Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > InsideHoops Main Basketball Forums > Off the Court Lounge

Off the Court Lounge Basketball fans talk about everything EXCEPT basketball here

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-10-2007, 11:47 PM   #211
-primetime-
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 9/11, what do you really think happend?

Quote:
Originally Posted by XxNeXuSxX
The 9/11 commission report backtracked on the pancake theory and eventually disbanded it completely.
umm...you know that is on video right?

you can see that it pancaked with your own eyes

all the floors did not fall at the same time....they started to fall once the floor above it hit it...

it isn't a "theory"...it really did pancake

maybe you watched something else?
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2007, 11:49 PM   #212
Boogaloo
National High School Star
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,297
Boogaloo has decent reputationBoogaloo has decent reputation
Default Re: 9/11, what do you really think happend?

I need a source
Boogaloo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 12:02 AM   #213
Boogaloo
National High School Star
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,297
Boogaloo has decent reputationBoogaloo has decent reputation
Default Re: 9/11, what do you really think happend?

I need a source.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_8up...elated&search=
Boogaloo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 12:02 AM   #214
Boogaloo
National High School Star
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,297
Boogaloo has decent reputationBoogaloo has decent reputation
Default Re: 9/11, what do you really think happend?

I need a source.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_8up...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpOxn...elated&search=
Boogaloo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 01:11 AM   #215
XxNeXuSxX
The Master Debater
 
XxNeXuSxX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UConn
Posts: 7,998
XxNeXuSxX has an incredible reputation hereXxNeXuSxX has an incredible reputation hereXxNeXuSxX has an incredible reputation hereXxNeXuSxX has an incredible reputation hereXxNeXuSxX has an incredible reputation hereXxNeXuSxX has an incredible reputation hereXxNeXuSxX has an incredible reputation here
Default Re: 9/11, what do you really think happend?

Quote:
Originally Posted by -primetime-
umm...you know that is on video right?

you can see that it pancaked with your own eyes

all the floors did not fall at the same time....they started to fall once the floor above it hit it...

it isn't a "theory"...it really did pancake

maybe you watched something else?

Once again, read. The 9/11 commission report (created by the US Government) DISBANDED THE PANCAKE THEORY. They blame the central core of the building for the collapse. Try reading it for yourself, the pancake theory isn't possible.
XxNeXuSxX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 01:15 AM   #216
-primetime-
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 9/11, what do you really think happend?

Quote:
Originally Posted by XxNeXuSxX
Once again, read. The 9/11 commission report (created by the US Government) DISBANDED THE PANCAKE THEORY. They blame the central core of the building for the collapse. Try reading it for yourself, the pancake theory isn't possible.
you have got to be talking about WTC 7 then...

if so you are right...it did not pancake

but the two big towers clearly did

i think we are just talking about two different things, simple mix up
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 01:31 AM   #217
XxNeXuSxX
The Master Debater
 
XxNeXuSxX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UConn
Posts: 7,998
XxNeXuSxX has an incredible reputation hereXxNeXuSxX has an incredible reputation hereXxNeXuSxX has an incredible reputation hereXxNeXuSxX has an incredible reputation hereXxNeXuSxX has an incredible reputation hereXxNeXuSxX has an incredible reputation hereXxNeXuSxX has an incredible reputation here
Default Re: 9/11, what do you really think happend?

Quote:
Originally Posted by -primetime-
you have got to be talking about WTC 7 then...

if so you are right...it did not pancake

but the two big towers clearly did

i think we are just talking about two different things, simple mix up

There is no official explanation on WTC7 actually.

www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

Quote:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."
XxNeXuSxX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 01:32 AM   #218
XxNeXuSxX
The Master Debater
 
XxNeXuSxX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UConn
Posts: 7,998
XxNeXuSxX has an incredible reputation hereXxNeXuSxX has an incredible reputation hereXxNeXuSxX has an incredible reputation hereXxNeXuSxX has an incredible reputation hereXxNeXuSxX has an incredible reputation hereXxNeXuSxX has an incredible reputation hereXxNeXuSxX has an incredible reputation here
Default Re: 9/11, what do you really think happend?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boogaloo
The 9/11 commission report backtracked on the pancake theory and eventually disbanded it completely.

source?
I gave you the damn source, it's a f*cking book.
XxNeXuSxX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 06:28 AM   #219
reppy
Apparently likes anime
 
reppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,185
reppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation here
Default Re: 9/11, what do you really think happend?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heilige
Jail on what grounds? Perhaps you can point out what "lies" were told in the AUMF.

