Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2006-08-16 07:57:25
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6799

Dersmikner wrote:

My plan is this:

1. Give Palestinians their own contiguous, independent autonomous country and stay the hell out of it.

2. Only station U.S. forces in countries which have duly legally elected governments that have asked us to be there.

3. Promise the people of the Muslim world that (1) we won't F with them first, but that (2) they're all going to Allah on the next cloud if we get attacked again. I'm tired of seeing civilians getting targeted, and the next time it happens and 12 of the 14 are from Whereveristan, we need to end life as we know it in Whereveristan, and then I bet it doesn't happen again...
Although some of your post shows you don't fully know the full score with respect to the long and intricate history of the region of which we speak, I must broadly agree with the three-point plan conclusion that you have come to.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-16 07:57:41)

2006-08-16 08:26:22
HM1{N}
Member
+86|6887|East Coast via Los Angeles, CA

Dersmikner wrote:

Jusster, I'm all for protesting, as a matter of fact I'm okay with the Nazis marching in Skokie, though it nauseates me.

What I'm NOT for is any group, be it as big as the 1,000 in Dearborn or as small as Jane Fonda, openly supporting a country or force that's at war with The United States.

HM1, could oyu please elaborate on each of those points? Though many here may disagree, I'm actually quite open-minded. I have always felt that the Palestinians got the shaft from the U.N (League of Nations, whatever it was then) but I know precious little more than the usual "we gave the land to the displaced Jews, created Israel, and since then the Arabs have had it in for the Jews."

I'd appreciate an UNBIASED, detailed explanation of the events, in Reader's Digest form.

Thanks.
Sure, here you go:

1.  UN Resolution 242 - 1967

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un242.htm

Basically, this is the resolution that told Israel to give back all the occupied territory.  They have yet to abide by it, and in fact have increased the amount of land taken, along with all the natural resources in the area.  Their occupation of Palestine is Illegal, and all of the settlements need to be vacated and the land given back.

2.  http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso … neva1.html

Here is an excerpt:

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

In the occupied territories, Israel violates article 3 on a daily basis.  There are numerous events documented, along with several videos and news articles on the Internet.

3.  See number 1 above.  Also see the hordes of additional resolutions passed against Israel having to do with this, Israel has ignored every single one of those resolutions.

4.  Go back to Israel proper.  Abide by the original UN borders.  Once again, see number 1.

5.  See number 2.

For detailed info, look here:

http://www.zpub.com/un/wanted-as.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/hanania05192004.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4580139.stm

http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/WarCrimes.html

Just do a search, you will find too many links on too many pages to read...
2006-08-16 08:55:23
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6844|132 and Bush

Bubbalo wrote:

Kmarion:  That comic is foolish as

1)  Many of those listed are in the business of keeping secrets.

2)  It assumes the others have all the facts.
What like the Fire department and demolition experts? Ever wonder why no major media outlet has done real investigative work ? I mean c'mon , now that would be a story. What's easier for the goverment, plant a wmd in the desert, or attack it's country and kill 3'000 ppl in front of the world to justify a war?

https://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/conspiracy_news2.gif

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net … 911_morons
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-08-16 11:48:44
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6926|Canada
what about the first hand witnesses (firemen)  who were recorded just before they died claiming many explosions were going off?  Why were the tapes not released?

Dersmink at least now you recognize the Israeli occupation.  Ending this is step 1.

Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-08-16 11:49:14)

2006-08-16 11:53:47
mcgid1
Meh...
+129|6960|Austin, TX/San Antonio, TX

Spumantiii wrote:

It was a 767.  There is a difference.  If you want to get technical over the plane.
We can talk physics if you like, I went to school for 4 years to learn it.
Okay, so a made a mistake and you're right in that it was a 767, the point still stands though that comparing the collision of a B-25 to a that modern jet liner really serves no purpose because of scale.  I would try to calculate differnece in kinitic energy released, but the numbers make my head head spin.

Last edited by mcgid1 (2006-08-16 11:56:54)

2006-08-16 12:02:56
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6926|Canada
it's less over scale and more about velocity, angle of impact, mass, density of building/plane, flammability of fuel, the tensile strength of the steel, the structural weight above the impact point, wind direction, and temperature.  Regardless, the evidence was scrapped so nobody will ever know.  That's all the proof I need that something is wrong with that picture.

Mainly the reason the B25 did less damage is because it struck a corner, and we all know how corners are stronger than flat planes.  (triangulation)

this does nothing to prove that fires will collapse truss constructed buildings in less than 2 hours.  That, unfortunately, is not true in this scenario.  In the second impact, firemen claimed to have the interior fires under control, after the fireball of burning fuel passed straight through the building leaving small local fires in it's path.   Not minutes later, it collapsed.  Since then we've seen fires in truss constructed buildings rage for 24 hours:  no collapse.
2006-08-16 12:24:56
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6926|Canada
KE = Mass*Velocity(squared)             measured in Newtons (kgm/s)
the most energy can be transferred to a flat plane by hitting it in line with it's normal.

normal:  the perpendicular to a plane, in unit measure  (1)


              normal
                |
-------------|--------------

you can do a thing called a dot product to find the amount an object wants to bounce off, depending on it's KE.

                     o
              \     /
               \   /                                                   \
-------------\/-----                 high KE:            ------\-------------
                                                                           \
                                                                            o

Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-08-16 12:29:59)

2006-08-16 12:32:34
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6844|132 and Bush

mcgid1 wrote:

I would try to calculate differnece in kinitic energy released, but the numbers make my head head spin.
Well allow me to help you out..
http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=5154
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-08-16 12:39:46
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6844|132 and Bush

Dersmikner wrote:

My plan is this:

1. Give Palestinians their own contiguous, independent autonomous country and stay the hell out of it.

2. Only station U.S. forces in countries which have duly legally elected governments that have asked us to be there.

3. Promise the people of the Muslim world that (1) we won't F with them first, but that (2) they're all going to Allah on the next cloud if we get attacked again. I'm tired of seeing civilians getting targeted, and the next time it happens and 12 of the 14 are from Whereveristan, we need to end life as we know it in Whereveristan, and then I bet it doesn't happen again...
.
+1 , For having a plan that would work if we were not hated for no matter what happened. Understand that while it does no good for our image to be "involved" in the region it's the extremist muslims that hate our ideas and the way we live our life. They interperet there relion in a different manner than the peaceful muslims. It is my belief that even if we had no troops in the mid-east we would be under attack. Even if you took Israel out of the picture.

Not all Muslims are terrorsist but most terrorist are Muslim.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-08-16 12:42:12
mcgid1
Meh...
+129|6960|Austin, TX/San Antonio, TX

Spumantiii wrote:

this does nothing to prove that fires will collapse truss constructed buildings in less than 2 hours.  That, unfortunately, is not true in this scenario.  In the second impact, firemen claimed to have the interior fires under control, after the fireball of burning fuel passed straight through the building leaving small local fires in it's path.   Not minutes later, it collapsed.  Since then we've seen fires in truss constructed buildings rage for 24 hours:  no collapse.
Perhaps you're forgeting that the impact knocked off most of the fire proofing from the trusses.  If the fire proofing had still been intact, as I pretty sure it would have been in the building you're referencing, then the WTC towers might not have collapsed.  However without the fire proofing the relativly light weight steel used to  construct the trusses would have heated quite rapidly and allowed for structural failure in a fairly short amount of time.

And back on to the original topic, if we want peace in the Middle East then we need to break the cycle of hatred that has developed there.  A start would be to get rid of as many of the clerics that are preaching for violence and death as possible.

Last edited by mcgid1 (2006-08-16 12:45:12)

2006-08-16 19:17:47
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7009|Cambridge (UK)

mcgid1 wrote:

back on to the original topic, if we want peace in the Middle East then we need to break the cycle of hatred that has developed there.  A start would be to get rid of as many of the clerics that are preaching for violence and death as possible.
The only problem with what you propose is that phrase "get rid of" - implies force, implies violence, implies death.

All sides need to change their ideologies.
2006-08-16 19:21:47
mcgid1
Meh...
+129|6960|Austin, TX/San Antonio, TX
Get rid of might have been strong, but I don't really know what else to say.  In order to at least have a chance of breaking the cycle is to remove the source of much of the hate.  I guess no matter how you say it when ever you suggest the removal of a person or a group of people or their ideology, someone is always going to think that it implies death.  It's not what I'm suggesting but it's the only thing I can think of.

Last edited by mcgid1 (2006-08-16 19:25:18)

2006-08-16 19:22:08
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6805
Yet again, Kmarion, the comic is inaccurate: there are serious scholars questioning this, I'll find you a link..............
2006-08-16 19:24:14
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6887
muslims are not the enemy

a lot yall may disagree with me on that but I think Ive been pretty consistant with that belief on this forum.
2006-08-16 19:30:55
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6805
Okay:

Major media outlet

Experts
(As a side not, have a look at the poll.  It seems that those who don't believe the government story aren't quite so outlandish, after all.)

Experts
2006-08-16 19:33:32
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7009|Cambridge (UK)

mcgid1 wrote:

Get rid of might have been strong, but I don't really know what else to say.  In order to at least have a chance of breaking the cycle is to remove the source of much of the hate.
k, cool. In that case I kinda agree - but we do have to realise it's not just 'them' that have to change - there's just as much hate coming from both sides of the fence.
2006-08-16 19:44:59
Capt. Foley
Member
+155|6831|Allentown, PA, USA
The reason the steel failed was because the fire proof material was knocked off the metal at the time the plane hit which exposed the metal to the burning jet fuel. Also the WTC was designed to sustain the force of a 707(largest aircraft at time) flying at low speed(terrorism wasn't really considered a threat and it was thought that a plane would get caught in the fog and crash into the WTC at low speeds). Not having a 747 which is MUCH larger(and non existent at time of construction) flying at high speeds LOADED with jet fuel.

If you can create a building that high that can sustain getting hit by a large aircraft at full speed that is loaded with fuel for a cross country trip and still be worth the money then I'm amazed. It was a very intelligently designed building that was made very well at the time. Get a brain before you make a comment.
2006-08-16 20:00:09
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6844|132 and Bush

Bubbalo wrote:

Okay:

Major media outlet

Experts
(As a side not, have a look at the poll.  It seems that those who don't believe the government story aren't quite so outlandish, after all.)

Experts
ok,cbc.ca isn't quite a major news source....lol, not to mention that link is 3 years old.
Secondly the cnn links are reporting on the Conspiracy people themselve.

And I would like to personaly thank you for that link. I'm guessing you didn't read the whole story?

"It's science, but it's politically motivated. It's science with an ax to grind, and therefore it's not really science." <--from your link


You stepped around this question.
What's easier for the goverment, plant a wmd in the desert, or attack it's country and kill 3,000 ppl in front of the world to justify a war?

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-08-16 20:04:15)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-08-16 20:10:33
mcgid1
Meh...
+129|6960|Austin, TX/San Antonio, TX

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

mcgid1 wrote:

Get rid of might have been strong, but I don't really know what else to say.  In order to at least have a chance of breaking the cycle is to remove the source of much of the hate.
k, cool. In that case I kinda agree - but we do have to realise it's not just 'them' that have to change - there's just as much hate coming from both sides of the fence.
Not trying to start a flame war or anything, but I just have a hard time seeing a starting point other than the Middle East, specifically many of the Clerics, when so many of them seem to preach "If you kill an 'infidel' then you will be rewarded for all eternity".  True both sides need to change, but if you could start with the extremist then I think that that would go much farther than starting anywhere else.
2006-08-16 20:25:21
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7009|Cambridge (UK)

mcgid1 wrote:

Not trying to start a flame war or anything
No worries, me neither.

mcgid1 wrote:

I just have a hard time seeing a starting point other than the Middle East, specifically many of the Clerics, when so many of them seem to preach "If you kill an 'infidel' then you will be rewarded for all eternity".  True both sides need to change, but if you could start with the extremist then I think that that would go much farther than starting anywhere else.
The problem is, this is not a new war - it's ancient.

At some point one side or the other has to stand up and say "We're sorry for all we have done against you and forgive all that you have done against us".

And, as 'we' are supposed to be more 'civilised' than 'them', maybe that's where we should be starting.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2006-08-16 20:26:02)

2006-08-16 20:31:19
mcgid1
Meh...
+129|6960|Austin, TX/San Antonio, TX

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

mcgid1 wrote:

Not trying to start a flame war or anything
No worries, me neither.

mcgid1 wrote:

I just have a hard time seeing a starting point other than the Middle East, specifically many of the Clerics, when so many of them seem to preach "If you kill an 'infidel' then you will be rewarded for all eternity".  True both sides need to change, but if you could start with the extremist then I think that that would go much farther than starting anywhere else.
The problem is, this is not a new war - it's ancient.

At some point one side or the other has to stand up and say "We're sorry for all we have done against you and forgive all that you have done against us".

And, as 'we' are supposed to be more 'civilised' than 'them', maybe that's where we should be starting.
Okay, I can see that, but I guess it doesn't really matter because man, being man, will always find something to fight about.  This just happens to be the most prominent and 'media worthy' topic right now.  World peace is a nice ideal, but it will never happen.

Last edited by mcgid1 (2006-08-16 21:24:47)

2006-08-16 23:59:34
Dersmikner
Member
+147|6741|Texas
I'm straight fucking confused, aside from being half shitty.

Are some of you saying that these terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center, but the buildings collapsed because our government had planted bombs there because they knew the terrorists would fly planes into the buildings and we could bring down the buildings killing our own people and givie ourselves a reason to attack the Muslim world,

OR

are you saying that the Muslims attacked the buildings because they were storehouses for a bunch of weapons that exploded when the planes hit the buildings,

OR

are you saying that there were no terrorists involved and we flew planes into our own buildings, which were loaded with explosives, so we would have a reason to go to war?

I'm your basic non-believer, and I'm a skeptic, and I'm NEVER one to believe the government, but if you people are saying that anything other than terrorists flying big ass jets full of cross-country fuel loads are what brought down the World Trade Center buildings and killed my friend Kerry, I'm going to have to say you are a bunch of mindless fuckwads who probably think we're actually living in the Matrix.

Last edited by Dersmikner (2006-08-17 00:01:28)

2006-08-17 00:52:24
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6918|Canberra, AUS

Kmarion wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Okay:

Major media outlet

Experts
(As a side not, have a look at the poll.  It seems that those who don't believe the government story aren't quite so outlandish, after all.)

Experts
ok,cbc.ca isn't quite a major news source....lol, not to mention that link is 3 years old.
Secondly the cnn links are reporting on the Conspiracy people themselve.

And I would like to personaly thank you for that link. I'm guessing you didn't read the whole story?

"It's science, but it's politically motivated. It's science with an ax to grind, and therefore it's not really science." <--from your link


You stepped around this question.
What's easier for the goverment, plant a wmd in the desert, or attack it's country and kill 3,000 ppl in front of the world to justify a war?
But who on earth would care if you placed a WMD in the desert?

Heard of Aum Shikrinyo? Probably (tokyo sarin gas attack). Heard that they might have set off the world's only non-governmental nuke in the desert? Hell no.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-08-17 02:24:53
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6805

Kmarion wrote:

ok,cbc.ca isn't quite a major news source....lol
Am I wrong in assuming that CBC stands for Canadian Broadcasting Company/Corporation?

Kmarion wrote:

not to mention that link is 3 years old.
Your point?  3 years doesn't change the facts.

Kmarion wrote:

Secondly the cnn links
There's only one, did you even bother to check the last?

Kmarion wrote:

are reporting on the Conspiracy people themselve.
And it reports that they aren't ten year olds with a little spare time, unlike your source.

Kmarion wrote:

"It's science, but it's politically motivated. It's science with an ax to grind, and therefore it's not really science." <--from your link
That's misleading: that was the opinion of one of the people interviewed, not of the article itself (i.e., the person isn't discredited by the source I used).  Additionally, the fact that something is politically motivated doesn't make it any more or less likely.

Kmarion wrote:

What's easier for the goverment, plant a wmd in the desert, or attack it's country and kill 3,000 ppl in front of the world to justify a war?
I wouldn't know, but there are, I imagine, a number of factors which come into it (including the increased world scrutiny of Iraq, and that fact that any weapons planted couldn't be traced back to America).
2006-08-17 03:14:09
fadedsteve
GOP Sympathizer
+266|6734|Menlo Park, CA
The Plan, for the next 5 to 7 years:

1. UN sanctions an Independent soverign "Philistinian/Palestinian" state throughout the Gaza strip immediately. This is in response of soley giving the Jews a state without recognizing the Arab population within the same area of land.  Also the UN issues a FORMAL APOLOGY to the Palestinian people as well, because it was their oversight that has caused all this mess in that region of the world.

2. Syria and Iran will have FORMAL Declarations of War brought upon them by the EU and USA etc. if they do not stop funding, harboring, creating nuclear weapons, and supplying weapons etc. to terrorist groups IN ANY FORM!  They will have exactly 10-12 months to respond, before immediate action is brought upon them.  This behavior in todays world is UNACCEPTABLE, and has to be addressed. Past negotiations and sanctions have obviously failed thus far, and a new plan of action must go forward.

3. An independent non-baised international group of investigators/reporters etc., will determine if the UN is a viable representation of the global community.  Due to its inablitity to be an effective body of action in critical international situations, these investigations should proceed.  The current UN as it is run today, has been absolutely neglegent in its duties that it was originally created to perform.  Something needs to be done!!

This is a very rough plan, please let me know what you think. . .

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard