Press for truth! [Archive] - Page 2

Hellbound

12th September 2006, 11:16 PM

Not according to this, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism) or the way I have seen it used.

It is the opposite of holding a moral dogma. For example, instead of saying, "All killing is bad", or "All lying is bad", you evaluate each instance of killing or lying. The moral relativist will admit that, under some circumstances, killing or lying is necessary, and therefore good.

I think moral relativism is unavoidable. Even neocons use it, right? For example, killing our people (WTC) is bad, but killing their people (Afghanistan/Iraq) is good.

At least, that's how I understand it.

This perception precisely the kind of biased, emotional response that I'm talking about. Devoid of reasoning, looking at only the parts of the picture that support preconcieved notions.

However, I doubt anything I say would make a difference, as facts, reason, and logic certainly haven't played a part.

But it's not worth losing sleep and getting my blood pressure up.

I'd appreciate those who have this view to let me know your names and addresses. If, for whatever reason, I happen to be a member of U.S. forces deployed into your nations for peacekeeping, or for a humanitarian mission, or to train local groups in sanitation techniques, or to rebuild neighborhoods, I want to make sure I know who doesn't want my help. I want to know who regards us as terrorists, so we know which direction to watch for an attack that will, most likely harm not just the U.S troops but the native civillians in the area as well (as the majority of attacks in Iraq/Afghanistan have).

Soundbites do not a story make. Most of 6 months in Iraq was spent building schools, playgrounds, and sanitation sites for local towns...as well as insulin deliveries so the local clinics could actually treat diabetes. Of course, that slowed down a bit when various groups began trying to shoot and/or bomb the construction vehicles, or the medical supply trucks...or when they began sending groups of Iraqi children in to stand around our vehicles, so we'd be distracted when they launched their RPG. Or firing at our convoys from school buildings or hospitals or similar sites.

But of course, we're terrorists just like they are, so I suppose it's okay, just depends on your point of view, right? It's all relative, right? We're just as wrong as they are, aren't we? Because we have a few rogue elements that act agaisnt their trainign and against their commands, that makes us just as bad as the organization that promotes these tactics as official doctrine, doesn't it?

gumboot

13th September 2006, 12:49 AM

Where are you from, Stellafane? If you´re an american
citizen, you might not understand the conversation between
Andrew and me. Pardalis should - as a man from Frankreich.

ADDED: Andrew may not know the whole issue of our
conversation, too, i guess. But i´m waiting for his response.

Oliver to be honest I'm not longer sure what our conversation is about. I am utterly confused.

Can you state again your stance for clarift?

What would you like me to respond to, again?

-Andrew

gumboot

13th September 2006, 12:52 AM

@Belz: Don't be fearful, Fiend God: Terrorism in context (http://www.jimpix.co.uk/words/terror.asp)

No, it happened because the germans followed him.

Are you denying that World War Two could have been prevented by the allies dealing with Hitler sooner?

Perhaps they are like the germans.

Nuremberg Trials, Indictments:

Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace
Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crime against peace
War crimes
Crimes against humanity

Your point?

-Andrew

Sword_Of_Truth

13th September 2006, 12:53 AM

Still waiting for that list of fascist regimes 'Empress has lived under.

gumboot

13th September 2006, 12:54 AM

And re: Tora Bora you missed the fact that they let the "North Alliance" do the dirty work despite the fact that high ranking military warned that these people weren't trustworthy (beeing criminals, drug barons, fanatics not much better than the taliban).

They didn't have a choice. Tora Bora happened before the US had a significant presence on the ground.

-Andrew

gumboot

13th September 2006, 12:57 AM

Proposal: We should attack Iraq.
Reason: HITLER.

This is just as dumb as saying

Bush sucks.
Reason: HITLER.

For some reason, neocons can see that one is stupid, but not the other.
There are tons of despots in the world, so it's relatively easy to justify war by saying, "Well, we have to stop this guy before he turns into Hitler."
So, how is Hussein like Hitler? Or, better, how was Hussein a threat to the safety of the world comparable to the threat that Hitler was?

I'm sorry. Are you saying I am a neocon?

By the way, WTF are you talking about? Saddam Hussein? Why bring him into this?

Don't put words in my mouth.

-Andrew

Oliver

13th September 2006, 05:43 AM

Oliver to be honest I'm not longer sure what our conversation is about. I am utterly confused.
Can you state again your stance for clarift?
What would you like me to respond to, again?
-Andrew

Hello everybody, hello Andrew.

Andrew, we talked about the reasons why something
like the holocaust or the nazi-regime could happen.
The reason why i and childlike seem to argue the same
way, could be a result of all the thoughts we made about
our history. Even if i don´t know her/him. Everybody
who did not dig that deep in this point in history, seem
to have trouble to understand it in here - this is my
conclusion to the response from others in here.

May i ask you to follow our discussion from the point
when i think i started to shift to this issue again?

It started at this point: #158 (foreign policy) up to #215
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63545&page=4

Regards,
Oliver

Added:
To everyone else who´s interested in this part
of discussion: #158 to #215

Axiom_Blade

13th September 2006, 08:53 AM

This perception precisely the kind of biased, emotional response that I'm talking about. Devoid of reasoning, looking at only the parts of the picture that support preconcieved notions.

However, I doubt anything I say would make a difference, as facts, reason, and logic certainly haven't played a part.

Why is it that when we talk about the slaughter of 9-11, it's OK to be emotional, and say "Never forget", etc. but when we talk about Iraq, we must be coldly rational?

The Iraqi deaths weren't tragic, I guess, because they served the greater good of capturing Hussein, and bringing "democracy" to Iraq, correct? And even mentioning their deaths is considered inappropriate, almost traitorous, since it might call into question our glorious mission over there.

Do a cost/benefit analysis of lives lost (US, allied forces, Iraqi), money lost, and what has been gained as a result. Does this look equal to you? Do the ends justify the means?Could it have been done without such a tragic loss of life? OR (perish the thought!) not done at all?

I'd appreciate those who have this view to let me know your names and addresses. If, for whatever reason, I happen to be a member of U.S. forces deployed into your nations for peacekeeping, or for a humanitarian mission, or to train local groups in sanitation techniques, or to rebuild neighborhoods, I want to make sure I know who doesn't want my help.

Rush Limbaugh once said that an army's job was to "kill people and break things". I don't often agree with him, but here I do. Armies aren't a charity. I'm not denying that they sometimes do humanitarian work, but their PRIMARY business involves killing and destroying, not healing or building.

Not that killing and destroying isn't sometimes necessary (moral relativism, remember?).

But of course, we're terrorists just like they are, so I suppose it's okay, just depends on your point of view, right? It's all relative, right? We're just as wrong as they are, aren't we? Because we have a few rogue elements that act agaisnt their trainign and against their commands, that makes us just as bad as the organization that promotes these tactics as official doctrine, doesn't it?

Nice straw man.
I don't think I ever said US ARMY = AL QAEDA. And if I did, I was wrong, okay? DUH.
That's a real easy way to avoid the issue that the army does engage in terrorist activities: sometimes as a result of rogue elements, sometimes as official policy. Does that makes them "terrorists"? No.

As for "just as wrong"...
How many civilians died in the WTC?
How many civilians died in Afghanistan/Iraq?
Oh, wait, I forgot, those deaths don't matter, because our cause is just.

Stellafane

13th September 2006, 08:53 AM

..Beeing a german i want to warn you that it is VERY dangerous to trust authorities and that there ARE parallels between germany 70 years ago and the US (and the whole west) today...

OK, Childlike, time to take the gloves off.

"Being a German" -- what the hell is that supposed to mean? That only Germans can understand Hitler and his rise to power? Do you think we in America are unaware of history? Just where do you get off presuming to lecture to us? If I wanted to get nasty, I'd point out that it was Germans -- your predecessors -- who elected Hitler, supported him, did all his dirty work. Somehow that sordid history gives you some kind of insight over the rest of us? Bull. You may loathe the history of your country (and I can certainly see why you would), but don't try to compensate for it by transferring its sins to other countries that don't deserve it.

Since you presume some sort of superiority, let me tell you a little something about Hitler that you've neglected to mention. Hitler came to prominence in large part through anti-Semitism. He demonized Jews, and got average Germans to believe their downdrodden plight was due to a vast Jewish conspiracy to rule the world and keep the German race from achieving its rightful prominence. Well, guess what? Many of your CT buddies believe an updated version of the same thing: The Jews did 9/11, they're out to control us all, etc. etc. See any parallels there? Or are you too busy trying to enlighten us poor, ignorant Americans with your superior German intellect?

So shove off, Childlike. You were kind of amusing for a while, with your obviously limited (one might say childlike, or more accurately childish) capacity to express yourself and reason clearly. But now you're just being insulting, in a way that I find reprehensible. Don't ever again presume an air of intellectual superiority. Trust me, you aren't even remotely qualified for it.

Oliver

13th September 2006, 08:59 AM

Axiom_Blade

13th September 2006, 09:07 AM

"Being a German" -- what the hell is that supposed to mean? That only Germans can understand Hitler and his rise to power? Do you think we in America are unaware of history?

Pffft.
We Americans are perfectly aware of history.
For example

Hussein = Hitler
also
Osama bin Laden also = Hitler
and
maybe that guy in Iran = Hitler, too.

We'll let you know when we've rounded up and destroyed all the Hitlers.
Never Forget.

Stellafane

13th September 2006, 09:14 AM

I don´t know Childlike, but this is my point of view to:
Quote>>> "Being a German" -- what the hell is that supposed to mean?
That only Germans can understand Hitler and his rise to power? <<<Quote

I wouldt like to have Gumboot online, but i guess he`s sleeping.

Hello everybody, hello Andrew.

Andrew, we talked about the reasons why something
like the holocaust or the nazi-regime could happen.
The reason why i and childlike seem to argue the same
way, could be a result of all the thoughts we made about
our history. Even if i don´t know her/him. Everybody
who did not dig that deep in this point in history, seem
to have trouble to understand it in here - this is my
conclusion to the response from others in here.

May i ask you to follow our discussion from the point
when i think i started to shift to this issue again?

It started at this point: #158 (foreign policy) up to #215
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63545&page=4

Regards,
Oliver

Added:
To everyone else who´s interested in this part
of discussion: #158 to #215

Oliver, I'm not Gumboot, if that's what you're implying. As to your defense of Childlike (at least I think it's a defense; in all sincerity I'm having a bit of trouble following what you're saying), you state:

Everybody who did not dig that deep in this point in history, seem to have trouble to understand it in here.

I'm sorry, but this is presumptuous nonsense. I'm not sure what you think of the educational systems in other countries, but I can assure you, I have indeed "dug deep" into the history of Hitler and Nazism, including college-level study and copious additional readings on the subject. I humbly submit that I am just as aware of those events as you are, and I have also thought very long and very hard about how they apply to the modern world.

Your implication is that if I just knew as much about the topic as you and Childlike, I'd agree with you. That's flat-out insulting. I do know enough about it to form my own, very valid opinion that you and Childlike are wrong. Can't you see the insult behind your words?

Hellbound

13th September 2006, 09:20 AM

Why is it that when we talk about the slaughter of 9-11, it's OK to be emotional, and say "Never forget", etc. but when we talk about Iraq, we must be coldly rational?

You a thatcher?

The Iraqi deaths weren't tragic, I guess, because they served the greater good of capturing Hussein, and bringing "democracy" to Iraq, correct? And even mentioning their deaths is considered inappropriate, almost traitorous, since it might call into question our glorious mission over there.

You must be a thatcher, you seem to have huge amounts of straw.

Do a cost/benefit analysis of lives lost (US, allied forces, Iraqi), money lost, and what has been gained as a result. Does this look equal to you? Do the ends justify the means?Could it have been done without such a tragic loss of life? OR (perish the thought!) not done at all?

If you want to critisize the war in Iraq, or argue it's usefulness, or why it was needed, fine. I might even agree with a lot of that. But critisizing U.S. actions and equating those actions with the actions of terrorist organizations and terrorist operatives are two entirely different things.

Rush Limbaugh once said that an army's job was to "kill people and break things". I don't often agree with him, but here I do. Armies aren't a charity. I'm not denying that they sometimes do humanitarian work, but their PRIMARY business involves killing and destroying, not healing or building.

Not that killing and destroying isn't sometimes necessary (moral relativism, remember?).

Nice straw man.

Also, you're missing my point on moral relativism. I do believe actions need to be balanced against circumstances...but I've only seen the term moral relativism in terms of "Well, we can't blame him for murder because he grew up in a bad home" or "Well, they aren't really terrorists because that's the culture they were brought up in, it's not thier fault/it's oklay for them". Or, more pertinent to the discussion at hand, "well, you've both caused civillian deaths, so you're both the same, both terrorists, regardless of whether those deaths were intentional or incidental, or if you intentionally tried to cause and maximize those deaths or if you tried to minimize and avoid them."

I don't think I ever said US ARMY = AL QAEDA. And if I did, I was wrong, okay? DUH.
That's a real easy way to avoid the issue that the army does engage in terrorist activities: sometimes as a result of rogue elements, sometimes as official policy. Does that makes them "terrorists"? No.