Did Saddam have WMD? Was he attempting to acquire yellow cake from Niger? Of course not. This was all known by the international community to be completely false well before the invasion of Iraq. The only people that believed it were Americans, because the liberal media told 'em it was true.

And if we went around overthrowing every government that was run by an *******, we'd have to be overthrowing a lot of governments; China and Russia immediately come to mind.

Quote:
So you're saying Saddam didn't cooperate, then he did. Seems to follow a familiar Saddam pattern: Stall. What happened in 1998? You can quote Condi and Powell all you like, I can quote the Butler and Duelfer Reports, along with politicians on both sides of the aisle, for over 3 years. I'm sorry if the facts don't support your idea of some well planned and orchestrated "neocon" agenda.

Immediately following 9/11, Richard Clarke was told to look into whether or not Iraq had anything to do with the attacks that occured that day. He has said that he at first assumed it was a joke. In fact, I seem to recall him also saying that Rumsfeld complained there were "no good targets" in Afghanistan.

Why would they want to attack Iraq immediately after 9/11? It's almost as if going after Iraq has long since been an agenda of theirs. But little mention before 9/11?

Quote:
Are you kidding ME? NATO member invades Iraq? Hmm didn't those two just agree to cooperate on the PKK?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3f080aaa-454...0779fd2ac.html

"Turkish-US relations are still shaky, and Turkey is threatening to stop supplies going across its territory to US troops in Iraq if Congress passes a resolution recognizing the WWI genocide against the Armenians conducted by Ottoman officers." Source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...08-07-03-21-11

"This delicate problem, which could blow up the northern reaches of the Middle East, requires delicate diplomacy, right? Nope. Bush thinks all problems can be resolved with violence. Dark Prince Bob Novak says that Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman has briefed Congress on a covert US operation to help Turkey suppress the PKK. The quid pro quo would be that Turkey would not invade northern Iraq.

The problem? The Kurds are the only firm ally the US had in Iraq, and US special ops troops getting directly involved against the PKK might well alienate the Kurds in general. You can hear W.'s fingernails squeak as they dig into the face of the high cliff down which he is gradually sliding." Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072900859.html

"Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been ambushed by Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan on his visit to Ankara, when Erdogan suddenly presented him with a thoroughgoing counter-terrorism treaty to sign, pledging the Iraqi government to go after the PKK (Kurdish Workers Party), which it branded a terrorist organization. Al-Maliki declined to sign that broad document. Instead, he signed a much narrower memorandum of understanding that he would attempt to expel the PKK from Iraq. He is said to have avoided calling the PKK a terrorist organization (the US government categorizes it that way) because his Kurdish allies nixed it.

Al-Maliki is not in a position, politically speaking, to crack down hard on the PKK, several thousand of whose fighters are being given safe harbor by the Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq. Al-Maliki has been deserted by some of his former *****e allies in parliament, including the Islamic Virtue Party (Fadhila), the Sadr Movement, and the secular *****es of the Iraqi National List. He has also lost the Sunni Arab bloc, the Iraqi Accord Front. He would be open to failing a vote of no confidence without the backing of the Kurdistan Alliance. Therefore, he has to keep Massoud Barzani happy. He has no choice if he wants to go on being prime minister. And Barzani is the architect of the policy of giving the PKK a haven in Iraq." Sources: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...CACF059767.htm & http://www.mercurynews.com/nationworld/ci_6562019

"The Turkish paper Sabah complained that al-Maliki had freely branded the PKK a terrorist organization when speaking to the press corps on board his plane to Ankara. But when suddenly faced with the prospect of signing a formal commitment that branded them as such, he turned evasive." Source: http://english.sabah.com.tr/49FF8F15...CDC72848E.html

Quote:
Saudi Arabia invading? You must be kidding. The "insurgency" is a problem, and the Iraqi government needs a lot of work, but it's far from the international quagmire you wish it to be.

