allowed the right to examine any evidence and make up my own mind as to whether I am being told the truth or not. It is my opinion that "that" right to do so is not only a right, it is a duty as given us as part of our citizenship.
My gut instinct on watching the original "day of the event" footage was one of "you have to be kidding me/no way that happened". I think that my gut reaction was based upon being a history channel/national geographic addict and simply devouring hours upon hours of "how it was made" type documentaries.
I am not a licensed engineer, but I do know enough about physics and engineering to know that the stories we have been told in terms of the "official explanation" are hogwash. That does not mean I know anything more about what really happened, but when I cannot trust the sanctioned story, then it is natural that my suspicions be raised to some degree.
I am aware that to even question anything, to be a voice that expresses even a moments hesitation in accepting the spoon fed version of the facts of an event is in todays atmosphere is less than patriotic to the point of being considered traitorous. That my friends is what concerns me the most. Questioning should never be considered evil. If you do consider it that, then you in essence handily discard one of the freedoms that distinguishes this country from most others.
I am not an expert on much of anything, but it is articles written by engineering professors and the like that I think that an open minded person should examine, if nothing more than to do the due diligence that we all have the duty to do.
I was originally going to post links to the various physics and engineering papers written on this topic, but to be honest, the resulting arguments of the various points of the papers would be more effort than it's worth. I really have no interest in convincing anyone of anything, I simply have an interest in maybe performing a tiny nudge in the interests of not being blind in the name of patriotism. There have been too many postings on this board that slam those that do not come to the exact same conclusions as others. Give them a moment of credit towards their intelligence. Just because I saw a show that said that Kurt Cobain influenced the radical arm of islam and my pug puppy to pilot planes into the towers and the resulting puppy bark shattered the 47 core support columns into 30 ft lengths does not mean that I believe it...that is the beauty of our country, the ability to examine ALL evidence and come to our own conclusions, regardless of whether those conclusions match the official story. Those that would quiet the right of someone to express their thoughts are more guilty of being unpatriotic in my opinion than those who would express the worst possible opinions as to what happened and who was involved.
In the end, if one comes to the exact same conclusions after examination of other explanations then good..that means that your gut feelings coincided with physics and known facts. However, physics don't often lie.
Regardless of how/what happened, it is a tragedy when any event of this magnitude occurs and god bless those that perished in this tragedy.
-
"The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts ... the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
What amazes and disgusts me at the same time is that we've become a country divided and controlled by the media.
It is and it has been for a long time for the American people to believe in something instead of acting like a bunch of spoiled, overindulged, selfish, children.
We are at war for our very way of life and yet we've allowed ourselves to be controlled by electing people to public office that we wouldn't invite to the family picnic.
What our government needs is not career politicians what our government needs is people that have no time for big oil, PAC's, etc. What our government needs is people in it that have the needs of the many instead of their own desire for power in charge.
Political correctness? BAH!!!... if you're a jerk it's okay for me to call you a jerk regardless of your race, creed, or religion. I don't have to 'accept' you to anything.
It's not about a war against Islam even though the extremists in that religion see it as a war against everybody that isn't an Islamic. Geez they're even killing each other because of their 'sect'.
I am so sick of political correctness I could puke. We are at war and I think we should try to win it instead of wringing our hands and worrying about collateral damage.
Let's see.. your noncombatant family got killed because the terrorists hid behind your famly and kids got killed? Geez.. I'm really sorry about that (and I actually am) however 2,900 and some of our people got killed by those people that think hiding behind noncombatants is okay.
If the Islamic extremists want to pick out a piece of land to duke it out on then sign me up and hand me my weapons. Let's settle this on the field of honor. Hiding behind and attacking noncombatants is cowardice and nothing less.
Guess what? We're losing this 'war' because we keep fighting it in the court of world opinion instead of just getting it over with. We have the tools, technology, and the men who would cheerfully do so. They just have to adhere to the ROE that the enemy doesn't.
*sigh*
Ikeprof
I'm not a structural engineer by formal education however I am a self taught engineer with over a decade in the steel industry. The burning fuel from the jetliners would have easily reached temps that would have caused the structural collapses as shown. I've looked over and over the information available and talked to people who were involved in the design of the WTC. The way the towers fell were a combination of factors that all came together that nobody could have forseen. As you said I could post supporting links but in this you're just going to have to trust me that I'm satisfied that the cause of the collapses were straightforward engineering.
B
-
Originally posted by lukster
The terrorists hope to rally all of Islam against the west. That would be failure for them as it would be the end of Islam. Their faliure to rally Islam as they hope is the most success they can attain as it means more of the same which is really their only effective action.
I really think that it's a matter of Islam rallying the terrorists. If not for the tacit support that moderate Islam gives to the fanatics, the fanatics would have nothing backing their actions. For every nutjob with a bomb, there're a thousand guys silently, in the comfort of their own homes, nodding their heads in approval, and worse yet, teaching their children whom to fear and distrust. The scary thing is that these passive supporters are strong in number everywhere, not just in the middle east. And god forbid you should kill a fanatic or limit the rights of a moderate. Five more fanatics spring up, with an almost endles supply to exhaust before the end is decided.
-
I personally think we are losing the war because of our feminine approach to it. Only lightly swing back at people who swing at us. Don't offend anyone. Apologize profusely for every sneeze...
We won't win until we bring the heavy hand of wrath down upon evil people.
For example, a friend of mine brought this up:
With current day munition developments, no one has anything to worry about. A bad guy could be walking down the street, a small bomb will fall out of the sky an pop next to his head. Only he dies. Everyone keeps going because they are not hurt.
On the other hand, you can play war with an iron hammer. A bad guy is working in his office, and a 5k pound bomb drops on his building, leveling an entire block. Everyone is now fearful of being associated or near someone who is bad, and will never think to cross us.
-
They kill 3,000, we kill 100,000. That's lightly swinging back? LOL
Here's a question for Neocons:
Exactly how many muslim lives are worth one american life? You guys are obviously willing to partake in transactions of this sort, so you must have some sort of values worked out in your heads. Please share.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Exactly how many muslim lives are worth one american life?.
All of them.
And I'm not a neocon, I simply believe in treating the enemy like the enemy. They have this doctrine down pat, and I seriously doubt they'd be losing sleep over a 33 to 1 kill to loss ratio if it were in their favor.
We either fight them day and night, with no mercy, or we don't fight at all. Knocking nations down only to rebuild them in our own image is lunacy, especially when taking into account the fact that the locals want nothing to do with our 'values'. We should be knocking them down because their existence is not compatible with our existence. Short of that directive, we shouldn't even be picking up the big stick.
Yes, we should have nuked Tora Bora. We should have gassed Tora Bora. We should have irradiated it until every grain of sand glowed in the dark. If we'd done that, maybe there'd be fewer videos being released today.
-
Neubob, should we kill all their children too?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Neubob, should we kill all their children too?
We should treat them like they treat us. There is no elevated morality in war, and we're certainly not about to invent it. The biggest difference between them and us, their biggest advantage, if you will, is that they're willing to do anything it takes. They may not have the means, but they are willing to do ANYTHING within the means theyhave. Had they the bomb, we'd know about it because they would not hesitate to use it. There is no link or source that will corroborate this. I simply believe that any people that perpetrate 9/11 and subsequently support it would do the same with a nuclear warhead.
We've got the means, for sure, but our willpower is sapped by our sense of elevated moral obligation. That is no way to enter into something as brutal and instinctually-driven as war. And yet, we do, and we're amazed when nothing comes of it.
Frankly Chairboy, I'd rather it be their children than mine. I'd rather it be theirs than yours. And they, you'd better believe would rather it be ours. Big difference is that they don't care enough to avoid killing ours. Therein lies their fatal advantage.
-
Maybe after 300 more threads, the BBS will come to a judgement on the issue. Until then, flame each other, spew the drivel, opinions, etc.
-
Want to know what middle-eastern Muslims believe and think about 9/11 and the USA? Click here (http://www.memrifilms.org/) and watch the documentary.... If this doesn't get your attention, you're in an induced coma.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Here's another link from a previous thread. For those who already don't, it is helpful to take this on a personal level.
Man's last phone conversation (http://ebaumsworld.com/2006/07/kevin-cosgrove-911-call.html)
-
What are we supposed to do during a war...establish casualty quotas?
"Oops...we've accidentally killed too many of the enemy folks! Now, in order to be fair, we have to give them a few free shots."
With only a few exceptions, our forces have made every effort to avoid needless civilian casualties. The same cannot be said of our opponents, who have to be dug out of their holes in civilian communities.
So you don't feel the war in Iraq is justified. We get it. We had no business taking down a thug who is about to undergo his second trial this year...the second one on charges that he committed mass murder and crimes against humanity.
Iraq is not a hole. Okinawa was a hole. Iwo Jima was a hole. The Bocage country of Normandy was a hole. The casualties we suffered there and the casualties we inflicted there DWARF the Iraqi war in its entirety.
But keep beating the drum boys...
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Here's another link from a previous thread. For those who already don't, it is helpful to take this on a personal level.
Man's last phone conversation (http://ebaumsworld.com/2006/07/kevin-cosgrove-911-call.html)
Yes don't think rationally. Suspend thought and react emotionally. Use frequent doses of focused multimedia to maintain non-thinking emotional state for up to 5 years after politically convenient state-sanctioned tragedy. Perfect sheeple.
-
If I'm a sheep, at least I'm a ram.
You sir, on the other hand, are an ostrich.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Yes don't think rationally. Suspend thought and react emotionally. Use frequent doses of focused multimedia to maintain non-thinking emotional state for up to 5 years after politically convenient state-sanctioned tragedy. Perfect sheeple.
"Politically convenient state-sanctioned tragedy"?
You're high right?
-
Dude the Congress created a holiday for it. I'd call that state-sanctioned.
As far as political convenience, I'm sure you're already familiar with certain PNAC documents.
And I'm high on life. :aok
THX Nancy Reagan!
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Dude the Congress created a holiday for it. I'd call that state-sanctioned.
As far as political convenience, I'm sure you're already familiar with certain PNAC documents.
And I'm high on life. :aok
THX Nancy Reagan!
It's sad to see someone so bitter over politics that they callously dismiss a national tragedy. Not sad in the same way felt for the those murdered on 9/11, but in a pathetic sort of way.
-
It's sad to see someone so bitter over a national tragedy that they callously dismiss the wholesale slaughter of ten times as many innocents in retaliation. Not sad in the same way felt for the those murdered on 9/11, but in a pathetic sort of way.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
It's sad to see someone so bitter over a national tragedy that they callously dismiss the wholesale slaughter of ten times as many innocents in retaliation. Not sad in the same way felt for the those murdered on 9/11, but in a pathetic sort of way.
Who are all these tens of thousands of innocents that have been slaughtered?
-
Mission Accomplished (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/)
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Are you trying to say that Iraqi soldiers are "innocent"?
You made an outrageous claim. Just admit you're drunk and I'll drop it.
-
1. Do you understand what the word "Civilian" means.
2. Why do you want to keep talking about me? If you want a boyfriend go to a dating site.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
1. Do you understand what the word "Civilian" means.
2. Why do you want to keep talking about me? If you want a boyfriend go to a dating site.
Can't back up your leftist anti-american drivel huh? Keep making outrageous remarks and none of us will pay you any further attention.
You want me to ignore you? No problem, done.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
So..you have to go back centuries to find stuff to criticise Christians about…
Oh hardly. The best known Christian terrorists in the west is undoubtedly the Irish Republican Army and its splinter groups. Bombing school busses in the name of the Lord was their thing. Then there are the Christian Tamil Tigers separatists of Siri Lanka who even use female suicide-bombers. And then there was the Orthodox Christian Bosnian Serb Army who more than happily performed the Lord’s ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. And let’s not forget Serbia proper and what they did to ethnic Albanian Muslims in Kosovo. Then there is the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda which are responsible for among other things: torture, rape, abduction of civilians, the use of child soldiers and a number of massacres. All of which is indicative of African ethnic conflicts too numerous to mention.
And that is only what I can remember off the top of my head. There is plenty to criticize Christians about today. I’d like to start my criticism with the fact that all but a few Christians don’t even know what is done in their name. The rest probably just don’t care.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Are you trying to say that Iraqi soldiers are "innocent"?
You made an outrageous claim. Just admit you're drunk and I'll drop it.
Iraq Body Count only count civilians killed.
-
Really must go to bed, but...
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Mission Accomplished (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/)
And now for the facts:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/IraqBodyCount2006.htm
Partial quote from the site -
Enter IraqBodyCount, an anti-war organization that was envisioned even before the Iraq War began, with the heady ambition of documenting each and every victim of American aggression in order to turn public opinion against the action to remove Saddam (let's just say they aren't too concerned about the hundreds of mass graves unearthed from the Ba'athist era).
Somewhere along the way, however, harsh reality began to sink in that America was acting as no other country in history has ever acted to prevent civilian casualties in warfare. As a matter of fact, more American troops have been killed in the conflict than have civilians been killed by Americans. Americans are literally taking casualties to prevent casualties on the part of Iraqi civilians.
Though mere mortals might be prompted to reconsider their prejudices at this point, the folks at IraqBodyCount reacted by quietly changing their mission to include the victims of terrorists - the very people that the Americans are trying to stop. Their dubious body-count even includes members of the Iraqi security forces, who are part of the coalition.
In other words, people who are killed trying to stop terrorists are counted as victims of their own effort - as if deadly attacks against the innocent should be tolerated by those in a position to discourage it. Of course, no one thinks this way in real life. Who would lay the blame for rape victims at the feet of those earnestly campaigning against sexual abuse?
Another big problem with IraqBodyCount's statistics is that they even include the terrorists themselves. Enemy combatants in Iraq don't wear uniforms or carry ID cards, and all it takes for someone to make the list is to wind up in a hospital or morgue with "trauma." How many true civilians were really killed by Americans at Fallujah? Probably very few.
Look further and you'll also find that one out of every 40 "war victims" on the list actually came from a stampede at a religious festival on a single day, August 31,2005, that neither the American and Iraqi security forces, nor even the terrorists were anywhere near. No doubt the Americans are somehow responsible for Hajj stampedes in Mecca as well.
Unfortunately, few of the people who quote IraqBodyCount's sensational numbers bother to put much thought into what they really represent. Fewer still decide to drill into the data to discover the identity of those who kill.
