RE: 102 minutes that changed America

RE: 102 minutes that changed America (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: 102 minutes that changed America (9/9/2009 11:01:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule I am merely saying that no judge will be convinced by the assertions of anonymous purported witnesses. Well, maybe USA judges will be, possibly the entire world population except me may be convinced of such - but I have valid and legitimate questions: who were these anonymous witnesses? Are you claiming no one in NYC saw either plane hit the towers?

Rule -> RE: 102 minutes that changed America (9/9/2009 11:05:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The WTC towers were hit by two boeing jets on the morning of 9/11/01. Overwhelming documentary evidence exists of these facts. Like what? (Please do not tell me that you saw it on television or that you heard it from anonymous witnesses about whom nothing is known.)

DomKen -> RE: 102 minutes that changed America (9/9/2009 12:02:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The WTC towers were hit by two boeing jets on the morning of 9/11/01. Overwhelming documentary evidence exists of these facts. Like what? (Please do not tell me that you saw it on television or that you heard it from anonymous witnesses about whom nothing is known.) I personally know eyewitnesses who saw the second plane strike. I have read the detailed reports by the engineers who examined the collapsed buildings.

Sanity -> RE: 102 minutes that changed America (9/9/2009 12:12:55 PM)
Why did you cut out the rest of my quote Arpig? The part where I questioned the validity of the author of the story and the journalistic integrity of Rolling Stone magazine. Is this a case of selective cognition on your part? quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: Still, any fifteen year old with that kind of purported background wouldn't be allowed to play with my young ones. Fair enough, but that just ducking the issue in question...he clearly wasn't a 9/11 ringleader, and the odds of him having,at age 15, any real actionable information is pretty fucking slim...yet he was interrogated using "enhanced"methods....in direct contravention to your assertion that only 9/11 ringleaders were tortured. Instead of sidestepping into irrelevant areas like whether your kid would be allowed to play with him,how about you just admit you were wrong, and admit that a lot of people who were in no way actually connected to 9/11 were tortured.

Rule -> RE: 102 minutes that changed America (9/9/2009 12:29:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I personally know eyewitnesses who saw the second plane strike. There have been other people on CM who said that they witnesses or victims, but when I asked in a private message to be forwarded information about such people, they offered zilch. Dead ends. I am interested in facts and plenty of facts are missing. For example, I would like to know what the E. stands for in the name of Kenneth E. Waldie jr., who allegedly was on board of Flight 11. Neither could I discover what the A. stands for in the name of his wife Carol A. DeNardo, nor what the T. stands for in the name of their son Jonathan T. Can anyone tell me this information, please?

DomKen -> RE: 102 minutes that changed America (9/9/2009 12:33:17 PM)
Do you not understand that people are not going to be interested in providing you, an anonymous person on the web, with identifying information? You'll have to accept that lots of people saw the planes crash. What is this obesession with people's middle names? Are you actually claiming the passenger manifests are fake?

ModeratorEleven -> RE: 102 minutes that changed America (9/9/2009 12:34:46 PM)
Rule, please don't turn yet another 9/11 thread into a conspiracy theory thread. You've gone down this road more than a few times already, enough is enough. XI

Arpig -> RE: 102 minutes that changed America (9/9/2009 12:36:19 PM)
quote: Why did you cut out the rest of my quote Arpig? The part where I questioned the validity of the author of the story and the journalistic integrity of Rolling Stone magazine. Is this a case of selective cognition on your part? No, its called not bothering to quote something that I didn't consider worth replying to. Why is it not worth replying to? Well two reasons...firstly because its a pile of shit, Rolling Stone is a respected publication well known for its reporting and certainly far more reliable than many of the sites you use to back your positions, and secondly because in addition tothe Rolling Stone link I provided one from the Centre for Constitutional Studies at the University of Alberta, one which confirmed the details of the Rolling Stone article...so your objection was shit...so I didn't bother replying to that part of it, but if it will make you happy in the future I will call you on every thing you post, regardless of how inane.