If the *****es begin to massacre the Sunnis, you can bet your George W. Bush baseball cap that the Saudis will attack. At the very least, it is likely that there will be a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran in Iraq.

As was predicted by self-loathing, leftist blame-America firsters like Scott Ritter: if you give democracy to Iraq, they'll become the Islamic Republic of Iraq and ally with Iran. Boy, great idea to invade Iraq as a launching pad for a war against Iran, huh? (Do these neocons read books? Seriously.)

Quote:
Put down the Alex Jones kool-aid, dude.

Who said anything about Alex Jones? In fact, much of what I say is based off articles I read via www.juancole.com. But hey, he probably has no idea what he's talking about.

Quote:
Then we're agreed, you don't know what a cluster**** is.

Are you intentionally trying to act like a jackass? Or is this just natural?

Quote:
The war is far from unwinnable, but certainly isn't any easier with the political opposition and usual "peace at any cost"ers cheering for it. Benchmarks? Progress in 8 of 18. Far from "unwinnable".

"Iraq's parliament went on a one-month hiatus Tuesday afternoon, having not passed any significant legislation. Bush had outlined 4 'benchmarks' last January that the Iraqi government needed to meet by June. These were passage of a petroleum law, passage of a law specifying distribution of the petroleum revenues, revisions of debaathification rules [which harm Sunni Arabs], and progress on Sunni-*****e reconciliation. Nothing has been accomplished on any of these fronts." Source: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...005961,00.html

Don't you think those 4 are pretty ****ing important? Well, frankly I could care less about the oil.

Quote:
This war is not Vietnam. The only similarity between the two is that certain elements are openly wishing for our defeat.

Again with this silly argument. I can only imagine what you'd be saying if you were a German during World War II. The motherland is always right to protect itself, even when no viable threat exists!

Quote:
Oh yea of limited brain power. Yes. Insurgents did attack us in Germany. What are "Werwolf" for $700, Alex:

"Insurgents bombed a police station, claiming the lives of five Americans and thirty-nine civilians. Loosely organized terrorist cells plant mines, snipe at American occupation forces and assassinate mayors and officials collaborating with the occupying forces struggling to rebuild the country.

A quagmire? It might sound like it, but no.

This is post-war Germany, not present-day Iraq."

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/rubin082005.htm

That's extremely cute. But you know what else the article says?

"In practice, they became a largely imaginary threat that galvanized the Allies into action."

"In reality, there were four major attacks by Werwolf troops in the Western zones of occupation." (GOODNESS GRACIOUS?! FOUR WHOLE ATTACKS?!)

"True tactics were varied, and typically…petty. The truth was that Werwolf attacks were largely ineffectual. Typical operations included pouring sand into the gas tanks of allied vehicles, poisoning food and water, petty vandalism and stringing decapitation wires across the roads. The latter was terrifying, but not incredibly effective."

"While individual operations were reported as late as 1947, by several months after the Nazi surrender on May 7 1945, Werwolf was rendered largely impotent.

The possibility of a successful Nazi insurgency haunted the Allied Occupation force, encouraging them to commit heavy economic and military support to the reconstruction of Germany."

"A combination of highly committed popular reconstruction efforts contrasted with attacks on civilians deprived Werwolf of popular support, while miscommunication and demoralization worked to rapidly reduce the effectiveness of existing cells. A Pentagon report listed 42 American soldiers "killed as a result of enemy action" between June and December 1945. In 1946, there were three."

(I hate to break it to you, but a majority of Iraqis support attacks on Americans. And even if not a majority, it's a damn high enough of a percentage where you cannot win a guerrila war.)

From a Slate.com article:

"Werwolf tales have been a favorite of schlock novels, but the reality bore no resemblance to Iraq today. As Antony Beevor observes in The Fall of Berlin 1945, the Nazis began creating Werwolf as a resistance organization in September 1944. "In theory, the training programmes covered sabotage using tins of Heinz oxtail soup packed with plastic explosive and detonated with captured British time pencils," Beevor writes. "… Werwolf recruits were taught to kill sentries with a slip-knotted garrotte about a metre long or a Walther pistol with silencer. …"

In practice, Werwolf amounted to next to nothing. The mayor of Aachen was assassinated on March 25, 1945, on Himmler's orders. This was not a nice thing to do, but it happened before the May 7 Nazi surrender at Reims. It's hardly surprising that Berlin sought to undermine the American occupation before the war was over. And as the U.S. Army's official history, The U.S. Army in the Occupation of Germany 1944-1946, points out, the killing was "probably the Werwolf's most sensational achievement." Source: http://www.slate.com/id/2087768/

Alex: "This something lacked by most right-wingers."

reppy: "What is 'A Clue'?"

Alex: "That's absolutely correct, reppy."

Quote:
Eisenhower demanded all partisans be shot without trial.

You'd make a great fascist; anyone ever tell you that?

Quote:
Saddam supported terrorists who did strike us. See Abu Nidal, Carlos the Jackal, and others. This is a war not just against al Qaeda, and Saddam provided a unique opportunity due to his open support of terrorism and numerous treaty violations.

If that's really the case, we would have invaded Saudi Arabia and not Iraq.

Quote:
Communism was an idea, too. You may question the tactics, but the success of the Reagan Doctrine of "rollback" vs. the Truman Doctrine of "containment" can't be understated.

Oh great. Another person that thinks Reagan defeated Communism. Do you listen to anything besides Sean Hannity?



Quote:
Which is why we'll leave, once their gov't is stable enough.

The government will never be stable as long as we're there.

Quote:
We've sunk to that level, already? You're not making an argument with that comment, you're trying to stifle one.

I'm honestly curious since the majority of the Iraq war supporters I've debated with are not currently in the armed forces.

Last edited by reppy : 08-11-2007 at 06:38 AM.
reppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 06:30 AM   #220
reppy
Apparently likes anime
 
reppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,185
reppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation here
Default Re: 9/11, what do you really think happend?

Quote:
Do you support the War in Afghanistan? Why aren't you enlisted and serving there?

When 9/11 occured, I was 16. By the time I had turned 18, we were on our way to Iraq. Why would I want to join the army when I knew that the entire thing was a sham? Even ol' Pat Tillman knew that!

Quote:
Since you were "opposed to the attack on Iraq long before we even attacked them.", I'm sure you had the courage of your convictions and served as a human shield, rather than sit at home behind your computer.

I was opposed to the attack from the beginning, not stupid. Human shields quickly become human shrapnel.

Quote:
You see the absurdity of your adhominem?

Answer the question, please. Thanks.

(Actually, I think I already know the answer, and it's typical of young right wingers that are prime age for the military: "I'm a bigger asset by being in America! See, I gots to get an education! Plus, I have an old wrestling injury! Yeah, that's it..")


Anyways, I'm pretty much done with this thread. I'll have to find a new one to hang out in.

Last edited by reppy : 08-11-2007 at 06:35 AM.
reppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 10:01 AM   #221
sommervilleCdn
High School JV MVP
 
sommervilleCdn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 690
sommervilleCdn is considered somewhat coolsommervilleCdn is considered somewhat cool
Default Re: 9/11, what do you really think happend?