The army (as an orginization) does not engage in terrorist activities, anymore than, say, people from New York engage in murder. Some may, but it's not an organizational goal nor condoned by the organization. And no, I'm not avoiding the issue that some military elements engage in terroristic activities. I'm also not avoiding (as you seem to be) the fact that these are not organizational policies or goals, that these are punished when discovered, and by far the exception to the rule, rather than standard operating procedure.

Why keep hinting that the U.S. and terrorists are equivalent? You implied, rather clearly, that the U.S. actions and terrorist actions were equivalent. I wasn't attacking a straw man, no matter how much you'd like to back-peddle now. That's the entire point that pi$$es me off..it's a completley irrational response with the entire goal of creating bias and propaganda...not to mention it's an unsupportable position, to equate the U.S military with a terrorist organization.

As for "just as wrong"...
How many civilians died in the WTC?
How many civilians died in Afghanistan/Iraq?
Oh, wait, I forgot, those deaths don't matter, because our cause is just.

Now, for your edification, this is a straw man. I never said they don't matter, I never said we shouldn't be emotional, I never even said our cause is just.

You believe I've ever stated the Iraqi deaths don't matter? I spent hours with my hands elbow-deep in Iraqi blood to save the lives of some of those Iraqi civillians ( I was there as a medic). So keep your straw, and your rhetoric, and your propaganda, and shove your bias where it belongs.

What I'm saying is that there is a difference between the U.S. military actions and those of a terrorist group. A difference just like the difference between, say, manslaughter and first degree murder. Rarely does the U.S military intentionally try to harm civillians, and most of the time policy and tactics go out of their way to try and prevent civillian casualties.
Terrorists, prety well by definition, intentionally target civillians.

Of course, while we're on the subject of numbers of deaths, have you just been looking at total numbers? DO you know how many of those civillian deaths are not the direct result of U.S. action, but the result of the actions of terrorist groups? Those who set off bombs in the middle of their own countrymen? Or attempt to start firefights in the middle of crowded marketplaces?

But you're right, we're the bad guys, we're just as bad. Shoot, we're so evil, we should just carpet-bomb the entire country. Who cares about civillians, right? We'd loose a lot less American lives then, it'd actually be cheaper in the long run, and we could move in and only rebuild the oil wells and airstrips...save a lot of money on rebuilding homes, schools, hospitals, and all that other crap.

In your anal-ysis, you ignore motivation, you ignore tactical policy, you ignore intent, you ignore that the vast majority of U.S. action is aimed towards accomplishing our goals with minimal civillian casualties, and towards rebuilding and assisting the civillian populace...while the goals of a terrorist organization are aimed towards maximizing casualties of all types, civillian or not, enemy or not, in order to stimulate public perception and sway minds. Something that is done to create propoganda. Something that seems to be having its effect on many.

Edited to Add:

I find it funny that you talk about the "End justifying the Means". Isn't that exactly what you're doing here? "Look at the numbers of civillian deaths on 9/11 vs. Iraq...don't worry about how and why they happened, don't worry about the means..."

It's precisely because I don't always agree that the end justifies the means that I'm arguing this. My only objection is equating the U.S. (as a whole) with terrorists. My firm belief is that those who view the U.S. as terrorists are biased and not looking at the full picture, operating either from ignorance or prejudice. I've yet to see any evidence to the contrary. In order to support this type of assertion, one has to cherry-pick the minority of U.S. actions that could be classified as terrorist (and the vast majority of which are carried out by rogue elements against the law, commands, and plociy fo the U.S. itself) and cherry-pick the actions of the terrorist organizations (ignoring that the entire goal was civillian casualties, ignoring that attacks on a legitimate military target are rare, etc).

Childlike Empress

13th September 2006, 09:37 AM

If I wanted to get nasty, I'd point out that it was Germans -- your predecessors -- who elected Hitler, supported him, did all his dirty work. [...]

Since you presume some sort of superiority, let me tell you a little something about Hitler that you've neglected to mention. Hitler came to prominence in large part through anti-Semitism. He demonized Jews, and got average Germans to believe their downdrodden plight was due to a vast Jewish conspiracy to rule the world and keep the German race from achieving its rightful prominence.
That's exactly what i said. Now you have two possibilities:
The germans (and the italians, spanish, japanese (ETA: totalitarian regimes without the rabid antisemitism) etc.) are somehow inferior to the americans.
It can happen everywhere.

What do you think?

Well, guess what? Many of your CT buddies believe an updated version of the same thing: The Jews did 9/11, they're out to control us all, etc. etc. See any parallels there? Or are you too busy trying to enlighten us poor, ignorant Americans with your superior German intellect?
That is a very small minority but guess what? Most of your CT buddies believe in a vast and sinister conspiracy to take over the world. Those EEEEVIL islamists.

So shove off, Childlike. You were kind of amusing for a while, with your obviously limited (one might say childlike, or more accurately childish) capacity to express yourself and reason clearly. But now you're just being insulting, in a way that I find reprehensible. Don't ever again presume an air of intellectual superiority. Trust me, you aren't even remotely qualified for it.
Think what you want.

Arkan_Wolfshade

13th September 2006, 09:43 AM

I'm still waiting on either an example of a JREF supporter of the mainstream accepted explanation of events on 9/11, or your retraction CLE of the claim that we were/are mocking the victims.

Stellafane

13th September 2006, 09:54 AM

...Now you have two possibilities:
The germans (and the italians, spanish, japanese etc.) are somehow inferior to the americans.
It can happen everywhere.

What do you think?

Of course I think it can happen anywhere, but you know damn well that's not what you said. You said it is happening now in America. There's a very big difference, which I would think even you can see. I believe we'd both agree that anyone out here on the internet might be a pedophile. Does that allow me to say that you are a pedophile?

...That is a very small minority but guess what? Most of your CT buddies believe in a vast and sinister conspiracy to take over the world. Those EEEEVIL islamists.

That is a flat-out lie and again, you know it. A small group of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists conducted the 9/11 attacks, on that any reasonable person must agree. But I defy you to find a single member of this forum who have ever said all Islamists are out to take over the world. So prove it to me -- it's your claim, so prove to me that a majority of us believe there's a "vast and sinister" conspiracy involving Islamists to take over the world. If you can't, your options are to retract that claim, or let yourself stand exposed as a liar.

...Think what you want.

I will -- and thank God, with no help from you.

Oliver

13th September 2006, 09:58 AM

I'm sorry, but this is presumptuous nonsense. I'm not sure what you think of the educational systems in other countries, but I can assure you, I have indeed "dug deep" into the history of Hitler and Nazism, including college-level study and copious additional readings on the subject.

It has nothing to do with "educational systems in other countries",
it even has nothing to do with education or believes at all.

I guess you are an us-citizen - what means: You´re making a simple
failure in your thoughts, because your thoughts are based on what you
believe. But believing is not knowing - or in other words:

A terrorists mind thinks: "I know what´s the truth, what i do
is true, my god is the truth, and everything else is not true,
because only my truth and my way about thinking is the
only truth."

BUT THIS IS WRONG!

You remember my simplyfied "childs example"?
Now read again and tell me what i´m saying:

QUOTE:
It depends on wich side you stand to
claim - the ones on the other side are
the terrorists.

But you have to view it from a neutral
place to see: they´re both - or none
of them.

Like little kids - everyone claims: "He started."
"No, it was him". "Thats not true, he did it."

What do parents say in this case - from their
neutral position? .... "i don´t care who started..."

That´s exactly my point of view: I don´t care
what you say - because i don´t care who
started. It does not matter at all.

Think about it. I know you´re still in your old
position. Think neutral.

Added: Beside usa, 911, presidents, rights, terrorists,
al quaida and so on. Try to leave this side out of your
mind for a moment.

You may miss the other side right now, am i wrong?

dirtywick

13th September 2006, 10:04 AM

Hi,

What I'm saying is that there is a difference between the U.S. military actions and those of a terrorist group. A difference just like the difference between, say, manslaughter and first degree murder. Rarely does the U.S military intentionally try to harm civillians, and most of the time policy and tactics go out of their way to try and prevent civillian casualties.
Terrorists, prety well by definition, intentionally target civillians.

To add to that, Islamic terrorists intentionally target civilians and consider their deaths a great victory, according to Dr. Hani Sibai, the Director of London's Al-Maqreze Center for Historical Studies.

It's pretty hard to consider the US as a terrorist institution when they're taking the complete opposite approach, or alternatively for the sake of those of you don't believe that, the terrorists openly admit that each civilian death is a great victory for Islam and they don't believe that there's such a thing as a civilian, and the US does not and has not ever issued a statement like that.

I was in Afghanistan four months after Sep 11th attatched to a Civil Affairs unit out of North Carolina. The Army isn't just there to "kill people and break things", there are many units that are dedicated to, as per the mission statement, win the hearts and minds of the locals. They do this by rebuilding, educating, feeding, protecting, and maintaining relations with the average joe. There's been a lot more time, money, and energy spent towards that goal than anything else.

Hellbound

13th September 2006, 10:09 AM

Oliver:

So, instead of saying something simple and easily understandable like:

"The U.S. tends to think its way of doing things and its ideas are right, and forces those on the rest of the world. Terrorists do the same."

You instead left out the parts that would actually make the point?

I'd agree with that, to a degree. I don't agree that this makes the U.S. and terrorists the smae, just depends on which side you stand on. I'd like to believe that even people who disagree with U.S. policy could see that our goals, methods, and tactics differ substanially from those of terrorist organizations and operatives. And that is the point I was trying to make.

On policy, I agree. The U.S. makes quite a few bad policy decisions. We make mistakes. We do have a tendency to involve ourselves in everything. But whether this is a good thing or not is another debate entirely, although I know the sentiment exists (it's common within th U.S. as well, so your comments about Americans not understanding are condescending and, well, just plain wrong).

And Axiom:

On the same point, you seem to be confusing your disagreement with U.S. policy with terrorist activities and motivations. I'm not talking about whether any specific policy is right or wrong, but that the U.S. and it's military do not have any sort of system to promote terrorist activities, nor is this an explicit or implicit goal in its activites.

If you want to discuss the Iraq situation, or Afghanistan, there's probably a lot we'd agree on. Probably some we'd disagree on. But the U.S. actions and terrorists actions, considering each organization as a whole, are simply not equivalent in any way that includes logic and reason. It is an emotional issue for me, precisely because I do care. As I mentioned, I was a medic...most of my treatment was to Iraqi civillians. I held the hand of an Iraqi man, at 1AM, for over 45 minutes, offering words of encouragement (even though we speak differing languages) while transporting him to our medical clinic. The Iraqi civillians do matter, and their deaths are not meaningless. BUt there is a difference between accidental or incidental civillian deaths and intentional civillian deaths. The lack of ability or lack of desire to draw this distinction is what I take issue with.

Stellafane

13th September 2006, 10:09 AM

...I guess you are an us-citizen - what means: You´re making a simple
failure in your thoughts, bacause your thoughts are based on what you
believe. But believing is not knowing

Look Oliver, I don't know if it's partly due to some language barrier thing, but you're being incredibly insulting. I'm an American citezen, so that means I'm "making a simple failure in my thoughts"? So due to the fact I'm American, this must mean I have faulty thinking? That's an utterly bigoted statement, since you're apparently pre-judging all Americans to be unable to think clearly. I certainly hope that kind of bigotry is not prevalent in Germany.

Besides, how the hell do you know what I do or don't know? And how do you know what my thoughts are based on? For your information, my beliefs are based on facts, as I understand them. It's not the other way around -- which ironically is exactly what's wrong with the 9/11 denier movement. They're willing to believe things with zero facts whatsoever. Indeed, they start with the belief, and then try to fit the facts within the framework of that belief. They fail every time, but unfortunately cannot or will not accept it.

But please, stop making judgements about me based on the fact that I'm a citizen of the U.S.A. As the histories of both our countries show, such thinking only leads to disaster.

Hellbound

13th September 2006, 10:10 AM

Oliver

13th September 2006, 10:11 AM

I guess you are an us-citizen - what means: You´re making a simple
failure in your thoughts, because your thoughts are based on what you
believe. But believing is not knowing - or in other words:

A terrorists mind thinks: "I know what´s the truth, what i do
is true, my god is the truth, and everything else is not true,
because only my truth and my way about thinking is the
only truth."

BUT THIS IS WRONG!

You remember my simplyfied "childs example"?
Now read again and tell me what i´m saying:

QUOTE:
It depends on wich side you stand to
claim - the ones on the other side are
the terrorists.

But you have to view it from a neutral
place to see: they´re both - or none
of them.

Like little kids - everyone claims: "He started."
"No, it was him". "Thats not true, he did it."

What do parents say in this case - from their
neutral position? .... "i don´t care who started..."

That´s exactly my point of view: I don´t care
what you say - because i don´t care who
started. It does not matter at all.

Think about it. I know you´re still in your old
position. Think neutral.

Added: Beside usa, 911, presidents, rights, terrorists,
al quaida and so on. Try to leave this side out of your
mind for a moment.

You may miss the other side right now, am i wrong?

Answer the question...
ADDED: Answer it to yourself - then to me...

Stellafane

13th September 2006, 10:15 AM

Stella:

Check my previous post, I believe he's trying to make the point that both the U.S. and the terrorists seem intent on forcing their worldview on other nations.