Rule -> RE: 102 minutes that changed America (9/9/2009 12:43:14 PM)
Since ModeratorEleven has admonished me, I wil not post anymore in this thread. Anybody who has the information that I asked for, may mail me on the other side, please.

Sanity -> RE: 102 minutes that changed America (9/9/2009 3:01:01 PM)
We'll just have to disagree about the integrity of your sources, but I'm sure you're aware that it was extremely disingenuous of you to misquote me the way you did, Arpig. I know you're better than that, sometimes you seem to shut out anything that you disagree with. I doubt that its deliberate, you probably just have an intense need to believe certain things regardless of the facts.

Politesub53 -> RE: 102 minutes that changed America (9/9/2009 4:00:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity We'll just have to disagree about the integrity of your sources, but I'm sure you're aware that it was extremely disingenuous of you to misquote me the way you did, Arpig. I know you're better than that, sometimes you seem to shut out anything that you disagree with. I doubt that its deliberate, you probably just have an intense need to believe certain things regardless of the facts. So what about the credible sources disproving your claim Sanity, surely you dont consider them all invalid ? I suspect many who condone torture of known terrorists, feel can`t be right to torture even one innocent person, no matter how many lives it saves.

Politesub53 -> RE: 102 minutes that changed America (9/9/2009 4:03:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule I am just asking questions. Any judge would ask the same questions. Rather vague and incoherent testimony by anonymous and mysterious witnesses are not admissible in any righteous court of law. Ask any lawyer. Please quote me on any bullshit claim that I made in this thread. (You cannot and it behooves you to apologize for throwing unwarranted dirt at me.) My comment is made based on your previous claims on the subject Rule. Incredible that you can suggest i will torture people, despite my posts on the issue, yet get pissy when I say something you dont like.

Sanity -> RE: 102 minutes that changed America (9/9/2009 5:11:10 PM)
I believe that extraordinary rendition is another topic, what I was referring to was the enhanced interrogation techniques employed by the CIA at Club GTMO. Even counting Arpig's highly questionable contribution though, together with the people sent off through extraordinary rendition by Bill Clinton and G.W. my point stands rather well I think, which is essentially that we're not torturing everyone who we find wearing a turban. There were basically a few very high value people at the top who were questioned that way. Obama's doing an extensive internal audit and he's not finding what you and Arpig seem to be claiming at all, is he. And he has every resource available to him to find the truth. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity We'll just have to disagree about the integrity of your sources, but I'm sure you're aware that it was extremely disingenuous of you to misquote me the way you did, Arpig. I know you're better than that, sometimes you seem to shut out anything that you disagree with. I doubt that its deliberate, you probably just have an intense need to believe certain things regardless of the facts. So what about the credible sources disproving your claim Sanity, surely you dont consider them all invalid ? I suspect many who condone torture of known terrorists, feel can`t be right to torture even one innocent person, no matter how many lives it saves.

Arpig -> RE: 102 minutes that changed America (9/9/2009 8:02:32 PM)
quote: We'll just have to disagree about the integrity of your sources, but I'm sure you're aware that it was extremely disingenuous of you to misquote me the way you did, Arpig. I know you're better than that, sometimes you seem to shut out anything that you disagree with. I doubt that its deliberate, you probably just have an intense need to believe certain things regardless of the facts. So you are now saying that the University of Alberta is not a credible source? I wonder just what you would consider a credible source. And I didn't misquote you in the slightest. Your post consisted of two lines, I quoted the line I was responding to..not a misquote and not disingenuous. And as to having an intense need to believe things regardless of the facts, well both Politesub53 and I have presented you 3 documented cases of non-ringleaders who were subjected to enhanced interrogation when you claimed only the 9/11 ringleaders were. Rather than accept this,you have tried to focus the discussion on whether or not Rolling Stone is a valid source and whether it was fair of me to only quote the part of your post I was responding to. It is you, not I who is ignoring the facts,and your attempt at deflecting the discussion is transparent and beneath you. I rarely agree with you, but lately you have been making blanket statements and then when shown where you are wrong,you deflect the discussion,you focus on an irrelevancy and ignore the facts presented. For shame Sanity, how can one be expected to debate anything with you when you use these sophomoric tactics

Arpig -> RE: 102 minutes that changed America (9/9/2009 8:10:33 PM)
quote: I believe that extraordinary rendition is another topic, what I was referring to was the enhanced interrogation techniques employed by the CIA at Club GTMO. Even counting Arpig's highly questionable contribution though, together with the people sent off through extraordinary rendition by Bill Clinton and G.W. my point stands rather well I think, which is essentially that we're not torturing everyone who we find wearing a turban. There were basically a few very high value people at the top who were questioned that way. Obama's doing an extensive internal audit and he's not finding what you and Arpig seem to be claiming at all, is he. And he has every resource available to him to find the truth. Nope! the renditions are part and parcel of the torture debate, it is the method being used to apply torture while claiming to be clean. Nobody claimed that everybody has been tortured, but your claim that only "a few very high value people at the top who were questioned that way."is patently false.Politesub and I have shown you 3 cases where absolute nobodies were subjected torture. You, on the other hand have been able to present no evidence that your statement was true. Why not just be honest about it and admit that you were wrong.

Sanity -> RE: 102 minutes that changed America (9/9/2009 8:31:30 PM)
The allegations were that Omar Khadr was sleep deprived prior to questioning by Canadian authorities, correct? Sleep deprivation isn't torture, the military has done that to me. It was an interesting experience, and I'm no worse for it, and I know it wasn't torture. It wasn't pleasant, I'll admit.

Sanity -> RE: 102 minutes that changed America (9/9/2009 8:56:26 PM)
Really, I think you're so overzealous in your desire to prove that the United States is baaaad that you're overlooking my very simple, direct, uncomplicated point, which is that the really harsh techniques were used only on the two most severe cases who were thought to have had valuable knowledge that could be used to save lives. As far as I am concerned that's undeniable.

Arpig -> RE: 102 minutes that changed America (9/9/2009 8:59:58 PM)
quote: Sleep deprivation isn't torture, the military has done that to me. It was an interesting experience, and I'm no worse for it, and I know it wasn't torture. And that's why its illegal in the US then, because its not torture, its not "cruel and unusual punishment"?

Arpig -> RE: 102 minutes that changed America (9/9/2009 9:07:37 PM)
quote: Really, I think you're so overzealous in your desire to prove that the United States is baaaad that you're overlooking my very simple, direct, uncomplicated point, which is that the really harsh techniques were used only on the two most severe cases who were thought to have had valuable knowledge that could be used to save lives. As far as I am concerned that's undeniable. For what will hopefully be the last time (but probably won't be) I am not trying to say the US is bad, I started a thread a while back about the Canadian government's involvement in torture. My point is and has always been that torture is wrong....period....no exceptions, no special cases...it is wrong. You claim that the really harsh techniques were only used on two people....some proof please. We have shown you 3 cases were torture was used on relative nobodies either directly by the US, or at the behest of the US. The government we are supposed to be supporting in Afghanistan engages in torture regularly, and often at the behest of either US or Canadian authorities in that country. You have no evidence to support your position, so your assertion that it is undeniable is,to use the technical term...bovine feces. We have given you 3 good examples to disprove your position, and in response you have tried to discredit the sources, and then when that didn't work you brought out that old stand-by..."its not really torture". If its not torture and so effective then why doesn't the FBI use those techniques?

Arpig -> RE: 102 minutes that changed America (9/9/2009 9:41:52 PM)
OK, here's a recap...first I am not trying to defend anything Chaves has done, I am just pointing out that what he has done is nothing but what the US and its clients have been doing in Latin America for roughly 100 years. You asked for something to back this up, fine, here is the proof my assertion is correct: Batista, Pinochet, Stroessner, Trujillo, Gomez, Pacheco & Bordaberry, Honduras during the 60s and 70s, Martinez, the Argentine Junta, Armas & Ydígoras Fuentes, Brazil from the mid 60s to mid 80s, Torrijos, Somosa...that covers most countries in Latin America,and should establish my claim on pretty firm ground. Have a nice day[:)]

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875