For some far more accurate numbers -
Who's Really
Killing Iraqis?
The Real 2006
'Iraq Body Count'
Iraqi civilians killed this year by Islamic Terrorists
8,494
Iraqi civilians killed collaterally by Americans
60*
*Source: IraqBodyCount.net (includes civilians caught in crossfire who may have been killed by the terrorists)
From http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
- SEAGOON
-
And who is responsible for bringing the terrorists to Iraq Mr. Seagoon? Fighting them on their turf and all that load of bollocks.
-
Also I see you use the word “fact” like only a man of faith can. Your partial quote offers no facts or sources at all, only spinning, misrepresentation, lies and hate.
-
Gentelmen,it's all goes way back.It has nothing to do with "protecting our freedom",obviosly they not trying to wipe out democracy.They didnt attac Belgium,Sweeden, and all the other capitalistic countries.
And please spare me that redneck crap,Freedom is not free.
Iraq fights USA for the only one reason,becouse US is invader,you dont actualy believe that every Iraqi killed by US army is terrorist do you?
-
Originally posted by KgB
Iraq fights USA for the only one reason,becouse US is invader,you dont actualy believe that every Iraqi killed by US army is terrorist do you?
the majority of them - yes - with many if not most coming from Iran and Syria
as I think the majority of the Iraqis do not see the US as invaders but liberators
It doesn't take many bad apples to mess up it, the Iraqi ppl are the ones suffering now but will be the ones who benefit from this start of their democracy in the long run ...
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Yes don't think rationally. Suspend thought and react emotionally. Use frequent doses of focused multimedia to maintain non-thinking emotional state for up to 5 years after politically convenient state-sanctioned tragedy. Perfect sheeple.
No Funked, I don't think so. I'm not a supporter of the Bush initiative. I think it's misguided, wasteful and futile. My opinion is pretty clear. If we decide to go to war, we do it the way it's always been done. We don't go in their to rebuild and restructure and make shower-buddies out of bitter enemies. We go in to destroy the foe and anyone else who gets in the way. And if we're not ready to do that, and we damn-well might not be, then we're better off staying here and rebuilding. Plain and simple.
I really doubt that the average American would agree with that. We're too busy shedding tears over Iraqi chimps waving American flags. I could care less. We've got nothing in common, not in interest or in value, and if they harbored Saddam for 30 years, it should have been their job to get him out.
The guy in the phone conversation got me to thinking, and my thinking is that I'd rather he had lived than all the families, friends and pets of each of the Hijackers. Since we're not ready to go on a massive extermination-spree, we should probably find another course of action that we are ready to execute.
And for the record, I didn't have a holiday yesterday.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
What do you suppose would happen to someone who defamed Muhammad? Hmm..you probably already have an idea of that. As for Christ..the cartoon Southpark has Him as a game show host, and the University of Virgina TAX payer-funded school newspaper showed this (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06090503.html) :
Interesting article. I'm actually doing the comic for my college newspaper this semester (or until I'm fired). I think we might actually be tax payer-funded as well. Of course I never see a cent of it and don't get any money for my ink or paper, so what do I care.
It will be interesting to see folks' reactions. Of all the groups I make fun of, though, I have to doubt that Christians are going to be the ones sending in death threats. We'll see how this hypothesis works out.
-
Originally posted by Vudak
Interesting article. I'm actually doing the comic for my college newspaper this semester (or until I'm fired). I think we might actually be tax payer-funded as well. Of course I never see a cent of it and don't get any money for my ink or paper, so what do I care.
It will be interesting to see folks' reactions. Of all the groups I make fun of, though, I have to doubt that Christians are going to be the ones sending in death threats. We'll see how this hypothesis works out.
If you make fun of Christians but not Muslims then I say you have no intestinal fortitude. Would be interested in seeing what is published.
-
Originally posted by Viking
And who is responsible for bringing the terrorists to Iraq Mr. Seagoon? Fighting them on their turf and all that load of bollocks.
The EXTREMISTS (not "Terrorists") were ALREADY PRESENT IN IRAQ BEFORE 9/11.
But what is funny? Watching idiots like you thinking "If we close our eyes long enough, the problem will cure itself." Bollocks that.
-
funked... do you think the U.S. is targeting civilians now?
It would not be new of course... you probly get sick reading about the bombings in WWII where civilians were indeed targeted by at least, the brits.
I believe that the American way of war is to reduce resistance to near nothing before attack so as to save American lives. I believe this is a valid tactic.
How many jap lives on the islands of WWII were worth one American? All of em.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
it all started with the PC movement.
But, but,..without PC's I would be out of a job!
Originally posted by Eagler
as long as leaders in the democratic parts of the globe are elected by people who see the truth, know the truth and share views/morals/beliefs of those they elect, we have a chance
if we are less committed than our enemies or lose sight of this war, we will fail
Uhmmm,..I cannot share views/morals/beliefs with the lieing, corrupt, sacks of poop we have elected. And if you chose to believe and support them, you are no better than they are.
While I agree, in principle, we should support our leaders. I will not knowingly support anyone who has little, to no, respect for the people who put them there. How many lies do our leaders need to be caught in before we stand up and say, "Enough is enough!"?
The day our President proclaimed he is "The Decider", is the day that brkoe the camel's back for me. Why did he proclaim that? Because people were questioning the decision to keep one of his numpties onboard. The people of this country have every right to question any decision the President makes. Bush has made himself to be a dictator wannabe with the above statement.
It is our duty to question our leaders. It is our responsibility to make sure they are true to our country and the people who have elected them. Blindly following someone over a cliff only makes for good press. It does not make a good place to live.
-
they aren't perfect but some are worse than others so you go with the lesser of two evils ... what other option is there?
-
for what its worth, I didnt see if any of you had read this yet. I dont know who Keith Olbermann but I can agree with some of what he is saying.
I just think we need to drop all the "Right Wing" this and "Left Wing" that and Liberal, Neocon crap and straighten this out. Its all our faults this has gotten out of hand. we each have a responsibility to do whats right
Keith Olbermann - Half a lifetime ago, I worked in this now-empty space. And for 40 days after the attacks, I worked here again, trying to make sense of what happened, and was yet to happen, as a reporter.
All the time, I knew that the very air I breathed contained the remains of thousands of people, including four of my friends, two in the planes and -- as I discovered from those "missing posters" seared still into my soul -- two more in the Towers.
And I knew too, that this was the pyre for hundreds of New York policemen and firemen, of whom my family can claim half a dozen or more, as our ancestors.
I belabor this to emphasize that, for me this was, and is, and always shall be, personal.
And anyone who claims that I and others like me are "soft,"or have "forgotten" the lessons of what happened here is at best a grasping, opportunistic, dilettante and at worst, an idiot whether he is a commentator, or a Vice President, or a President.
However, of all the things those of us who were here five years ago could have forecast -- of all the nightmares that unfolded before our eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds -- none of us could have predicted this.
Five years later this space is still empty.
Five years later there is no memorial to the dead.
Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.
Five years later this country's wound is still open.
Five years later this country's mass grave is still unmarked.
Five years later this is still just a background for a photo-op.
It is beyond shameful.
At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial -- barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field -- Mr. Lincoln said, "we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice.
Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their reprehensible inaction. "We cannot dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground." So we won't.
