ForumGarden

I guess I am gonna get replies that go: "Here we go again you young punk!" and "That was done to death two years ago you alpha-puppy!" but i"m posting the thread anyway.

Firstly because I wasn't here in 2006, secondly because I only got this particular e-mail yesterday and thirdly because I want to post it ... so here it is!



I received an e-mail yesterday supposedly showing a “recent Muslim march thru the streets of London during their “Religion of Peace Demonstration.

However upon further investigation I discovered that almost all of the photographs that were in the e-mail are copyright to the Associated Press. They were taken in February 2006 in London, during a demonstration against the Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad. They were taken near several different European embassies in London and not at a "Religion of Peace Demonstration".

But having said that, these banners carried by young men and women who mostly had their faces covered to mask their identity, are pretty chilling to say the least.

Here is what was written on many of the banners carried.

“SLAY THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM

“EUROPE YOU WILL PAY

DEMOLITION IS ON ITS WAY

“BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM

“EXTERMINATE THOSE WHO SLANDER ISLAM

“EUROPE IS THE CANCER

ISLAM IS THE ANSWER

“ISLAM WILL DOMINATE THE WORLD

“FREEDOM GO TO HELL

“EUROPE TAKE SOME LESSONS FROM 9/11

“EUROPE YOU WILL PAY

YOUR 9/11 IS ON ITS WAY

“BE PREPARED FOR THE REAL HOLOCAUST



Makes you wonder doesn't it? Can you imagine having a Christian demonstration like this in downtown Teheran? Yeah right!

Ryan.

:yh_flag I'm still having a hard time with all this obama crap. His supporters say it's only for four years, then you get another chance. BS. Four years is plenty of time to destroy the USA.

hoppy;1064164 wrote: :yh_flag I'm still having a hard time with all this obama crap. His supporters say it's only for four years, then you get another chance. BS. Four years is plenty of time to destroy the USA.


We did try to warn America hoppy :yh_rotfl

The article Touchstone has posted is a typical example of our Fleet Street gutter press. Using photographs from one demonstration to claim another took place. It's not true. Infact, we had more demonstrations here when Heather McCartney took Paul to the cleaners.

People like to stir up hatred. We have 'Hate Preacher Clerics' here who preach from their mosques to vulnerable young muslims. The police can't do bugger all because 'Freedom of Speech' is legal here.

It's bad enough with islamic extremists around the world as it is, e mails and articles like that just stir up more trouble.

Touchstone;1063125 wrote: Makes you wonder doesn't it? Can you imagine having a Christian demonstration like this in downtown Teheran? Yeah right!What do you think happened to the demonstrators, out of interest?

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/303618-post6.html discussed the demonstration and the subsequent prosecutions.

CPS Press Release : Cartoons protestors sentenced for soliciting murder is a press notice of the eventual sentences handed down.

We don't tolerate that sort of thing on the streets of London. We have some angry Muslims, we also have some self-restrained Muslims. I'm told the US has similar divisions between extremist Christians and self-restrained Christians. Should I post photos of a Westboro Baptist Church picket to balance the thread a little? Or a commonplace Fundamentalist Christian demonstration outside of an abortion clinic?

The comments from Asghar Bukhari toward the end of the discussion of the photos at snopes.com: Muslim Demonstration are worth reading, to get a feel for moderate Muslim reaction to the demonstration in Britain.

spot;1065214 wrote: What do you think happened to the demonstrators, out of interest?

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/303618-post6.html discussed the demonstration and the subsequent prosecutions.

CPS Press Release : Cartoons protestors sentenced for soliciting murder is a press notice of the eventual sentences handed down.

We don't tolerate that sort of thing on the streets of London. We have some angry Muslims, we also have some self-restrained Muslims. I'm told the US has similar divisions between extremist Christians and self-restrained Christians. Should I post photos of a Westboro Baptist Church picket to balance the thread a little? Or a commonplace Fundamentalist Christian demonstration outside of an abortion clinic?

The comments from Asghar Bukhari toward the end of the discussion of the photos at snopes.com: Muslim Demonstration are worth reading, to get a feel for moderate Muslim reaction to the demonstration in Britain.


Get real Spot!

You want to equate a Pro-Life Anti-Abortion demonstration with the ... what was the word you used? ... "mouth-foam?" displayed on the placards carried during the demonstrations against the Danish cartoons?

Come on ... you can do better than that I'm sure!

I was looking for equivalent intolerance coupled with death threats. I note that the organizers of the London demonstration are serving significant jail sentences. That seems not to happen in the US because of First Amendment considerations. Do you support the jailings here or do you think the English courts should have treated the demonstration as a free speech issue?

Hoss;1065563 wrote: Similar? How so and who? What divisions? And where have they ever called for beheading and murder of people for what they believe?


Hoss, there are Christian Fundamentalists in jail today for murdering abortionists. Christian Fundamentalists are the American version of the Taliban.

The self-restrained Christians are the ones who, for example, stood up as a delegation at the South American Christian Congress and made a formal and public apology for America invading Iraq. They're divided from the Christian Fundamentalists in that it was Christian Fundamentalists who designed the war in the first place.

JAB;1065603 wrote: Not all Christian Fundamentalists are 'murdering abortionists'. Nor were all Christian Fundamentalists for the war. So to say they are equivalent to the Taliban is inaccurate.


You seem to think the Taliban are all of one mind. I'm sure they're as disparate a group as Christian Fundamentalists are.

JAB;1065617 wrote: Then why don't we hear anything from the peace-loving Taliban?