Of course, if he'd just said that, instead of saying "the U.S. and the terrorists are the same, just different sides", it would have saved us all a lot of arguing. THe continual insistence that "you're American, so you don't know" didn't help either. :)

You may be right. But that's not what I was reacting to. It's precisely the attitude you articulate as "you're American, so you don't know." Sheesh, how narrow-minded can you get? Since when do you score debate points through flat-out bigotry? Screw that...

Hellbound

13th September 2006, 10:16 AM

Well, Oliver, I'd love to answer the question.

But first, I'd like to know if I was correct in my assumption of what you are saying?

Also, what, exactly, are you asking? What do you mean by "you may miss the other side now"?

Edited to Add:

Well, Stella, we can just turn it around, and forget the debate all together. I mean, since he isn't American, that means he's making a simple failure in his thoughts, because his thoughts are based on what he believes (repeat without further explanation) :D

Childlike Empress

13th September 2006, 10:16 AM

@Stellafane:
No, it happened because the germans followed him. They thought he was the man that would do the "right" thing and secure them from the versailles treaty, unemployment etc. In general: their fears. The majority first thought he and his obsession with the JOOOS were a bit strange but nearly no one wanted to really look at the horrific consequences "Mein Kampf" implied. Propaganda did the rest.If I wanted to get nasty, I'd point out that it was Germans -- your predecessors -- who elected Hitler, supported him, did all his dirty work. [...]

Since you presume some sort of superiority, let me tell you a little something about Hitler that you've neglected to mention. Hitler came to prominence in large part through anti-Semitism. He demonized Jews, and got average Germans to believe their downdrodden plight was due to a vast Jewish conspiracy to rule the world and keep the German race from achieving its rightful prominence.
What new thing is it that you think you told me?

I really wish i am wrong concerning 911 and the rise of fascism in the west today (Bush=Hitler is an extreme oversimplifiing of the situation) but i doubt it and i will do everything i can to stop this development, even if i annoy the people here with my efforts.
I think it's obvious that this is an opinion and not a claim that "it is happening".

That is a flat-out lie and again, you know it. A small group of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists conducted the 9/11 attacks, on that any reasonable person must agree. But I defy you to find a single member of this forum who have ever said all Islamists are out to take over the world. So prove it to me -- it's your claim, so prove to me that a majority of us believe there's a "vast and sinister" conspiracy involving Islamists to take over the world. If you can't, your options are to retract that claim, or let yourself stand exposed as a liar.
You know the difference between "islamists" and "moslems", do you? Your CT buddies are unfortunatly a very large number of people. I didn't speak of the people on this forum alone. But if you want examples here, i think it's safe to say that at least gumboot and MarkyX are convinced that they are a dangerous threat and want to take over the world.

Pardalis

13th September 2006, 10:16 AM

Stellafane

13th September 2006, 10:17 AM

...Answer the question...

Happily...as soon as you apologize for insulting me with your narrow-minded bigotry.

Oliver

13th September 2006, 10:23 AM

Well, Oliver, I'd love to answer the question.

But first, I'd like to know if I was correct in my assumption of what you are saying?

Also, what, exactly, are you asking? What do you mean by "you may miss the other side now"?

You are beginning to understand, Huntsman.
The other side is or i would prefer to say are:

The billions of people who have other points of
view - their truths. (Stellafane has problems to
understand that.)

Are they Wrong?

No. They also believe in what they´ve learned. And
i´m talking about normal people, not talking about
terrorists or whatever.

But as i said:
Believing is not knowning at all.

And it does not excuse to interact because of believing!

Childlike Empress

13th September 2006, 10:24 AM

Besides, how the hell do you know what I do or don't know? And how do you know what my thoughts are based on?Of course I think it can happen anywhere, but you know damn well that's not what you said.That is a flat-out lie and again, you know it.
:rolleyes:

Pardalis

13th September 2006, 10:25 AM

The "other side" is people who think there is no islamic terrorism?

Pardalis

13th September 2006, 10:30 AM

Oliver, who attacked America on september 11 2001?

Stellafane

13th September 2006, 10:31 AM

...What new thing is it that you think you told me?

Huh?

...I really wish i am wrong concerning 911 and the rise of fascism in the west today (Bush=Hitler is an extreme oversimplifiing of the situation) but i doubt it and i will do everything i can to stop this development, even if i annoy the people here with my efforts.

...I think it's obvious that this is an opinion and not a claim that "it is happening"...

Oh come on, now you're just playing dumb. "I really wish i am wrong concerning 911 and the rise of fascism in the west today...but i doubt it and i will do everything i can to stop this development." That isn't stating your belief that fascism is on the rise in America? A belief you attempted to defend with the ridiculous argument that it can happen anywhere, as if that supports your statement that it is happening in America? You're just being silly now.

...You know the difference between "islamists" and "moslems", do you? Your CT buddies are unfortunatly a very large number of people. I didn't speak of the people on this forum alone. But if you want examples here, i think it's safe to say that at least gumboot and MarkyX are convinced that they are a dangerous threat and want to take over the world.

I'll let MarkyX and Gumboot speak for themselves. But you said most of us believe in a "vast" Islamic conspiracy to take over the world. Prove that most of us believe this -- or retract your statement.

Oliver

13th September 2006, 10:32 AM

Oliver, who attacked America on september 11 2001?

19 Hijacker who belived in their truth. It´s very well investigated.

Stellafane

13th September 2006, 10:33 AM

:rolleyes:

Hey you know how to use the quote feature, good for you.

Your point? Or have you already gone bankrupt in the debate department?

ETA: Oh, I get it, the three quotes are supposed to be connected somehow. Leave it to a CTist to see connections where none exists...

Pardalis

13th September 2006, 10:35 AM

19 Hijacker who belived in their truth. It´s very well investigated.

"believed in their truth" ? Are you apologizing for them?

ETA: and BTW, if it's well investigated, why do you ask for another "international" investigation?????

Oliver

13th September 2006, 10:37 AM

"believed in their truth" ? Are you apologizing for them?

ETA: and BTW, if it's well investigated, why do you ask for another "international" investigation?????

Off course i do NOT think so. They were bastards to do so.

I wan´t to know the reasons for al quaida. I want to know what happend behind
the curtains. Maybe al-quaida makes the same failure as the nazis. Maybe every-
one who does not act neutral makes this mistake:

Quote from earlier: "Believing is not knowning at all.
And it does not excuse to interact because of believing!"

Pardalis

13th September 2006, 10:38 AM

Off course i do NOT think so. They were bastards to do so.

So what the hell are we talking about?

And answer my question about the "international" investigation please, I think it's very relevant to this thread..

Hellbound

13th September 2006, 10:39 AM

You are beginning to understand, Huntsman.
The other side is or i would prefer to say are:

The billions of people who have other points of
view - their truths. (Stellafane has problems to
understand that.)

Okay, now you are being incredibly condescending.

I'm not "beginning to understand" anything. I was already well aware of the idea you are stating. I'd imagine Stellafane is, as well. It isn't exactly ground-breaking.

The problem was in your inability to clearly articulate your point, and your quick jump from trying to explain what you meant to a simple statement of "you're American, so you don't know and you think wrong".

Are they Wrong?

No. They also believe in what they´ve learned. And
i´m talking about normal people, not talking about
terrorists or whatever.

Quite frankly, I'd say some are, some aren;t, but more likely most are right on some and worng on others..and that applies to the U.S. as well.

But as i said:
Believing is not knowning at all.

And it does not excuse to interact because of believing!

And that's pretty much the motto of the JREF (to a degree, but not really a good paraphrase...see below).

So, what point now are you actually trying to make? That people disagree? We know that. That others view us as imposing our will? We know that. Does this make the U.S. equivalent to terrorsits? Only if you ignore every other aspect of difference between the two. Anyone who draws the two as equivalent to any meaningful degree is wrong.

Of course, all action is based on belief. If you don't believe something you won't act on it. That's fairly simple.

The question is whether a belief is supported by the facts. That's the determination that needs to be made.

Childlike Empress

13th September 2006, 10:41 AM

Stellafane: You said it is happening now in America.
Childlike Empress: I think it's obvious that this is an opinion and not a claim that "it is happening".
Stellafane: That isn't stating your belief that fascism is on the rise in America?

Stellafane: Huh?
Childlike Empress: Huh!

Oliver

13th September 2006, 10:45 AM

Okay, now you are being incredibly
So, what point now are you actually trying to make? That people disagree? We know that. That others view us as imposing our will? We know that. Does this make the U.S. equivalent to terrorsits? Only if you ignore every other aspect of difference between the two. Anyone who draws the two as equivalent to any meaningful degree is wrong.

Maybe this is exactly what other people think
if they talk about QUOTE: "some american ignorance".
Don´t reply to this - i´ve quoted it, okay?

You simpley don´t understand it and this is very sad.

Pardalis

13th September 2006, 10:47 AM

I think you are both making an analogy between the Bush administration and Nazi Germany, and trying real hard to backtrack and say that you don't when faced with the question.

I think it's very cowardly.

Hellbound

13th September 2006, 10:48 AM

Stellafane

13th September 2006, 10:53 AM

...The billions of people who have other points of
view - their truths. (Stellafane has problems to
understand that.)...

Oliver my man, I have no trouble at all understanding this. Indeed, I suspect I understand it quite a bit better that you do. And do you know why I say that? Because I don't insult you by assuming certain characteristics of you simply because you're German. And I don't further insult you by claiming your disagreement with me must be due to a lack of understanding on your part.

You see, I assume you've come about your point of view by examining what you believe is true and basing your opinions and world view on that. It isn't because of your country or origin, or some mental failure. It's because we, as individuals, thought things over and each came up with different conclusions. We each have different points of view. The problem is, you don't seem to be able to accept that I don't agree with you. So you assume it's some inherent inability in Americans, or some personal failure on my part to understand that each human has a right to perceive the universe in their own way.

It's a weak way to argue, and it betrays quite a bit of intolerance and narrow-minded bigotry -- hardly a good moral platform from which to presume to lecture me on the virtues of understanding how others think.

Stellafane

13th September 2006, 10:54 AM

jhunter1163

13th September 2006, 10:56 AM

Childlike:

I don't think fascism is on the rise in the US, and yes, I'm an American. I don't feel afraid to express any opinion I have, nor does anyone I know. Rest assured, George W. Bush has very few fans here, and is going to spend the last two years of his term holed up in the White House for the most part so as not to damage the re-election chances of members of his party.

We don't have a perfect system here, by any means. But it does work. And our freedoms are as unlimited as they ever have been, the Patriot Act notwithstanding. I can still scream "I HATE BUSH!!" from the roof of my house if I want to without being visited in the middle of the night by tall men in black suits. And if I can't bring a water bottle on an airplane, I understand that there are tradeoffs, freedoms for safety.

Oliver

13th September 2006, 10:58 AM

Oliver:
You just can't explain it and this is very sad.
So you're saying some people believe the U.S. and terrorists are equivalent?
Even this is not news.
And I would definately say these people are wrong, yes.

Yes, i´m not able to explain how it feels to be in love
or how it feels if you lost someone. You can´t explain
it to someone who does not know. And this is sad, too,
because you don´t understand it.

2. No, i don´t believe that us and terror is equivalent, but
the muslem world thinks that americas intervention in their
belives are also terror. And this leads to hate and new terror.

I think you are both making an analogy between the Bush administration and Nazi Germany, and trying real hard to backtrack and say that you don't when faced with the question.
I think it's very cowardly.

I´m pointing to something you don´t understand or
you can´t accept.

@Childlike: You know what i´m saying? Do you think
there´s a better way to explain it? Maybe an english
word or term for what i try to explain?

Pardalis

13th September 2006, 10:59 AM

Pardalis

13th September 2006, 11:03 AM

Yes, i´m not able to explain how it feels to be in love
or how it feels if you lost someone. You can´t explain
it to someone who does not know. And this is sad, too,
because you don´t understand it.

That's the problem, you're talking about feelings. You have a feeling America is turning into a fascist state. Your feeling is based on nothing, except fear. Maybe you being a German prompted that feeling.

We want facts. Nothing is showing that this is happening.

2. No, i don´t believe that us and terror is equivalent, but
the muslem world thinks that americas intervention in their
belives are also terror. And this leads to hate and new terror.

No news to me.

Oliver

13th September 2006, 11:05 AM

Let me put some words into your mouth Oliver.

You say Al qaeda had in their minds very good reasons to attack America on 9/11, and in America's mind, they had very good reason to retaliate. So according to this logic, both are terrorists.

Is that what you are saying?

Pardalis, i´m talking about what leads to hate.
I´m talking about what leads to "nationalsozialismus".
I also talk about what leads to the holocaust.

And maybe Al-Quaida raised from an invisible
hate of millions or more of people. I said maybe.

Pardalis

13th September 2006, 11:09 AM

Oliver, this thread started when Childlike wanted to show us a movie which accuses the Bush administration of having a hand in the 9/11 attacks, and requesting an "international" investigation.

Now you're talking about the very common fact that people hate other people.

And somehow, you're linking this all to the Holocaust.

:hypnotize

Oliver

13th September 2006, 11:09 AM

That's the problem, you're talking about feelings.

No, Pardalis. I don´t talk about feelings. I talk
about ignorance in the world. It´s hard to explain,
like the examples i made. Why? Because it´s hard
to change a point of view, someone allready made
some time ago.

Oliver

13th September 2006, 11:12 AM

Oliver, this thread started when Childlike wanted to show us a movie which accuses the Bush administration of having a hand in the 9/11 attacks, and requesting an "international" investigation.
Now you're talking about the very common fact that people hate other people.
And somehow, you're linking this all to the Holocaust.
:hypnotize

Don´t ask me how this happend during the conversation
between me and Gumboot. It´s gone completely off-track.
I apologize for that.

Hellbound

13th September 2006, 11:13 AM

No, i don´t believe that us and terror is equivalent, but the muslem world thinks that americas intervention in their
belives are also terror. And this leads to hate and new terror.

Okay, stop.

You are wrong.

Where have we interferred in the "beliefs of the Muslim world?"

We have acted to protect our allies and our interests, and worked through non-combative channels to make changes, but nothing that anywhere approaches terrorism.

If these people think this, then yes, they are wrong.

If all you're saying is that "these people believe this, which motivates them" then, again, this is not news.

They are, however, objectively wrong, despite their beliefs.

I'm stil not seeing that you're actually making any point other than "people believe different things, and this causes them to act". Great. Wonderful, call the Nobel commity. Every time we try to take what you're saying and pin you down to exactly what you mean, you whip out the old "you can't understand" BS and act superior.

Sorry, but I'm done. Unless you can cut the crap and quit acting like the failure in communication is due to some intellectual failure on our part instead of your inadequate explanation, then go find someone else to bother.

Oliver

13th September 2006, 11:15 AM

Okay, stop. You are wrong.........

I prefer to quote Pardalis here:
"No news to me."

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1919213&postcount=311

Pardalis

13th September 2006, 11:22 AM

Oliver, don't pin someone else's quote against someone's opinion to support your own. It's dishonest.

Oliver

13th September 2006, 11:25 AM

Oliver, don't pin someone else's quote against someone's opinion to support your own. It's dishonest.

I quoted your view because i have the same view like you
about it.

And while he does not listen to me, i thought maybe he
understands it better if someone from Canada agree with
this point - to shorten a useless discussion.

Pardalis

13th September 2006, 11:29 AM

Hellbound

13th September 2006, 11:37 AM

Oliver:

It's not that I don't listen, it's that I have no idea what you're actually saying.

Every time I try to offer an interpretation of your posts, you give some BS comment about how I "can't understand" and then repeat the exact same ambiguous, unclear "explanation" you started with.

IF all you're saying is, as you seem to be sayg, this:

"Some people view the U.S. as terrorists."

Then this is nothing new, and this is nothing that Americans have any difficulty understanding. And it's pretty well meaningless as a statement by itself.

If you're suggesting that this view is accurate, then you are wrong.

If you're suggesting thast the U.S. should conduct its foreign policy based on not pi$$ing off Muslims, regardless of other factors, then you're also wrong.

If you're suggesting that this view is morally defensible, than I'd also say you're wrong.

So, are any of these the point you're making? Can you simply come out and state your point, or would that make it too difficult to act superior?

And where a person is from makes no difference. I'll listen to Pardalis because of many factors, chiefly among them:

1. If I am unclear on one of his statements, he will take the time to explain it so we are clear on meaingins we are using.
2. He does not act as if Americans are ignorant or incapable, simply because of nationality.
3. He is actually able to clearly articulate his meanings.

If you could do any two of these things, then we'd be able to move on.

Of course, as far as I can tell, it's more important for you to simply claim that Americans can't understand and to insult my intelligence, experience, and ability than anything else.

Just as an FYI:

I spent over a year among the people of Iraq, often working closely with them, and discussing beliefs, views, and politics and religion. I've spent time in Germany, in Saudi Arabia, in Iceland, Scotland, and Canada. I'm college educated, and I've studied history, literature, and sociology outside of my major-related coursework (and often works involving other cultures and nationalities). I've also studied arts from Japan, China, and Europe. Your implication that I can't understand is, frankly, asinine. I've a very broad view and experience of multiple cultures.

So, again, if you can actually explain what you mean, then we might make some progress.

Oliver

13th September 2006, 11:38 AM

The point I agreed with you is that the Muslim world, at least a big part of it, seems to think that America's actions are terrorism. I do not agree with that assessment, but I acknowledge that this is what they believe. That is what is not news to me.
And as Hunstman said, they are wrong.

This is exactly what i said about it. With one
difference: "Depends on wich side you are -
wich side you grew up."

Those muslims who think that americans are
terrorists, would also say they know that for
fact. So i´m pretty sure this discussion would be
exactly the same in a muslim board. With
changed characters.

This is funny, is´nt it?

And now we´re at the same point where i
started. But let me ask you to clear it up,
Pardalis: Do you have muslim friends - do
you know the other side?

Oliver

13th September 2006, 11:43 AM

So, again, if you can actually explain what you mean, then we might make some progress.

I claim to say this: No one is free of ignorance.
The rest has been discussed before and i´m getting
tired to explain it over and over again. It´s allready
said.

But i`m willing to answer concrete questions of yours, Huntsman.

Hellbound

13th September 2006, 11:45 AM

Oliver:

So, your point is that other people would have a view opposite ours?

Again, I understand exactly what you are saying.

But you (and they) are wrong, the views are not equivalent and only one is based on facts.

They may be saying the same things we are, however:

1. Can they point to instances where the U.S. intentionally targetted civillians in order to cause fear and influence public opinion?

2. Can they point to any part of U.S. doctrine, policy, or SOP that points to the use of suicide bombs, attacks against civillians, kidnappings and executions of non-combatants, or attacks against our own people in order to stir up emotion againt them?

3. Can they point to the intentional use, by the U.S., of children as bait, decoys, or weapon delivery systems?

4. Where people were attacked and murdered, by the U.S. simply because of a difference of belief? Held captive and forced to read propoganda on video?

5. Any situation where a U.S. spokesman has stated anything along the lines of "We wish only to utterly destroy the entire Muslim world."?

THIS is why we say they are wrong, not because of a difference of belief. BEcause of a verifiable, objective difference in tactics, operations, and policies.

Pardalis

13th September 2006, 11:48 AM

Oliver

13th September 2006, 12:11 PM

So, your point is that other people would have a view opposite ours?

Yes, off course there are at least as many people who
don´t agree with western ideas.

Again, I understand exactly what you are saying.
But you (and they) are wrong, the views are not equivalent and only one is based on facts.
They may be saying the same things we are, however:

And i say "you´re" and "they´re" both wrong.
...From a neutral point of view.

1. Can they point to instances where the U.S. intentionally targetted civillians in order to cause fear and influence public opinion?

Did you ask them? But i remember right now some reports of targetet
civilian points. I still remember the "aspirin-incident" under clinton very
well. Oh yeah, then there that report about the us-embargo wich leeds
to hundred-thousands of dead childs. Sorry, i don´t remember all the
facts.

But however: I still say: I don´t care who started. No! I don´t care
who started!

2. Can they point to any part of U.S. doctrine, policy, or SOP that points to the use of suicide bombs, attacks against civillians, kidnappings and executions of non-combatants, or attacks against our own people in order to stir up emotion againt them?

Come on - tell me what´s iraq about? Iraq had nothing to do
with it und you know it as well if you´re not on the "It was him, no,
he was it"-side.

3. Can they point to the intentional use, by the U.S., of children as bait, decoys, or weapon delivery systems?

It´s horrible to see the results of fear and anger. They do
just for fun? Where did this start? Where does this come
from? And again: I don´t care who did what. I want to see
peace on earth. And because of that you´re both wrong.

4. Where people were attacked and murdered, by the U.S. simply because of a difference of belief? Held captive and forced to read propoganda on video?

Now we´ve opend the religious side. This one exists a lot
of time before the americans. Yes, western people did so
a long time ago. Btw - before videotapes were invented.
Maybe the american and other interferences refreshed
this aspect.

5. Any situation where a U.S. spokesman has stated anything along the lines of "We wish only to utterly destroy the entire Muslim world."?

No. And the question sounds stupid to me because i don´t
know what you´re reffering to. The muslim world does not
think that way because of some "al quaida-hippies".

But again, things are just getting worse as longer it lasts,
so i´m sorry to repeat it again: I give a truck about who started.

Oliver

13th September 2006, 12:14 PM

I don't have personal Muslim friends, but around where I live there a plenty of decent peaceful Muslims who just want to go about their business. If they came to Canada, it was to escape war and oppressive regimes, so that they could enjoy freedom and democracy. Muslims aren't the other side, Oliver. Islamic integrists are. And quite frankly, I do not wish to understand their point of view. They are fanatics.

The fact remains that islamic terrorists attacked America on 9/11.

I know, Pardalis. Most muslims here in germany are as well
very good people with gold in their hearts. I just would like
to see that the world would work together instead of fighting
each other.

Btw: Some of my people also live in Quebec and some around
Vancouver. I should refresh these contacts. How are things
going over there?

Dog Town

13th September 2006, 12:21 PM

Oh yeah, then there that report about the us-embargo wich leeds
to hundred-thousands of dead childs.

Learn your history son! Children were dying because a mad man was building Palaces with the money! Not spending it on his own people. That statement disgusts me!

Oliver

13th September 2006, 12:24 PM

Learn your history son! Children were dying because a mad man was building Palaces with the money! Not spending it on his own people. That statement disgusts me!

This is what i remind. I apologize if i remind wrong, but
i try to find the source of what i said.

And beside that:
I don´t care who started. Why? Because it
does not make the world a better place.
Nothing of it.

Hellbound

13th September 2006, 12:32 PM

Oliver:

ON civillian deaths:

The aspirin factory was an accident, we did not intend to kill civillians. Please at least pay attention to what I actually say.
And the embargo did lead to many deaths. Why? Two reasons: Saddam continuously refused to comply with the UN regulations, regulations that were agreeed to by a majority of nations. IF he simply kept his planes out of the no-fly zone, the sanctions could have been lifted. Also, that was a UN action, not a US action. The second reason is that the established programs to allow for food and medicine were usurped by the government to smuggle other items. The deaths of those children was not the fault of the U.S.

On Iraq:

You seem to be missing the point. Those who lump the U.S. with terrorists are incorrect. The U.S. may still be wrong, I haven't argued that. But to equate the U.S. with terrorists is folly.

And my statements were NOT ABOUT IRAQ. That is your strawman. My statements were about the tactics used my radical fundamentalists, against me, my friends, and my countrymen in Iraq. Those tactics are why I object to the U.S. being labelled as "terrorist", we are not.

ON children:

Again, tactics I saw first-hand, and that were dealt with over there. Bombs were set off in the middle of groups of Iraqi civillians far more often than against U.S. targets.

Now we´ve opend the religious side. This one exists a lot
of time before the americans. Yes, western people did so
a long time ago. Btw - before videotapes were invented.
Maybe the american and other interferences refreshed
this aspect.

Okay, now you show exactly how biased you are. You want to pull into things that happened decades ago? Does this mean I should hold you responsible for Germanies actions say, around 1940?

The radical elements in Islam have done this, and continue to do so.

Sorry, but no leg to stand on here. IN fact, the U.S. has often gone to war FOR those who believe differently. Look at Bosnia...we fought for Muslims there. But, of course, this is ignored to support a biased, non-factual view in order to paint the U.S. as the bad guy. Again, I'm not speaking of Iraq, I'm speaking of terrorists. You say that these people are justified in labelling the U.S. as terrorist (we are NOT discussing whther the U.S. was right or wrong, jsut the label of terrorist). You are, demonstrably, wrong.

No. And the question sounds stupid to me because i don´t
know what you´re reffering to. The muslim world does not
think that way because of some "al quaida-hippies".

And agiain, my statements have nothign to do with the Muslim world, they have to do, specifically, with the label of terrorist. The things I've listed are all things that are characteristic of terrorist groups. They do not apply to the U.S. Thus, when the U.S. is labelled as "terrorist" by Muslims, Al-Queda members, Japanese, or Martians, it's an incorrect statement that is unsupported by fact.

Sure both sides may be wrong, that wasn't my argument. However, both a jaywalker and a murderer are breaking the law. That doesn't mean they're equivalent, even if both are wrong.

Stellafane

13th September 2006, 12:33 PM

..I don´t care who started. Why? Because it
does not make the world a better place.
Nothing of it.

So you're saying that it doesn't matter who started it, so long as it ends?

Oliver

13th September 2006, 12:33 PM

Learn your history son! Children were dying because a mad man was building Palaces with the money! Not spending it on his own people. That statement disgusts me!

Did a quick search...
http://www.embargos.de/irak/irak_belagert_vortr_ha0802.htm

Quote: "Auch wenn der Belagerungsring im Lauf der Jahre gelockert wurde, forderte die Blockade nach Schätzungen von UN-Organisationen allein bis zum Jahr 2000 mehr als eine Million Menschenleben – das ”stille Äquivalent zu zehn Hiroschimas” wie es der Sprecher des UN-Welter*nährungs*programms, Dr. Hannusch einmal nannte."

Translation:

Even if the embargo was softened within the years, un-organisations
estimate the deaths of one million (1.000.000) People up to the
year 2000. "The silent equivalent to ten hiroshimas", a speaker
of the UN-World-nutrition-programm, Dr. Hannusch, mentioned once.

Hellbound

13th September 2006, 12:39 PM

This is what i remind. I apologize if i remind wrong, but
i try to find the source of what i said.

And beside that:
I don´t care who started. Why? Because it
does not make the world a better place.
Nothing of it.

You're right. The thousands oif Iraqi citizens who were forced bya tyrannical regime to live without education, without sanitation, without freedom of speech, without the benefits of medicine were better off without us.

The hundreds of people whose lives were changed from invalid to productive and healthy due to as simple a thing as providing insulin to the clinics of many towns...they would've been better off dying in their teens or early twenties from diabetes.

I'm for peace as well, but I'm also not niave enough to believe that everything would be roses and unicrons if we just stop fighting. This has nothign to do with who started it. This has to do with how to end it. Despite what you wish were true, radical Islam is here, and it is a threat. Iraq was not directly a threat to us, I'd agree. But having seen the conditions there first hand, there was more than ample humanitarian reason to remove Saddam from power...consdiering we were the ones that put him there in the first place. I consider that correcting our mistakes.

So you want us to just quit? You believe that will make terrorists quit attacking us? You think that will keep Al-Queda or organizations like it from targetting Germany next? Or Britain, or anyone else?

Should we nuke Isreal, as well? Remove them as a country to appease the Arabic factions in the middle east? Better than fighting, I suppose...seems to be your statement.

Should we give up our freedoms and convert the U.S. to an Islamic nation?

I'm sorry, but I'll wait until I can see your views supported by something beyond opinion and conjecture.

Oliver

13th September 2006, 12:39 PM

So you're saying that it doesn't matter who started it, so long as it ends?

Yes. It just that simple. Peace means respecting
other views. Wherever they come from.

@huntsman
"The aspirin factory was an accident"
I know this, too. Tell it to millions of muslims
who heard that in their tv´s and radios. I could
swear that they dont think: "Oh, it was just an
accident. So let´s forget about it."

Hellbound

13th September 2006, 12:42 PM

Did a quick search...
http://www.embargos.de/irak/irak_belagert_vortr_ha0802.htm

Quote: "Auch wenn der Belagerungsring im Lauf der Jahre gelockert wurde, forderte die Blockade nach Schätzungen von UN-Organisationen allein bis zum Jahr 2000 mehr als eine Million Menschenleben – das ”stille Äquivalent zu zehn Hiroschimas” wie es der Sprecher des UN-Welter*nährungs*programms, Dr. Hannusch einmal nannte."

Translation:

Even if the embargo was softened within the years, un-organisations
estimate the deaths of one million (1.000.000) People up to the
year 2000. "The silent equivalent to ten hiroshimas", a speaker
of the UN-World-nutrition-programm, Dr. Hannusch, mentioned once.

So where in there does he say this is directly the fault of the U.S., or the U.N.? Where is the statement that this was due to the embargo itself, not that the government being embargoed did not take advantage of aid programs offered?

IN any case, you still ignore the fact that all that needed to be done to prevent the embargo entirely is for Saddam to actually follow the conditions he agreed to follow at the end of the war, as mandated by teh international community.

If you break into a house right after a police officer tells you not to break into that house, then is it the police officer's fault that your children now have to visit their father in jail? That seems to be what you are implying.

Oliver

13th September 2006, 12:47 PM

You're right. The thousands oif Iraqi citizens who were forced bya tyrannical regime to live without education, without sanitation, without freedom of speech, without the benefits of medicine were better off without us.

The hundreds of people whose lives were changed from invalid to productive and healthy due to as simple a thing as providing insulin to the clinics of many towns...they would've been better off dying in their teens or early twenties from diabetes.

I'm for peace as well, but I'm also not niave enough to believe that everything would be roses and unicrons if we just stop fighting. This has nothign to do with who started it. This has to do with how to end it. Despite what you wish were true, radical Islam is here, and it is a threat. Iraq was not directly a threat to us, I'd agree. But having seen the conditions there first hand, there was more than ample humanitarian reason to remove Saddam from power...consdiering we were the ones that put him there in the first place. I consider that correcting our mistakes.

So you want us to just quit? You believe that will make terrorists quit attacking us? You think that will keep Al-Queda or organizations like it from targetting Germany next? Or Britain, or anyone else?

Should we nuke Isreal, as well? Remove them as a country to appease the Arabic factions in the middle east? Better than fighting, I suppose...seems to be your statement.

Should we give up our freedoms and convert the U.S. to an Islamic nation?

I'm sorry, but I'll wait until I can see your views supported by something beyond opinion and conjecture.

Well, i think you talk about Saddam Hussein, right? Mhmm, i
wonder why the USA installed him a long time ago? A fiasco
in foreign policy, is´nt it?

It´s paranoia to think because of some idiots, that the
muslim world wan´t to assimilate us like the borgs. But
if anger and fear grows, there is a chance to step into
deep trouble some day.

What Israel belongs, i really would love to see that
people start to live together. Israel is another good
reason to not interfere there. Because muslims may
be more then very sceptic because it´s friendship
to america.

And again: I don´t care who started. You´re still
fighting this point. It does not make anything better.

Stellafane

13th September 2006, 12:48 PM

Yes. It just that simple. Peace means respecting
other views. Wherever they come from...

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. What you're describing is appeasement, which hasn't worked out all that well in the past -- a fact that you, as a German, ought to be fully acquainted with.

Hellbound

13th September 2006, 12:49 PM

Yes. It just that simple. Peace means respecting
other views. Wherever they come from.

@huntsman
"The aspirin factory was an accident"
I know this, too. Tell it to millions of muslims
who heard that in their tv´s and radios. I could
swear that they dont think: "Oh, it was just an
accident. So let´s forget about it."

Nice strawman.

I never said forget about it. IN my opinion, we should have done more to make amends for it. BUt it's not a terrorist act. That's the difference. We intended to destroy a military hideout, but had bad information. Terrorists did not mistake the WTC for a military airfeild. They did not mistake the hundreds of civillian passengers on a civillian airline for soldiers.

And I'm sorry, but peace does NOT mean respecting other views, wherever they come from. I DO NOT respect the view of ANY one who believes in genocide, such as those who follow radical Islam. I do NOT respect the believes of those who would supress the freedom to speak, to live as one wishes, and to otherwise act in wahtever way one wishes (without harming others). We should respect the views of those who think the U.S. should be destroyed? That ISreal should not exist? How? We CAN'T respect all views because many of them are directly contradictory.

And besides, the only views currently being disrespected is radical Islam. No one is disrespecting the Muslim view on any sort of instiutional or organizational basis.

You, however, seem to feel free to disrespect the views of everyone involved, aren't you violating your own principle?

"Respect all beliefs, no matter where they come from" is non-workable, ciontradictory, illogical nonsense. It can't be done. It's the type of extreme moral relativism I was talking about, that leads to nonsense.

Oliver

13th September 2006, 12:53 PM

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. What you're describing is appeasement, which hasn't worked out all that well in the past -- a fact that you, as a German, ought to be fully acquainted with.

Off course it´s not simple. And i also have no solution
for it. But it could be a good start to make friends,
not enemies - am i wrong?

Hellbound

13th September 2006, 12:55 PM

Well, i think you talk about Saddam Hussein, right? Mhmm, i
wonder why the USA installed him a long time ago? A fiasco
in foreign policy, is´nt it?

It´s paranoia to think because of some idiots, that the
muslim word wan´t to assimilate us like the borgs. But
if anger and fear grows, there is a chance to step into
deep trouble some day.

What Israel belongs, i really would love to see that
people start to live together. Israel is another good
reason to not interfere there. Because muslims may
be more then very sceptic because it´s friendship
to america.

My God, you really are that ignorant.

NO ONE THINKS THE MUSLIM WORLD WANTS TO ASSIMILATE US LIKE BORGS. QUIT BEATING THIS STRAW MAN. NO ONE HAS MADE THAT ARGUMENT. YOU ARE BEING EITHER INTENTIONALLY DECEPTIVE OR UNBELIEVABLY OBTUSE.

We ARE saying that, as declared by it's proponents, the goal of radical islam is to remove us from the face of the earth, remove us from power, or otherwise make us completely ineffective, or convert us to an Islamic state (if we wish to avoid the fate they would choose for us). You seem UNABLE or UNWILLING to draw the distinction between the Muslim world and radical Islam. You seem to be the ONLY one here that is equating Muslim world to Terrorist. I AM TALKING ABOUT TERRORISTS. The U.S. does not act as a terrorist. Period. Full stop.

And on Isreal, my word, have you EVER read any history?

You have it ABSOLUTELY BACKWARDS.

The reason there is so much animosity and mistrust towards the U.S. is because of our association with Isreal, not the other way around!

Sorry, but I'm done. You are either ignorant or dishonest. You ignore the arguments I make to make arguments that are entirely unrelated.

You are a biased, predjudical bigot. You have a chip on your shoulder against Americans, and I suspect againt Muslims as well (since you can't seem to seperate radical Islamic terrorists from the Muslim world).

Hellbound

13th September 2006, 12:56 PM

Off course it´s not simple. And i also have no solution
for it. But it could be a good start to make friends,
not enemies - am i wrong?

Yes.

Dog Town

13th September 2006, 01:02 PM

Well, i think you talk about Saddam Hussein, right? Mhmm, i
wonder why the USA installed him a long time ago? A fiasco
in foreign policy, is´nt it?

Have you ever been friends with someone, and now you aren't?
It happens! The enemy of my enemy is my friend! Those relations can, and do change. People change. Simple enough?

Stellafane

13th September 2006, 01:03 PM

Off course it´s not simple...

But you were the one who said it was simple. Now you're contradicting yourself.

And i also have no solution for it...

An honest admission -- but in that case, don't criticize those who feel that some solution, however imperfect, must be implemented, because doing nothing is not an option.

But it could be a good start to make friends,
not enemies - am i wrong?

Of course you're not wrong. Only a psychotic would think it's better to make enemies than friends; it's hardly a revelation -- even we weak-thinking Americans get it. The problem is, how do you make friends with those who hate you, who have dedicated themselves to killing you, who have done violence to you -- who in short, have no interest in being your friend, unless you give up all your own freedoms and become exactly what they want you to be? I would love to be friends with every country and culture in the world. But until they reciprocate those feelings, "making friends" is not merely simplistic, it isn't possible. And I say that not because I don't understand, but because I understand all too well.

Oliver

13th September 2006, 01:05 PM

Nice strawman.

I never said forget about it. IN my opinion, we should have done more to make amends for it. BUt it's not a terrorist act. That's the difference. We intended to destroy a military hideout, but had bad information. Terrorists did not mistake the WTC for a military airfeild. They did not mistake the hundreds of civillian passengers on a civillian airline for soldiers.

Yes, it was no mistake of these al-quaida-minority-dumba$$es.

And I'm sorry, but peace does NOT mean respecting other views, wherever they come from. I DO NOT respect the view of ANY one who believes in genocide, such as those who follow radical Islam. I do NOT respect the believes of those who would supress the freedom to speak, to live as one wishes, and to otherwise act in wahtever way one wishes (without harming others). We should respect the views of those who think the U.S. should be destroyed? That ISreal should not exist? How? We CAN'T respect all views because many of them are directly contradictory.

Yes, i also don´t agree with everything. But i try to show
a better way instead beating a neighbour because he is
a holocaust denier, for example.

And besides, the only views currently being disrespected is radical Islam. No one is disrespecting the Muslim view on any sort of instiutional or organizational basis.

Maybe radical islam comes from hate against west? Maybe
hate against west comes from interferences from the western
world?

You, however, seem to feel free to disrespect the views of everyone involved, aren't you violating your own principle?

Not from a "parents" view of "two children" fighting each
other instead beeing constructive.

"Respect all beliefs, no matter where they come from" is non-workable, ciontradictory, illogical nonsense. It can't be done. It's the type of extreme moral relativism I was talking about, that leads to nonsense.

This is what laws are made for. Iraq was against
international law, guantanamo also - from europen
view. depleted uranium has been titled in german
media as Quote: "Americas own weapons of Mass
destruction".

Oliver

13th September 2006, 01:16 PM

But you were the one who said it was simple. Now you're contradicting yourself.

An honest admission -- but in that case, don't criticize those who feel that some solution, however imperfect, must be implemented, because doing nothing is not an option.

Of course you're not wrong. Only a psychotic would think it's better to make enemies than friends; it's hardly a revelation -- even we weak-thinking Americans get it. The problem is, how do you make friends with those who hate you, who have dedicated themselves to killing you, who have done violence to you -- who in short, have no interest in being your friend, unless you give up all your own freedoms and become exactly what they want you to be? I would love to be friends with every country and culture in the world. But until they reciprocate those feelings, "making friends" is not merely simplistic, it isn't possible. And I say that not because I don't understand, but because I understand all too well.

I said making peace in such a scope is simple?

