The Usurper: fine, we will be the judge.  But when we reject your claim you will continue harping on it anyway.  Do you think you are the first one to bring this to our attention?  Not.

It is officially claimed that raging fires brought this 47-story skyscraper down. You be the judge.

WTC 7 collapse: 3 short clips

September 11, 2001 at 5:20 pm

http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html

Do your eyes deceive you? Or is this controlled demolition?

Artful Dodger: Sure, I know that's your view. :o)

The Usurper:  That's where we differ.  You see it as having one's eyes opened and I see it as having one's mind manipulated.  Any good lawyer can do that and in fact does so for a living.  A good lawyer can get a guilty man off and a good prosecutor can get an innocent man behind bars.  Proof that a convincing argument, complete with all its "evidence," doesn't mean the thing they propose is true.  Just convincing.  In the case of your position, I am neither moved by your arguments nor your so-called evidence.  So in my view, if you succeed at getting someone to believe as you do, then you will have succeeded in getting someone to believe something that simply isn't true. 

Artful Dodger: I wouldn't expect you to be convinced, even if you were an eyewitness. But others read this board. Maybe just one person, somewhere, will watch that video and his/her eyes will be opened. Maybe that person won't even post here about it. Maybe there will be more than one. The truth is getting out. I just do what I do, let the chips fall....

anastasia:

Artful Dodger:Could you stop with the banana argument please? LMAO..you go boyeee!!

(V):  Could you stop with the banana argument please?  Who cares.  It has nothing to do with this board.  sheesh.  My statement was a nonsense statement and NOT meant to be taken seriously (I was avoiding using logic with humans as you suggested).  You took a yellow banana and turn it into sour grapes.  Enough already!

The Usurper: You'll never convince me.  I'm not even mildly convinced.  You put too much faith in the Bush administration.  

(V): They are not Lady fingers as we grow them....thewy dont even look like bananas.....and as I said below EOS.

http://comps.fotosearch.com/comp/FDC/FDC101/yellow-sugar-bananas_~923823.jpg

The Usurper: Those who are wise, advice strongly against extremes. They are dangerous and quite easily get out of control. As the Jedi say... once you start on the path of the dark side... .... ...

Ridge: We were wrong to torture

"America's first homeland security secretary has accepted some criticisms of the US "war on terror" made in a recent report by legal experts.

Tom Ridge told the BBC that the report's attacks on extended detention and torture were justified. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7903516.stm

"Mr Ridge, who was appointed to the new post of homeland security secretary after the 11 September, 2001 attacks on the US, said the ICJ was on "solid ground" in its commentary "with regard to torture and sustained detention without due process"."

Artful Dodger: Core philosophies... Idols that maybe outdated and certainly from aspect.... illegal and sinful?

What are these philosophies?

Artful Dodger: ..... And if someone has been 'made' that for them to take responsibility is impossible. I'm afraid it's an offshoot of western philosophy Blame, blame, blame.

The Eastern style is better, fix the problem and not the blame, find out what's gone wrong and fix it.

.... anyway, how are you going to fix those who's ability to take responsibility is either eradicated or so far diminished that they are incapable of taking responsibility? They blame the government, the opposition, x, y, z!!

The Usurper: the Bush administration lied to get us into war with Iraq.

As far as I know it was congress that voted us into Iraq? A president doesnt have the authority to act without congress approval?

The Usurper: We also knew he had not replenished his supply.

That simply is not true... yhes there were inspections, but he also denied access to many places as well...

My theory is that Saddam was more affraid of his enemies knowing that he did not have any WMD, than he was of the UN thinking he might..... hahahah to bad for him, he was right, except he underestimated the USA, if anything it was a good deterent for any other UN resolution breakers out there facing serious consequences...

The Usurper: Osama bin Laden did not mastermind or carry out 9/11. The U.S. government did.


A little thing called a confession maybe????

This is the first video on 9/11 I ever saw, and I saw it on the internet:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598

DARE TO WATCH IT!!!

Artful Dodger: That's a great post! It made me chuckle.

Czuch: BBC News: --There is no evidence of formal links between Iraqi ex-leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders prior to the 2003 war, a US Senate report says.--

A quote from the Senate report:

"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support...."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5328592.stm

In other words, the Bush administration lied to get us into war with Iraq. No WMD. No Saddam-al Qaeda connection. Now that they are out of office (too late to impeach), Bush & Cheney ought to be prosecuted for these & other crimes.

Artful Dodger: This also is ironic. That you claim to distrust government, yet believe its biggest lies.

As to solving Gitmo, it's a bit too late to shoot them dead. They aren't on the battlefield anymore. In any case, if they had surrendered, or if you shot them now, that would be cold-blooded murder. So that is what you condone?