When do you ever hear anything from the warmongering Taliban either? They don't exactly get much coverage in any US newspaper I get. They're a long way off, they don't speak English, they have no press officers and even if they did the US press is unlikely to want to pass on their messages.

This simplification of an entire government and its party to one thinking unit, or the whole of Afghanistan as "they think", is unhelpful. The place is as complicated as your country or my country.

JAB;1065640 wrote: :wah: Keep that in mind Spot next time you start oversimplifying the US Gov't.


When have I ever spoken of the American Government as simple?

I've certainly spoken of the Bush White House Administration as being committed to implementing the PNAC manifesto and I think they were - a large number of senior members and advisers of the Administration had been instrumental in creating it.

If you catch me oversimplifying, point it out.

Hoss;1065653 wrote: Thats funny, odd funny, not funny ha-ha funny... I hear them speak loudly with explosions and suicide bombings and murderings and beheadings. Etc. Actions speak louder than words.

Peaceful peoples don't use terrorism to achieve an end.


It's a shame that nobody has come up with a definition of terrorism. From where I'm sat, what the Bush White House has inflicted on countries of the Middle East has involved widespread terror. Refusing to call that terrorism is just playing blind. Shock And Awe used to be called Blitzkrieg.

spot;1065385 wrote: I was looking for equivalent intolerance coupled with death threats. I note that the organizers of the London demonstration are serving significant jail sentences. That seems not to happen in the US because of First Amendment considerations. Do you support the jailings here or do you think the English courts should have treated the demonstration as a free speech issue?


If these were non violent demonstrations then most certainly the organizers should not be serving jail sentences.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is also the first section of the Bill of Rights. It is arguably the most important part of the U.S. Constitution, as it guarantees freedoms of religion, speech, writing and publishing, peaceful assembly, and the freedom to raise grievances with the Government. In addition, it requires that a wall of separation be maintained between church and state. It reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Note that it guarantees PEACEFUL assembly!

Touchstone;1065957 wrote: If these were non violent demonstrations then most certainly the organizers should not be serving jail sentences.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is also the first section of the Bill of Rights. It is arguably the most important part of the U.S. Constitution, as it guarantees freedoms of religion, speech, writing and publishing, peaceful assembly, and the freedom to raise grievances with the Government. In addition, it requires that a wall of separation be maintained between church and state. It reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Note that it guarantees PEACEFUL assembly!


They were, to the best of my knowledge, non-violent.

Why, though, do you think that US law or the US Constitution should extend to countries beyond US borders? We have a different Constitution, we have a different legal system, we have a different government and, in the particular case of hate speech, we have different legislation. France differs again, South Korean law is distinct as is that of Japan. We live in a world with sovereign nations, not a world under one rule. The diversity is part of the attraction.

Note that I asked you a question, I'd quite like a reasoned answer.

Spot: "Do you support the jailings here or do you think the English courts should have treated the demonstration as a free speech issue?"

Touchstone: "If these were non violent demonstrations then most certainly the organizers should not be serving jail sentences."

My answer should indicate that I do NOT support the jailings. What upset me was not the demonstrations against the Danish cartoons as I too believe that the newspaper was wrong to publish them.

Having said that the Danes have a free press and, while I am not an expert on theirs on any other Constitution, I am certain that freedom of expression is also guaranteed in their law.

What I found wrong about this demonstration was what was written on the placards being carried. It is a compliment to the British lawmakers that these people were allowed to branish such provocative and inciting banners in the first place.

No matter how aggrieved or insulted they were they should still not have done this.

Ryan.

Touchstone;1065984 wrote: Spot: "Do you support the jailings here or do you think the English courts should have treated the demonstration as a free speech issue?"

Touchstone: "If these were non violent demonstrations then most certainly the organizers should not be serving jail sentences."

My answer should indicate that I do NOT support the jailings. What upset me was not the demonstrations against the Danish cartoons as I too believe that the newspaper was wrong to publish them.

Having said that the Danes have a free press and, while I am not an expert on theirs on any other Constitution, I am certain that freedom of expression is also guaranteed in their law.

What I found wrong about this demonstration was what was written on the placards being carried. It is a compliment to the British lawmakers that these people were allowed to branish such provocative and inciting banners in the first place.

No matter how aggrieved or insulted they were they should still not have done this.

Ryan.
Let me try it again, since for some reason you skipped back over the question.

Why, though, do you think that US law or the US Constitution should extend to countries beyond US borders?

Spot: "Why, though, do you think that US law or the US Constitution should extend to countries beyond US borders?"



Touchstone: "Do I think that Spot?"

Touchstone;1066581 wrote: Spot: "Why, though, do you think that US law or the US Constitution should extend to countries beyond US borders?"



Touchstone: "Do I think that Spot?"


Well, yes, blatantly. I asked you "Do you support the jailings here or do you think the English courts should have treated the demonstration as a free speech issue" and you replied with all the stuff about the US Constitution and that "If these were non violent demonstrations then most certainly the organizers should not be serving jail sentences" because "arguably the most important part of the U.S. Constitution ... guarantees freedoms of religion, speech, writing and publishing, peaceful assembly, and the freedom to raise grievances with the Government" after which you go on to quote it to me verbatim.

It's important, whether or not you think that US law or the US Constitution should extend to countries beyond US borders. It's why I asked you to give a reasoned answer. The idea underlying the worldwide application of US notions of justice and law is that the lesser breeds are without anything of their own which serves them sufficiently well. We are, as it were, beyond the pale (a reference to the notional line dividing civilized lawfully administered lands from those parts where barbarian lawlessness holds sway).