To think something is impossible - makes it impossible.
My point was that ignorance leads to some terrible
things, but as far i can see, i made some big steps
in a positive direction.

But we´re drifting far away from the topic - shall we
start a new thread in politics?

Stellafane

13th September 2006, 01:28 PM

I said making peace in such a scope is simple?
Indeed you did. When I asked "So you're saying that it doesn't matter who started it, so long as it ends?" you responded thus:

Yes. It just that simple. Peace means respecting other views. Wherever they come from....

...To think something is impossible - makes it impossible...
Never said it was impossible.

...My point was that ignorance leads to some terrible things, but as far i can see, i made some big steps in a positive direction...

You just can't stop being insulting, can you? So now I'm guilty of "ignorance," but fortunately you're around to bestow upon me the wisdom of your "big steps in a positive direction"?

...But we´re drifting far away from the topic - shall we
start a new thread in politics?

With all due respect, Oliver, I'm pretty much done with you. You started by insulting me -- in fact, all Americans -- by claiming we cannot think properly. That was an incredibly bigoted and prejudicial statement, one that you have made no attempt to address or correct. So I can only think that you truly believe yourself a superior thinker to me, based on the fact that I'm American and you're German. Sorry, but I have no interest conversing with bigots. Further, you've insulted me in other ways, particularly in suggesting my lack of agreement with you was due to my inability to understand you or the world situation. And your response to that was to spout self-evident banalities like "it's better to make friends than make enemies" as if this were some stupendous philosophical breakthrough that we unlightened barbarians have never heard before.

No thank you Oliver -- short of a string of apologies from you that I have no expectation of receiving, I have no further interest in discussing anything with you.

Oliver

13th September 2006, 01:34 PM

Okay, now you show exactly how biased you are. You want to pull into things that happened decades ago? Does this mean I should hold you responsible for Germanies actions say, around 1940?

Huh? Did i say that americans are responsible to hiroshima
or something? Of course you´re not. It brought peace, but
it was a gov-decision - and an act on innocent civilians.
A terror act - the japanese people would say.

The radical elements in Islam have done this, and continue to do so. Sorry, but no leg to stand on here. IN fact, the U.S. has often gone to war FOR those who believe differently. Look at Bosnia...

Bosnia was a good decesion of the UN. And about terrorists:
They have to fight these people in their own country. But there´s
no lobby because of anger against the west.

Sure both sides may be wrong, that wasn't my argument. However, both a jaywalker and a murderer are breaking the law. That doesn't mean they're equivalent, even if both are wrong.

I did´nt say they´re both equivalent. But that´s why we have
laws to both tipes of crime.

Oliver

13th September 2006, 01:39 PM

I did not say it´s impossible. No thank you Oliver -- short of a string of apologies from you that I have no expectation of receiving, I have no further interest in discussing anything with you.

Quote: "not merely simplistic, it isn't possible."

You´re geting childish, Stellafane. I did´nt insult you
just because i made general statements. So i apologize
if you feel personally insulted.

And i apologize that i´ve personally insulted you as
reacting childish.

Stellafane

13th September 2006, 01:53 PM

Quote: "not merely simplistic, it isn't possible."

You´re geting childish, Stellafane. I did´nt insult you
just because i made general statements. So i apologize
if you feel personally insulted.

And i apologize that i´ve personally insulted you as
reacting childish.

Last reply I'm going to bother to make to you: I never said peace was impossible, I said making friends with those who hate you and want to kill you is impossible. You're twisting my words in a way that's little short of lying.

And as for your "general statements" that Americans can't think clearly. I'm not supposed to be insulted by this? It's "childish" to take offense when someone makes a bigoted statement about Americans, when I am one myself? By that reasoning, a woman is being "childish" if she takes offense to a comment to the effect that "all women have inferior brains." After all, that's a "general statement," not a personal insult, right?

The problem is, you're a bigot, but can't even see yourself for what you are. And you presume to lecture me on the evils of fascism -- I suggest you get your own house in order before you worry about mine.

Oliver

13th September 2006, 02:04 PM

Have you ever been friends with someone, and now you aren't?
It happens! The enemy of my enemy is my friend! Those relations can, and do change. People change. Simple enough?

I made this expierience with friends, too. And i
know that sometimes such things happen. It´s a
big difference between one person and
friendship with countries.

dirtywick

13th September 2006, 04:00 PM

This is what laws are made for. Iraq was against
international law, guantanamo also - from europen
view. depleted uranium has been titled in german
media as Quote: "Americas own weapons of Mass
destruction".

To be fair, Europeans have to shoulder a large portion of the blame for their actions in relations to Iraq, but haven't. If it wasn't for Frace and Germany and Russia and China abusing the Oil for Food program, and obvious reason for their continued delay in taking any action against Iraq, this whole war could have been avoided. Of course, don't hear about that much, just a whole lot of finger pointing at the US.

Also, it's no secret Americans have WMDs, but I highly doubt they're talking about DU. If they are I wouldn't trust them as a very accurate news source. Sure, we use DU tipped shells because they're pretty effective, but they destruction, including the radiation, is hardly "massive".

nathanmcginty

13th September 2006, 04:04 PM

Man -- yeah, actually it is most of the same stuff -- only this time they focus on the stories of some 9/11 widows. i'm only at the 15:00 mark, but they already brought up the Payne Stewart jet and the "no steel framed building had ever fallen by fire before".

But..but...but...A PLANE FULL OF JET FUEL HIT THE BUILDING. IT WASN'T JUST THE FIRE....WHY DO THEY FAIL TO MENTION THAT PART???!!!

my head hurts. i'll just stop now.

nathanmcginty

13th September 2006, 04:06 PM

Not to mention the fact that I'm sure that the majority of the footage in this movie wasn't licensed. I guess nobody cares anymore. Kickass. I've got some movies to make.

WHOO-HOOO. Fifteen posts.

GlennB

13th September 2006, 04:26 PM

To be fair, Europeans have to shoulder a large portion of the blame for their actions in relations to Iraq, but haven't. If it wasn't for Frace and Germany and Russia and China abusing the Oil for Food program, and obvious reason for their continued delay in taking any action against Iraq, this whole war could have been avoided. Of course, don't hear about that much, just a whole lot of finger pointing at the US.

Not really. The war was founded on Iraq's supposed WMD, not failures to observe any sanctions protocol. Iraq didn't have WMD. Failures by anybody in the "Oil for Food program", or anything else, can never create WMD where they didn't exist.

My own country (UK) certainly does have to shoulder it's share of the blame though.

gumboot

13th September 2006, 08:01 PM

Hello everybody, hello Andrew.

May i ask you to follow our discussion from the point
when i think i started to shift to this issue again?

Right.

Oliver.

I have answered you. No, people were not confused or surprised about who carried out 9/11. No one was surprised at all. Look at everyone's accounts of what they were doing on 9/11. Take note how many people thought "terrorist attack" as soon as the second plane hit.

Secondly, no I do not believe Al Qaeda's antagonism towards the west is about foreign policy. I believe that is their publicly stated "PR" reasons. I believe it about as much as I believe the US invaded Iraq to "spread freedom".

Al Qaeda wants to establish a global Islamic state. That is their STATED mission and their organisational policy.

Those are my answers.

-Andrew

dirtywick

13th September 2006, 08:03 PM

Not really. The war was founded on Iraq's supposed WMD, not failures to observe any sanctions protocol. Iraq didn't have WMD. Failures by anybody in the "Oil for Food program", or anything else, can never create WMD where they didn't exist.

My own country (UK) certainly does have to shoulder it's share of the blame though.

Well, not necessarily. Perhaps if those influential countries hadn't been profitting so much from keeping Iraq the way it was, there would have been more UN support to properly enforce sanctions to begin with, long before this war even started, perhaps before the intelligence that suggested Iraq had WMDs was gathered.

All speculation, of course.

gumboot

13th September 2006, 08:29 PM

You know the difference between "islamists" and "moslems", do you? Your CT buddies are unfortunatly a very large number of people. I didn't speak of the people on this forum alone. But if you want examples here, i think it's safe to say that at least gumboot and MarkyX are convinced that they are a dangerous threat and want to take over the world.

Woah, hold on there ace.

You'd do well to not put words in people's mouths. I believe radical militant islam is a REAL threat. I believe, not dealt with, they have the potential to become a DANGEROUS threat.

Much like pre-WW2 Germany. Was Germany dangerous in the 1930's? Not really. Were they a "real threat". Hell yes. Did anyone try deal with the threat? No. Did the "real" threat become dangerous? You bet your ass it did.

Same again for the Roman Empire. Were the Goths dangerous in the early/mid 4th Century? Not really. But they were a "real" threat. Were they ignored? Yup. Did they become a "dangerous" threat? Certainly.

How about my own country's history?

Was the Maori kingi movement a dangerous threat to the new British-New Zealand government? Nope. Were they ignored? Nope. Did they turn into a dangerous threat? Nope. Would they have, if they hadn't been dealt with? Probably.

So, now you know my stance. But that's, of course, not exactly what you claim.

I don't believe the various radical militant islamic movements are united, or operate under a single leadership (much as given groups might try to present that). I do not believe they currently pose a serious threat to the west. I believe their goal is ideological, not "practical" (in other words it's a "vision" rather than a "we have black helicopters flying over the US poised to invade").

It's hardly:

Most of your CT buddies believe in a vast and sinister conspiracy to take over the world. Those EEEEVIL islamists.

Is it?

-Andrew

gumboot

13th September 2006, 08:45 PM

Yes, it was no mistake of these al-quaida-minority-dumba$$es.

And the west intends to destroy these "al-quida-minority-dumba$$es" Any objections?

Yes, i also don´t agree with everything. But i try to show
a better way instead beating a neighbour because he is
a holocaust denier, for example.

What would you do if it was the neighbour beating your children because he was a holocaust denier?

Maybe radical islam comes from hate against west? Maybe
hate against west comes from interferences from the western
world?

Radical islam pre-dates this.

This is what laws are made for. Iraq was against
international law

Please state which international law.

guantanamo also

Please state which international law.

from europen
view. depleted uranium has been titled in german
media as Quote: "Americas own weapons of Mass
destruction".

German newspapers said the 1995/6 Mt Ruapehu eruptions spewed out lava and were caused by French nuclear testing at Mururoa.

Depleted Uranium has repeatedly been proven to not cause significant health risk as used in combat. That is the opinion of the following organisations (based on extensive research):

World Health Organisation
European Commission
European Parliament
United Nations Environment Programme
United Kingdom Royal Society
Health Council of the Netherlands

Did the German media read all of the investigations by these organisations into DU?

-Andrew

Oliver

14th September 2006, 12:02 AM

Good morning, everybody.

Hello Andrew,

it´s seven o´clock in the morning and i have
not much time to to give you a large number
on articles about your questions, so i add
the first fitting articles i find regarding
your questions and my perspective of seeing
these issues.

Q;And the west intends to destroy these "al-
quida-minority-dumba$$es" Any objections?

Yes and No, Andrew. It had be a better way if
the middle-east had fight the problem itself.
But as i mentioned earlier: There is no general
lobby because of a "general mind" against
the western world, my personal conclusion
during what i´ve learned so far.

Q: What would you do if it was the neighbour
beating your children because he was a holo-
caust denier?

If i try to answer in the same symbolically
way, i would say that it was´nt my neighbour
who beated my kids. To be specific, it was
the kids from his neighbour and other neigh-
bours kids around the world, acting in small
cells like the former hamburg-cell.

Source: Wikipedia/Al-Qaeda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Quaida
"The origins of the group can be traced to a few
weeks after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in
1979, when a cadre of foreign Arab mujaheddin,
financed by bin Laden and independent wealthy
Muslim contributors, joined the fight against
the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan."
(I still wonder about the Bush-BinLaden business-
connection, did you hear about this?)

Source: bbc.co.uk "Who is Osama Bin Laden?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1551100.stm
"American officials say his associates may operate
in more than 40 countries across Europe and North
America, as well as in the Middle East and Asia."
(A lot of Neighbours with agressive children, but
fight all countries? - Beside my view that i don´t
see a serious threat of al-quaida for everyone,
everyday. Do you - and why? Off course they must
be stopped - like every other terrorists, too.
Stopping capital flows and money-contributors
instead bombings?)

Q:Radical islam pre-dates this.

How big is radical islam? For someone it´s very small
and no threat - for some all muslims are radical, wich
is a very dangerous kind of thinking.

Quoting from earlier:
"but fight all countries involved?" - the key
to this problem is a better understanding to muslim
people about the west and their intention to not fight
muslim ideologies and from western people to muslims.
Military interventions are the "oil in the fire" of radical
people there. A problem that should been fought from
the muslims itself. I know it would´nt work in the
current situation, Andrew.

Q:Please state which international law.

Source: 2003 invasion of Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
On March 20, 2003, the invasion of Iraq began. This
was claimed by some (Media spread this widely here,
remind this for later: First Mind is the most resistent
Mind) to be a violation of international law, breaking
the UN Charter (see Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Interview with former president Jimmy Carter
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,431793,00.html

Q:Please state which international law.

Source: humanrightsfirst
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/detainees/foreignnationals.htm
"Most of the Guantanamo detainees have been held since
2002, and have not met with a lawyer, family or visitors.
The administration has periodically transferred detainees,
returning them to their home countries for release or
continued detention. But the Pentagon has not indicated
by what standards or rules detainees may be eligible for
transfer. Families of a number of the detainees have
challenged the legality of the Guantanamo detentions
in U.S. courts. A decision as to whether U.S. courts
have jurisdiction to consider the claims of the Guantanamo
detainees is expected from the Supreme Court this summer."
(Summer is over - results? i have to look later to this
issue)

Guardian UK/Falconer condemns 'shocking' Guantánamo
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1871628,00.html

Spiegel/Learning to Walk without Chains
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,433886,00.html

Kofi Annan against guantanamo:
http://www.un.org/radio/story.asp?NewsID=3953

AlJazeera/Iraq child prisoners abused by U.S. forces – Report
http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=9194

Q: Did the German media read all of the investigations by
these organisations into DU?

German articles: (sorry,in german)
http://www.daserste.de/wwiewissen/thema_dyn~id,5c6qozoa672221ev~cm.asp
Depleted uranium casts shadow over peace in Iraq
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3627
Wiki/Depleted Uranium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Health_consideration

The results are still pending as far i´ve learned.
The Problem here is "peoples mind" again, and
"Peoples Mind" has nothing to do with sience, that´s
why this kind of "global thinking" within a country
is dangerous (Was: Holocaust (I´ve tried to explain
that during most parts of this thread - nobody under-
stands it, right? It´s everywere and most people
don´t see this fact: "Everything has two sides of
truth - like a coin - !both! are the real truth"))
Do you know what i mean, Andrew?

If you do so - what do you believe does the average
citizen from an english-spoken country think about
islam or muslims? I´m not talking about higher educated
people and i´m not trying to speculate. What do you think
is the "gerneral mind" there? Are there automatic
connections in these minds from "muslims - to radical
muslims - to terrorists"? In a average mind, not yours?

gumboot

14th September 2006, 01:45 AM

Yes and No, Andrew. It had be a better way if
the middle-east had fight the problem itself.

That's not good enough. The nations of the Middle-east have demonstrated, over the last three decades, that they have no intention of seriously dealing with Islamic Terrorism.

The United Nations is charged with the responsibility of dealing with threats to international security. Terrorism has been recognised as such a threat by the UN. The UN must deal with it. Whether the countries of the Middle-east like it or not.

If i try to answer in the same symbolically
way, i would say that it was´nt my neighbour
who beated my kids. To be specific, it was
the kids from his neighbour and other neigh-
bours kids around the world, acting in small
cells like the former hamburg-cell.

You completely missed my point. You talked of not using violence to address hatred. We're not talking about hatred. We're talking about acts of violence. Still want to deal with them by ignoring them? I don't.

Source: Wikipedia/Al-Qaeda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Quaida
"The origins of the group can be traced to a few
weeks after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in
1979, when a cadre of foreign Arab mujaheddin,
financed by bin Laden and independent wealthy
Muslim contributors, joined the fight against
the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan."
(I still wonder about the Bush-BinLaden business-
connection, did you hear about this?)

The Bin Laden family own the largest construction company in Saudi Arabia. The Bush family are directly involved in activities in Saudi Arabia. There is nothing significant about this at all.

What is foolish is those who make the leap to a connection between a PARTICULAR Bush and a PARTICULAR Bin Laden. For no apparant reasons.

By the way, the Wikipedia summary of OBL is a bit simplistic.

The Mujahedeen in Afghanistan were funded by a range of sources including money from the Saudi government channeled through the ISI as well as a number of private funding organisations including a large number in the USA like MAK.

The ISI wanted an official representative of the Saudi government sent over to manage the funds, as an official gesture of support. I believe they wanted a Saudi prince involved. The Saudi's weren't keen on this, so compromised by sending Osama Bin Laden - as a representative of a very important Saudi family.

Thus Osama Bin Laden came to manage Saudi funds being channelled through the ISI to the Mujahedeen.

Beside my view that i don´t
see a serious threat of al-quaida for everyone,
everyday. Do you - and why?

I'm not sure what you mean by "for everyone, everyday" but yes, I consider Al Qaeda has the POTENTIAL to be a serious threat.

How big is radical islam? For someone it´s very small
and no threat - for some all muslims are radical, wich
is a very dangerous kind of thinking.

I have heard it estimated about 10-15% of Muslims are Islamic Radical Militants. That's obviously a minority of Muslims, but in a decade Islam will be the largest religion in the world. It is the only major religion that is increasing its percentage share of the world population.

At current stand, 15% of Muslims is 180 million people. Hardly a small problem.

A problem that should been fought from
the muslims itself.

Should. But they won't. So we have to.

Source: 2003 invasion of Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
On March 20, 2003, the invasion of Iraq began. This
was claimed by some (Media spread this widely here,
remind this for later: First Mind is the most resistent
Mind) to be a violation of international law, breaking
the UN Charter (see Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq)

The UN Charter is not international law, it is an agreement for membership of an organisation. In any event, the Charter of the United Nations stipulates that any member can collectively or individually use military force to protect itself from anything it perceives to be a threat.

I didn't ask for an article in which people CLAIM the invasion breaks international law. I am quite aware that people have made this claim. I want to know WHICH LAW has been broken. I will answer for you. No law has been broken.

Source: humanrightsfirst
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/detainees/foreignnationals.htm
"Most of the Guantanamo detainees have been held since
2002, and have not met with a lawyer, family or visitors.
The administration has periodically transferred detainees,
returning them to their home countries for release or
continued detention. But the Pentagon has not indicated
by what standards or rules detainees may be eligible for
transfer. Families of a number of the detainees have
challenged the legality of the Guantanamo detentions
in U.S. courts.

Again, I didn't ask for links or a whole bunch of examples of people who claim the detentions are violating international law.

WHAT LAW?

State the law and relevant section.

For clarification, POWs can be held indefinately. They do not have the right to be visited by relatives or lawyers. They are not being held for crimes, or for trial. They do not require being charged. They are not entitled to any communication with the outside world whatsoever. POWs can be transferred to other POW prisons at any time.

Many German POWs from WW2 were held by the United Kingdom for years after the war ended - one man technically remains a POW to this very day.

German articles: (sorry,in german)

I don't speak German. Surely you can answer this simple yes or no question directly. Read the articles, and tell me, do the writers refer to these studies, or not?

The results are still pending as far i´ve learned.

The organisations I listed have COMPLETED studies. They have presented their findings. They are historical studies, not current unfinished ones.

The Problem here is "peoples mind" again, and
"Peoples Mind" has nothing to do with sience, that´s
why this kind of "global thinking" within a country
is dangerous

"People's minds" are irrelevant. All that matters is what the laws state, and what scientific study demonstrates. You cannot justify a demonstratably false claim simply because you can find people who believe it.

(Was: Holocaust (I´ve tried to explain
that during most parts of this thread - nobody under-
stands it, right? It´s everywere and most people
don´t see this fact: "Everything has two sides of
truth - like a coin - !both! are the real truth"))
Do you know what i mean, Andrew?

No. What you're saying does not make sense.

If you do so - what do you believe does the average
citizen from an english-spoken country think about
islam or muslims? I´m not talking about higher educated
people and i´m not trying to speculate. What do you think
is the "gerneral mind" there?

To make such an assessment is nothing more than speculation. Impossible to say. I suspect the majority of "average" people regard Muslims with distrust and apprehension due to Islamic Terrorist actions. I also believe the majority of "average" citizens will not admit this if asked by the media.

I would argue that the majority do not consider ALL Muslims to be terrorists, but this is irrelevant. Muslim Terrorists do not wear a uniform.

-Andrew

Oliver

14th September 2006, 02:23 AM

I´m sorry to let all questions of yours beside for a moment -
to give you (in a less confusion way) an idea what i´m talking
about. Remember: You asked how the holocaust happend? And
you answered this question. And i agree with your conclusion
about it, but you forgot one thing in your conclusion. ? - Later.

"People's minds" are irrelevant. All that matters is what the laws state, and what scientific study demonstrates. You cannot justify a demonstratably false claim simply because you can find people who believe it.

Peoples mind are relevant if a government needs the peoples
support! Right? For example: Going to war or changing laws.

No. What you're saying does not make sense.

Not yet, i see.

To make such an assessment is nothing more than speculation. Impossible to say. I suspect the majority of "average" people regard Muslims with distrust and apprehension due to Islamic Terrorist actions. I also believe the majority of "average" citizens will not admit this if asked by the media.
I would argue that the majority do not consider ALL Muslims to be terrorists, but this is irrelevant. Muslim Terrorists do not wear a uniform.
-Andrew

Because you´re from New-Zealand, you suspect that something
like:

"the majority of "average" people regard Muslims with distrust and apprehension due to Islamic Terrorist actions. I also believe the majority
of "average" citizens will not admit this if asked by the media."

...could be in their minds.

Now if we speculate this further - and i also don´t like speculating, too,
Andrew - But if we speculate that New Zealands average people may think
this way:

What do american average people think as direct victims of 9/11?
I know you don´t know it, Andrew. Try to speculate on this one.

__________________________________________________ ______
To the rest of people in here:
What might americans think - as personal victims of 9/11?

QUOTE: What do you believe does the average
citizen from an english-spoken country think about
islam or muslims? I´m not talking about higher educated
people and i´m not trying to speculate. What do you think
is the "gerneral mind" there? Are there automatic
connections in these minds from "muslims - to radical
muslims - to terrorists"? In a average mind, not yours?

gumboot

14th September 2006, 02:57 AM

Peoples mind are relevant if a government needs the peoples
support! Right? For example: Going to war or changing laws.

That's not what you were talking about. We were talking about whether a given action broke international law, or whether given materials posed a health risk.

The reality of these things about is entirely independent of "people's minds".

Now if we speculate this further - and i also don´t like speculating, too,
Andrew - But if we speculate that New Zealands average people may think
this way:

You asked about "english-speaking countries", not New Zealand. Last I checked, they spoke english in the United States. I believe the average New Zealander has a higher regard for Muslims, because unlike in countries like the USA and UK, New Zealand has not been exposed in any significant level to Islamic Extremism.

-Andrew

Oliver

14th September 2006, 03:06 AM

That´s why i left the laws beside, Andrew - it confuses you.

You asked about "english-speaking countries", not New Zealand. Last I checked, they spoke english in the United States. I believe the average New Zealander has a higher regard for Muslims, because unlike in countries like the USA and UK, New Zealand has not been exposed in any significant level to Islamic Extremism.
-Andrew

I said "english spoken countries" because some people in here
feel upset if i would say american people. I´m sorry for that.

Keep your thoughts beside for a moment and think about:

Is it important for Governments, that peoples minds are behind
them to take actions like war, changing laws or something
important like that?

gumboot

14th September 2006, 03:17 AM

That´s why i left the laws beside, Andrew - it confuses you.

It does not. Your failure to express yourself is confusing me.

I said "english spoken countries" because some people in here
feel upset if i would say american people. I´m sorry for that.

Yes. As a member of an english speaking country that isn't America it would annoy me too. Do you want to know what Americans think? Or what members of "english speaking countries" think? Make up your mind.

Keep your thoughts beside for a moment and think about:

See any problem here?

Is it important for Governments, that peoples minds are behind
them to take actions like war, changing laws or something
important like that?

In a democracy? Yes.

-Andrew

Oliver

14th September 2006, 03:27 AM

In a democracy? Yes. -Andrew

This is my failure, Andrew - it´s the language barrier in here.
And i appreciate for it.

But back to the conversation itself:

If it´s imortant for a democratic Government, that
peoples are behind their leaders:

I´ve heard about all the fear-mongering within the united
states - even if i did´nt made this expierence in that scale
here in germany. And it´s also present in a lower scale.

If the "innocent" minds of people in New Zealand, wich are
not effected by an islamic threat, may think the way you
described it:

What do you think, may the american "average peoples mind"
think about this issue - as a part of it because threats and
their personal expierience with 9/11 and the whole terrorist-
issue?

It´s pure specualating, but maybe you can give it a try.

gumboot

14th September 2006, 03:57 AM

If it´s imortant for a democratic Government, that
peoples are behind their leaders:

I´ve heard about all the fear-mongering within the united
states - even if i did´nt made this expierence in that scale
here in germany. And it´s also present in a lower scale.

"Fear-mongering" is a fairly subjective term. The government of the United Kingdom in the 1930's considered Winston Churchill to be a fear-mongerer.

What do you think, may the american "average peoples mind"
think about this issue - as a part of it because threats and
their personal expierience with 9/11 and the whole terrorist-
issue?

It´s pure specualating, but maybe you can give it a try.

Look, I havea lready told you my thoughts for "english speaking countries". I will not take it any further than that. I am tired of your games. It feels suspiciously to me like you want me to say "The Average American hates muslims and thinks all muslims are terrorists".

You might think that. It wouldn't surprise me if your media is CLAIMING that. But I don't believe it for a second.

-Andrew

Oliver

14th September 2006, 04:05 AM

"The Average American hates muslims and thinks all muslims are terrorists". You might think that. It wouldn't surprise me if your media is CLAIMING that. But I don't believe it for a second.
-Andrew

No, i don´t think that americans hate muslims or
that they think they´re all terrorists.

That´s not what i try to explain. I also think about
"giving up" to explain it any further to you, just because
theres to much missunderstanding in here and you try
to explain yourself instead following the discussion to
the point where everything starts to make sense.

Maybe we should defer the discussion or - if you wish
to, stop it completely.

gumboot

14th September 2006, 04:25 AM

That´s not what i try to explain. I also think about
"giving up" to explain it any further to you, just because
theres to much missunderstanding in here and you try
to explain yourself instead following the discussion to
the point where everything starts to make sense.

The problem, Oliver, is you are not making sense. By that, I mean linguistically. Certainly your grasp on English is better than my grasp on German, but nonetheless, we are not capable of communicating because we do not share a common language.

Let us start again shall we?

CLE posted a link to a video. I watched that video. I concluded it was poorly made, heavily biased, and full of factual errors and speculation.

You seem to think otherwise.

Discuss.

-Andrew

Oliver

14th September 2006, 04:37 AM

CLE posted a link to a video. I watched that video. I concluded it was poorly made, heavily biased, and full of factual errors and speculation.

You seem to think otherwise.

Discuss.

-Andrew

Well, Andrew. It´s fine to see that you still take
me as a serious partner to discuss issues. It´s
hard to start from the point i tried to discuss the
"holocaust thing and the mocking victims thing".

My head is also ringing because of our discussion,
maybe yours because of trying to understand and
mine because of trying to explain.

The discussion itself had nothing to do with the
video after shifting to the mocking and holocaust
thing. So i´m sorry for the people who thought,
that it had something to do with each other.

So my suggestion is to defer the discussion - so
i have some time to formulate and to summarize
our conversation to a point where we could restart
it - right now my head is not capable of this. :rolleyes:

I have some things to do right now, but let me thank
you that you´re a very sceptic, but openminded
heart, Andrew.

Regards,
Oliver :)

Brainster

23rd September 2006, 06:19 PM

Okay, I started watching this film today, and have my comments up about the first ten minutes at the blog (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/09/9-11-press-for-truth-analysis-part-i.html). Suffice to say that it's pretty shoddy when you look at the "top" questions that they ask in this segment.

Oliver

23rd September 2006, 06:21 PM

T.A.M.

23rd September 2006, 07:02 PM

I have watched it all.

The movie is strong not for what it says, so much as what it doesn't say. The "truth" movements biggest killer is their outrageousness. On the 5th anniversary they got out there on the MSM and basicly people laughed at them. "No planes" hit the towers "a missile" hit the pentagon. joe public dismissed them.

Now here, here is a movie that makes the USG look bad, but does so in a more subtle way. They use all the tricks...the music, the sympathy card (The jersey girls - you cannot dislike them, even if you wanted to). They bring up alot of issues through out the movie that leave you wondering, especially if you are Mr. uninformed Joe public...the creators know this. The strongest section I believe, has to do with the "why we didnt get the bad guys" which comes about halfway or 2/3rds into the film.

Overall, it is weaker than LC in terms of its accusations, but much stronger in terms of its appeal/acceptance factor...which is the most dangerous thing about the film.

TAM

Oliver

23rd September 2006, 07:07 PM

T.A.M.

23rd September 2006, 08:32 PM

Oliver:

Points that I would like clarification and or more information on wrt 9/11

1. Pakistani connection - how high up did it go. Are we protecting the money men in order to maintain Pakistan as an ally?

2. Why OBL escaped at Tora Bora - Did they allow him to leave, or did he just weasel out? If they allowed him, then why?

TAM

Brainster

24th September 2006, 01:35 AM

Overall, it is weaker than LC in terms of its accusations, but much stronger in terms of its appeal/acceptance factor...which is the most dangerous thing about the film.

TAM

I agree. One of the most appalling things about this mockumentary is the filmmakers' use of the family members; allowing them to do the lying and exaggerating. I've already touched on one such instance (the 2 hours that the hijacked planes were supposedly flying around), but there are more within the first 20 minutes. For example a fireman's mom says:

"The largest structural collapse in world history, the largest loss of life on American soil since the Civil War and not one governmental or elected official wanted to know why and how this happened?"

Believe it or not, she's talking about the collapse of the towers (although the movie sandwiches this between discussions of WTC 7). The most studied collapses in history and she thinks nobody was interested?

Bob McIlvaine, a longtime 9-11 Denier, (he was on Cynthia McKinney's nutty Citizen's Commission) claims that the Lewinsky investigation cost $100 million. Of course, the true figure is more like $80 million, which included the cost of the Whitewater investigation as well.

Ordinarily I'd have no trouble describing these lies as what they are. But it's a little trickier when you're talking about family members of the victims--you run the risk of coming off like Dylan "laugh in their faces" Avery.

They also include plenty of inside nudges to the 9-11 Deniers (like the focus on WTC 7).

Pardalis

24th September 2006, 01:46 AM

They also include plenty of inside nudges to the 9-11 Deniers (like the focus on WTC 7).

Yeah, what the heck was that about? They don't even go back to it in the film. The film might have good points (like the Pakistani connection), but that WTC 7 business really blows it.

[political derail]

It's the same thing with any anti-Bush movement, for me. Even if they are right in alot of ways, they somehow allow this nonesense. I don't know if it's because they believe it, or simply allow it because it helps their cause. Either way I think it's wrong. Unfortunately, it doesn't help their cause and it makes me want to ignore their entire movement altogether.

[back on topic]

T.A.M.

24th September 2006, 06:06 AM

The problem for me, is what I know. It makes it easy for me to dismiss alot of the "nudges" that are so obvious to you and I.

From the perspective of a fence sitter, or a newbie to the issue, it is much different. To them this movie will come off as a powerful (via the sympathy factor) documentary that asks some serious questions that have gone unanswered. All of us here admit that it is impossible to deny the requests of the victim families, and the filmmakers know this, and maximize this factor.

Scary film, despite most of the arguments, from OUR perspective, being weak.

TAM

Oliver

24th September 2006, 06:25 AM

I wonder that there are no english, on pure facts based documentaries out there or am i wrong and i missed them?

BBC had a good docu called "In the Footsteps of OBL" some time ago but i never heard about a deeper, neutral look into the backgrounds of 9/11 beside the spiegel-docu in german. :confused:

T.A.M.

24th September 2006, 07:30 AM

Oliver

24th September 2006, 09:44 AM

I am sure there are many fact based documentaries on 9/11. the trouble, is that the "truth" movement refers to all of them as "official story nonsense". PBS has a few, all of which are rejected by the CT crowd.

TAM

Thank you for the PBS-hint, TAM. :)

Whoever want´s to learn more about the 9/11 backgrounds:
http://www.shoppbs.org/searchHandler/index.jsp?searchId=18680417412&keywords=Al+Qaeda&view=all

Brainster

25th September 2006, 09:26 AM

I cover the third ten-minute segment at the blog (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/09/9-11-press-for-truth-analysis-part-iii.html). One of the Jersey Girls says she "knew the fix was in" on the 9-11 Commission, when only two members (one Republican and one Democrat) were allowed to view classified information. We also learn that the commission members were all lawyers or former DC insiders. Yes, shockingly, the 9-11 Commission did not include any housewives or bus drivers, an obvious oversight.

T.A.M.

25th September 2006, 02:01 PM

Brainster

26th September 2006, 12:00 AM

I find it hard to watch. I know the JGs are entitled to feel how they feel. What makes it hard, is I am 100% positive that the filmakers have cherry picked within the interviews with the JGs to get the tidbits they have put in there. I am sure if the full truth be known, they are probably angry, anti-war protesters, who lost loved ones in 9/11 rather than Conspiratoids.

TAM

Yes, that is why the film makes no overt claims like Loose Change; it's all about "questions". I have to admit, I've mostly avoided shows like Larry King, etc., for many years and so I did not have a lot of experience with the JGs. No wonder even notorious sob sisters like Matthews were tired of them.

~enigma~

8th January 2007, 10:58 AM

Did i missed something? No one is denying the holocaust...
Otherwise i would tell him something... :mad:
Yes Oliver you missed the point or maybe it was so sharp it went right through you :)

Oliver

8th January 2007, 02:22 PM

Yes Oliver you missed the point or maybe it was so sharp it went right through you :)

Hey, this was oner of my very first threads - i was young and naive. :D

Childlike Empress

8th January 2007, 08:20 PM

Face the facts, closet truthers.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/990745a309f641f21.gif

JimBenArm

8th January 2007, 08:55 PM

Face the facts, closet truthers.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/990745a309f641f21.gif

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Sword_Of_Truth

8th January 2007, 10:52 PM

Bumping old threads for attention, CLE?

~enigma~

8th January 2007, 11:28 PM

Hey, this was oner of my very first threads - i was young and naive. :D
Ever notice what naive spelled backwards is?

gumboot

8th January 2007, 11:39 PM

In some ways I think the JG deserve more of a smackdown than the average troofer.

It's bad enough when an ignorant moron spouts untrue claims about 9/11 such as a NORAD stand down and no money being put into investigating the attacks.

But when relatives of victims who claim to have researched the attacks for years start making the same claims, and carrying their emotional weight with them, lots of people will be suckered in.

Losing a loved one does not exempt people from being called out when they make false statements without proof. Fortunately as a foreigner far away, it's easy for me because I don't have as strong an emotional attachment to the events of 9/11. But I find it a bit sad when skeptics go all meek in the face of a victim-relative troofer and stop short of calling BS.

And yes, I'd happily face the JG who made those comments about a military stand down in person and tell her myself that she's full of crap.

I wouyld probably end up offending her and no doubt it'd look bad, but the way I look at it, I'm only disrespecting one person by doing that, by her false statements she is dismissing and slandering the dozens and dozens of pilots, NORAD staff, and ATC controllers who desperatly struggled to stop the four flights that day.

-Gumboot

Pardalis

8th January 2007, 11:43 PM

Bumping old threads for attention, CLE?

Enigma is the one who revived the thread.

~enigma~

8th January 2007, 11:54 PM

Enigma is the one who revived the thread.

And it remains a mystery to me why it appeared on the first page for me yesterday since there were no posts since September. Was CLE playing a jedi mind trick on me? Like Abby did to Jason Butthead...I mean Bermas? Or was it like Gravy's jedi finger roll on Dylyan "Catatonic" Avery?

Oliver

9th January 2007, 12:39 AM

Ever notice what naive spelled backwards is?

A town in France? Mineral water? :confused:

~enigma~

9th January 2007, 12:43 AM

A town in France? Mineral water? :confused:
It's a CT started by Georgie boy and the jooooos did it :)

ETA - don't forget (like I did) - you are what you eat or in this case drink - Evian....just say no :)

28th Kingdom

9th January 2007, 01:55 AM

Firestone

9th January 2007, 01:59 AM

Are the 9/11 victim's families in this video, crazy conspiracy theorists? Yes or No. Who dares answer that? No one dares... no one dares... NO

ONE

would ever answer that question... ever

NEVER

would they... answer that question.If they believe in crazy theories then they are crazy conspiracy theorists!

Voila, I dared. Happy?

Now, when will you apologize for claiming that we made your stupid post about freefall up? When will you do the honorable thing?

gumboot

9th January 2007, 03:00 AM

Are the 9/11 victim's families in this video, crazy conspiracy theorists? Yes or No. Who dares answer that? No one dares... no one dares... NO

ONE

would ever answer that question... ever

NEVER

would they... answer that question.

I already answered it above.

The Jersey Girl who claimed to have extensively researched every aspect of 9/11, and then, based on this false authority, claimed there was a military stand down, is one of two things:
1) A liar
2) A crazy conspiracy theorist (and probably stupid too)

-Gumboot

Indolent Wretch

9th January 2007, 03:23 AM

Are the 9/11 victim's families in this video, crazy conspiracy theorists? Yes or No. Who dares answer that? No one dares... no one dares... NO

ONE

would ever answer that question... ever

NEVER

would they... answer that question.

I'll answer it.

No.

They are grief stricken, they have suffered a great loss. The human mind at this time grasps for anything it can get. Some of them probably can't understand that a bunch of strangers would kill their loved ones out of an indirect ideological hatred. They can't understand it, I appreciate that. If it was personal, direct, understandable human emotion, then they may have closure.

But they can't handle what actually happened.

They look around grasping for an alternative.

Either on their own or due to the swill being peddled by the likes of you they have found out that it wasn't a small bunch of Islamic strangers. No. It was the government. People they voted for. People they trusted. These people killed their loved ones and something must be done about it.

It's a crutch, it gives them support, it gives them a cause, something to cling onto. It keeps their loved ones more alive in their minds than genuine closure would.

It's perfectly understandable that some of the victims families can't let go, that they circle around and around in this unhealthy, blame seeking, holding pattern. But their hugely personal emotional entanglement means that they are exactly the wrong people to believe when asking 'what happened that day'.

You know this 28th. No human being is dumb enough not to realise this.

I'm not going to call them "crazy conspiracy theorists", I think it would be fairer to describe them as "grief stricken desperate people, who have come to believe in a crazy conspiracy theory".

And you know what. They have that right.

You on the other hand, clearly unburdened by personal grief should be capable of a greater level of clarity.