Instead they bicker and buck pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere. They spend the money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self-congratulations, and buying off columnists to write how good a job they're doing instead of doing any job at all.
Five years later, Mr. Bush, we are still fighting the terrorists on these streets. And look carefully, sir, on these 16 empty acres. The terrorists are clearly, still winning.
And, in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.
And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation. There is its symbolism of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.
The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.
Those who did not belong to his party -- tabled that.
Those who doubted the mechanics of his election -- ignored that.
Those who wondered of his qualifications -- forgot that.
History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government by its critics. It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation's wounds, but to take political advantage.
Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.
The President -- and those around him -- did that.
They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused, as appeasers, as those who, in the Vice President's words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."
They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection" meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken, a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated al-Qaida as much as we did.
The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had 'something to do' with 9/11 is "lying by implication."
The impolite phrase is "impeachable offense."
Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space, and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.
Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.
Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible for anything in his own administration.
Yet what is happening this very night?
A mini-series, created, influenced -- possibly financed by -- the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.
The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.
How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death, after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections? How dare you -- or those around you -- ever "spin" 9/11?
Just as the terrorists have succeeded -- are still succeeding -- as long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero.
So, too, have they succeeded, and are still succeeding as long as this government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.
This is an odd point to cite a television program, especially one from March of 1960. But as Disney's continuing sell-out of the truth (and this country) suggests, even television programs can be powerful things.
And long ago, a series called "The Twilight Zone" broadcast a riveting episode entitled "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street."
In brief: a meteor sparks rumors of an invasion by extra-terrestrials disguised as humans. The electricity goes out. A neighbor pleads for calm. Suddenly his car -- and only his car -- starts. Someone suggests he must be the alien. Then another man's lights go on. As charges and suspicion and panic overtake the street, guns are inevitably produced. An "alien" is shot -- but he turns out to be just another neighbor, returning from going for help. The camera pulls back to a near-by hill, where two extra-terrestrials are seen manipulating a small device that can jam electricity. The veteran tells his novice that there's no need to actually attack, that you just turn off a few of the human machines and then, "they pick the most dangerous enemy they can find, and it's themselves."
And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves tonight: "The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men.
"For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own -- for the children, and the children yet unborn."
When those who dissent are told time and time again -- as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus -- that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American...When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"... look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:
Who has left this hole in the ground?
We have not forgotten, Mr. President.
You have.
May this country forgive you.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
they aren't perfect but some are worse than others so you go with the lesser of two evils ... what other option is there?
Rally like minded people together.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon And now for the facts:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/IraqBodyCount2006.htm
I'm shocked that an anti-muslim hate website would try to deny documented muslim casualties. What's next, a link to kkk.org on how slavery wasn't all that bad?
-
Originally posted by Neubob
No Funked, I don't think so. I'm not a supporter of the Bush initiative. I think it's misguided, wasteful and futile. My opinion is pretty clear. If we decide to go to war, we do it the way it's always been done. We don't go in their to rebuild and restructure and make shower-buddies out of bitter enemies. We go in to destroy the foe and anyone else who gets in the way. And if we're not ready to do that, and we damn-well might not be, then we're better off staying here and rebuilding. Plain and simple.
I really doubt that the average American would agree with that. We're too busy shedding tears over Iraqi chimps waving American flags. I could care less. We've got nothing in common, not in interest or in value, and if they harbored Saddam for 30 years, it should have been their job to get him out.
The guy in the phone conversation got me to thinking, and my thinking is that I'd rather he had lived than all the families, friends and pets of each of the Hijackers. Since we're not ready to go on a massive extermination-spree, we should probably find another course of action that we are ready to execute.
And for the record, I didn't have a holiday yesterday.
You have a point as usual. I was being a little dramatic back there but I think you get my point too.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
they aren't perfect but some are worse than others so you go with the lesser of two evils ... what other option is there?
There are plenty of options (http://www.lp.org).
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Nah, I just think these generalizations are silly. All blacks are not lazy, all gays are not pansies, and all Islamics are not bloodthirsty maniacs.
It's funny how it feels when y'all are on the receiving end instead of dishing it out. That's a constant across the entire human condition.
There is a whole generation of youth being educated in Madras to believe in the name of Islam that it is ok to kill Zionists. It is ok to kill apostates. It is ok to kill non believers.
The only justification for these actions is that their religion says so. It is not because of any real persecution or revenge. They hear stories of how Muslims are being attacked and persecuted but that is no different than saying Christians should wipe out Muslims as revenge for what is happening in Sudan.
These schools are funded by mainstream Muslim groups and Saudi Arabia. There is no mainstream Muslim group or cleric saying what the above author has said. It is wrong to teach that it is ok to kill such people in the name of Islam.
And that is the problem. Sure 99% of Muslims do not become terrorists. But how many silently support what these people are doing? Where is the abhoration and condemnation from ordinary mainstream Muslims over the acts of radicals in the name of their religion?
There is no parallel to anything like this happening in Christianity. The current mainstream christian churches are no more interested in wiping Islam off the face of the earth as they are in instilling a new constitution and laws based on biblical law.
-
Originally posted by lukster
If you make fun of Christians but not Muslims then I say you have no intestinal fortitude. Would be interested in seeing what is published.
Well the first dealt with a comparison of Lebanese and Red Sox fans, the 2nd has a picture of the Prophet Mohammed, the third makes fun of myself, and the 4th makes fun of Christians.
I'm really trying to be "fair and balanced" with my antagonizations, but you have to take into account I only get three panels per week, so patience is needed to give each group their shot ;)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
they aren't perfect but some are worse than others so you go with the lesser of two evils ... what other option is there?
If we are willing to accept mediocrity, then that is exactly what we will get (or worse).
Having to settle for the lesser of any evils is not acceptable. We do it because it is easier to do than the alternative. Which would be to stand up in a unified voice and proclaim, "We are not going to take it anymore! We will not accept medocrity! We deserve the best this nation has to offer and you are not it!".
-
what skuzzy said.
-
Originally posted by JB88
what skuzzy said.
what did he say? Revolt? ah, I think I'll pass on that one ..thanks anyway
-
What's that in your sig?
-
Originally posted by Ikeprof
I am not a licensed engineer, but I do know enough about physics and engineering to know that the stories we have been told in terms of the "official explanation" are hogwash.
I am a licensed engineer in Oregon, and I find the "official explanations" of the Pentagon and WTC damage completely logical and plausible. I have no qualms whatsoever in believing:
1. a jetliner containing 6000+ gal of fuel that hits a building in excess of 450 mph can do enough damage and the resulting fire can heat the steel past the austenitic phase change temperature to sufficienty weaken the structure and cause collapse.
2. The collapse of two 110 story structures can cause enough collateral damage to and cause fires in adjacent structures to cause the collapse of WTC 7 (which stored a great deal of diesel for emergency generators) as well as the other 5 or 6 buildings within the WTC complex.
3. A jetliner hitting a concrete wall (Pentagon) at speeds in excess of 450 mph will cause the disintegration of the jetliner and do the witnessed amount of destruction to that concrete structure.
-
Originally posted by moot
What's that in your sig?
who me?
-
That quote of Galland, yes.. how does it have its place there, under that previous post of yours?
-
Hello Funked,
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I'm shocked that an anti-muslim hate website would try to deny documented muslim casualties. What's next, a link to kkk.org on how slavery wasn't all that bad?
Come now Funked, I know you can do better than that.
First, the KKK hate all minorities simply because they are minorities. They consider them to be biologically inferior to Caucasians, they believe the to be sub-humans who are to be subjugated or eliminated. They are quite open about hating all non-whites. Their hatred is not based on the actions or the ideologies subscribed to or espoused by non-whites.
The Religion of Peace website, doesn't hate Muslims, it doesn't hate people because of race or ethnicity, it happens to believe that Islam is not a peaceful religion and attempts to document that. In this they do resemble people who don't hate the Chinese or the North Koreans, but do think Communism is dangerous and needs to be stopped. Nor is TROP a pro-Bush, right-wing website, they have been open in their criticisms of the President and the administration, and they don't think the current middle-eastern foreign policy will succeed. Nor, I should add, are they particularly pro-Christian, in fact I've often winced or rolled my eyes at some of the "all religions are equally stupid and we need to get past them" style editorials they've linked to approvingly.
This is in marked contrast to Iraqbodycount.net which is a left-wing group that got started prior to the invasion of Iraq on the supposition that the coalition would kill thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqis. This again is akin to starting a website to track the number of civillian deaths "caused by the allied invasion of Europe" prior to the D-Day landings and then assess the goodness or badness of the Allied cause based on those figures. Regarding their estimates themselves the CBC reported: "But the numbers published on iraqbodycount.net don't distinguish between Iraqis killed by coalition forces or by insurgents, arguing that they are all a result of the March 2003 invasion and the U.S.-led coalition is responsible for preventing them." In other words, whoever killed them, our working assumption is that its all the coalitions fault.
Anyway here is the statement from the "About" page on the Religion of peace. You'll have to point out to me
About TheReligionofPeace.com (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/AboutSite.htm)
Ever since 9/11, Americans and others have been asking, "Who are Muslims and why do they want to kill me?" Western leaders have responded by insisting that Islam is a Religion of Peace. This is a line that is parroted from some Islamic clerics (presumably the ones who aren't calling for Jihad). But what does this mean?
Peace can have two different meanings. Westerners usually think of peace as being free to live one's life as one pleases, and allowing others the freedom to do the same.
But peace is also a condition that can be brought about through subjugation, in which unbelievers are brought under the domination of Islam to live meekly as dhimmis. Regrettably, this is the sort of peace that the Qur'an and Hadiths (the Islamic traditions) teach.
This non-partisan, straight-shooting Website provides a list of attacks committed by determined Muslims in the name of their faith. We also provide news from the world of Islam and links to other sites with additional information on the religion for people that want to better understand the violence on the part of thousands and the support or apathy on the part of millions.
Islam is a broad faith and it would be wrong for anyone to stereotype Muslim individuals. Most, in fact, are perfectly fine, either in spite of Islam or because of their interpretation of it. In fact, there are exceptional Muslims whose faith gives them character - the tiny handful of Muslim-Americans, for example, who choose to tell the rest of the world that America is not a legitimate target for terrorism. They stand in sharp contrast to American groups like CAIR and MPAC, which use their influence to complain of petty grievances and inflame hatred against a country that tries hard to accommodate their faith in spite of the violence.
On the other hand, however, Islam is clearly not a religion of peace. The ridiculous level of violence committed in the name of this religion is staggering, despite the many billions of dollars that are spent each year to prevent attacks.
Nor should Westerners continue to think that the solution to the violence is greater understanding and tolerance for Islam, as Muslim apologists often imply when commenting on high-profile terror attacks. It is the killers and their supporters who need to learn understanding and tolerance, not their victims.
Islam will be a peaceful religion when Muslims stop preaching hate, stop killing in the name of Allah, and stop remaining apathetic to the violence. Until this happens, we will faithfully document each of the reasons why this is anything but a "Religion of Peace."
-
See Rules #4, #5
Sorry :(
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
The KKK website, doesn't hate minorities, it doesn't hate people because of race or ethnicity, it happens to believe that non-Caucasians are biologically inferior and attempts to document that.
See how well that works?
-
Originally posted by Viking
See Rule #4, #5
You see, the thing is, I'm much more comfortable with a bunch of Iraqi civilians being the collateral damage in the War On Terror then a bunch of American civilians being so.
I think most Americans feel that way. I think most Norwegians or whoever would probably feel this way too. Oh, they might not SAY they feel that way, but let their house get blown up or their civilian relatives killed, and see what they think then.
Since we are unlikely to get everyone to agree to fight it out in Antarctica, there really isn't any choice - collateral damage will occur. Once again, I'd much rather have an Iraqi family die then my family die. This probably makes me a monster, or, possibly, human.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
what did he say? Revolt? ah, I think I'll pass on that one ..thanks anyway
I said nothing about a revolt. We have it within our power to hold politicians accountable. You start there.
Doing nothing will yeild nothing, but more of the same. Quite frankly, I do not think our country can stand more of the same for any period of time.
-
Originally posted by Ikeprof
I'm actually not going to even remotely claim to guess as to "who" did anything, however I do believe that the information that we have been given is absolutely not correct in terms of the physics aspects of the collapses of WTC Towers 1,2 and 7...especially 7.
Though it will avail nothing, I served 6 years in the military, have 2 sons in the Navy and regardless of how patriotic I am, I am absolutely allowed the right to examine any evidence and make up my own mind as to whether I am being told the truth or not. It is my opinion that "that" right to do so is not only a right, it is a duty as given us as part of our citizenship.
My gut instinct on watching the original "day of the event" footage was one of "you have to be kidding me/no way that happened". I think that my gut reaction was based upon being a history channel/national geographic addict and simply devouring hours upon hours of "how it was made" type documentaries.
I am not a licensed engineer, but I do know enough about physics and engineering to know that the stories we have been told in terms of the "official explanation" are hogwash. That does not mean I know anything more about what really happened, but when I cannot trust the sanctioned story, then it is natural that my suspicions be raised to some degree.
I am aware that to even question anything, to be a voice that expresses even a moments hesitation in accepting the spoon fed version of the facts of an event is in todays atmosphere is less than patriotic to the point of being considered traitorous. That my friends is what concerns me the most. Questioning should never be considered evil. If you do consider it that, then you in essence handily discard one of the freedoms that distinguishes this country from most others.
I am not an expert on much of anything, but it is articles written by engineering professors and the like that I think that an open minded person should examine, if nothing more than to do the due diligence that we all have the duty to do.
I was originally going to post links to the various physics and engineering papers written on this topic, but to be honest, the resulting arguments of the various points of the papers would be more effort than it's worth. I really have no interest in convincing anyone of anything, I simply have an interest in maybe performing a tiny nudge in the interests of not being blind in the name of patriotism. There have been too many postings on this board that slam those that do not come to the exact same conclusions as others. Give them a moment of credit towards their intelligence. Just because I saw a show that said that Kurt Cobain influenced the radical arm of islam and my pug puppy to pilot planes into the towers and the resulting puppy bark shattered the 47 core support columns into 30 ft lengths does not mean that I believe it...that is the beauty of our country, the ability to examine ALL evidence and come to our own conclusions, regardless of whether those conclusions match the official story. Those that would quiet the right of someone to express their thoughts are more guilty of being unpatriotic in my opinion than those who would express the worst possible opinions as to what happened and who was involved.
In the end, if one comes to the exact same conclusions after examination of other explanations then good..that means that your gut feelings coincided with physics and known facts. However, physics don't often lie.
Regardless of how/what happened, it is a tragedy when any event of this magnitude occurs and god bless those that perished in this tragedy.
I am an Metallurgical Engineer with a masters degree. Any Engineering prof or so called expert who says that the heat generated by the fires caused by the fuel in those planes plus the incredible weight of the tower on top of the floors which were burning is not enough to lead to the failure of the strutural steel in those floors is simply an idiot.
And anyone who believes that those fires did not lead to the collaspe, is also by reasons of their lack of education, misguided.
I have seen structural steel beams bend in an ordinary warehouse fire. No where near the temperature of the WTC fire. And they did not have the incredible weight of the upper floors pushing on them as well. The rate the steel defomed at was a combination of the temperature of the steel caused by the fire combined with the load on the beam due to the weight of the building above it. The reason the second building that was hit collasped first is because there were more floors above the fire so the extra weight loaded the weaked beams past failure faster.
Building codes call for the insulation of stuctural steel to prevent them from heating as fast in a fire. The idea is that the fire will pass or be put out in time to prevent heating past the temperature where the beam will start to fail. In the WTC it was believed that the insulation covering the beams had flaked off on many floors leaving them even more vunerable to fire.
Once one floor falls the impact on it hitting the floor below would be much greater than the failure point of the steel in that floor, even though it was not on fire. Thus it fails and so on all the way to the ground. Impact loading is much higher than static loading the building was designed for.
-
See Rule #4, #5
-
You did not mention it Habu, but the structural design of the towers was such that in the event of any structural failure, the towers would collapse straight down.
This was done to eliminate the massive amount of potential damage/death if the towers fell over, as opposed to collapsing downward.
The towers did exactly what they were designed to do in the advent of a structural failure.
-
Originally posted by Viking
See Rule #4, #5
Again, sorry :(
-
Originally posted by Viking
See how well that works?
I see so Viking, because you try to prove that the "NeoConservatives" and "men of faith" are wrong and lying and full of hate, you are the same as the KKK?
Any attempt to prove that a particular ideology is untrue is the equivalent of blind unreasoning prejudice based on race? So if I say that I don't believe the truth claims of Islam, and that I think it is founded on a dangerous lie, I'm a "hateful bigot?" Can you explain why then the same people who believe the same thing about Christianity around here are enlightened and wise?
Dosn't make much sense to me, but what would I know, I'm the only KKK preacher who was mentored by African Americans and invites them to fill his pulpit whenever they're around, so I've gotta be confused
-
Originally posted by moot
That quote of Galland, yes.. how does it have its place there, under that previous post of yours?
ah - because on is dealing with a2a combat and the other a countrys political system maybe?
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I said nothing about a revolt. We have it within our power to hold politicians accountable. You start there.
Doing nothing will yeild nothing, but more of the same. Quite frankly, I do not think our country can stand more of the same for any period of time.
I/we can't do anything until we are giving another choice.. Until then I will continue to vote the lesser of two evils which i perceive as the republicans
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
You did not mention it Habu, but the structural design of the towers was such that in the event of any structural failure, the towers would collapse straight down.
This was done to eliminate the massive amount of potential damage/death if the towers fell over, as opposed to collapsing downward.
The towers did exactly what they were designed to do in the advent of a structural failure.
Exactly. And anyone who looks at windows popping out many floors below and then says "Ahhh Hahhh, see it was a timed explosion" forgets as well that big buildings have ducts and shafts going all over the place. A huge exposion on one floor will get carried thoughout the building and could pop windows on totally different floors. Jet fuel will flow down from the floors of impact as well. Smoke will travel though elevator shafts and so will heat and fire.
-
Yes, I'm curious to know how it doesn't apply, specificaly.
Your interest is to have an alternative to two evils.
Said evils' interest is to survive your vote.
An alternative vote would kill them, therefore won't be their initiative, so.. how does voting to keep in office the very factor that guarantees the alternative vote you want will not happen, make sense?
You're feeding the animal you want dead.
-
moot
I guess at a more universal level it could apply to both but that is not the intention of my sig.
I am not feeding what I want dead, maybe laz is but I am happier with the republicans than I am not and at present there isn't any other choice, the dems here are ridiculous, border line socialist, the worse of two evils by a huge margin imo. as they vote party line 99% of the time, in Nov I will vote straight "R" as I have always done to keep their scary arses out of office.
-
Originally posted by Habu
I see it every day. In this forum, on other forums, in the media and even among people I know. There are many who believe that they US or Israel were behind the 9-11 attacks. And these people actually believe this to be true.
.
I don't belive in US, Israel conspiracy,, but i'm not 100% convinced by oficial explanation of what happened
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBjTVQHJ1DA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBjTVQHJ1DA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeZAN5wn-eA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeZAN5wn-eA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zk2pUGni_c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zk2pUGni_c)
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
You did not mention it Habu, but the structural design of the towers was such that in the event of any structural failure, the towers would collapse straight down.
This was done to eliminate the massive amount of potential damage/death if the towers fell over, as opposed to collapsing downward.
The towers did exactly what they were designed to do in the advent of a structural failure.
IIRC, the towers were also designed to withstand direct hits from jets up to the size of a 727, but the towers were hit by 767's.
It's good to see you playing in the Sandbox Skuzzy :)
-
Ghi - specificaly?
-
Originally posted by Habu
Exactly. And anyone who looks at windows popping out many floors below and then says "Ahhh Hahhh, see it was a timed explosion" forgets as well that big buildings have ducts and shafts going all over the place. A huge exposion on one floor will get carried thoughout the building and could pop windows on totally different floors. Jet fuel will flow down from the floors of impact as well. Smoke will travel though elevator shafts and so will heat and fire.
Not just the pressure from the explosion, but as each floor collapsed on top of the other it sent a massive surge of air pressure through the structure causing the windows to blow out long before the collapse of that floor.
The structural engineer who designed the towers said they did exactly what they were designed to do. Pretty impressive engineering from where I sit.
Can you imagine how much worse it could have been if the towers had fallen over?
But rest assured Habu, there will always be people who cannot understand how something like this could have been engineered to do what they did. They will point and wag fingers at all manner of conspiracy theories.
Lemme see. Who am I gonna believe? The guy who actually designed the towers, or some numpty who has no clue how structural engineering works? Hmmmm. No brainer if you ask me.
I have had enough structural engineering schooling to understand why and how the towers did what they did. And from where I sit, they reacted to the events in a manner consistent with thier design.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
If we are willing to accept mediocrity, then that is exactly what we will get (or worse).
Having to settle for the lesser of any evils is not acceptable. We do it because it is easier to do than the alternative. Which would be to stand up in a unified voice and proclaim, "We are not going to take it anymore! We will not accept medocrity! We deserve the best this nation has to offer and you are not it!".
So given the options we are given (Democrats or Republicans) with no real, viable 3rd party alternative......what do you suggest?
-
Make it happen ourselves, Elfie.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
IIRC, the towers were also designed to withstand direct hits from jets up to the size of a 727, but the towers were hit by 767's.
It's good to see you playing in the Sandbox Skuzzy :)
It is one thing for a building to be designed to collapse in a specific manner and predict that event.
It is another ball game to predict exactly what it would take to cause sich a collapse. Engineers can pin point precisely how much force and where it is needed to cause an event like this. But saying the towers were designed to withstand an impact from something as specific as a particular airplane would not be done by a structural engineer.
It might have been a comparative statement being made to allow non-engineers to grasp the amount of potential force required.
-
Originally posted by moot
Make it happen ourselves, Elfie.
Without a viable 3rd party.....how?
Imo, as long as the electoral college exists, there will never be a 3rd party president.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
It is one thing for a building to be designed to collapse in a specific manner and predict that event.
It is another ball game to predict exactly what it would take to cause sich a collapse. Engineers can pin point precisely how much force and where it is needed to cause an event like this. But saying the towers were designed to withstand an impact from something as specific as a particular airplane would not be done by a structural engineer.
It might have been a comparative statement being made to allow non-engineers to grasp the amount of potential force required.
That makes sense Skuzzy. The thing with the 727 was something I read shortly after 9-11, but dont recall where. Could very easily have been some moron trolling. If so, he hooked one. :D
-
Originally posted by Elfie
So given the options we are given (Deomcrats or Republicans) with no real, viable 3rd party alternative......what do you suggest?
We have a few options, short of a civil war, available.
Given the current major partis have made it all but impossible for a third party to ever have a chance at accomplishing anything, it falls on the people to force better choices within the constraints of the two parties.
Instead of simply accepting the mediocrity, we need to walk away from it. If everyone in this country, or a substantial number, would commit to simply walking away from it. It would force a change, eventually.
Now, to make it clear to the politicians we are serious, I would propose a central WEB site to be used for taking mock votes. For instance, you list all the potential candidates, then you list others, and even allow write-ins.
Allow all the various politicians listed to post a blog, of sorts, on how they feel about the various concerns the people of this country have. Putting it writting is a tool to be used later on when they put thier foot in thier mouth.
Advertise this page across the country. A way to prevent people from abusing it would be needed.
Basically, you get the press onboard. Once they are onboard, you will be surprised how fast the politicians will follow.
Just a thought. Needs more fleshing out.
-
nstead of simply accepting the mediocrity, we need to walk away from it. If everyone in this country, or a substantial number, would commit to simply walking away from it. It would force a change, eventually.
What if everyone just refused to vote? What happens then? Do incumbents just stay in office?
If any change is going to come, there has to be some sort of campaign reform as well. No money from foreign sources, dollar limits on corporate and private donations. Maybe (for Presidential and Congressional elections) a set amount given to each candidate from the Federal funds with donations being illegal?
For Congress, there needs to be some sort of accountability as well. If the rejects wont even be in Washington for votes, then they should be kicked to the curb.
We also need fiscal responsibility in the Federal budget, ie no more spending more than you take in.
The domestic problems facing our country are daunting, but can be overcome imo. We just need politicians that actually care about this country and the people who elect them.
-
Baby steps Elfie. We have allowed this open wound to fester for a long time. It could take an even longer time to close it up and heal it.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Baby steps Elfie. We have allowed this open wound to fester for a long time. It could take an even longer time to close it up and heal it.
in the meantime, the party hard liners would continue to vote and their reps would be in power. The dems would never walk away from their reps which leaves the conservatives to be the ones to force this change. As they are trying that, the dems stay in power and the country becomes a welfare state if it continues to exist at all...I'll take what we have over chaos, civil war & extinction any day.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Baby steps Elfie. We have allowed this open wound to fester for a long time. It could take an even longer time to close it up and heal it.
Agreed.
So when are you gonna fire up that website? :D
Honestly, I never figured that little ol' me could ever make any difference in American politics. Maybe in some small way I can, just haven't figured out how yet. :)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
in the meantime, the party hard liners would continue to vote and their reps would be in power. The dems would never walk away from their reps which leaves the conservatives to be the ones to force this change. As they are trying that, the dems stay in power and the country becomes a welfare state if it continues to exist at all...I'll take what we have over chaos, civil war & extinction any day.
Change is never easy. The only way to avoid what you are afraid of is to make a change. Do you really beleive if we just mind our own business and allow the politicians o continue as they have been, we will be fine?
Personally, I am not happy with 'just getting by' and I am more than frustrated with the lack of leaders we have been forced to vote for lately.
You may find the status-quo acceptable, but I do not.
Elfie, I would first start with a poll to find out how many people in ths country want to help make a change. I am afraid there are more Eaglers (no offense) out there than there are people who could actually commit to helping.
Anyone can make a difference. You just have to accept you will and can do it.
-
Skuzzy, how would you light the initial fire?
Advertizing of some kind?
-
Personally, I am not happy with 'just getting by' and I am more than frustrated with the lack of leaders we have been forced to vote for lately.
Ditto. :furious
Anyone can make a difference. You just have to accept you will and can do it.
Where does an *average Joe* like myself start? :huh
-
Originally posted by moot
Skuzzy, how would you light the initial fire?
Advertizing of some kind?
Definately have to advertise. We have to hook the various news wires as well. The biggest challenge is voter authentication. A way to prevent one person from voting more than once. I have some ideas on that. This has to be shown effective so the the ideas can be taken seriously.
Elfie, you start by writting letters to your local politicians. Get familiar with the entire democratic process. You local library should be able to point you to the various publications covering your local government.
This has to begin at the local level. It will be easier to accomplish and be more fruitfull than trying to make a national change. A well designed building always start with the foundation.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Where does an *average Joe* like myself start? :huh
by voting republican until you get your "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!" Network 1976 movement up & off the ground :)
-
The biggest challenge is voter authentication. A way to prevent one person from voting more than once.
Cpu serial number maybe? Cookies arent viable since every time I restart my comp all cookies get wiped out. Or maybe a drivers liscence number.
Elfie, you start by writting letters to your local politicians. Get familiar with the entire democratic process. You local library should be able to point you to the various publications covering your local government.
This has to begin at the local level. It will be easier to accomplish and be more fruitfull than trying to make a national change. A well designed building always start with the foundation.
Thanks, I'll check into that very soon.
by voting republican until you get your "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!" Network 1976 movement up & off the ground
While the Republican party IS better than the Demoncrats.....errr I mean Democrats, they arent THAT much better.
-
I think there needs to be an apetizer to catch people's attention. Something to make them realize why this is needed, why it'll work. At best why it's foolproof, at worst why it's better than the present situation.
Such as a layman brief, where each point is further developped.. on the website for example, where people can see the points connected in a transparent manner, from beginning (now and them) to end (the final plan)?
There needs to be something provoking so that they definitely bite. The initial encounter with the idea is the optimal chance for it to convince them.
-
Interesting speech by Ronald Reagan. Speech was delivered in October of 1964.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/reaganatimeforchoosing.htm
-
Ronald Reagan for President!! :aok too bad thats not an option :(
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
Ronald Reagan for President!! :aok too bad thats not an option :(
It's not an option because he already served 2 terms as US president and more importantly, he is no longer with us. :(
But yeah, I agree....REAGEN FOR PRESIDENT! :D
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Basically, you get the press onboard. Once they are onboard, you will be surprised how fast the politicians will follow.
Alas, 90% of the press are so liberal they make Funked1 look like a Reagan fan---and they believe they are doing good work in spreading their cause..not much there gonna change
-
Actually I am a Reagan fan, warts and all. I wear a Reagan Revolucion shirt every other weekend. Too bad he didn't live up to his 1964 ideas about debt. But I'd still take him over Chimpler in a minute.
-
we still love you warts and all :)
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Actually I am a Reagan fan, warts and all. I wear a Reagan Revolucion shirt every other weekend. Too bad he didn't live up to his 1964 ideas about debt. But I'd still take him over Chimpler in a minute.
Me too.
-
Ghi and anyone else who believes the 9/11 conspiracies about explosives and cruise missiles and whatnot, read this:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/conspiracy_cranks_opedcolumnists_james_b__meigs.htm
-
Originally posted by moot
I think there needs to be an apetizer to catch people's attention. Something to make them realize why this is needed, why it'll work. At best why it's foolproof, at worst why it's better than the present situation.
Such as a layman brief, where each point is further developped.. on the website for example, where people can see the points connected in a transparent manner, from beginning (now and them) to end (the final plan)?
There needs to be something provoking so that they definitely bite. The initial encounter with the idea is the optimal chance for it to convince them.
To some degree, that is true. In order for it to work you have to make dang sure the site is neutral. It's not about partisanship. It is about allowing people a chance to make a difference.
Basically, it could be thought of as a real time poll. The site allows any politician to sign up. It would also just list the politicians who are currently in control. Provide a series of questions for any politician to answer or for politician wannabe's to answer.
A one stop shopping for all your politicians. It could be broken down from national all the way to the city level. It could allow people to input thier thoughts on the various politicians (have to moderate that one).
The front page would be a challenge to the people of this country. The challenge being to make a difference, regardless of party affiliation. It's all about getting the message to the politicians and various parties.
Once section could have a wish-list of politicians the people would like to see run for the various political jobs. Then the site would run a mock vote. Something along the lines of, "If you had to vote today, who would you vote for?". Promoting the mock-vote would be high priority. Properly done, it might actually get people out to vote at real elections.
-
a myspace for politicans :)
you do realize even if you elect your different kind of rep, once they get to dc, have a taste of real power, make friends with ppl who do not share your pure ideals - they will be just as bad as the two groups that run the show now ...
my solution is much simpler ... term limits. No One should be in there longer than 2x .. period. If it is good enough for the POTUS, I fail to see why it isn't good enough for the ted kennedys. why does it take a scandal to get these overdrawn tards booted out? because of the power they amass once they get there ...
"In this country, you got to make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the woman." say hello to my little friend ... corruption, she is not picky, she loves everyone equally
-
On a smaller scale.....
The NRA sends out questionairs to all politicians in or seeking high office and grades them from A to F on their voting record and what they say.
I use this to help me vote.
If a politician doesn't trust me with guns.... I don't trust him with power. We can work from there once we establish that.
lazs
-
Hi Chair,
Originally posted by Chairboy
Ghi and anyone else who believes the 9/11 conspiracies about explosives and cruise missiles and whatnot, read this:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/conspiracy_cranks_opedcolumnists_james_b__meigs.htm
Come on, I think we all know now from watching the Zapruder film, that there was no gunman at all and that JFK's head was blown up by a small explosive charge placed there by Jackie on orders from LBJ and the Military/Industrial complex (MIC). This was done to pave the way for the invasion of Vietnam so that we could secure low-priced rubber from the plantations.
As for the "Warren Commission" it was so riddled with Free Masons that there was no way they were going to come close to the truth. Hugo Chavez sent me an email via his secret Yahoo account saying that Fidel has seen the real report, and its amazing. He also said that if I wire money to his bank in Nigeria, I can have a copy but they are apparently having troubles getting it to me (no doubt because of NSA interference) because that was 4 months ago. How long are we going to stand for the government messing with us like this? Demand ANSWERS people!
-
term limits. No One should be in there longer than 2x .. period. If it is good enough for the POTUS, I fail to see why it isn't good enough for the ted kennedys.
Yep. Term limits are good enough for the office of President, imposed on that office by both Houses of the US Congress. Yet...Congressional members scream and wail when the issue of term limits is brought up for them. I say put term limits on them, no more career Senators or Representatives.
When you go to Washington as our duly elected representatives, you are a SERVANT of the people. They aren't there to see how many pages they can have sex with, or how many blowjobs they can get from chubby interns or to socialize with the folks that gave large campaign contributions. They are there to SERVE the interests of THE PEOPLE.
-
It could allow people to input thier thoughts on the various politicians (have to moderate that one).
Are you sure about needing moderation? Not like we ever need to be moderated here in the OClub. :D
I really like this idea alot Skuzzy.
-
I like it as well. I see a lot of potential, if done correctly.
-
Being the huge computer tard that I am........what kinds of classes would I need to take to be able to make webpages like that? Just wondering.
-
The WEb pages would not be difficult. The backend database is where most of the work would need to be done, and even that is pretty straight forward.
The big challenge is finding the way to keep people from pretending to be multiple accounts. The only way I can think to do that is to actually have voice contact with the person. Force them to provide an accurate telephone number.
Could use social security numbers, but that goes to privacy and would probably scare off many.
Could use postal mail. Force a real address.
In all the above, you could just provide a single account login per person of voting age.
If it could be tied to the voter registration databases around the country, it would make it easier. I doubt that could happen though.
-
skuzzy... your idea is great... doubt the sneaky dishonest politicians would go for it tho.
Not that many would read or participate in the site but..... You can bet it would get quoted and used in the campaigns.
I think that politicians that refused to answer should be not allowed to run.
lazs
-
Lazs, you'd do well as a partisan, wouldn't you.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
skuzzy... your idea is great... doubt the sneaky dishonest politicians would go for it tho.
Not that many would read or participate in the site but..... You can bet it would get quoted and used in the campaigns.
I think that politicians that refused to answer should be not allowed to run.
lazs
Well, the politician who did not participate would shoot themselves in the foot. It would be thier own constituents asking the questions. And would you vote for someone if they just ignored you?
Basically, allow voters a place to pose questions back to the politicians. Each time you want to ask a question, the current list of questions would be presented. If the question you wanted answered was there, you just clicked on it.
If there is an answer from the politician, it would present itself. If no answer is available, it would tally the number of people wanting an answer to that question.
-
In order for it to work you have to make dang sure the site is neutral. It's not about partisanship. It is about allowing people a chance to make a difference.
Yes, that's it. This has nothing to do with political affiliation, only the proper functionality of the political apparatus.
What I meant is that people need to get plucked out of the usual apathy and lack of relation to the political system.
I don't know much about IT security, but that needs to be totally foolproof.
If anyone starts to funk with the system we'd put in place, there needs to be a sure way that it's repairable and keeps fingerprints.
-
Skuzzy, have you set a timeline for all this, yet?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Ghi and anyone else who believes the 9/11 conspiracies about explosives and cruise missiles and whatnot, read this:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/conspiracy_cranks_opedcolumnists_james_b__meigs.htm
I believed the WMD and Al-queada/Iraq connection too. Duhh, who do i trust, the conspiracy whackos or the govt.