Do you think that US law or the US Constitution should extend to countries beyond US borders?

spot;1066584 wrote: Well, yes, blatantly. I asked you "Do you support the jailings here or do you think the English courts should have treated the demonstration as a free speech issue" and you replied with all the stuff about the US Constitution and that "If these were non violent demonstrations then most certainly the organizers should not be serving jail sentences" because "arguably the most important part of the U.S. Constitution ... guarantees freedoms of religion, speech, writing and publishing, peaceful assembly, and the freedom to raise grievances with the Government" after which you go on to quote it to me verbatim.

It's important, whether or not you think that US law or the US Constitution should extend to countries beyond US borders. It's why I asked you to give a reasoned answer. The idea underlying the worldwide application of US notions of justice and law is that the lesser breeds are without anything of their own which serves them sufficiently well. We are, as it were, beyond the pale (a reference to the notional line dividing civilized lawfully administered lands from those parts where barbarian lawlessness holds sway).

Do you think that US law or the US Constitution should extend to countries beyond US borders?


I posted about the First Amendent to The Constitution simply because you posted this.

Originally Posted by spot

I was looking for equivalent intolerance coupled with death threats. I note that the organizers of the London demonstration are serving significant jail sentences. That seems not to happen in the US because of First Amendment considerations. Do you support the jailings here or do you think the English courts should have treated the demonstration as a free speech issue?



US law and the US Constitution cannot legally extend anywhere beyond our borders. However in places where "barbarian lawlessness holds sway" they could do a lot worse than to live by it!

Are you trying to say that in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan "barbarian lawlessness" is excusable?

Ryan.

Touchstone;1066601 wrote: I posted about the First Amendent to The Constitution simply because you posted this.

Originally Posted by spot

I was looking for equivalent intolerance coupled with death threats. I note that the organizers of the London demonstration are serving significant jail sentences. That seems not to happen in the US because of First Amendment considerations. Do you support the jailings here or do you think the English courts should have treated the demonstration as a free speech issue?



US law and the US Constitution cannot legally extend anywhere beyond our borders. However in places where "barbarian lawlessness holds sway" they could do a lot worse than to live by it!

Are you trying to say that in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan "barbarian lawlessness" is excusable?

Ryan.I drew a contrast between US and UK law. For some reason you then said that UK law was wrong because it didn't comply with the US Constitution, it's why we're going down this strange path together.

Iraq and Afghanistan have never in living memory been subject to barbarian lawlessness other than when occupation by Western armed force has prevented local law enforcement from applying local laws. We were, however, discussing the apparent inferiority of UK law when the superior US Constitution could be called on in its place.

"US law and the US Constitution cannot legally extend anywhere beyond our borders" and yet you say jailing the demonstrators in London was wrong - "If these were non violent demonstrations then most certainly the organizers should not be serving jail sentences". And yet under UK law they're serving long prison sentences. And yet "US law and the US Constitution cannot legally extend anywhere beyond our borders". You don't seem altogether consistent. It's why I asked. Maybe you see it as consistent? Maybe you can explain why the inconsistency in your thinking is acceptable to you?

Just about your only comment on the story was "Makes you wonder doesn't it?". Perhaps you'd like to expand on what you meant by that instead. What does it make you wonder? That Fundamentalists can be so bigoted? It's the nature of Fundamentalists whatever their religion. Did you read the response by Asghar Bukhari on the Snopes article as I suggested, to get a feel for moderate Muslim reaction to the demonstration in Britain?

Hoss;1065691 wrote:

Terrorism is flying planes into buildings for the express purpose of harming, killing and terrorizing people, its the spread of fear and harm by attacking innocent people and having no care for who may inadvertently get in the way. It includes raping and beheading civilians, dragging innocent people out into the streets and putting bullets and executing them for the purpose of controlling everyone else in the area. The US government and the US military doesn't do that.


Flying planes into buildings is terrorism yes, but it is suicide killing.

The destruction of innocent people is not a fanatical extremist who is willing to die in the name of religion. I quote you Hoss... 'It's the spread of fear and harm by attacking innocent people and having no care for who may inadvertently get in the way.'

In all wars.. Innocent people inadvertently 'Get in the way'.

Before we travel any further down the yellow brick road and end up in the land of Oz, could you refresh my memory about this?

"For some reason you then said that UK law was wrong because it didn't comply with the US Constitution ... "

When did I say this?

Ryan.

Touchstone;1067033 wrote: Before we travel any further down the yellow brick road and end up in the land of Oz, could you refresh my memory about this?

"For some reason you then said that UK law was wrong because it didn't comply with the US Constitution ... "

When did I say this?

Ryan.


"If these were non violent demonstrations then most certainly the organizers should not be serving jail sentences" followed by three descriptions of the US Constitution as it relates to Free Speech.

It would be a lot more interesting to discuss this instead of inventing Internet Forum Tennis, you know.

spot;1067055 wrote: "If these were non violent demonstrations then most certainly the organizers should not be serving jail sentences" followed by three descriptions of the US Constitution as it relates to Free Speech.

It would be a lot more interesting to discuss this instead of inventing Internet Forum Tennis, you know.


Well it wasn't my intention to convey that this meant I believed that the US Constitution should apply in Britain.

Anyway, you know what Spot? Your right and tennis isn't a game I'm very good at so I will withdraw from this debate. I figure you are probably ahead by two sets to one anyway!

I will end on a cryptic note.

"Longwinded answers often conceal a single truth."

Don't bother to google it ... its another Touchstone quote!

Thank you for a very civilised discussion.

Ryan.

spot;1065656 wrote: It's a shame that nobody has come up with a definition of terrorism. From where I'm sat, what the Bush White House has inflicted on countries of the Middle East has involved widespread terror. Refusing to call that terrorism is just playing blind. Shock And Awe used to be called Blitzkrieg.


spot, I try to let most of your posts, involving the US, go. Not this one. Accusing our country of being the same as Islamic terrorists is unexcusable. If you hate America like you do, it's so obvious in your posts, then why do you continue to to converse with us American terrorists? Maybe I just answered my own question...so you can continue to spew your filth against a country I love so much.

This is a place for thoughtful conversations and debates, but somehow you continually turn it into a "Why Spot Hates America" forum. You love your coutry, well we love ours...so give it a rest already.

shelbell;1068406 wrote: spot, I try to let most of your posts, involving the US, go. Not this one. Accusing our country of being the same as Islamic terrorists is unexcusable. If you hate America like you do, it's so obvious in your posts, then why do you continue to to converse with us American terrorists? Maybe I just answered my own question...so you can continue to spew your filth against a country I love so much.

This is a place for thoughtful conversations and debates, but somehow you continually turn it into a "Why Spot Hates America" forum. You love your coutry, well we love ours...so give it a rest already.


That's just packed with inaccuracy. Nowhere have I accused the US of being the same as Islamic terrorists. Islamic terrorists have so few killing resources it's almost laughable, the US invented the concept of overkill and since then it's taken that concept to absurd heights. Since when did Islamic terrorists have tens of thousands of nuclear warheads, or hundreds of submarines capable of delivering them without the possibility of detection? When did you last read of Islamic terrorists with even such minimal fighting capabilities as air cover or tanks?

Shock And Awe used to be called Blitzkrieg. Is that what you object to? Here it is, the entire document which brought Shock and Awe to the world, maybe you'd like to skim it. It's written, after all, by Americans. What it says of Blitzkrieg is that its "intent was to apply precise, surgical amounts of tightly focused force to achieve maximum leverage but with total economies of scale", and then compares the practice to what they're proposing. They note that US access to high technology makes Shock and Awe rather scarier.

I don't hate America in the slightest though I utterly detest your military to the extent that it gets deployed outside its Homeland so often and so bloodily. Self-defense is fine but it's only self-defense if it's within the Homeland. Waging war abroad is a central and defining aspect of war crime. The worst aspect is that the American public refuses to recognize the enormity of that fact.

spot;1068410 wrote: That's just packed with inaccuracy. Nowhere have I accused the US of being the same as Islamic terrorists. Islamic terrorists have so few killing resources it's almost laughable, the US invented the concept of overkill and since then it's taken that concept to absurd heights. Since when did Islamic terrorists have tens of thousands of nuclear warheads, or hundreds of submarines capable of delivering them without the possibility of detection? When did you last read of Islamic terrorists with even such minimal fighting capabilities as air cover or tanks?

Shock And Awe used to be called Blitzkrieg. Is that what you object to? Here it is, the entire document which brought Shock and Awe to the world, maybe you'd like to skim it. It's written, after all, by Americans. What it says of Blitzkrieg is that its "intent was to apply precise, surgical amounts of tightly focused force to achieve maximum leverage but with total economies of scale", and then compares the practice to what they're proposing. They note that US access to high technology makes Shock and Awe rather scarier.

I don't hate America in the slightest though I utterly detest your military to the extent that it gets deployed outside its Homeland so often and so bloodily. Self-defense is fine but it's only self-defense if it's within the Homeland. Waging war abroad is a central aspect of war crime. The worst aspect is that the American public refuses to recognize the enormity of that fact.


Our military is made up of fine and brave men and women. They follow their orders which they have taken an oath to do so...so why hate our military?

How many attacks do we have to endure on our soil before we can go and get them where they live? 20? 50? 100? We can only defend ourselves if we're attacked? Just who do we defend against when the action of terrorism has taken place by suicide bombers? I do not consider it a war crime to go get the people that only want us dead...if we didn't, we'd have no one left to defend.

I'm sorry spot, but most of your posts that deal with America sound like you detest this whole great country. A positive statement from you on occasion would not make you look weak, but I guarantee it would take the bitter taste out of the mouths of many Americans here.

I'm too tired to go through the link you sent, but will try to get to it tomorrow and respond when I have at least half of my brain working.

shelbell;1068413 wrote: Our military is made up of fine and brave men and women. They follow their orders which they have taken an oath to do so...so why hate our military?

How many attacks do we have to endure on our soil before we can go and get them where they live? 20? 50? 100? We can only defend ourselves if we're attacked? Just who do we defend against when the action of terrorism has taken place by suicide bombers? I do not consider it a war crime to go get the people that only want us dead...if we didn't, we'd have no one left to defend.

I'm sorry spot, but most of your posts that deal with America sound like you detest this whole great country. A positive statement from you on occasion would not make you look weak, but I guarantee it would take the bitter taste out of the mouths of many Americans here.

I'm too tired to go through the link you sent, but will try to get to it tomorrow and respond when I have at least half of my brain working.
By all means defend yourselves against attack! It's completely inept of your administrations and their intelligence agencies that the only two times an attack ever happened the defence was non-existent!

Going and getting them where they live is a police function, not a military function. Even if the police call on the aid of the military it's still a policing function. The current administration prefered war to policing, it set out from before it even took office to engage in war and by lying sufficiently often it got what it wanted.

Your military is made up of fine and brave men and women, yes. They follow their orders which they have taken an oath to do so, yes. They're detestable because they've chosen to take that oath despite the decades of accumulated experience that their political masters will send them abroad and that unarmed foreign civilians will die in huge numbers as a direct result. They shouldn't volunteer if that's the way they're abused. If they volunteer in such circumstances they're detestable.