Quote:
Originally Posted by XxNeXuSxX
I gave you the damn source, it's a f*cking book.


sommervilleCdn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 02:23 PM   #222
XxNeXuSxX
The Master Debater
 
XxNeXuSxX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UConn
Posts: 7,998
XxNeXuSxX has an incredible reputation hereXxNeXuSxX has an incredible reputation hereXxNeXuSxX has an incredible reputation hereXxNeXuSxX has an incredible reputation hereXxNeXuSxX has an incredible reputation hereXxNeXuSxX has an incredible reputation hereXxNeXuSxX has an incredible reputation here
Default Re: 9/11, what do you really think happend?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sommervilleCdn
Is that honestly directed at me? You must have an IQ below 22 if you can't understand I sourced my original statement.
XxNeXuSxX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 03:10 PM   #223
The Hick
I airball my layups
 
The Hick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Home of the best fried chicken
Posts: 56
The Hick has an OK reputation so far
Default Re: 9/11, what do you really think happend?

Paranoia

Definition

Paranoia is an unfounded or exaggerated distrust of others, sometimes reaching delusional proportions. Paranoid individuals constantly suspect the motives of those around them, and believe that certain individuals, or people in general, are "out to get them."

Description

Paranoid perceptions and behavior may appear as features of a number of mental illnesses, including depression and dementia, but are most prominent in three types of psychological disorders: paranoid schizophrenia, delusional disorder (persecutory type), and paranoid personality disorder (PPD).

Individuals with paranoid schizophrenia and persecutory delusional disorder experience what is known as persecutory delusions: an irrational, yet unshakable, belief that someone is plotting against them. Persecutory delusions in paranoid schizophrenia are bizarre, sometimes grandiose, and often accompanied by auditory hallucinations. Delusions experienced by individuals with delusional disorder are more plausible than those experienced by paranoid schizophrenics; not bizarre, though still unjustified. Individuals with delusional disorder may seem offbeat or quirky rather than mentally ill, and, as such, may never seek treatment.

Persons with paranoid personality disorder tend to be self-centered, self-important, defensive, and emotionally distant. Their paranoia manifests itself in constant suspicions rather than full-blown delusions. The disorder often impedes social and personal relationships and career advancement. Some individuals with PPD are described as "litigious," as they are constantly initiating frivolous law suits. PPD is more common in men than in women, and typically begins in early adulthood.

Causes and symptoms

The exact cause of paranoia is unknown. Potential causal factors may be genetics, neurological abnormalities, changes in brain chemistry, and stress. Paranoia is also a possible side effect of drug use and abuse (for example, alcohol, marijuana, amphetamines, cocaine, PCP). Acute, or short term, paranoia may occur in some individuals overwhelmed by stress.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV), the diagnostic standard for mental health professionals in the United States, lists the following symptoms for paranoid personality disorder:

* suspicious; unfounded suspicions; believes others are plotting against him/her
* preoccupied with unsupported doubts about friends or associates
* reluctant to confide in others due to a fear that information may be used against him/her
* reads negative meanings into innocuous remarks
* bears grudges
* perceives attacks on his/her reputation that are not clear to others, and is quick to counterattack
* maintains unfounded suspicions regarding the fidelity of a spouse or significant other

Diagnosis

Patients with paranoid symptoms should undergo a thorough physical examination and patient history to rule out possible organic causes (such as dementia) or environmental causes (such as extreme stress). If a psychological cause is suspected, a psychologist will conduct an interview with the patient and may administer one of several clinical inventories, or tests, to evaluate mental status.

Treatment

Paranoia that is symptomatic of paranoid schizophrenia, delusional disorder, or paranoid personality disorder should be treated by a psychologist and/or psychiatrist. Antipsychotic medication such as thioridazine (Mellaril), haloperidol (Haldol), chlorpromazine (Thorazine), clozapine (Clozaril), or risperidone (Risperdal) may be prescribed, and cognitive therapy or psychotherapy may be employed to help the patient cope with their paranoia and/or persecutory delusions. Antipsychotic medication, however, is of uncertain benefit to individuals with paranoid personality disorder and may pose long-term risks.

If an underlying condition, such as depression or drug abuse, is found to be triggering the paranoia, an appropriate course of medication and/or psychosocial therapy is employed to treat the primary disorder.

Prognosis

Because of the inherent mistrust felt by paranoid individuals, they often must be coerced into entering treatment. As unwilling participants, their recovery may be hampered by efforts to sabotage treatment (for example, not taking medication or not being forthcoming with a therapist), a lack of insight into their condition, or the belief that the therapist is plotting against them. Albeit with restricted lifestyles, some patients with PPD or persecutory delusional disorder continue to function in society without treatment.

http://www.answers.com/topic/paranoia?cat=health
The Hick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2007, 04:45 PM   #224
Heilige
An Icon Forever
 
Heilige's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: location,location
Posts: 3,395
Heilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation here
Default Re: 9/11, what do you really think happend?

Quote:
Originally Posted by reppy
Did Saddam have WMD? Was he attempting to acquire yellow cake from Niger? Of course not. This was all known by the international community to be completely false well before the invasion of Iraq. The only people that believed it were Americans, because the liberal media told 'em it was true.


No, it wasn't. I'm sure you're familiar with the British Butler Report, which examined the Niger claims.

The report indicated that there was enough intelligence to make a “well-founded” judgment that Saddam Hussein was seeking, perhaps as late as 2002, to obtain uranium illegally from Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo (6.4 para. 499). In particular, referring to a 1999 visit of Iraqi officials to Niger, the report states (6.4 para. 503): “The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.”

The report indicated that there was enough intelligence to make a “well-founded” judgment that Saddam Hussein was seeking, perhaps as late as 2002, to obtain uranium illegally from Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo (6.4 para. 499). In particular, referring to a 1999 visit of Iraqi officials to Niger, the report states (6.4 para. 503): “The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.”

http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/



Quote:
And if we went around overthrowing every government that was run by an *******, we'd have to be overthrowing a lot of governments; China and Russia immediately come to mind.



Immediately following 9/11, Richard Clarke was told to look into whether or not Iraq had anything to do with the attacks that occured that day. He has said that he at first assumed it was a joke. In fact, I seem to recall him also saying that Rumsfeld complained there were "no good targets" in Afghanistan.

Why would they want to attack Iraq immediately after 9/11? It's almost as if going after Iraq has long since been an agenda of theirs. But little mention before 9/11?


Plans for regime change in Iraq and fears of WMDs aren't exclusinve to the Bush Administration, see Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338). Again, read the AUMF that Congress approved.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl..._10-11-02.html


Quote:
"Turkish-US relations are still shaky, and Turkey is threatening to stop supplies going across its territory to US troops in Iraq if Congress passes a resolution recognizing the WWI genocide against the Armenians conducted by Ottoman officers." Source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...08-07-03-21-11

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072900859.html

Sources: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...CACF059767.htm & http://www.mercurynews.com/nationworld/ci_6562019

Source: http://english.sabah.com.tr/49FF8F15...CDC72848E.html


The Kurds and Turkey do pose a problem, but the Kurdish region is the most progressive and peaceful region in Iraq. Turkey is standing firm with us. In fact, they are having joing military excersises, with us and Isreal today.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070814...s_070814081816

"Israel has close diplomatic ties with Turkey -- one of the few Muslim countries with which it has relations and a key ally of the Jewish state since 1996 when the two countries signed a military cooperation deal, much to the anger of Arab countries and Iran."


Quote:
If the *****es begin to massacre the Sunnis, you can bet your George W. Bush baseball cap that the Saudis will attack. At the very least, it is likely that there will be a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran in Iraq.


No, they won't. Saudi Arabia's primary concern is it's own southern oil fields. They are delighted to see Saddam gone. The Sauds have given little support to pan-Arab leaders, from Nasser to Saddam, and isn't going to do anything to disrupt business.



Quote:
As was predicted by self-loathing, leftist blame-America firsters like Scott Ritter: if you give democracy to Iraq, they'll become the Islamic Republic of Iraq and ally with Iran. Boy, great idea to invade Iraq as a launching pad for a war against Iran, huh? (Do these neocons read books? Seriously.)


The same Scott Ritter who claimed the US would bomb Iran...... in 2005??



Quote:
Who said anything about Alex Jones? In fact, much of what I say is based off articles I read via www.juancole.com. But hey, he probably has no idea what he's talking about.



Are you intentionally trying to act like a jackass? Or is this just natural?



"Iraq's parliament went on a one-month hiatus Tuesday afternoon, having not passed any significant legislation. Bush had outlined 4 'benchmarks' last January that the Iraqi government needed to meet by June. These were passage of a petroleum law, passage of a law specifying distribution of the petroleum revenues, revisions of debaathification rules [which harm Sunni Arabs], and progress on Sunni-*****e reconciliation. Nothing has been accomplished on any of these fronts." Source: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...005961,00.html


I'm not happy that the Iraqi parliament took a vacation. The oil sharing revenues is key to getting all sides to get along.



Quote:
Don't you think those 4 are pretty ****ing important? Well, frankly I could care less about the oil.



Again with this silly argument. I can only imagine what you'd be saying if you were a German during World War II. The motherland is always right to protect itself, even when no viable threat exists!


I'm not sure where ad hominem comes into your argument, but it really shows your immaturity.



Quote:
That's extremely cute. But you know what else the article says?

"In practice, they became a largely imaginary threat that galvanized the Allies into action."

"In reality, there were four major attacks by Werwolf troops in the Western zones of occupation." (GOODNESS GRACIOUS?! FOUR WHOLE ATTACKS?!)

"True tactics were varied, and typically…petty. The truth was that Werwolf attacks were largely ineffectual. Typical operations included pouring sand into the gas tanks of allied vehicles, poisoning food and water, petty vandalism and stringing decapitation wires across the roads. The latter was terrifying, but not incredibly effective."

"While individual operations were reported as late as 1947, by several months after the Nazi surrender on May 7 1945, Werwolf was rendered largely impotent.

The possibility of a successful Nazi insurgency haunted the Allied Occupation force, encouraging them to commit heavy economic and military support to the reconstruction of Germany."

"A combination of highly committed popular reconstruction efforts contrasted with attacks on civilians deprived Werwolf of popular support, while miscommunication and demoralization worked to rapidly reduce the effectiveness of existing cells. A Pentagon report listed 42 American soldiers "killed as a result of enemy action" between June and December 1945. In 1946, there were three."


You claimed there were no attacks. You were wrong. The lack of an Iraq style "insurgency" debunks the claim "they hate us for our foreign policy".


Quote:
(I hate to break it to you, but a majority of Iraqis support attacks on Americans. And even if not a majority, it's a damn high enough of a percentage where you cannot win a guerrila war.)

From a Slate.com article:

"Werwolf tales have been a favorite of schlock novels, but the reality bore no resemblance to Iraq today. As Antony Beevor observes in The Fall of Berlin 1945, the Nazis began creating Werwolf as a resistance organization in September 1944. "In theory, the training programmes covered sabotage using tins of Heinz oxtail soup packed with plastic explosive and detonated with captured British time pencils," Beevor writes. "… Werwolf recruits were taught to kill sentries with a slip-knotted garrotte about a metre long or a Walther pistol with silencer. …"

In practice, Werwolf amounted to next to nothing. The mayor of Aachen was assassinated on March 25, 1945, on Himmler's orders. This was not a nice thing to do, but it happened before the May 7 Nazi surrender at Reims. It's hardly surprising that Berlin sought to undermine the American occupation before the war was over. And as the U.S. Army's official history, The U.S. Army in the Occupation of Germany 1944-1946, points out, the killing was "probably the Werwolf's most sensational achievement." Source: http://www.slate.com/id/2087768/

Alex: "This something lacked by most right-wingers."

reppy: "What is 'A Clue'?"

Alex: "That's absolutely correct, reppy."


Wow, very cute.


Quote:
You'd make a great fascist; anyone ever tell you that?


That was from the article, but thanks.


Quote:
If that's really the case, we would have invaded Saudi Arabia and not Iraq.


Really? What groups has the Saudi Gov't funded?


Quote:
Oh great. Another person that thinks Reagan defeated Communism. Do you listen to anything besides Sean Hannity?