Czuch: I stand corrected. There was no claim of a direct, specific link between Saddam Hussein and the events of 9/11 in particular. However, there was an equally false claim, direct if not specific (how specific with no evidence?), that Saddam was linked with al Qaeda, and had trained al Qaeda. This amounts to an indirect, nonspecific claim to a connection between Saddam & 9/11. That is why a poll taken showed half the U.S. population believing it for a long time.

How often this al Qaeda-Saddam so-called link was hammered into the minds of the populace, can be seen here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1293


As to WMD, they were destroyed in the first Gulf War. Incidentally, they were manufactured in places like France and the U.S., and sold to him. That is how, in the first Gulf War, we knew he had them! We also knew he had not replenished his supply. We knew this because Iraq was strictly controlled during the decade leading up to the second Gulf War, both by sanctions & by on-site inspectors.

Artful Dodger: What would be the plausable reason for detaining Osama bin Laden? Where is the evidence he had anything to do with 9/11? The government certainly hasn't provided any, beyond an obscure video it claims to have found in Afghanistan. It is hardly evidence since the man's facial features do not match photos taken of Osama. Surely the government has a better case than this! What is it? The truth is, it doesn't. Because Osama bin Laden did not mastermind or carry out 9/11. The U.S. government did.

Czuch: If they have no real evidence, let them go. Or turn them over to their respective governments. It doesn't matter where they claim to have found them. Prove it in a court of law.

Czuch: Come on, quit skipping around and follow the posts better. Artful Dodger provided the links, I read the articles & reported on what the Pentagon claims. The laugh is on you...and I think I will eat the cake.

Czuch: yeah like national security.  Besides, we both know that any reason given will never be enough for some.  If we detained Osama bin Laden we'd probably get protests and asked what was the plausible reason for detaining him!  Somewhere out there in the world, some group would complain.  And you can bet that no matter what evidence was presented or reason given, some group in the US would protest.  Someone always does.

I like my idea.  Shoot them all from now on and take no prisoners.  Then no complaints about waterboarding or turning the music up too loud.

The Usurper: And the only plausable reason for the secrecy which has surrounded our treatment & trials of detainees, so this point, is that we ourselves have something to hide.

That is hardly a true statement of fact.... there are other more plausible reasons.... because they are captured on a battlefield where they are not an active participant, not a member of any real army, and because they are captured in this manner, there is not any means to participate in any real or active investigation, and collect evidence, like in any real world situation. That is the one and only reason to "hide" anything

The Usurper: I think I read somewhere that by Geneva convention you cannot house POWs whatever in general population institutions.  So we'd have to have a similar security area such as Gitmo.

As for evidence, it's not CSI.  It's a battlefield.  They catch these guys on the battlefield.  They don't take notes and close off a crime scene.  I say just shoot them all when you see them and to hell with all this trial crap/evidence crap.  If you're caught on the battlefield, you're dead.  That will solve gitmo. 

The Usurper: These two articles refer to a recently released Pentagon study




Now you want to quote the pentagon???? I thought they were part of the whole conspiracy???

You want to have your cake and eat it too

The Usurper: Take, for example, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It was logical. The argument was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and that he had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.


Well, here we have an example of your premise being false.... First, saddam did have WMD, he used then against his own people, and he never gave any proof that he stopped making them or had even destroyed any of them, and there was never anything said about him being involved in 9/11. check your facts...

Shut it down immediately. Transfer the inmates to a reputable facility in-country. If we feel there is strong evidence against any, initiate public trials immediately. We've had them long enough to know. And the same goes for those held in extraordinary rendition, i.e., secret CIA prisons overseas. Naturally, "evidence" garnered by torture is inadmissable. For those detainees we have no case against, release them to their home countries with reparations & an apology. The Bill of Rights applies literally only to American citizens, but in principle it applies to all men at all times, everywhere. And the only plausable reason for the secrecy which has surrounded our treatment & trials of detainees, so this point, is that we ourselves have something to hide.

The Usurper:I don't even know where to start.  So I won't.

Bernice: I don't know how much of what this guy says is actually true, but I will say this:  I have a hard time feeling sorry for a guy that actively supported terrorism.  And considering what I know about how the terrorists treat their prisoners, he should be glad he didn't fall into their hands as an Australian sympathetic to the US.  They would have sliced his throat, and then while he squirmed, they would have removed his head with a knife.  That's how they operate. 

I find it hard to believe that this guy's story is fully credible in light of the fact that Obama had Gitmo investigated and it was found that they met Geneva convention requirements.

But, even if this guy's claims are true, I still don't feel sorry for him.  I'm just speaking honestly.  I don't care what we do to terrorists.  I say, shoot them on the battlefield.  Save us all the headache the world puts us through when we have to treat these murderers with kid gloves. 

In Mexico, just across the border, people are being killed every day by the drug cartel.  There is a solution, but we follow the law.  Which means, they will continue to kill civilians and each other while  we play by the rules.

Or

We could just go in there and kill everyone that is a known drug smuggler.  And declare war on them and kill them.  Bomb the hell out of them.  Take back the streets.  Fight the fight their way.

But that won't be acceptable to people.  So instead of being able to just kill them all, we have to allow them to continue to bring in drugs, kill our law enforcement officers, terrorize our citizens, and fight the fight in a way that gives them the advantage.  And in the long run, this advantage will keep them in power, and us in fear.

It suck to have to play nice. 

Artful Dodger: I wasn't talking about Gitmo. I didn't realize you still were. The terrorists we need to deal with are/were in the White House, the CIA, and the Defense Dept.

The Usurper: You don't have time not to know.  YOu have to deal with these terrorists.  If you are going to close Gitmo with no plan, then you MUST keep it operative.  If you agree to close it, you MUST have a plan.  What you offer now is silly.  Close Gitmo but what to do with the detainees?  Well, we'll do something.   Now how much sense does that really make to yoU?

Artful Dodger: For now, the solution is awareness. Let us observe, study, research, and not be fooled by a media-machine (left & right) determined to keep us in the dark. Let us not be afraid to examine alternate sources of news, and trust our growing discernment to separate the wheat from the chaff. Knowledge is power, at least potentially so. The ultimate solution? I don't know.

The Usurper:And your solution is?

Artful Dodger: These two articles refer to a recently released Pentagon study. However, the Pentagon has all along argued that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to Gitmo detainees. The International Red Cross battled with them over this issue for years.

That said, the Red Cross does report that conditions have improved in Gitmo, according to this article:
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,95370,00.html

That is a good start. It still doesn't alter the fact that, according to many reports & testimonies, including the Red Cross, long-term inhumane treatment of detainees was standard procedure at Gitmo in the past.

Nor do I have the faith in Obama, or Obama's Pentagon, that other liberals might have. He, like Bush, works for men who do not have the interests of the American people (or anyone else besides themselves) at heart.

The Usurper: At least on this point, we can agree. 

"Military uses include defensive armor plating and armor-piercing projectiles."

The U.S. has been using depleted uranium shells since the first Iraq war.

Learn about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium


See its results here:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=depleted+uranium&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=nZygScXOE4G4twfw1-37DA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title

[WARNING: A strong stomach required!]

This is diabolical. This is the American war machine at work. How in good conscience can anyone support this?

(V): I agree. It is an elitist philosophy with fascist roots. Henry Ford, for example, was a great advocate of this philosophy. He was also a staunch supporter of the Nazi movement. People also ought to research the Bush family on this. They also supported Nazism by criminally maintaining & furthering business relations during war, specifically the selling of arms to Germany. Elitism is the danger. Whether it comes in the form of Fascism or Communism, it is equally detrimental to humanity's well-being. And what we have in places of power, is something like a world-wide network of moneyed elitists. America is one of the main hubs of this group. To be sure, there is competition among different elitist groups. The elitists in China & Russia against the elitists in America, Israel & Great Britain, for example. But none of these groups have the interests of the common man in view. And woe unto us, that their power is growing.

Artful Dodger: Personal responsibility is never to be degraded. We all have it. Part of our personal responsibility is helping those who need it. Another part of our personal responsibility is insisting that our government doesn't put obstacles in the way of those trying to help themselves. I'm glad you also agree that modern Republican politicians have not been true to the conservative ideal, but have piled heavy debts upon U.S. citizens. This began with Reagan. And as you've (hopefully) noticed, I don't exempt Democrats from this criticism. Economically, they are to the right of Nixon now. The truth, however, is that social programs, if well designed, are far less a burden on people than military spending, partly because they build the economy from within. Think of Roosevelt's policies, back when a living wage was the rule, not the exception. They also are better for the world at large, because they don't encourage or facilitate an imperialist agenda. This is an agenda that conservatives also traditionally condemned.

Artful Dodger: More to the point, it is a logical extension of totalitarian philosophy, whatevef the economic system in question. The Nazis, for example, were fascists, not socialists.

I'm glad we agree that these "pure race" policies are wrong, whether practiced in Sweden, Nazi Germany, or America for that matter.

(V): They don't all think the same on every issue but they should be together on the core philosophies of the republican party (or call themselves something else).  And they do represent the people (they should) and listen to them.  Anyone in public office that thinks otherwise ought to get out quick.