Who do you defend against when the action of terrorism has taken place by suicide bombers? You defend against the suicide bombers, not sit in a school classroom staring vacantly against the wall when the bombs are going off. Especially when having the bombs go off is exactly what you wanted to happen so that you could invade the Middle East.

If any Americans here have a bitter taste in their mouth reading what I write it's not because I comment on the disgusting actions of their government, it's because the comments are accurate and the actions were disgusting. I couldn't comment if it hadn't happened. I'd much prefer that it hadn't. By all means defend the Homeland, I'd welcome any sign that it's happening. Not generating anti-American sentiment abroad would be a good start. Occupying foreign countries generates anti-American sentiment abroad, is that honestly hard to realize?

spot;1068418 wrote: By all means defend yourselves against attack! It's completely inept of your administrations and their intelligence agencies that the only two times an attack ever happened the defence was non-existent!

Going and getting them where they live is a police function, not a military function. Even if the police call on the aid of the military it's still a policing function. The current administration prefered war to policing, it set out from before it even took office to engage in war and by lying sufficiently often it got what it wanted.

Your military is made up of fine and brave men and women, yes. They follow their orders which they have taken an oath to do so, yes. They're detestable because they've chosen to take that oath despite the decades of accumulated experience that their political masters will send them abroad and that unarmed foreign civilians will die in huge numbers as a direct result. They shouldn't volunteer if that's the way they're abused. If they volunteer in such circumstances they're detestable.

Who do you defend against when the action of terrorism has taken place by suicide bombers? You defend against the suicide bombers, not sit in a school classroom staring vacantly against the wall when the bombs are going off. Especially when having the bombs go off is exactly what you wanted to happen so that you could invade the Middle East.

If any Americans here have a bitter taste in their mouth reading what I write it's not because I comment on the disgusting actions of their government, it's because the comments are accurate and the actions were disgusting. I couldn't comment if it hadn't happened. I'd much prefer that it hadn't. By all means defend the Homeland, I'd welcome any sign that it's happening. Not generating anti-American sentiment abroad would be a good start. Occupying foreign countries generates anti-American sentiment abroad, is that honestly hard to realize?




Yep I know I posted this two days ago ....



"Anyway, you know what Spot? Your right and tennis isn't a game I'm very good at so I will withdraw from this debate. I figure you are probably ahead by two sets to one anyway!

I will end on a cryptic note.

"Longwinded answers often conceal a single truth."

Don't bother to google it ... its another Touchstone quote!

Thank you for a very civilised discussion.

Ryan."



... but after reading this post by Spot, how prophetic was this?

"Longwinded answers often conceal a single truth!"

In this case the "single truth" is that you Spot are anti-American and by your own admission find the US Military "destestable."

As both an American and a veteran I am insulted by what you have posted.

Terrorists and suicide bombers must be taken out wherever they are before 9/11 can be repeated and whichever way YOU look at it ...

We call it defending the Homeland!

Ryan.

You speak like your utterly discredited president, Ryan, and he's a criminal beyond the reach of any prosecutor. The bottom line is the number of deaths that have resulted from his greedy incursion into the Middle East. He couldn't have done it without the volunteers. That makes them guilty. Conscripts are a different matter but volunteers are willing participants in the deaths.

Defend your Homeland within your own borders, you'll find it far more effective a technique. You'll anger far fewer people. You do, after all, expect every other country on the planet to defend their Homelands within their own borders, you'd be furious if they didn't.

It's not an anti-American stance, I feel exactly the same about volunteers to the British Armed Services as well and for exactly the same reason.

Touchstone;1068800 wrote:

Terrorists and suicide bombers must be taken out wherever they are before 9/11 can be repeated and whichever way YOU look at it ...

We call it defending the Homeland!

Ryan.


When it comes to invading a country that has not attacked you and there is no real and present danger of it doing so (Iraq) everyone else calls it a War Crime!

Hoss;1065691 wrote:

I'm not going to sit back and let you degrade my country, or my father, or his service or what he does, or my country’s military or my country’s government. And I'm especially not going to let you take what the US military does and cheapen it by false accusations and loose definitions of terrorism.

Terrorism is flying planes into buildings for the express purpose of harming, killing and terrorizing people, its the spread of fear and harm by attacking innocent people and having no care for who may inadvertently get in the way. It includes raping and beheading civilians, dragging innocent people out into the streets and putting bullets and executing them for the purpose of controlling everyone else in the area. The US government and the US military doesn't do that.


AMEN!



Spot:

The US are our neighbours, and you constantly degrade them.

and now you'll say what?

that Canada sticks up for the US?

- Darn right!

Will you be saying Happy Thanksgiving to them this week?

We will.

You really have some serious of issues with the US as others have mentioned here and in the past.

You should be so fortunate to have the kind of Military they have.

spot;1068418 wrote: By all means defend yourselves against attack! It's completely inept of your administrations and their intelligence agencies that the only two times an attack ever happened the defence was non-existent!

Going and getting them where they live is a police function, not a military function. Even if the police call on the aid of the military it's still a policing function. The current administration prefered war to policing, it set out from before it even took office to engage in war and by lying sufficiently often it got what it wanted.

Your military is made up of fine and brave men and women, yes. They follow their orders which they have taken an oath to do so, yes. They're detestable because they've chosen to take that oath despite the decades of accumulated experience that their political masters will send them abroad and that unarmed foreign civilians will die in huge numbers as a direct result. They shouldn't volunteer if that's the way they're abused. If they volunteer in such circumstances they're detestable.

Who do you defend against when the action of terrorism has taken place by suicide bombers? You defend against the suicide bombers, not sit in a school classroom staring vacantly against the wall when the bombs are going off. Especially when having the bombs go off is exactly what you wanted to happen so that you could invade the Middle East.

If any Americans here have a bitter taste in their mouth reading what I write it's not because I comment on the disgusting actions of their government, it's because the comments are accurate and the actions were disgusting. I couldn't comment if it hadn't happened. I'd much prefer that it hadn't. By all means defend the Homeland, I'd welcome any sign that it's happening. Not generating anti-American sentiment abroad would be a good start. Occupying foreign countries generates anti-American sentiment abroad, is that honestly hard to realize?


Not true spot. Our intelligence and government have thwarted many attempts to attack us in our own country. Since 9/11 we haven't had any other successful attacks and I for one feel safer with what we are doing. If we didn't go after them where they live, then guess what, they would still be building their arsenal to use against us.

We wanted 9/11 to happen? That is nothing but vile venom you are spewing out. How do we police these terrorists when we can't get to them because so many of them are hiding out in the hills of Pakistan, and Pakistan won't allow us to go in and get them? The actual terrorists cross the border into Afghanistan with the sole intent of killing our military personnel, then jump back into hiding in Pakistan.

How would you respond to attacks of terrorists flying your own planes into your own buildings and killing nearly 4000 innocent people? Would you go over there and sit down for dinner with them and tell them that their actions were wrong and they better not do it again? These people don't want to talk to us, they want to kill us or turn us into a land that reads the Koran and have Allah rule the land. We all have to believe that not every attack will be thwarted by any country...so wake up to reality.

Don't speak to me about our men and women serving our county. My husband is an Army vet....do you detest him? How about all the people here that are vets....do you detest them too?

It took Bush 7 minutes for finishing his reading in the elementary classroom. That's it, 7 minutes! Then he took action...yet what do you do if it's planes in the air ready to slam the next monument? Shoot the planes down over populated areas killing all the passengers on the planes and risk many other lives .

Again, we did NOT want those attacks on 9/11 just so we could go invade the Middle East. Nope, the bitter taste in my mouth is from you thinking you are the only expert here, and your refusal to actually concede to a comment once in awhile, and acknowledging that you might be wrong.

You are not an American spot, so don't expect us to believe most of what you say...some of it is so far fetched it has me totally perplexed.

We're not here slamming your country, so why do you insist on slamming us at every opportunity?

Please remember that so many of us here are very proud to be an American, so please show a little more respect and a little bit more discretion while talking about our great nation.

shelbell;1068916 wrote:

We wanted 9/11 to happen? That is nothing but vile venom you are spewing out. How do we police these terrorists when we can't get to them because so many of them are hiding out in the hills of Pakistan, and Pakistan won't allow us to go in and get them? The actual terrorists cross the border into Afghanistan with the sole intent of killing our military personnel, then jump back into hiding in Pakistan.

How would you respond to attacks of terrorists flying your own planes into your own buildings and killing nearly 4000 innocent people? Would you go over there and sit down for dinner with them and tell them that their actions were wrong and they better not do it again? These people don't want to talk to us, they want to kill us or turn us into a land that reads the Koran and have Allah rule the land. We all have to believe that not every attack will be thwarted by any country...so wake up to reality.

Again, we did NOT want those attacks on 9/11 just so we could go invade the Middle East. Nope, the bitter taste in my mouth is from you thinking you are the only expert here, and your refusal to actually concede to a comment once in awhile, and acknowledging that you might be wrong.

You are not an American spot, so don't expect us to believe most of what you say...some of it is so far fetched it has me totally perplexed.

We're not here slamming your country, so why do you insist on slamming us at every opportunity?

Please remember that so many of us here are very proud to be an American, so please show a little more respect and a little bit more discretion while talking about our great nation.




he actually thought you wanted the attacks in 911?:rolleyes:



worse than vile vemon.

shelbell;1068916 wrote: Not true spot. Our intelligence and government have thwarted many attempts to attack us in our own country. Since 9/11 we haven't had any other successful attacks and I for one feel safer with what we are doing. If we didn't go after them where they live, then guess what, they would still be building their arsenal to use against us.

We wanted 9/11 to happen? That is nothing but vile venom you are spewing out. How do we police these terrorists when we can't get to them because so many of them are hiding out in the hills of Pakistan, and Pakistan won't allow us to go in and get them? The actual terrorists cross the border into Afghanistan with the sole intent of killing our military personnel, then jump back into hiding in Pakistan.

How would you respond to attacks of terrorists flying your own planes into your own buildings and killing nearly 4000 innocent people? Would you go over there and sit down for dinner with them and tell them that their actions were wrong and they better not do it again? These people don't want to talk to us, they want to kill us or turn us into a land that reads the Koran and have Allah rule the land. We all have to believe that not every attack will be thwarted by any country...so wake up to reality.

Don't speak to me about our men and women serving our county. My husband is an Army vet....do you detest him? How about all the people here that are vets....do you detest them too?

It took Bush 7 minutes for finishing his reading in the elementary classroom. That's it, 7 minutes! Then he took action...yet what do you do if it's planes in the air ready to slam the next monument? Shoot the planes down over populated areas killing all the passengers on the planes and risk many other lives .

Again, we did NOT want those attacks on 9/11 just so we could go invade the Middle East. Nope, the bitter taste in my mouth is from you thinking you are the only expert here, and your refusal to actually concede to a comment once in awhile, and acknowledging that you might be wrong.

You are not an American spot, so don't expect us to believe most of what you say...some of it is so far fetched it has me totally perplexed.

We're not here slamming your country, so why do you insist on slamming us at every opportunity?

Please remember that so many of us here are very proud to be an American, so please show a little more respect and a little bit more discretion while talking about our great nation.
On a point of information, your President went into that classroom already knowing that a WTC tower had been hit and that three other planes had been hijacked, he'd been told both of those facts. The televised intervention by Andy Card seven minutes before the end of the photo-op was to inform him that the second tower had been hit.

"If we didn't go after them where they live, then guess what, they would still be building their arsenal to use against us"? What arsenal is that?

How can any foreign group or even country turn the USA into a land that reads the Koran and has Allah rule the land? It's a meaningless concept, no country or group could possibly apply force to that extent and you certainly can't mean by preaching to you.

Can you think of any good reason why not a single person in the USA has been so much as reprimanded for the failure to intercept any of the hijacked planes contrary to established practice and standing orders? Or for the intelligence and police failure to monitor the activities of the hijackers and intervene before the day's events?

You, personally, might not have wanted those attacks on 9/11 but your criminal White House administration did. Bush Administration staff had written a year before, in September 2000, that "the process of transformation [in the Middle East], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions". Do you see the bit about domestic politics? That means the US public wouldn't allow deployment of US Armed Forces to fight a war in the Middle East unless there was a complete shock to the system - "a new Pearl Harbor". That's what they got. You don't think that statement, twelve months before, amounts to the Bush Administration wanting 9/11 to happen? I do. A lot of people do. Deliberately looking away in order to allow the planes to be flown to New York and Washington is the only reasonable way in which the planes could have avoided the standard interception which invariably happened to every domestic civil airline flight which went off course before that day. How would I respond to attacks of terrorists flying my own planes into my own buildings and killing nearly 4000 innocent people? I'd leave the standard interceptions to prevent it from happening. Why would I interfere with the standard interceptions? To have my new Pearl Harbor and be able to deploy my armed forces because I finally had domestic opinion in favour of doing it.

I'm quite certain that if the US had approached the capture and trial of all of Al-Qaeda as a police matter it would have been successfully achieved through diplomatic means, just as I'm quite sure that if the normal day-to-day operation of air defences in the USA on 9/11 had been operating no building would have been hit, and if normal activity of the FBI had been allowed the hijacks would never have happened to begin with. That wasn't the objective of the Bush Administration. Their objective was deployment to the Middle East, regime change in Iraq and the permanent occupation of the countries surrounding Iran.

spot;1068967 wrote: On a point of information, your President went into that classroom already knowing that a WTC tower had been hit and that three other planes had been hijacked, he'd been told both of those facts. The televised intervention by Andy Card seven minutes before the end of the photo-op was to inform him that the second tower had been hit.

"If we didn't go after them where they live, then guess what, they would still be building their arsenal to use against us"? What arsenal is that?

How can any foreign group or even country turn the USA into a land that reads the Koran and has Allah rule the land? It's a meaningless concept, no country or group could possibly apply force to that extent and you certainly can't mean by preaching to you.

Can you think of any good reason why not a single person in the USA has been so much as reprimanded for the failure to intercept any of the hijacked planes contrary to established practice and standing orders? Or for the intelligence and police failure to monitor the activities of the hijackers and intervene before the day's events?

You, personally, might not have wanted those attacks on 9/11 but your criminal White House administration did. Bush Administration staff had written a year before, in September 2000, that "the process of transformation [in the Middle East], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions". Do you see the bit about domestic politics? That means the US public wouldn't allow deployment of US Armed Forces to fight a war in the Middle East unless there was a complete shock to the system - "a new Pearl Harbor". That's what they got. You don't think that statement, twelve months before, amounts to the Bush Administration wanting 9/11 to happen? I do. A lot of people do. Deliberately looking away in order to allow the planes to be flown to New York and Washington is the only reasonable way in which the planes could have avoided the standard interception which invariably happened to every domestic civil airline flight which went off course before that day. How would I respond to attacks of terrorists flying my own planes into my own buildings and killing nearly 4000 innocent people? I'd leave the standard interceptions to prevent it from happening. Why would I interfere with the standard interceptions? To have my new Pearl Harbor and be able to deploy my armed forces because I finally had domestic opinion in favour of doing it.

I'm quite certain that if the US had approached the capture and trial of all of Al-Qaeda as a police matter it would have been successfully achieved through diplomatic means, just as I'm quite sure that if the normal day-to-day operation of air defences in the USA on 9/11 had been operating no building would have been hit, and if normal activity of the FBI had been allowed the hijacks would never have happened to begin with. That wasn't the objective of the Bush Administration. Their objective was deployment to the Middle East, regime change in Iraq and the permanent occupation of the countries surrounding Iran.


Bush took office in January of 2001. The presidential vote wasn't until the first Tuesday in November and it was the closest election we've had...therefore, the Bush administration could not have possibly authored what you are accusing them of in 2000. See spot, you are not always right.

I stand by everything else I've written and do not want to argue with you back and forth...I disagree with you and you disagree with me. I'll leave it at that.

shelbell;1069003 wrote: Bush took office in January of 2001. The presidential vote wasn't until the first Tuesday in November and it was the closest election we've had...therefore, the Bush administration could not have possibly authored what you are accusing them of in 2000. See spot, you are not always right.

I stand by everything else I've written and do not want to argue with you back and forth...I disagree with you and you disagree with me. I'll leave it at that.


What I wrote was "Bush Administration staff had written a year before, in September 2000". They were people who wrote it in September 2000 and subsequently were taken on when the Bush administration was formed. The people involved in the report who subsequently became Bush Administration staff included Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. That's a pretty central cast, don't you think?

spot;1068967 wrote: On a point of information, your President went into that classroom already knowing that a WTC tower had been hit and that three other planes had been hijacked, he'd been told both of those facts. The televised intervention by Andy Card seven minutes before the end of the photo-op was to inform him that the second tower had been hit.

"If we didn't go after them where they live, then guess what, they would still be building their arsenal to use against us"? What arsenal is that?

How can any foreign group or even country turn the USA into a land that reads the Koran and has Allah rule the land? It's a meaningless concept, no country or group could possibly apply force to that extent and you certainly can't mean by preaching to you.

Can you think of any good reason why not a single person in the USA has been so much as reprimanded for the failure to intercept any of the hijacked planes contrary to established practice and standing orders? Or for the intelligence and police failure to monitor the activities of the hijackers and intervene before the day's events?

You, personally, might not have wanted those attacks on 9/11 but your criminal White House administration did. Bush Administration staff had written a year before, in September 2000, that "the process of transformation [in the Middle East], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions". Do you see the bit about domestic politics? That means the US public wouldn't allow deployment of US Armed Forces to fight a war in the Middle East unless there was a complete shock to the system - "a new Pearl Harbor". That's what they got. You don't think that statement, twelve months before, amounts to the Bush Administration wanting 9/11 to happen? I do. A lot of people do. Deliberately looking away in order to allow the planes to be flown to New York and Washington is the only reasonable way in which the planes could have avoided the standard interception which invariably happened to every domestic civil airline flight which went off course before that day. How would I respond to attacks of terrorists flying my own planes into my own buildings and killing nearly 4000 innocent people? I'd leave the standard interceptions to prevent it from happening. Why would I interfere with the standard interceptions? To have my new Pearl Harbor and be able to deploy my armed forces because I finally had domestic opinion in favour of doing it.

I'm quite certain that if the US had approached the capture and trial of all of Al-Qaeda as a police matter it would have been successfully achieved through diplomatic means, just as I'm quite sure that if the normal day-to-day operation of air defences in the USA on 9/11 had been operating no building would have been hit, and if normal activity of the FBI had been allowed the hijacks would never have happened to begin with. That wasn't the objective of the Bush Administration. Their objective was deployment to the Middle East, regime change in Iraq and the permanent occupation of the countries surrounding Iran.




"Ho Hum!" Or as someone said on one of my previous threads ... "here we go again!"

An exhaustive investigation by Popular Science stripped back each conspiracy to its core set of facts then used science and logic to reveal the truth behind the myth. A new book, Debunking 9/11 Myths, details the magazine's findings.

Popular Science found that each conspiracy theory was supported by little more than shoddy research, misinterpretations of evidence, and leaps of logic that would embarrass a primary school student. The myths soon collapse under the weight of their own hot air.

MYTH

Hijackers were not skilled enough to fly four airliners through the complicated series of manoeuvres needed to hit their targets.

TRUTH

All four pilots had logged at least 250 hours' flying time and were commercially licensed pilots. They had trained extensively on commercial jet flight simulators and didn't have to perform the most complicated parts of any flight: taking off, flying in bad weather and landing.

The New York pilots could see their targets from 100km away and the Pentagon hijacker used autopilot to fly almost all the way to his destination, then disengaged it when he was a few minutes from his target.

MYTH

The towers were struck by military cargo planes or fuel tankers. Windows are not visible in photographs or footage of the planes before they struck the towers and a witness, cameraman Marc Birnbach said on September 11: "It definitely didn't look like a commercial plane. I didn't see any windows on the sides."

TRUTH

Birnbach told Popular Science he was 3km away and didn't see the plane hit the tower. The plane was tilted away from him, meaning the windows on the right side were pointed towards the sky. Part of a United Airlines fuselage, complete with portholes, was found on the roof of 5 World Trade Centre.

MYTH

The twin towers were in fact professionally demolished. An aircraft impact is not sufficient to knock down a skyscraper, and dust "squibs" indicating controlled demolition are visible just before the towers collapsed.

TRUTH

The aircraft severed a large portion of the external steel web that gave the towers much of their strength.

Other metal supporting columns were weakened by the ferocious heat generated by burning jet fuel.

The "squibs" were pressurised air being squeezed out of the building as the floors above it compacted.

Explosives experts say that a successful demolition would require hundreds of tonnes of explosives packed around each weight-bearing column in the building. Installing the charges would have taken 75 men at least three months.

MYTH

The Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile. Security tape of the attack shows a white blur, not a plane, the entry hole in the building was only 5m wide and no plane wreckage was found.

TRUTH

The plane flew over morning commuters and hundreds of witnesses saw it hit the Pentagon.

Security cameras film at a very slow frame rate – far too slow to show an object moving at 240m per second.

Photographs taken after the attack and before the facade collapsed show a hole 30m wide, not 5m.

A Boeing 757 is 40m from wingtip to wingtip, but parts of both wings were sheared off when they struck a generator and external vent near the Pentagon.

Most of the plane was shredded on impact but the landing gear punched through three of the building's rings, and was recognisable in photographs.

MYTH

United Flight 93 was shot down by a jet that had been repainted white to disguise military markings.

Debris from the plane was found kilometres from the impact zone, proving that it had exploded in midair.

TRUTH

The white plane seen by witnesses is no secret – it was a corporate jet rerouted by flight controllers to the last known radar location of United 93.

It circled the smoking impact zone as the pilot radioed in what he had found.

The farthest piece of debris from the impact zone was just a few hundred metres away.



Forty five years after JFK was assassinated conspiracy theories still abound and the same will be true of 9/11.



Ryan.