Again, you're showing your youth (and naivete). Reagan didn't defeat communism single handedly, but his policies helped. Solidarity? You weren't born yet. Apparently, the Poles think enough of him to put up his statue in "Freedom Square". But of course, the Poles aren't blinded by your partisan hackery.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5366992.stm


Quote:
The government will never be stable as long as we're there.


Will it be more stable if we cut and run? Fallacy of the excluded middle.


Quote:
I'm honestly curious since the majority of the Iraq war supporters I've debated with are not currently in the armed forces.


That's because the armed forces have better things to do than hang out on online forums. There are few people in the military I know who think we should leave.
Heilige is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2007, 04:49 PM   #225
Heilige
An Icon Forever
 
Heilige's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: location,location
Posts: 3,395
Heilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation here
Default Re: 9/11, what do you really think happend?

Quote:
Originally Posted by reppy
When 9/11 occured, I was 16. By the time I had turned 18, we were on our way to Iraq. Why would I want to join the army when I knew that the entire thing was a sham? Even ol' Pat Tillman knew that!


The same Pat Tillman who the left slammed as a "dumb jock" before finding out his anti-war feelings? Pat Tillman is a hero who served his country, and is entitled to his opinions.



Quote:
I was opposed to the attack from the beginning, not stupid. Human shields quickly become human shrapnel.


Then your problem is with your Congress, who voted to authorize force. Again, check out the AUMF, and tell me which ones no longer apply.



Quote:
Answer the question, please. Thanks.

(Actually, I think I already know the answer, and it's typical of young right wingers that are prime age for the military: "I'm a bigger asset by being in America! See, I gots to get an education! Plus, I have an old wrestling injury! Yeah, that's it..")


You still resort to the "yo mamma" of anti war arguments. PS I'm not of prime military age.

The chicken-hawk argument is nakedly partisan. During the Kosovo war waged by Bill Clinton and supported by Democrats in 1999, a cry didn’t go up from the Left that no one could support the war unless they were willing to strap themselves into B-2 bombers for the 33-hour ride from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to Belgrade and back to degrade Serbian infrastructure.

By the same token, we could say to proponents of leaving Saddam Hussein in power: “That’s an illegitimate position unless you yourself are willing to move to Tikrit to live for the duration of Saddam’s regime.” Or to supporters of “containing” Saddam: “You’re a hypocrite until you go help patrol the no-fly zone.” Or to advocates of inspections: “You can’t support them unless you don a baby-blue cap and sniff around his suspected chemical-weapons sites yourself.”

Why should this line of argument be limited to Iraq? “You think we should help fight AIDS in Africa? Well, go work in a clinic in Lavumisa, Swaziland.” “You oppose land mines? Go clear them from the Korean DMZ.” “You think there should be a new U.N. protocol in favor of [insert fashionable cause here]? Then spend interminable hours helping negotiate it yourself.” “Support jobless benefits? Become a clerk at an unemployment office.”

Alas, the argument only swings one way. A few radical antiwar groups, including Code Pink and Veterans for Peace, have released a statement supporting the Iraqi insurgency. But no one is badgering its members about whether they are going to go set off roadside bombs in Baquba. Jihad is so easy when it’s someone else’s son or daughter doing all the suicide bombing!

Again, you're not trying to debate, you're trying to stifle one. My (or yours) lack of military experience has no bearing on the argument. America was built on a populist republican model.

"The Founders, who knew quite well the dangers of a military class supreme, were clear in their conviction that the judgment of professional warmakers must be subordinated to the command of ignorant amateurs -- civilian leaders who were in turn subordinated to the command of civilian voters. Such has given us the leadership in war of such notable "chicken hawks" as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt."

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/mic...elly103002.asp
Heilige is offline   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:00 AM.




NBA Basketball Forum Key Links:
InsideHoops Home
NBA Rumors
Basketball Blog
NBA Daily Recaps
NBA Videos
Fantasy Basketball
NBA Mock Draft
NBA Free Agents
All-Star Weekend
---
High School Basketball
Streetball
---
InsideHoops Twitter
Search Our Site















Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy