Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6  [ show all ]
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
"Let's Roll"
    #5558402 - 04/26/06 12:02 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Does anybody really believe that story about Flight 93? 

The second the news reported that the flight crashed, my first thought was: The military shot it down. 

I must say, they did a really excellent job of turning what could have been a political nightmare into a moving story of selfless patriotism. 

'Let's Roll'- what a bunch of drivel.  And now they're making a movie of it.  :rolleyes:

I can just imagine the telphone conversation between Dubya and Osama that day...

Dubya: "We told you to destroy the twin towers, but the White House wasn't part of the deal!  THAT WASN'T PART OF THE DEAL, BIN LADEN!"

:lol:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEmptySpace
Stranger
Registered: 04/20/06
Posts: 69
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: DoctorJ]
    #5558440 - 04/26/06 12:12 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Very Cynical, I like that.  You bring up a rather interesting conspiracy theory, which I feel has some bearing.  Quite conveniently George was nowhere near any of the sights that got hit. 

Anyway, every time I hear the 93 story something just seems to be missing.  Interesting to think about.  Peace  :smile:


--------------------
We can't stop here - This is bat country.

-Duke--Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: DoctorJ]
    #5558704 - 04/26/06 01:29 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

They recovered Flight 93's black boxes and they have released the transcripts to the public (I read them in the paper about a week ago).  They also let family members listen to the actual recording of the black box.  One of the terrorists quite clearly says, "Take it down" when they realized the passengers were winning.

:shrug:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #5558709 - 04/26/06 01:31 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

huh. I did not know that.

Still, that could have easily been faked...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinebarfightlard
tales of theinexpressible
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/29/03 Happy 21st Shroomiversary!
Posts: 8,670
Loc: Canoodia
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: DoctorJ]
    #5558726 - 04/26/06 01:40 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

And the number of cell phones calls that got through from those altiutudes, absolutely amazing.....


--------------------

"What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?" - Bill Hicks


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: barfightlard]
    #5558757 - 04/26/06 01:50 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

bellylard said:
And the number of cell phones calls that got through from those altiutudes, absolutely amazing.....




So the nefarious government agency responsible for 9/11 managed to fake phone calls to relatives? And the callers just happened to sound exactly like their loved ones?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnimals
Just Danson inthe Dark
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/27/05
Posts: 1,260
Last seen: 13 years, 9 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #5558770 - 04/26/06 01:54 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

RandalFlagg said:
Quote:

bellylard said:
And the number of cell phones calls that got through from those altiutudes, absolutely amazing.....




So the nefarious government agency responsible for 9/11 managed to fake phone calls to relatives? And the callers just happened to sound exactly like their loved ones?




yes?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Animals]
    #5558780 - 04/26/06 01:57 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Pray tell, how did they do that?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,587
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 9 hours, 9 minutes
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #5558787 - 04/26/06 02:00 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Also, all the "terrorists" were actually androids built at Los Alamos.


--------------------
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEmptySpace
Stranger
Registered: 04/20/06
Posts: 69
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #5558805 - 04/26/06 02:04 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

The question is not about cell phone calls... The real question is why this happened, and the unbelievably coincidental circumstances of that day.  In reality, the 93 passengers could have stopped the terrorists from doing more harm, but for some reason terrorist threats up to that point were overlooked. 

There have been other attacks, though semi-unsuccessful, that would tell the administration that something bad eventually would happen.  Also funny how Iraq immediately got blamed, and now look at the stuff going on over there.  :frown:


--------------------
We can't stop here - This is bat country.

-Duke--Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: EmptySpace]
    #5558823 - 04/26/06 02:10 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

EmptySpace said:
In reality, the 93 passengers could have stopped the terrorists from doing more harm





??? Did you not read the black box transcripts yourself? The passengers rose up and fought the terrorists. They incapacitated or killed two of them and they were almost through the cockpit door when the other two terrorists intentionally flew the plane into the ground.

Quote:

EmptySpace said:
There have been other attacks, though semi-unsuccessful, that would tell the administration that something bad eventually would happen.





Damn straight. The Bush administration was not on the ball enough when it came to Islamic nutcases. They should have been more vigilante. Was the U.S. federal government negligent? Not from what I have seen. Did some agencies and people in the U.S. federal government fuck up some? Yes.

Quote:

EmptySpace said:
Also funny how Iraq immediately got blamed




Iraq didn't immediately get blamed. Al Qaeda did.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEmptySpace
Stranger
Registered: 04/20/06
Posts: 69
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #5558868 - 04/26/06 02:26 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

RandalFlagg said:
Quote:

EmptySpace said:
In reality, the 93 passengers could have stopped the terrorists from doing more harm





??? Did you not read the black box transcripts yourself? The passengers rose up and fought the terrorists. They incapacitated or killed two of them and they were almost through the cockpit door when the other two terrorists intentionally flew the plane into the ground.

What I meant was that they did stop them from crashing that plane into a building or something, but I was puting into question why they were put in that situation.


Quote:

EmptySpace said:
Also funny how Iraq immediately got blamed




Iraq didn't immediately get blamed. Al Qaeda did.




Obviously, I should have left out immediately, and put in after the fact. Sorry about my unclear communication.


--------------------
We can't stop here - This is bat country.

-Duke--Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #5558906 - 04/26/06 02:38 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

well that explains flight 93's crash

But I still don't understand how NORAD let 4 planes go off course and off IFF for 45 minutes without scrambling.

seems to me like those terrorists were given a window of opportunity by someone VERY high up in the US military...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: DoctorJ]
    #5559039 - 04/26/06 03:07 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Have you read the Congressional 9/11 report?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: EmptySpace]
    #5559108 - 04/26/06 03:24 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

EmptySpace said:


Quote:

EmptySpace said:
Also funny how Iraq immediately got blamed



.......
.......

Obviously, I should have left out immediately, and put in after the fact. Sorry about my unclear communication.




Would you be so kind as to find the quote wherein Iraq was tied to the 9/11 attacks by someone in the administration and link it for us. Thank you.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #5559262 - 04/26/06 04:14 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

RandalFlagg said:
Have you read the Congressional 9/11 report?




what for? 

Its just gonna be more bullshit. 

But yeah, I might get around to reading it some day.  Right now I still haven't finished the Kenneth Starr report :lol:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: DoctorJ]
    #5559322 - 04/26/06 04:39 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

DoctorJ said:
But yeah, I might get around to reading it some day.  Right now I still haven't finished the Kenneth Starr report :lol:



That must be hard to read.  I hear a lot of the pages are stuck together.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Silversoul]
    #5559330 - 04/26/06 04:43 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

"Best Stakeout Ever."

bow chika bow bow chika chika

:rofl:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibletak
geo's henchman
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 11/20/00
Posts: 3,776
Loc: nowhereland
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: DoctorJ]
    #5559606 - 04/26/06 05:59 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

I consider myself to be one of the so called "conspiracy theorists" even though I am sure most of it is fact, and others are brainwashed.

What I do not understand is that most of the people saying that 9/11 was set up by the government, and they had time to scramble jets before they hit the towers, and did not, etc, etc.

Yet when the flight is allegedly taken down by passengers, they are quick to say that it was shot down by the government, and that is a bad thing.

I just hope people pick their battles wisely, cause there is alot of foolishness here. I dont know what happend either way, but whatever, this is just what I am thinking at this moment.


--------------------
The DJ's took pills to stay awake and play for seven days.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: tak]
    #5559656 - 04/26/06 06:09 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

I'll concede the Flight 93 theory as long as the black box exhonorates the government. I was not aware of that until Randall pointed it out to me. Also, even if they had shot the plane down, I wouldn't necessarily blame them for that. If anything, I'm pissed that they didn't shoot them all down. I mean, I know those passengers were innocent people, but still... sometimes people have to die for the greater good.

But I still have my doubts as to the validty of the official story of 9/11.

I remember the first week after 9/11, I thought it was terrorists, and I was pissed. But then I started thinking about it, and my curiosity led me to sites like whatreallyhappened.com. That sight is obviously not very credible... but it still got me thinking.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBasilides
Servent ofWisdom
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/10/06
Posts: 7,059
Loc: Crown and Heart
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #5559675 - 04/26/06 06:13 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

The passengers actually killed a couple terrorists?


--------------------


"Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Basilides]
    #5559690 - 04/26/06 06:18 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Basilides said:
The passengers actually killed a couple terrorists?




It is not known for sure. However, it is very likely that the passengers did kill or incapacitate two of them because you supposedly can hear one of the passengers yell "into the cockpit" and there were noises of commotion. The two terrorists in the cockpit then make the audible decision to down the plane because the passengers were close to entering the cockpit.


Edited by RandalFlagg (04/26/06 06:19 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBasilides
Servent ofWisdom
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/10/06
Posts: 7,059
Loc: Crown and Heart
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #5559700 - 04/26/06 06:21 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

the Flight 93 struggle was alot like a basketball game


--------------------


"Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEmptySpace
Stranger
Registered: 04/20/06
Posts: 69
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5560443 - 04/26/06 09:18 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

I shouldn't have to. One of the lies that the administration told us for the Iraq Invasion, was a specific connection of Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. The adminstration believed that Saddam and the attacks were directly related. Paying attention during that time would have been a good idea. Sorry for sounding condescending, but that is the only way to get my point across.


--------------------
We can't stop here - This is bat country.

-Duke--Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: EmptySpace]
    #5560523 - 04/26/06 09:36 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

I shouldn't have to.




Yeah, you should have to. You made the allegation. Support it.

Quote:

One of the lies that the administration told us for the Iraq Invasion, was a specific connection of Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.




Yes, they told us that. Because it is true. That is not the same thing as saying Iraq was involved in the planning or execution of 9/11. No administration official has ever claimed Hussein had anything to do with 9/11.

Quote:

The adminstration believed that Saddam and the attacks were directly related.




And you know this because you can read their minds? Because you sure as hell don't know it from reading any of their published statements.

Quote:

Paying attention during that time would have been a good idea.




Pot. Kettle. Black.

Quote:

Sorry for sounding condescending, but that is the only way to get my point across.




You don't sound condescending, you sound ignorant. While the two qualities are not mutually exclusive, they are not identical.



Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVvellum
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5560763 - 04/26/06 10:17 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

rumsfeld wanted to attack iraq on Sept 11th: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml

Quote:

With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." ? meaning Saddam Hussein ? "at same time. Not only UBL" ? the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.

Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.

"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Vvellum]
    #5560837 - 04/26/06 10:29 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

As I've repeatedly said, they've been planning this war for years.

I still think that the real Saddam is in Tahiti right now, sipping one of those coconut umbrella drinks, sitting on a fat pile of cash, his reward from the Bush family for a job well done.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: DoctorJ]
    #5561010 - 04/26/06 11:06 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

DoctorJ said:
I remember the first week after 9/11, I thought it was terrorists, and I was pissed. But then I started thinking about it, and my curiosity led me to sites like whatreallyhappened.com. That sight is obviously not very credible... but it still got me thinking.



It was almost the opposite for me. When I first heard about it, I immediately suspected that someone in the government had to be in on it. Then, I started to accept the official story, only to later read the conspiracy theories and have my suspicions aroused again. I've actually gone back and forth on it a number of times.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Silversoul]
    #5561101 - 04/26/06 11:37 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

you ever seen the back of a $20 bill, man?  Is there a guy in the bushes?  What's he sayin?  "Red team, go!  Red team, go!"

:tinfoil:
:rofl:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5561542 - 04/27/06 02:24 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Yes, they told us that. Because it is true.

Source?

As Bush's hand-picked man David Kay remarked "We simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all.?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washin...ssein_al_qaeda/

That is not the same thing as saying Iraq was involved in the planning or execution of 9/11. No administration official has ever claimed Hussein had anything to do with 9/11.


The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

- [Bush?s Letter to Congress, 3/21/03]

Incidentally if you don't believe Bush administration propaganda was responsible for spreading the idea Iraq was linked to 9/11 why do you think polls show a proportion of the american public believes this idea? It couldn't have been the media because according to you the media are all bolsheviks opposed to Bush and his policy in Iraq. So where did it come from?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineexclusive58
illegal alien

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 2,146
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #5561846 - 04/27/06 07:19 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

RandalFlagg said:
They recovered Flight 93's black boxes and they have released the transcripts to the public (I read them in the paper about a week ago).  They also let family members listen to the actual recording of the black box.  One of the terrorists quite clearly says, "Take it down" when they realized the passengers were winning.

:shrug:




Correction:

None of the contents of the black boxes have been released to the public, with the exception of a partial transcript of the cockpit voice recorder, only released this year for the Moussaoui trial. Although a Freedom of Information Act was submitted to obtain the rest of the information from the blackbox, the FBI refused to comply, saying "we do not believe that the horror captured on the cockpit voice recording will console them in any way."

They also recovered the data recorder (the second of the two black boxes), but didn't release any information concerning it, or any other data recorder that were recovered (officially the blackboxes from the WTC weren't found, but some witnesses declared that they had seen them and that the FBI had taken them, telling the witnesses to shut up).


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineexclusive58
illegal alien

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 2,146
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: DoctorJ]
    #5561859 - 04/27/06 07:28 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Oh, and concerning the flight 93 crash, here's a very revealing slip of tongue made by Rumsfeld:

"I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten -- indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."


Also, doesn't it seem strange that debris from the flight have been found 8 miles away from the crash site? And how do officials explain this? The wind! HA!


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEmptySpace
Stranger
Registered: 04/20/06
Posts: 69
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5562415 - 04/27/06 11:08 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Here you go.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

it is not ignorance, it is the truth.
This link talks about the administration believing of the connection, and the fact that it is not true. So you are completely wrong, and obviously ignorant.


--------------------
We can't stop here - This is bat country.

-Duke--Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas


Edited by EmptySpace (04/27/06 11:10 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: EmptySpace]
    #5562796 - 04/27/06 01:11 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

it is not ignorance, it is the truth.




No, it is ignorance. No member of the Bush administration has ever stated Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks. I asked you to provide me a statement from any member of the administration saying otherwise, and you have failed to do so. Don't feel bad about that -- in the almost five years since the 9/11 attacks, no one else has ever been able to provide such a statement. That's due to the simple fact that there is no such statement to be found, although the ignorant believe otherwise.

As for the multiple and well documented connections between Hussein's Iraq and Al Qaeda, those are a matter of public record, and were a matter of public record even before the 9/11 attacks. With the recent release of thousands of captured documents, more and more of those connections are coming to light .

Of course, the fact (and yes, it is a fact) that Hussein's Iraq and Al Qaeda had a working relationship pre- 9/11 does not prove Hussein's Iraq was involved in the planning or carrying out of the 9/11 attacks. But I have never claimed they were.

Nor has anyone in the Bush administration.




Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: exclusive58]
    #5562861 - 04/27/06 01:37 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

exclusive58 said:
Correction:

None of the contents of the black boxes have been released to the public, with the exception of a partial transcript of the cockpit voice recorder, only released this year for the Moussaoui trial. Although a Freedom of Information Act was submitted to obtain the rest of the information from the blackbox, the FBI refused to comply, saying "we do not believe that the horror captured on the cockpit voice recording will console them in any way."




That's pretty much what I said. Here's a link to the transcript of the voice recording that was played at the Moussaoui trial:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0412061hijack1.html


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEmptySpace
Stranger
Registered: 04/20/06
Posts: 69
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5562912 - 04/27/06 01:48 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

This is going nowhere. Obviously both of us do not seem to be budging. In my defense I have heard from Dick Cheney's mouth, that he believes of the connection, specifically with 9/11. I did not say that they helped carry out the order, but what I do say is that the administration believes that there was a mutual connection. I am done with this, and you do provide good arguments. No reason to beat a dead horse.


--------------------
We can't stop here - This is bat country.

-Duke--Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: EmptySpace]
    #5563100 - 04/27/06 02:42 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

You're one who said that the adminstration stated that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Unless you can read minds or find us a good quote, you're the one who has no argument.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: EmptySpace]
    #5563543 - 04/27/06 04:26 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Obviously both of us do not seem to be budging.




It's not a question of "budging", but of your failure to back up your claim.

Quote:

In my defense I have heard from Dick Cheney's mouth, that he believes of the connection, specifically with 9/11.




If this were really the case, then with the help of internet search engines you would have no difficulty referencing a transcript of the occasion when he said this. The fact you cannot provide such a reference shows you are mistaken in your belief of what came out of Cheney's mouth.



Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDavid_vs_Goliath
Informer
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 208
Loc: Chicago
Last seen: 14 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5563843 - 04/27/06 05:28 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

well then phred what do you have to say about Rumsfeld planning to attack Iraq on sept 11. the day it happened?


--------------------
"People living deeply have no fear of death."
"Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love."
"Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: David_vs_Goliath]
    #5563857 - 04/27/06 05:32 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Rumsfeld was "planning" to do that? Show me, please.



Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDavid_vs_Goliath
Informer
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 208
Loc: Chicago
Last seen: 14 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5563947 - 04/27/06 06:08 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

rumsfeld wanted to attack iraq on Sept 11th: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." ? meaning Saddam Hussein ? "at same time. Not only UBL" ? the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.

Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.

"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."




Earlier in the thread.


--------------------
"People living deeply have no fear of death."
"Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love."
"Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: David_vs_Goliath]
    #5563971 - 04/27/06 06:19 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

I repeat my question.

What you provide doesn't show Rumsfeld on September 11 planning to attack Iraq, it shows Rumsfeld asking whether the available information is of high enough quality to support attacking Hussein and bin Laden at the same time. Not the same thing.

Reading comprehension is key.

As it turns out, the decision was not made to attack bin Laden and Hussein simultaneously. However -- and this seems a difficult point for some in this thread to grasp -- the fact that Hussein was eventually deposed by force by the coalition forces does not mean the motive for deposing him was a belief by the Bush adminstration that he was involved with 9/11.



Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDavid_vs_Goliath
Informer
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 208
Loc: Chicago
Last seen: 14 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5564022 - 04/27/06 06:37 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

AHHH SO STUBRON...This is what I'm pointing out, please respond on this. Why would the government immediatly talk about striking Iraq? Just makes no sense.

(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq ? even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 ? notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.


--------------------
"People living deeply have no fear of death."
"Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love."
"Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDavid_vs_Goliath
Informer
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 208
Loc: Chicago
Last seen: 14 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: David_vs_Goliath]
    #5564029 - 04/27/06 06:38 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

and even better

Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.

"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

*****Sweep it all up. Things related and NOT.**********


--------------------
"People living deeply have no fear of death."
"Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love."
"Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: David_vs_Goliath]
    #5564107 - 04/27/06 07:02 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

To repeat the obvious, your little bit of ungrammatical moronity does not quite rise to the level of exhibiting an administration assertion that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack. Do better. Thanks. You can call a pig a diamond all you want, it still can't cut glass.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDavid_vs_Goliath
Informer
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 208
Loc: Chicago
Last seen: 14 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5564782 - 04/27/06 09:56 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

I'm not calling a pig anything, What I am saying is that it is clear that the government used 9/11 to attack Iraq. Most people agree with this, you probley do too if i had to guess. This is just obvious proof of that after many other people speculating on the idea. good day.


--------------------
"People living deeply have no fear of death."
"Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love."
"Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSlooch
Lead Apprentice
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/07/06
Posts: 246
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5564892 - 04/27/06 10:25 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

I'm not gonna get into an argument with anyone here because I don't feel that its necessary.

*However I do want to speak my mind because the "flight 93" movie

There are plenty of people who are waking up to the "truth" *and what I mean is what REALLY happened that day.

The 911 commission report was severely edited and plenty of information was removed.

*Its now known that the "WMD's" that we went to war with Iraq were a COMPLETE LIE. Knowing that our government lied to us over that, what gives us any faith in what they tell us? How can we trust ANYTHING they say?

*going back to flight 93, how is it that the debris was found over 8 miles?

*There are just to many questions that need to be answered. That includes a real investigation to what happened, not done by our government, but by average people that have no connections with our government.

But obviously my position is that I don't believe my government (not after they lied to me) and I dint trust them (not after they let 4 planes hit there targets, NORAD standing down)

*I'm glad there are discussions like this, it allows people to make their points, and it brings out the truth.


--------------------
Hey Just take some time and look at this pic here, below... Its a Smile Face ON THE CAP! WHAT ARE THE CHANCES? AND THE OTHER AN 8???!!!! IS this a SIGN?



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTheDude
is waiting forthe peak

Registered: 04/15/03
Posts: 2,876
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: DoctorJ]
    #5565512 - 04/28/06 12:52 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

DoctorJ said:
well that explains flight 93's crash

But I still don't understand how NORAD let 4 planes go off course and off IFF for 45 minutes without scrambling.

seems to me like those terrorists were given a window of opportunity by someone VERY high up in the US military...




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_games_in_progress_on_September_11%2C_2001

I highly suggest reading Michael Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon. He covers the war games in detail, among other things.


--------------------
"this lebowski he called himself 'the dude'. now, 'dude', that's a name no one would self-apply where i come from but there was a lot about the dude that didn't make sense to me...."--the Stranger


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: TheDude]
    #5565852 - 04/28/06 02:58 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Thanks for the link. I found this line quite amusing:

Quote:

"During the course of the morning, there were multiple erroneous reports of hijacked aircraft in the system."




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRoker
Stranger
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 11/02/05
Posts: 343
Loc: outer spiral arm
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: DoctorJ]
    #5565940 - 04/28/06 03:35 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Just wait for it. Phred's going to show us Iraq's weapons of mass distruction!

And as for let's roll... the only thing missing is the heroes safely landing the plane. But who knows, in another 5 years the FBI might just convince us that they did?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleshymanta
Mad Scientist
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/27/05
Posts: 907
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Roker]
    #5565958 - 04/28/06 03:44 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Everyone who posted on this thread should watch Loose Change. Find it here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change

A compelling video.


Edited by shymanta (04/28/06 05:45 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: shymanta]
    #5566000 - 04/28/06 04:16 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

:lol:

Look down the page.  There's a thread all about it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Redstorm]
    #5566035 - 04/28/06 05:13 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

You're one who said that the adminstration stated that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Unless you can read minds or find us a good quote, you're the one who has no argument.

The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

- [Bush?s Letter to Congress, 3/21/03]


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5566039 - 04/28/06 05:22 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

No, it is ignorance.

It's ignorance, but purely on your part.

The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

- [Bush?s Letter to Congress, 3/21/03]

As for the multiple and well documented connections between Hussein's Iraq and Al Qaeda

None of them are true.

those are a matter of public record

That doesn't make them true.

were a matter of public record even before the 9/11 attacks.

They weren't true then either. Just like the bullshit about WMD wasn't true either.

With the recent release of thousands of captured documents, more and more of those connections are coming to light .


Source? Or did you just pull this out of your ass?

Don't just think that because that's what you'd like the documents to show that's what they will show. It doesn't work like that.

But then again you still believe the myth of WMD regardless of the truth so I guess you will believe whatever you want to believe.

Of course, the fact (and yes, it is a fact) that Hussein's Iraq and Al Qaeda had a working relationship pre- 9/11

Bullshit. You have absolutely no evidence for this claim whatsoever. Even Bush's handpicked man David Kay could find nothing.

does not prove Hussein's Iraq was involved in the planning or carrying out of the 9/11 attacks. But I have never claimed they were.


It's a pretty good smear tactic tho. When you have no evidence whatsoever all you do is make up the bullshit about Iraq working with al-qaeda and then hope people make a connection between Iraq and 9-11.

Nor has anyone in the Bush administration

The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

- [Bush?s Letter to Congress, 3/21/03]


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5566258 - 04/28/06 08:34 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Alex213 writes:

Quote:

The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.




What's your point? Are you providing that sentence as an example of someone in the Bush administration claiming Iraq bore responsibility for the September 11 attacks? Because it isn't an example of such.

Reading comprehension is key, Alex213, as is context. So let's look at the context, shall we? Why did Bush decide it was even necessary to deliver such a notification to Congress?

First of all, in actual fact, there were two such notifications. The first one was delivered the day before the coalition troops crossed the border into Iraq. The full text can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html --

Quote:

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH




The second notification was delivered two days after the coalition troops had crossed the border into Iraq. The full text can be found here http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-5.html --

Quote:

March 21, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

On March 18, 2003, I made available to you, consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), my determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

Consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), I now inform you that pursuant to my authority as Commander in Chief and consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), I directed U.S. Armed Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to commence combat operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq.

These military operations have been carefully planned to accomplish our goals with the minimum loss of life among coalition military forces and to innocent civilians. It is not possible to know at this time either the duration of active combat operations or the scope or duration of the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces necessary to accomplish our goals fully.

As we continue our united efforts to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States, I look forward to our continued consultation and cooperation.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH




Bush's statements in the two notifications did nothing more than address one of the legal certifications required for war by Congress.

What Bush actually said (in the first notification) is that "acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." The phrase "consistent with" indicates the resumption of hostilities in Iraq is part of the broader war on terrorists, not that it is central to the war against Al Qaeda. The word "including" means the perpetrators of 9/11 are among the "international terrorists and terrorist organizations" who are the subject of the relevant legislation, not that the action was exclusively targeted at them. And of course this was just one of many rationales for war listed in the authorizing legislation, law 107-243 (Congressional AUMF). http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Finally, the dates of the documents make it plain this was no attempt to convince anyone to support the resumption of hostilities with Iraq. The convincing had been done long ago and the authorization to proceed had been given. The notifications are nothing more than standard pro forma governmental legalistic filings -- one filed immediately before the action was to be implemented, notifying Congress of the action about to be taken and pointing out the requirements set by Congress had been met; then one filed immediately after the action had been taken, notifying them of what had been done and again pointing out the required certifications had been met.




Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5567068 - 04/28/06 01:48 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

The phrase "consistent with" indicates the resumption of hostilities in Iraq is part of the broader war on terrorists, not that it is central to the war against Al Qaeda. The word "including" means the perpetrators of 9/11 are among the "international terrorists and terrorist organizations" who are the subject of the relevant legislation, not that the action was exclusively targeted at them.

We're dealing with standard Bush white house propaganda techniques here. The white house lawyers draft a statement designed to give everyone the inference that Iraq was involved with 9/11 but phrase it with such legalese that Bush would have plausible deniablity in a courtroom.

The context here is vital. Bush is trying to justify an illegal invasion of Iraq, if Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 why even mention 9/11 other than to make the inference?

The convincing had been done long ago

Of course all the "convincing" you refer to was nothing more than cynical lies. No doubt the white house lawyers made sure every phrase Bush uttered made the inference they wished to make but phrased it with such intentionally confusing syntax to give him plausible deniability when the statement proved to have no truth.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5567115 - 04/28/06 02:07 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

He mentions terrorism because they felt that since Iraq harbored them, it was a legitimate reason to invade them. I don't know if this reason is good enough, but it is what they were getting at.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Redstorm]
    #5567127 - 04/28/06 02:14 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

But why would the invasion of Iraq be consistent with action taken against 9/11 if Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?

Why mention the two things in the same sentence if they have nothing to do with each other? Just look at how long-winded and convoluted the statement is. The last time I saw a sentence constructed like that it was in the small print on my insurance documents. It's a standard legalese technique of creating an impression whilst also giving yourself plausible deniability.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5567137 - 04/28/06 02:19 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

The context here is vital. Bush is trying to justify an illegal invasion of Iraq, if Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 why even mention 9/11 other than to make the inference?




The context here is indeed vital. The context is the tying in of the two notifications to the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (Public law 107-243). That is why I thoughtfully provided a link to that Public law -- so you could see with your own eyes that the notifications sent to Congress by Bush lift entire sections of phrasing, word for word, directly from the Public law, specifically:

"Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

"Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;"


It's not as if Bush spent any time thinking up some sort of devious and subtle subliminal message here, he simply cut and pasted the boilerplate phrasing from the very legislation he was referencing in his notifications.

Have you never dealt with lawyers? Specifically with legal notifications referencing existing contracts? Because I have, and I assure you this is standard practice. If you're trying to show your action complies with a contract, you quote verbatim in your notification the section of the contract in question.

The whole point of my response was to show you that the words in Bush's letter aren't even his own. They're Congress's. I provided the link to the Public law so you could check out the relevant legislation and overcome your ignorance in private.

Now, if you want to criticize Bush for being too lazy to think up his own lines, instead preferring to crib them from Congressional legislation, that's a whole different conversation. But to present Congress's words as some kind of Bush "brainwash" won't cut it.


Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5567145 - 04/28/06 02:21 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

It's not as if Bush spent any time thinking up some sort of devious and subtle subliminal message here, he simply cut and pasted the boilerplate phrasing from the very legislation he was referencing in his notifications.


You're missing the context. Bush is trying to LINK IRAQ with this. Congress wasn't doing that. Congress was talking about nations responsible for 9/11. Can you understand the difference?



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5567173 - 04/28/06 02:40 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Sigh.

What is the title of Public Law 107-243? Why, it's --

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Can you not understand that the sole purpose of Public Law 107-243 was to lay out in great detail Congress's rationale for authorizing the use of US armed forces in Iraq? All that is taking place in those two notifications is that Bush is letting them know he's finally getting around to using their authorization.

If you contend Congress wasn't trying to link Iraq with 9/11 in their authorization to use the US military, how can you with a straight face then turn around and contend that Bush -- using the identical wording as Congress -- is trying to link Iraq with 9/11 when he informs Congress he'll be taking them up on their authorization?

You can't have it both ways, Alex213.




Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSlooch
Lead Apprentice
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/07/06
Posts: 246
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5567847 - 04/28/06 06:25 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

No matter what bush said, how can anyone belive him after he lied about WMD's?

You cant trust what the Bush administaion is saying about anything, no matter what the context.


--------------------
Hey Just take some time and look at this pic here, below... Its a Smile Face ON THE CAP! WHAT ARE THE CHANCES? AND THE OTHER AN 8???!!!! IS this a SIGN?



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Slooch]
    #5568015 - 04/28/06 07:04 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

No matter what bush said...




Not following the conversation, I see.

Bush "said" essentially nothing in the notifications to Congress. He complied with the bare bones minimum reporting to Congress required by Public Law 107-243 in the first notification dated March 18, 2003. The follow up notification 48 hours after the troops crossed the border contained a little more comment, true, but none of the additional commentary implied Hussein had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Quote:

... how can anyone belive him after he lied about WMD's?




Seeing as how he didn't lie about WMDs, your comment makes no sense.



Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSlooch
Lead Apprentice
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/07/06
Posts: 246
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5568321 - 04/28/06 08:18 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Dude its mainsteam news that Bush lied about WMD's, Phred obviously you dont know what is going on in the world.

Here is an article if you can bring your self to read it Phred.
Clearly the WMD statement to the public was FALSE.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/


--------------------
Hey Just take some time and look at this pic here, below... Its a Smile Face ON THE CAP! WHAT ARE THE CHANCES? AND THE OTHER AN 8???!!!! IS this a SIGN?



Edited by Slooch (04/28/06 08:41 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Slooch]
    #5568703 - 04/28/06 09:56 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Here's the thing. I fall in the middle of the debate.

I don't think Bush outright lied....but I think he cherrypicked intelligence. I think the CIA and all major nation's intelligence agencies thought Saddam had WMD. I think Bush thought he would find some shit. He obviously didn't.

There were many political reasons to take out Saddam. I listed them in a thread a long time ago.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Slooch]
    #5569626 - 04/29/06 05:25 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Dude its mainsteam news that Bush lied about WMD's, Phred obviously you dont know what is going on in the world.




Dewd, it's a leftie canard that Bush "lied" about WMDs. You obviously don't know what is going on in the world.

Was the US intelligence community mistaken about how much of Hussein's known stockpiles of bio and chem weaponry remained in Iraq? As of today, it looks as if they were. But so were the intelligence agencies of everyone else. So were Hussein's own generals.

Believing faulty intelligence (especially when everyone else believes it) isn't "lying".



Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRoker
Stranger
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 11/02/05
Posts: 343
Loc: outer spiral arm
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5569628 - 04/29/06 05:33 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Hey Phred, how long have you been working for bush?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5569736 - 04/29/06 07:44 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

contend that Bush -- using the identical wording as Congress

Bush does not use identical wording as Congress.

in those two notifications is that Bush is letting them know he's finally getting around to using their authorization.


Nonsense. The letter is the Bush administrations formal justification for war with Iraq.

You can't have it both ways

What do you mean by "both ways"? You have yet to explain how 9/11 can be used as justification for an attack on Iraq when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Please do so.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5569744 - 04/29/06 07:51 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Was the US intelligence community mistaken about how much of Hussein's known stockpiles of bio and chem weaponry remained in Iraq?

"Mistaken"? How laughable. Are you still telling us you believe Bush was utterly sincere in it's belief in WMD? Seriously?

But so were the intelligence agencies of everyone else

Bullshit.

Believing faulty intelligence (especially when everyone else believes it) isn't "lying".


No-one "believed" it except Bush and Blair. As the British intelligence agency have since said they were extremely uneasy at the weight Bush and Blair were attaching to such weak intelligence. It was well knows the intelligence was incredibly weak and based largely on the word of corrupt exiles like Chalabi.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5569746 - 04/29/06 07:54 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
What do you mean by "both ways"? You have yet to explain how 9/11 can be used as justification for an attack on Iraq when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Please do so.




Here's how I remember it being presented by the Bush administration:

1. We are pretty sure Saddam has WMD's.
2. Saddam is blatantly hostile to the U.S.
3. Saddam has had some contact with Islamic militants before. Also, he is known for rewarding Islamic terrorism by giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
4. Saddam could possibly supply Islamic nutcases with some WMD's. The possible risks that Saddam poses are great.
5. Was Saddam involved or complicit in 9/11? No. Did 9/11 make us look at things differently? Yes. Are we now willing to go after people preemptively to avert possible future problems? Yes.

Obviously, #1 ended up being wrong. #2 is true and was never in doubt. #3 is true. #4 is iffy at best. #5 is a policy that I do not agree with.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5569750 - 04/29/06 07:59 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
Was the US intelligence community mistaken about how much of Hussein's known stockpiles of bio and chem weaponry remained in Iraq?

"Mistaken"? How laughable. Are you still telling us you believe Bush was utterly sincere in it's belief in WMD? Seriously?




Nobody really knows what was going on in the mind of Bush. We're not psychic and we can only make educated guesses. Some people think he flat-out lied about WMD's and some think he really believed the WMD stuff. I'm kind of in the middle. I think he thought that Saddam had some WMD-ish capabilities. But, I also think that Bush and his policy-makers were salivating over all of the geo-political advantages that could be had by getting rid of Saddam.

Quote:

Alex213 said:
Quote:

But so were the intelligence agencies of everyone else




Bullshit.




Actually, many other nation's intelligence agencies thought that Saddam had WMD's or WMD aspirations as well.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #5569752 - 04/29/06 08:01 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Blatantly hostile to the US in what way tho? He might talk a lot of shit but so what. Bush talked a lot of shit about him.

I'm not sure about 3 being true. He was well known for slaughtering thousands of islamic militants. Hell, the first thing he did when he entered Kuwait was ban beards.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #5569759 - 04/29/06 08:10 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Some people think he flat-out lied about WMD's and some think he really believed the WMD stuff.

I think they knew there was a very good chance it was all bullshit which is why the white house lawyers were so careful to phrase every statement he ever made in such a way as to give him plausible deniability when it was exposed as untrue.

Actually, many other nation's intelligence agencies thought that Saddam had WMD's or WMD aspirations as well.

I've not seen any evidence of this. No agency had anyone on the ground in Iraq, all they were going on was the word of Iraqi exiles like Chalabi. None of it was reliable and both British and American intelligence have since said they were horrified at the way Bush represented "evidence". Second hand talk they'd picked up from two bit drunks like "Curveball" was being presented as "intelligence evidence". It was nothing of the sort. The yellow cake nonsense was a prime example.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5569766 - 04/29/06 08:13 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
Blatantly hostile to the US in what way tho? He might talk a lot of shit but so what. Bush talked a lot of shit about him.




Off the top of my head:

1. Shooting at our planes in the no-fly zones.
2. Attempting to assassinate Bush Sr. during a trip.

True, most of his hostility was bluster. But, after 9/11 maybe it was wise to take bluster a little more seriously.

Quote:

Alex213 said:
I'm not sure about 3 being true.




Saddam had a weird relationship with the Islamic extremists. The Islamists hated Saddam for how secular Iraqi society was, how corrupt his regime was, and how fake of a Muslim he was (Saddam drank, had mistresses, etc..). But, Saddam did make attempts every now and then to boost his "Islamic cred". For example, he had the Koran written in his blood and put on display. He changed the Iraqi flag to include an Islamic slogan. Granted, all of this was probably him just hamming it up to the "Muslim street".

Did he send out "feelers" to Al Qaeda or other Islamic groups? From what I have seen it appears so. Did anything come of this though? Not from what I have seen.


Edited by RandalFlagg (04/29/06 08:35 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5569775 - 04/29/06 08:20 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
Quote:

Actually, many other nation's intelligence agencies thought that Saddam had WMD's or WMD aspirations as well.




I've not seen any evidence of this. No agency had anyone on the ground in Iraq, all they were going on was the word of Iraqi exiles like Chalabi. None of it was reliable and both British and American intelligence have since said they were horrified at the way Bush represented "evidence".




I remember seeing a thread a while ago that listed all of the various nation's intelligence agencies that were suspicious of Saddam and WMD's. Maybe Phred remembers which one it was.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #5569781 - 04/29/06 08:26 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

This list isn't going to be like the coalition of the willing is it? So the federated islands of micronesia's intelligence agency beleived the story of WMD?

The trouble is none of the intelligence agencies had anyone on the ground. All any of them had was the word of Chalabi and drunks like Curveball. Combine that with Bush putting massive pressure on them to come up with absolutely anything that could be used no matter how inaccurate and wrong it proved to be. The white house lawyers would make sure any lie was phrased in such a way as to give plausible deniability when it was exposed.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5569786 - 04/29/06 08:31 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
This list isn't going to be like the coalition of the willing is it? So the federated islands of micronesia's intelligence agency beleived the story of WMD?




:lol:

I'm not sure.  It has been a while since I saw it.


Edited by RandalFlagg (04/29/06 08:33 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #5569790 - 04/29/06 08:35 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Doesn't sound like they were too keen on the truth does it...

(CNN) -- A retired CIA official has accused the Bush administration of ignoring intelligence indicating that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no active nuclear program before the United States-led coalition invaded it, CBS News said Sunday.

Tyler Drumheller, the former highest-ranking CIA officer in Europe, told "60 Minutes" that the administration "chose to ignore" good intelligence, the network said in a posting on its Web site.

Drumheller said that, before the U.S.-led attack on Iraq in 2003, the White House "ignored crucial information" from Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, that indicated Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

Drumheller said that, when then-CIA Director George Tenet told President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other high-ranking officials that Sabri was providing information, his comments were met with excitement that proved short-lived.

"[The source] told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," Drumheller is quoted as saying. "The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "

Drumheller said the administration officials wanted no more information from Sabri because: "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy."


http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/23/cia.iraq/index.html


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Roker]
    #5569891 - 04/29/06 11:14 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Roker said:
Hey Phred, how long have you been working for bush?




Its always been my theory that Phred is a spook stationed in South America to look after Illuminati interests...  :lol:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5570587 - 04/29/06 02:52 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Bush does not use identical wording as Congress.




Alex213, it is a source of constant amazement to me how little you care for your own credibility. Why you insist on setting yourself up over and over for public embarassment will always remain a mystery to me. But hey... I guess you gotta do what you gotta do.

I even gave you ample opportunity to cure your ignorance in private -- by providing you only the link to Public Law 107-243 so you could look it over on your own (as other interested readers did), educate yourself in private, then just let the matter drop without me needing to walk you through this in front of the whole forum. Sadly, it seems I'll have to do the walkthrough after all.

Ready to follow along? Here we go.

First, bring up in a separate browser window the full text of Public Law 107-243. It's at this link -- http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Next, scroll past all the "whereas" clauses, then scroll past SEC. 1 and SEC. 2 till you come to SEC. 3. Go to part (b) of SEC. 3 -- the part that is titled PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION. Read the intro there. You will note it says:

"In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that --"

Now, before we get to exactly what they require him to determine, let's note the phrasing here. The use of the word "shall" specifies that this is a mandatory notification. In other words, Congress is telling Bush that when it comes time for him to actually exercise the authority Congress has granted him under Public Law 107-243, he must notify the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate within the specified time frame.

And what is it he must notify them of? He must notify them he has determined the following two things --

"(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."


Now, let's go to Bush's notification of March 18, 2003. This is the day before the coalition troops crossed the border into Iraq. To make the comparison easier, you can bring that notification up in yet another separate browser window. Here is the link -- http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

We can see that in his notification he tells them he has determined that --

"(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."


Now let's do a word for word comparison of Congress's wording in red, and Bush's wording in blue to see which words don't match. I'll reprint the words in common in black, and any differences in red (Congress) and blue (Bush) so we can easily see which words have been changed --

"(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or/and other peaceful means alone either/will neither (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or/nor (B) is not likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."


Well, well, well. Look at that! The only changes Bush (or White House legal counsel, more probably) made were those required to tidy up the grammar of determination (1). Determination (2) is identical to the language Congress used. Word for word. Letter for letter. Even including the "(", the "2", and the ")".

Now let's do a quick flip back through this thread to your post # 5566039 -- http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/5558402/page/0/fpart/3/vc/1/nt/4 -- and see what you had presented as "proof" that Bush had claimed Iraq bore responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Why, it's a sentence fragment of Bush's followup notification to Congress dated March 21, 2003. Here's the sentence fragment you quoted --

"[T]he use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

And here once again is Congress's wording --

"(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

And finally, here is a comparison of the two statements. Again, words common to both are in black, Congress's wording in red, Bush's wording in blue --

"(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243/[T]he use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."



I rest my case. Members of the jury may now make their determination.



Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRoker
Stranger
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 11/02/05
Posts: 343
Loc: outer spiral arm
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: DoctorJ]
    #5570750 - 04/29/06 03:44 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Its always been my theory that Phred is a spook stationed in South America to look after Illuminati interests...  :lol:




I think you may be right! It's an insidious plan to get the global counter culture on-side with big business and the military industrial complex! (I have it on good authority that Phred is actually Ari Fleischer).


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5570985 - 04/29/06 04:49 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

"Alex213, it is a source of constant amazement to me how little you care for your own credibility." 

World class smackage.  Not likely to significantly impact the rock that  is Alex's brain but very strong research, which will hopefully drive away some of the fallacious demons that seem to have possessed the more impressionable of our members.  :thumbup:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSlooch
Lead Apprentice
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/07/06
Posts: 246
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5572782 - 04/30/06 01:13 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Suggested reasons to impeach George bush

*NSA warrantless surveillance

*Invasion of Iraq --The case put forward by John Bonifaz in the book Warrior-King: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush is the same as the grounds for his John Doe I v. President Bush lawsuit; namely, that Bush invaded Iraq without a clear Congressional declaration of war. The argument is that the Congressional resolution to authorize Bush to use military force in Iraq was unconstitutional because it "confers discretion upon the President to wage war", contrary to the War Powers Clause of the Constitution.


Edited by Slooch (04/30/06 01:22 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSlooch
Lead Apprentice
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/07/06
Posts: 246
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Slooch]
    #5572809 - 04/30/06 01:19 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

JUSTIFICATION FOR INVASION

Furthermore, the arguments put forward for the invasion of Iraq the possession and development of weapons of mass destruction and active links to al Qaeda have been found to be false, according to all official reports. The Bush administration advocated that this was due to failure by the intelligence community. However, it has become clear that, prior to the invasion, these arguments had already been widely disputed, which had purportedly been reported to the U.S. administration. Until today, an in-depth investigation into the nature of these discrepancies has been frustrated. Supporters of impeachment argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war. The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo are used to substantiate that allegation. Congressional Democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry. A report by the Washington Post on April 12, 2006, corroborates that view. It states that the Bush administration advocated that two small trailers which had been found in Iraq were "biological laboratories," despite evidence to the contrary.

"The three-page field report and a 122-page final report published three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories."

Activists charge that Bush committed obstruction of Congress, a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001, both by withholding information which he ought to have communicated, and by supplying information, in his States of the Union speeches, that he should have known to be incorrect. This law is comparable to perjury, but it does not require that the statements be made under oath.[citation needed]

John Conyers, Robert Parry and Marjorie Cohn -professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists- asserts that this was not a war in self-defense but a war of aggression contrary to the U.N. Charter (a crime against peace) and therefore a war crime.

***** A WAR CRIME

**Geneva Conventions controversy

Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration advocated that suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban members would be designated as unlawful combatants. They suggested that, as such, they were not protected under the Geneva Conventions. To address the mandatory review by a "competent tribunal" as defined by article five of the Third Geneva Convention, Combatant Status Review Tribunals were established. The American Bar Association, Human Rights Watch, the Council on Foreign Relations and Joanne Mariner from FindLaw have dismissed the use of the unlawful combatant status as not compatible with U.S. and international law.

Representative John Conyers has advocated investigating the abuses to see if they violate the Geneva Conventions and are thus cause for impeachment, while Francis A. Boyle and Veterans For Peace hold that impeachment proceedings should be started.


*** Any ONE of these topics are grounds for impeachment, JUST ONE.

Now PLEASE tell me Phred how you still support this president?!!

HOW CAN SOMEONE. ANYONE?! Support this president? THERE HAS NEVER BEEN a president like this one. Sure other presidents have done some-things wrong but NOTHING like this one.

So how is it that you can even TRY to argue what he has done? All you are doing is showing how much you support this president, which MOST of the people on this forum DONT support.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Slooch]
    #5573475 - 04/30/06 08:47 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Slooch said:
Suggested reasons to impeach George bush

*NSA warrantless surveillance




They happen to be quite legal and I only regret that the idiot whore- monger Clinton and his jackass advisor Gorelick had had the foresight to actually monitor the assholes who blew up our buildings.
Quote:



*Invasion of Iraq --The case put forward by John Bonifaz in the book Warrior-King: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush is the same as the grounds for his John Doe I v. President Bush lawsuit; namely, that Bush invaded Iraq without a clear Congressional declaration of war. The argument is that the Congressional resolution to authorize Bush to use military force in Iraq was unconstitutional because it "confers discretion upon the President to wage war", contrary to the War Powers Clause of the Constitution.




John Bonifaz can put forward any case he wants to. Unfortunately for him (but fortunately for the rest of us) this argument is a loser. At any rate, it seems that his issue is with the actions of Congress here and not the President,"the Congressional resolution......... was unconstitutional." Why he thinks an unconstitutional act by the Congress should lead to a Bush impeachment is a pretty clear effort to contort anything into an impeachment call. Let's see, Congress authorizes the use of force and Bush uses it. Who does this asshole think should be determining this policy? The elected representatives of the people, who overwhelmingly chose this course, or some judge, unelected and unaccountable to the people? I know who I would chose. By the way, how is that lawsuit going anyway?

Bonifaz is a wanker. But what kind of wanker is he? Why he is a partisan hack wanker, of course. Go see here
http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2005/01/john-bonifaz-remarks-at-fanueil-hall.html
where he raises the same old loser bullshit that Bush stole two elections, Left-wing nonsense that is no longer supported even by the NYTimes. Voter fraud? Actually seems to be more of a Democrat tactic.
http://www.politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.html?col=434


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineexclusive58
illegal alien

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 2,146
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Slooch]
    #5573476 - 04/30/06 08:48 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Slooch said:


*** Any ONE of these topics are grounds for impeachment, JUST ONE.

Now PLEASE tell me Phred how you still support this president?!!

HOW CAN SOMEONE. ANYONE?! Support this president? THERE HAS NEVER BEEN a president like this one. Sure other presidents have done some-things wrong but NOTHING like this one.





My guess is, some people have been making lots of money off of what has been going on. Its very obvious that for some people, financial interests rule and all sense of compassion or solidarity or humanism goes out the window. Its called greed. Nothing new.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: exclusive58]
    #5573590 - 04/30/06 09:56 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Slooch said:
JUSTIFICATION FOR INVASION

Furthermore, the arguments put forward for the invasion of Iraq the possession and development of weapons of mass destruction and active links to al Qaeda have been found to be false, according to all official reports.





We'll get to the WMDs a little later. Please find any quote wherein any administration official made a statement that there was an active link between al Qaeda and Hussein. I'll save you some time. It doesn't exist. Never has. What was asserted is that Hussein had ties to terrororists. This is clearly true. Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization in the world, nor is it even the only one to attack us. Additionally, documents have been found wherein Hussein made an offer, which was declined at the time, for safe harbor for bin Laden and friends.
Quote:



The Bush administration advocated that this was due to failure by the intelligence community. However, it has become clear that, prior to the invasion, these arguments had already been widely disputed, which had purportedly been reported to the U.S. administration. Until today, an in-depth investigation into the nature of these discrepancies has been frustrated. Supporters of impeachment argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war. The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo are used to substantiate that allegation.




The national intelligence agencies have a huge number of employees, among whom you can find a broad range of opinions. I have no doubt whatsoever that quite a few thought Hussein's capabilites were exaggerated. So what? From the Downing street memo, which you seem to hold as some sort of bible
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_3,00.html
"On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."

They seem to be assuming the unquestioned existence of WMD, don't they? Further, this in today's NY Times, from page 7 Week in Review section:
"In 2002, therefor, when the United States intercepted a message between two Iraqi Republican Guard corps commandersdiscussing the removal of the words "nerve agents" from the "wireless instructions," or learned of instructions to "search the area surrounding the headquarters camp and [the unit] for any chemical agents, make sure the area is free of chemical containers, and write a report on it," United States analysts viewed this information through the prism of a decade of prior deceit. They had no way of knowing that this time the information reflected the regime's attempt to ensure it was in compliance...."
"What was meant to prevent suspicion thus ended up heightening it."

Here's the process. Gather as much information asyou can, analyze it, make a decision on what to do, then make your case to the people for your decision. You do not endlessly waffle about. Carter and Clinton proved the uselessness of that course. No deception involved.
Quote:




Congressional Democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry. A report by the Washington Post on April 12, 2006, corroborates that view. It states that the Bush administration advocated that two small trailers which had been found in Iraq were "biological laboratories," despite evidence to the contrary.




As there was evidence to support that conclusion. Anybody who thinks that all evidence only points one way is a fool.
Quote:



"The three-page field report and a 122-page final report published three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories."




I don't know about that.
Quote:



Activists charge that Bush committed obstruction of Congress, a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001, both by withholding information which he ought to have communicated, and by supplying information, in his States of the Union speeches, that he should have known to be incorrect. This law is comparable to perjury, but it does not require that the statements be made under oath.[citation needed]




Activists can "charge" anything they want. It has absolutely no bearing on reality. They are quite selective in their choice of evidence, far more than the administration, in their afforts to make their case that he "should have known." They are in fact in no position to know what he "should have known." A handful of Congresspeople from both sides of the aisle are, though, and they don't seem interested in this blather.
Quote:



John Conyers, Robert Parry and Marjorie Cohn -professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists- asserts that this was not a war in self-defense but a war of aggression contrary to the U.N. Charter (a crime against peace) and therefore a war crime.




John Conyers is not one of those Congresspeople. He is a widely ignored loon. There are umpteen lawyers who say that their position is bullshit. Yipee.
Quote:



***** A WAR CRIME

**Geneva Conventions controversy

Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration advocated that suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban members would be designated as unlawful combatants. They suggested that, as such, they were not protected under the Geneva Conventions. To address the mandatory review by a "competent tribunal" as defined by article five of the Third Geneva Convention, Combatant Status Review Tribunals were established. The American Bar Association, Human Rights Watch, the Council on Foreign Relations and Joanne Mariner from FindLaw have dismissed the use of the unlawful combatant status as not compatible with U.S. and international law.




And umpteen other lawyers disagree. Yipee again.
Quote:



Representative John Conyers has advocated investigating the abuses to see if they violate the Geneva Conventions and are thus cause for impeachment, while Francis A. Boyle and Veterans For Peace hold that impeachment proceedings should be started.




This is good. In one breath you assert that they are violations. In the next you support the call for an investigation to determine if they are. Why investigate what you already know? Further, I fail to see why the acts of the entire government should trigger any spurious impeachment activity. Why stop at Bush? Impeach everybody on the Armed Forces commitee and the intelligence commitees
Quote:




*** Any ONE of these topics are grounds for impeachment, JUST ONE.




No, they are not. Thankfully, there are enough adults in the government that this bullshit is receiving the action it deserves, which is none.
Quote:


Now PLEASE tell me Phred how you still support this president?!!

HOW CAN SOMEONE. ANYONE?! Support this president? THERE HAS NEVER BEEN a president like this one. Sure other presidents have done some-things wrong but NOTHING like this one.

So how is it that you can even TRY to argue what he has done? All you are doing is showing how much you support this president, which MOST of the people on this forum DONT support.




I cannot speak for Phred. I support the decision to go to war in Iraq because I wanted it done long ago. He has finally done what should have been done the day after the first time he kicked the inspectors out. This is not fucking Romper Room. You either adhere to the cease fire or you get removed. That's it. How about this for an idea.
We finish the job the first time. There are no troops in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden doesn't go crazy over our troops in Saudi Arabia. The Towers still stand and 3,000 murdered people are still alive. Not to mention the people killed by Hussein in our decade of inaction. Better late than never.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5576202 - 05/01/06 01:48 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Alex213, it is a source of constant amazement to me how little you care for your own credibility

LOL!

Coming from the one man who still believes that Iraq had WMD I can only take this as a compliment.

The use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Let me simplify this for you.

1) Did Bush claim this or not?

2) If he did then please explain how an attack on Iraq can be consistent with action taken against the perpetrators of 9/11.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5576207 - 05/01/06 01:50 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Not likely to significantly impact the rock that is Alex's brain

Will this flame recieve the same response from Phred as left-wingers who flame I wonder...  :rolleyes:

He has finally done what should have been done the day after the first time he kicked the inspectors out.

Every "fact" you alledge in your post is completely wrong but just to clarify this one for you. Saddam didn't kick the inspectors out. The UN withdrew them. Fact.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5576224 - 05/01/06 02:03 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Bin Laden doesn't go crazy over our troops in Saudi Arabia. The Towers still stand and 3,000 murdered people are still alive. Not to mention the people killed by Hussein in our decade of inaction. Better late than never.


LOL!

I only just saw this gem!

So you invade Iraq in 1991, slaughter countless thousands of innocent people, occupy the country and that makes Bin Laden happy does it?  :rolleyes:

Try and THINK things through a little more.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5576417 - 05/01/06 05:51 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Alex213 writes:

Quote:

Let me simplify this for you.




I simplified it for you almost to the point of insult when I led you by hand through the process using color-coded quotes and everything. If The Shroomery would support Power Point presentations in its forums I guess I could have made it easier for you to follow, but since The Shroomery lacks such support I did the best I could.

Bottom line is that if Bush had NOT sent the mandatory notification, you and your ilk would be claiming he should be impeached for defying Congressional instructions. Since he DID send the mandatory notification, you instead whine that he's somehow trying to convince people that Hussein's Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks -- despite the fact (and yes, Alex213, it IS a fact) his notification did nothing more than meet the absolute bare bones notification requirements as specified by Congress -- to the point of using identical wording and nothing more. You want to be angry with Congress for using what you personally consider to be misleading wording? Be my guest. But trying to lay it off on Bush is intellectually dishonest.

Every other reader who read my post understands that the sentence fragment from the March 21, 2003 notification you quoted (without sourcing it, I should note) does not fit what I asked for -- an example of a statement by someone in the Bush administration claiming Hussein's Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. It seems you're the only one here who doesn't grasp this. What conclusion can we draw from this? Either:

a) You are honestly unable to grasp what has been so painstakingly laid out for you, which reflects poorly on your intellect

or

2) You do indeed recognize your contention has been proven false but pretend you don't, which reflects poorly on your honesty

Which conclusion are you more comfortable with?




Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleJonnyOnTheSpot
Sober Surfer
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/27/02
Posts: 11,527
Loc: North Carolina
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: DoctorJ]
    #5577545 - 05/01/06 02:54 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

i think the plane was shot down. i've thought so since 9/11 when i was staring at the news for hours while reporters interviewed numerous witnesses who claimed to see an explosion in the sky, and who found debris from the plane up to 8 miles away. Then there is the picture of the crash site...there are two in circulation i think. both are from a couple hundred yards away so it's hard to see what's going on, but there isn't much debris visible, and it doesn't look like a typical plane crash (to those who have seen pictures of plane crashes)

anyways, after a day or so the media stop interviewing people who witnessed strange occurrences related to flight 93, and the official widely believed story changed to a inspiring and inspirational story of self sacrifice.

the voice recordings complicate things because it makes it sound like the terrorists crashed on purpose. i don't think they released the entire transcript though. here's a website about it all. http://www.flight93crash.com/

is it really possible for debris to bounce 8 miles when a plane crashes? if you ask yourself that then the whole thing becomes a little suspect.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5577678 - 05/01/06 03:34 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
Not likely to significantly impact the rock that is Alex's brain

Will this flame recieve the same response from Phred as left-wingers who flame I wonder...  :rolleyes:

He has finally done what should have been done the day after the first time he kicked the inspectors out.

Every "fact" you alledge in your post is completely wrong but just to clarify this one for you. Saddam didn't kick the inspectors out. The UN withdrew them. Fact. 




Ok, from the first time he kicked them out of a site they wanted to inspect.  Does that make it clearer for you?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: JonnyOnTheSpot]
    #5577700 - 05/01/06 03:42 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

he voice recordings complicate things because it makes it sound like the terrorists crashed on purpose.




Yeah. Too bad facts are such pesky things, isn't it? "Damn those facts for messing up my perfectly good tinfoil beanie storyline!"

Quote:

is it really possible for debris to bounce 8 miles when a plane crashes?




Depends what you call "debris". The accounts I've read say the "debris" was paper and other light material such as insulation fibers. It's not as if we're talking about chunks of landing gear or engine parts. It's been confirmed by all weather sources that the winds that day at ground level were very strong, and all the so-called "debris" was found directly downwind of the crash site.



Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5577708 - 05/01/06 03:45 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
Bin Laden doesn't go crazy over our troops in Saudi Arabia. The Towers still stand and 3,000 murdered people are still alive. Not to mention the people killed by Hussein in our decade of inaction. Better late than never.


LOL!

I only just saw this gem!

So you invade Iraq in 1991, slaughter countless thousands of innocent people, occupy the country and that makes Bin Laden happy does it?  :rolleyes:




We did that anyway, didn't we?  The "countless thousands" is bullshit but that's fine, probably would have been less the first time and Hussein wouldn't have had an extra decade of his own murders.  Make bin Laden happy?  I don't think anything makes him happy except dead infidels.  But every report I have ever heard is that he despised Hussein and only despised us enough to go crazy because we had troops in his country (who were there proetecting his country from Hussein)
Quote:


Try and THINK things through a little more. 



Coming from the arch Galloway parrot, that's pretty funny.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5577717 - 05/01/06 03:49 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Alex213 writes:

Quote:

Try and THINK things through a little more.




^^^

The PA&L forum irony meter is pegged so hard the needle bends double.




Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleJonnyOnTheSpot
Sober Surfer
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/27/02
Posts: 11,527
Loc: North Carolina
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5578429 - 05/01/06 06:53 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

actually from what i've read a whole intact engine was found far away from the crash site, along with human remains, luggage, and metal debris miles away from the crater. the wind was only 10 mph so i'm not sure how that's supposed to work. apparently dozens of people living in the area found this stuff, and some saw fiery debris raining down from the sky miles from the crash site. i wouldn't put so much faith in "conspiracy" theory like this if i'd just read it on the net after the fact, but i remember seeing reporters interviewing some of the witnesses that were making these claims. it was only later, in the next day or two, that these accounts stopped getting reported, which to me suggests a black out or cover up of some sort.

i'm not sure why the truth is being covered up. it's possible the plane was disabled by a missle or machine gun fire, there were many eye witness accounts of a fighter jet in the area apparently. it's possible that the terrorists actually detonated a bomb, after all the only thing the limited black box recording provides is that the terrorists said "lets bring it down", which is pretty vague and could mean they were arming a bomb for detonation. it's also possible that as the terrorists were crashing the plane and it overstressed and fell apart in mid air, but that's not as likely. whatever the case may be, the government is dishonoring the victims and their families by hiding the truth with some BS story, and now there's a movie too...The facts just don't fit. human remains and 747 engines don't blow away because of a 10 mph breeze. So while the "facts" of the black box recording suggest a crash, the eye witness accounts of the event contradict it. So many eye witnesses can't just be ignored.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5580231 - 05/02/06 02:41 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

I asked you two questions. You evaded them. Here they are again:

1) Did Bush claim this or not?

2) If he did then please explain how an attack on Iraq can be consistent with action taken against the perpetrators of 9/11.

Please answer this time. Thank you.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5580234 - 05/02/06 02:44 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

The PA&L forum irony meter is pegged so hard the needle bends double

No response to the flame from a right-winger I see. How surprising  :rolleyes:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5580241 - 05/02/06 02:49 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

The "countless thousands" is bullshit but that's fine, probably would have been less the first time

Invading Iraq would have been easier in 1991 than after 12 years of crippling sanctions? Don't be silly.

Ok, from the first time he kicked them out of a site they wanted to inspect. Does that make it clearer for you?

You need to read more about this. This came about in December 1998 when Clinton was facing impeachment and needed another big news story. The UN was aware that the inspections teams had been totally compromised by CIA spies who were trying to provoke the Iraqis into giving an excuse for a bombing campaign. Butler then unilaterally withdrew the inspectors to protect them from the subsequent US bombing.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5580362 - 05/02/06 04:41 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Alex213 writes:

Quote:

1) Did Bush claim this or not?




Bush stated in his notification -- using Congress's own wording -- that he had determined the same thing Congress had determined when they drafted and passed by overwhelming vote Public Law 107-243. In that sense, Bush stated the same thing Congress had previously stated.

However, as I pointed out in my post #5566258 and Redstorm pointed out in his post #5567115, even Congress's phrasing (which Bush parroted in his notifications) cannot be read as a claim that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. At least, they cannot be read as such by anyone for whom English is their mother tongue.

Quote:

2) If he did then please explain how an attack on Iraq can be consistent with action taken against the perpetrators of 9/11.




I don't know how to point out your errors in reading comprehension more plainly has been done already in post #5566258 and post #5567115. I suggest you read those posts over again as many times as is necessary to grasp them.



Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5580375 - 05/02/06 04:54 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Invading Iraq would have been easier in 1991 than after 12 years of crippling sanctions? Don't be silly.




Someone is indeed being silly here, but it's not the one whose screen name starts with the last letter of the alphabet.

Clearly invading Iraq would have been easier in 1991 than in 2003. The Iraqi army and Republican Guard had just been pasted ( http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/ ) and were in total disarray before the coalition forces even reached the border. They were fleeing at top speed, and surrendering to anyone and everyone.

There were also far more troops in the field in 1991: over 660,000, about four times the number as in 2003. It would have been a cakewalk. The post-invasion phase would have been easier as well, with more troops available than in 2003 and twelve years less of Islamic terrorist group development having taken place by 1991 than by 2003.



Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5580405 - 05/02/06 05:23 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Bush stated in his notification

Your position appears to be that:

1) You admit Bush claimed the invasion of Iraq was consistent with action taken against the perpetrators of 9/11.

2) You admit Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Go figure.

Bush stated the same thing Congress had previously stated.


And who do you think provided Congress with the information that Iraq was a threat in the first place? Are you unable to see the circularity of your argument?

I suggest you read those posts over again as many times as is necessary to grasp them.


All you have to do is explain how the attack on Iraq was consistent with attacking the perpetrators of 9/11. Can you do so?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5580411 - 05/02/06 05:27 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Someone is indeed being silly here

Yes you are.

The Iraqi army and Republican Guard had just been pasted

The Iraqi army was many times stronger in 1991 than 2003. In 2003 they didn't even bother fighting.

It would have been a cakewalk

:rolleyes:

twelve years less of Islamic terrorist group development having taken place by 1991 than by 2003.


Come again? Why do you think "Islamic terrorist group development" would not take place if Iraq had been occupied for 12 years? Are you unable to see what effect occupying Iraq for a mere 3 years has had on "islamic terrorist group development"?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5580466 - 05/02/06 06:05 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Your position appears to be that:

1) You admit Bush claimed the invasion of Iraq was consistent with action taken against the perpetrators of 9/11.




Still demonstrating your reading comprehension problem for all to see. What I admit is that Bush notified Congress he had determined their requirements for using US military force against Iraq had been met. We can argue all day about whether Congress had set the proper requirements, or whether Congress's phrasing should have been different, but that is a different argument. I asked the readers to submit a statement from a member of the Bush administration claiming Hussein's Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. No reader has done so.

Quote:

2) You admit Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.




In light of the translations of the captured Iraqi documents being released right about now, it would be a foolish man indeed who claimed Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. It may turn out there was some kind of involvement. Although I personally don't believe Al Qaeda's planners would have any need to involve Iraq in their planning, it wouldn't astonish me to find out they had .

What I am "admitting" is that no member of the Bush administration has claimed Hussein's Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.


Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5580477 - 05/02/06 06:18 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Alex213 writes:

Quote:

The Iraqi army was many times stronger in 1991 than 2003.




Iraq's military may have been stronger on January 1 of 1991 than on March 19, 2003. But they sure as hell weren't stronger by the time the conditional ceasefire agreement was signed in March of 1991.

As is always the case when you are shown to be in error, your "rebuttal" is to simply refuse to click on the links I provide. I understand you prefer to seek comfort by indulging your ignorance on the state of the Iraqi military back then, but you must be aware that other readers of the thread will check the information I link to. I'm quite content to let them compare your statements with historical reality then draw their own conclusions about your lack of military judgment.




Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5581789 - 05/02/06 03:19 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Why don't you two get married and get it over with?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #5581812 - 05/02/06 03:26 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Then we couldn't watch Phred club the baby seal, which would be a shame.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5584386 - 05/03/06 02:21 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

I asked the readers to submit a statement from a member of the Bush administration claiming Hussein's Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks

Are you denying Bush claimed an attack on Iraq was consistent with action taken against the perpetrators of 9/11? Go back and read the statement again. Carefully.

In light of the translations of the captured Iraqi documents being released right about now, it would be a foolish man indeed

As foolish as believing the "documents" that claimed Iraq was seeking yellowcake? Try and learn from your mistakes.

Iraq's military may have been stronger on January 1 of 1991 than on March 19, 2003. But they sure as hell weren't stronger by the time the conditional ceasefire agreement was signed in March of 1991.


But they were sure as hell a lot stronger than they were in 2003. And easily strong enough to put down the 1991 insurgency which was larger in scale than the one the americans are struggling with. Only a fool would deny this.

You will also need to give evidence supporting your claim that having 600,000 troops would make any difference to the current guerilla resistance. The american army already massively outnumbers the fighting insurgents. Why do you believe outnumbering them by 20 to 1 instead of 10 to 1 would make any difference? It would simply give the insurgents more targets for roadside bombs. Your ignorance is astounding.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRoker
Stranger
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 11/02/05
Posts: 343
Loc: outer spiral arm
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5584563 - 05/03/06 05:47 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Where's the wedding?

Seriously though, giving Bush credit for saying or thinking anything is a bit rich. Anyone with half a brain knows the retard can hardly walk and talk at the same time, much less come up with his own ideas. Bush is a puppet, much in the same vain as Kim Jong (I'm so wonry) ill. this debate should be more about who's pulling the strings, rather than who's repeating the words in his earpiece?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5584572 - 05/03/06 05:59 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Iraq's military may have been stronger on January 1 of 1991 than on March 19, 2003. But they sure as hell weren't stronger by the time the conditional ceasefire agreement was signed in March of 1991.




The big difference is the existence of WMDs, which Iraq had in 1991 but did not have in 2003. If the US had decided to push on Baghdad in 1991, and had Saddam decided to "salt the earth"... speculation, but it could have gotten pretty nasty, even against a defeated opponent.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5584589 - 05/03/06 06:21 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Once again, here is Congress's wording from SEC 3. of Public Law 107-243.

"(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Why did they choose this particular phrasing? Because it had been explained more fully in main body of Public Law 107-243, specifically --

"Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

"Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;"


When it came to specifying in SEC 3 what was required of Bush in his notification, they naturally used the same wording they had used in the main body of the text, but for some reason, the writers left out the final phrase I have emphasized in bold. Did Congress do this on purpose or through sloppiness? I don't know. Neither do you.

Clearly if they had included that phrase in their requirement as outlined in SEC 3, Bush would also have included it in his notification, since all he (or more likely, White House legal counsel) did was cut and paste their words. Since they didn't include the phrase, Bush didn't either. To repeat: if you have a problem with the statement as it stands your beef is with Congress, not with Bush.

All this quibbling and nitpicking and laying of red herrings is your standard tactic of ignoring your being shown in error by trying to throw up a smoke screen of minutiae, and off-topic minutiae at that. You had presented Congress's words as support for the claim that Bush had said Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. First of all, we're not even talking about an independent statement by Bush, but about Bush's pro forma legalistic rote fulfilment of requirements laid out in Public Law 107-243. Secondly, reading Congress's statement shows that even Congress didn't claim Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks.

This whole little side trip begain with me challenging someone to provide a statement from any Bush official claiming Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Clearly Congress's words do not claim this, nor does Bush's parroting of Congress's words. You are however welcome to keep searching for such a statement.




Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRogues_Pierre
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/03/06
Posts: 99
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Roker]
    #5585183 - 05/03/06 10:39 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Roker said:
Where's the wedding?

Seriously though, giving Bush credit for saying or thinking anything is a bit rich. Anyone with half a brain knows the retard can hardly walk and talk at the same time, much less come up with his own ideas. Bush is a puppet, much in the same vain as Kim Jong (I'm so wonry) ill. this debate should be more about who's pulling the strings, rather than who's repeating the words in his earpiece?





What's the muslim population in New Zealand now? I see a lot of America haters from New Zealand on the internet. Why would the opinion of someone from New Zealand matter to anyone anyway?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinehuntershiz
Shithead
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/30/06
Posts: 25
Loc: Georgia on my mind
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: DoctorJ]
    #5588716 - 05/04/06 12:59 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Watch "loose change second edition", it tell all about the cell phone calls,it gives the odds, that the calls could of actually been made from the plane, and the film also explains how the voices could of been manufactured to sound like the people they wanted them to sound like. Scary Shit


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRoker
Stranger
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 11/02/05
Posts: 343
Loc: outer spiral arm
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Rogues_Pierre]
    #5589108 - 05/04/06 05:18 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Rogues_Pierre said:

What's the muslim population in New Zealand now? I see a lot of America haters from New Zealand on the internet. Why would the opinion of someone from New Zealand matter to anyone anyway?




The New Zealand population of muslims – a few thousand, some from afghanistan, many from pakistan and india, some from the middle east - pretty much from anywhere and everywhere. But what that has to do with anything?

And as to why the opinion of someone from New Zealand would matter? My opinion has no more nor less value than anyone elses. Don't confuse Bush hating with American hating. I have family in north america and have met some americans that I like very much. The world doesn't hate americans, we hate the way america's government rampages around the planet as if they have some god given right to do as they please, killing men, women and children indiscriminatly, while the american media feed out endless crap about tom and katy's new baby or michael jackson diddling some kids. There are real lives being lost every day as a direct result of American foriegn policy. Yes America has lost over two thousand young lives in Iraq, do you know how many Iraqi lives have been lost?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineleery11
I Tell You What!

Registered: 06/24/05
Posts: 5,998
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Roker]
    #5589617 - 05/04/06 11:10 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

illegal spying, constant secrecy and censure of facts relationg to 9/11, inability to handle a natural disaster that they saw coming, inability to prevent 9/11 with all the warnings they were given, flagrant abuse of 9/11 to wage wars based upon lies and half truths and false intelligence, massive propogandic fear mongering.....

i find it odd that people find this government more trustworthy than a "conspiracy theorist" who is attempting to PUT THE PIECES TOGETHER.....

you trust people that are manipulating you, breaking laws, completely incompetent.... you trust them with your lives and refuse to listen to the other side?

Why all the secrecy, the censorship, the erosion of freedom, the lies, the padding of pockets, the wars........ if there is nothing to hide about that day?

I think that alone gives ANY conspiracy theory more credit than the official story, myself.

Look into Operation Northwoods, the US government has plotted in the past to deliberately murder it's own people and blame it on TERRORISTS so that they can go to WAR.... and now now that this has happened we have a ridiculous notion of "pre-emptive war" going on so we can invade anyone and everyone, and because of how propogandic the media has become we cannot trust that any story we are being fed as a reason to justify war can EVER be true...

but a huge portion goes on waving their little flags. Idolitry!

I'd trust the government if they would stop lying and start disclosing some simple truths, and then I might be willing to believe that 9/11 truely was a terrorist attack..... maybe the government is just incompetent and incapable of defending itself? I'd rather know that than for them to cover everything up, which makes the worst case scenario seem the most likely.

Sad times we live in.

When a rogue video catering to "conspiracy" has more credibility than entire month of watching Fox News.

Loose change is thought provoking stuff even if only a small portion of what they are hinting at is true.


--------------------
I am the MacDaddy of Heimlich County, I play it Straight Up Yo!

....I embrace my desire to feel the rhythm, to feel connected enough to step aside and weep like a widow, to feel inspired, to fathom the power, to witness the beauty, to bathe in the fountain, to swing on the spiral of our divinity and still be a human......
Om Namah Shivaya, I tell you What!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Iraq war keeps oil from terrorists, Bush says Vvellum 1,799 11 09/01/05 11:18 AM
by lonestar2004
* More 'Terrorists' created in Pakistan
( 1 2 3 all )
Swami 6,272 56 01/23/06 05:04 PM
by zappaisgod
* U.S. Rolls Out Nuclear Plan asd11 324 0 04/06/06 03:24 PM
by asd11
* Religion of Peace (TM) on a roll in Russia
( 1 2 all )
Phred 2,501 25 09/05/04 03:43 AM
by Xlea321
* Even more questions regarding 9/11 and scrambling jets. RonoS 525 5 06/01/03 12:42 AM
by cortex
* What is more dangerous to America? Terrorists or Republicans?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
1stimer 9,428 80 07/01/05 01:22 PM
by Ancalagon
* Fox News: Half of the Terrorists in Fallujah are Iraqis
( 1 2 all )
Swami 2,913 26 11/09/04 06:35 AM
by 1stimer
* IRA Terrorists
( 1 2 all )
ElPrimo 2,759 23 12/08/01 01:11 AM
by Innvertigo

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,834 topic views. 0 members, 7 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.062 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 14 queries.