United 93, opening old wounds and exposing some truth?

[Bingo]

Why can't the United States have a single moment good or bad in their long history without a conspiracy theory wrapped into it?

And why pray tell, would a good Calgary boy buy into it? Exposure from living under the border for too long?

Sorry Lanny, but I'm not a conspiracy theory guy just like I'm not a prophet (Nostradamus guy). Too easy to come up with and the burder of disproof always falls to logic and life doesn't always work that way.

Area 51
Moon Landing
Pearl Harbour
JFK
911

it's too much.

Sometimes things actually happen as you think they happen.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by White Doors

They target them not to lift the oppression but because they don't think it's oppressive enough.

Now, was that so hard?

Okay so which is it? They do target oppressive non-western regimes, or they don't? You said they don't, now you say they do.

It is kinda hard.

And are you sure it's just because they aren't oppressive enough? You don't think it could be just a little more complicated than that?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by White Doors

They target them not to lift the oppression but because they don't think it's oppressive enough.

Now, was that so hard?

Actually, they targetted them for being more secular. If Hussein was a god-fearing muslim, the reaction would have been different.

The breakdown here is along religious lines.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally Posted by HOZ

You are right there Ramen boy....burka for every women!　They are free to roam their homes. It rhymes too!

多分、国際連合の憲章は読むことありません。

日本語にするかい？乗るよ。
お前も憲章も読んだことはあるの？読むか読まないにしても、国連憲章の意味が分からないでしょう。「自由」 より「人権」で出張している法律であります。

（↑は別として）先のポストで俺が強調したかったポイントはイスラム教の文化や信仰を考慮しないと何もでき ないということです。(事例として）アフガンの場合、普通の社会人としていまだに法律より信仰のほうが左右 されている。従って、アフガンで何かを変えようと思っても信仰(文化）の文脈から始まらないと何もできない 。信仰者が法律のようなことを尊敬していないからだ。

言い換えれば、国連と法律をを左右されている欧米が法律においての法的ルールが中東に活用ができない。信仰 者にとって、神様の与えられたルールではなきゃ効かないからです。

Summed up - the reason why the "rules" of the west don't work in the middle east is that law doesn't have the same power to influence than the "law of God". If you want to change stuff there, start with the imams.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by TheCommodoreAfro

日本語にするかい？乗るよ。
お前も憲章も読んだことはあるの？読むか読まないにしても、国連憲章の意味が分からないでしょう。「自由」 より「人権」で出張している法律であります。

（↑は別として）先のポストで俺が強調したかったポイントはイスラム教の文化や信仰を考慮しないと何もでき ないということです。(事例として）アフガンの場合、普通の社会人としていまだに法律より信仰のほうが左右 されている。従って、アフガンで何かを変えようと思っても信仰(文化）の文脈から始まらないと何もできない 。信仰者が法律のようなことを尊敬していないからだ。

言い換えれば、国連と法律をを左右されている欧米が法律においての法的ルールが中東に活用ができない。信仰 者にとって、神様の与えられたルールではなきゃ効かないからです。

Summed up - the reason why the "rules" of the west don't work in the middle east is that law doesn't have the same power to influence than the "law of God". If you want to change stuff there, start with the imams.

Don't have Japanese on this computer so I will have to write in romaji.

anata no nihongo jouzu! watashi no nihongo no yori motto motto jouzu!!!!!

demo, nihongo de, eigo de kokusai no rule zen zen wakarimasen.


The UN Charter doesn't change from country to country or religion to religion. It is stated quite clearly what freedoms were are suppose to be afforded.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Don't have Japanese on this computer so I will have to write in romaji.

anata no nihongo jouzu! watashi no nihongo no yori motto motto jouzu!!!!!

demo, nihongo de, eigo de kokusai no rule zen zen wakarimasen.


The UN Charter doesn't change from country to country or religion to religion. It is stated quite clearly what freedoms were are suppose to be afforded.

The funny point about this is that I acutally agree with you on this issue. I don't think it's right how they live their lives there. The point I'm trying to make is that rule of law and rule of god (or improper teaching of god) and how people place that in their head is a big part of the problem. Rules won't change until they are addressed in manner that speaks to everyone appropriately.
The big deal is "rights of the individual" and the use of the ambiguous term "freedom". Like Lanny said, it means something different to everyone, and shouldn't be thrown around as an aspiration or achievable goal. It's all about appoaching implementation of human rights in context.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Actually, they targetted them for being more secular. If Hussein was a god-fearing muslim, the reaction would have been different.

The breakdown here is along religious lines.

No kidding.

Hussein was targeted by muslim fundamentalists all throughout his reign. No one can say that it was because he wasn't oppressive enough. In fact, it is one of the reasons he was so oppressive.

The fact he was a secular muslim, and barely even a muslim at all, had a lot to with it.

[White Doors]

Yes, the muslim fundamentatlists wanted a theocracy in Iraq. A theorcracy would have been even more brutal than Hussein in my opinion. Women didn't have to wear burqa's in Iraq for example and they were allowed to drive, neither of which would have been afforded to them under a muslim theocracy. One needs to look no further than the taliban that had executions on the soccer fields for their half time show.

Husseins' brutality was mainly directed against kurds and #####es, especially the Marsh Arabs.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Yes, the muslim fundamentatlists wanted a theocracy in Iraq. A theorcracy would have been even more brutal than Hussein in my opinion.

Well, both are pretty bad. No-one is saying (or at least no-one should) that it wouldn't be better to have a democracy in Iraq than to leave Saddam in power forever. For one thing, that guy is SERIOUSLY mentally ill. Apparently he spent the night before the invasion working on his "novel."

But just as clearly--the justification for the war that was given by the Bush administration was at best wrongheaded, and at worst deceptive. Iraq had no WMDs and no connection to Al Qaeda or 9/11. That much is clear--and should have been clear beforehand, even if it wasn't to everybody. It's quite telling, though, that many in the Bush White House had been concocting plans for the invasion of Iraq that predate 9/11 considerably.

Furthermore, their complete lack of an occupation plan and an exit strategy will likely cost many lives, and may well tip the region into greater conflict and instability.

It's like the hippocratic oath--"first, do no harm." Any action that you take, should be done because there's a reasonable expectation that it will materially improve the situation without unreasonable cost in terms of human life. The jury's out, but it strikes me as unlikely that the Iraq war will meet that test.

[White Doors]

I agree, the 'seilling' of the war was handled badly.

If the intent was to have the terorists fight American soldiers instead of civilians though, then it is definitely meeting that test. If the intent was to set up Iraq to be a stable democracy to put pressure on the Muslim theocracies and dictators, then that is a harder goal and one that we can't judge the outcome of, yet.

I think and hope it was for both.

[Looger]

how can american military presence do anything but bolster their despotic, theocratic allies in the region?

direct occupation of saudi arabia was angering al-quaeda's support base, so the americans kindly gave them a training ground and some fodder. in reality they bowed to al-quaeda's demands and have done almost nothing to go after its leader.

and allowing iraq's oil to slip back into opec, is from america's big oil standpoint genius, and from the middle class a horrific turn of events.

as for this thread, i'll chuck in another question of the cell-call. i just don't think it was likely. possible? maybe for a few seconds. but someone should try it from a lear jet ad publish the results.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Looger

as for this thread, i'll chuck in another question of the cell-call. i just don't think it was likely. possible? maybe for a few seconds. but someone should try it from a lear jet ad publish the results.

You know they actually used in-flight phones.

But of course, thats way over your head. I've met Lisa Beamer before and she wasn't lying about her husbands story.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Azure

You know they actually used in-flight phones.

But of course, thats way over your head. I've met Lisa Beamer before and she wasn't lying about her husbands story.

oops, i believe you're correct. i read a couple movie reviews and they use airphones in the film. i should add that i haven't seen it.

cell phones - that's just reality, not the movie!

http://www.sfgate.com/today/suspect.shtml

09-11) 20:55 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. officials began piecing together a case linking Osama bin Laden to the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, aided by an intercept of communications between his supporters and harrowing cell phone calls from victims aboard the jetliners before they crashed on Tuesday.


my mistake, won't happen again.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Looger

oops, i believe you're correct. i read a couple movie reviews and they use airphones in the film. i should add that i haven't seen it.

cell phones - that's just reality, not the movie!

http://www.sfgate.com/today/suspect.shtml

09-11) 20:55 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. officials began piecing together a case linking Osama bin Laden to the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, aided by an intercept of communications between his supporters and harrowing cell phone calls from victims aboard the jetliners before they crashed on Tuesday.


my mistake, won't happen again.

Are you attempting to claim that personal cell phones are involuntarily inoperable on commercial airliners?

Cowperson

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Are you attempting to claim that personal cell phones are involuntarily inoperable on commercial airliners?

Cowperson

not quite.

i've heard of it working, i think there was a mythbusters aboot it and i've read accounts from RF engineers that are 'yay' and 'nay'.

this was over heavily populated areas, ie. the NE united states, so there are a lot of towers.

but i have a hard time believing there was much conversation over cell phones with a plane going 400 mph, blasting through cells like keith richards through his painkillers. maybe 5 second calls, tops. i mean, they drop out on cars on the highway, like all the time.

i don't dispute the possibility, but i do dispute the idea of multiple calls lasting long enough to convey an actual conversation.

as for airphones, i'm sure 90+ percent of CP'ers have been on a plane and at least SEEN the things used. no kidding they work.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Looger

not quite.

i've heard of it working, i think there was a mythbusters aboot it and i've read accounts from RF engineers that are 'yay' and 'nay'.

this was over heavily populated areas, ie. the NE united states, so there are a lot of towers.

but i have a hard time believing there was much conversation over cell phones with a plane going 400 mph, blasting through cells like keith richards through his painkillers. maybe 5 second calls, tops. i mean, they drop out on cars on the highway, like all the time.

i don't dispute the possibility, but i do dispute the idea of multiple calls lasting long enough to convey an actual conversation.

as for airphones, i'm sure 90+ percent of CP'ers have been on a plane and at least SEEN the things used. no kidding they work.

So really, you're just pulling out of your ass your objection that people couldn't have been using cellphones on these particular commercial flights.

Isn't that right?

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...cell_air2.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TRAVEL/0...ail/index.html

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=...airliners&meta=

Cowperson

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Looger

oops, i believe you're correct. i read a couple movie reviews and they use airphones in the film. i should add that i haven't seen it.

There's some cell phone calls and some airphone calls in the movie.

One thing that would seem to me to make cell phone calls at least more possible than usual are the probably very low altitude at which the flights were flying.

I also think it's pretty unlikely that people are lying about hearing from their loved ones by phone. Who knows what the sound quality was, but it clearly did happen.

Also, if cell phones didn't work on planes, why would they continually tell us not to use them?

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

So really, you're just pulling out of your ass your objection that people couldn't have been using cellphones on these particular commercial flights.

Isn't that right?

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...cell_air2.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TRAVEL/0...ail/index.html

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=...airliners&meta=

Cowperson

yep, straight out of my ass.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.pdf

The hijackers attacked at 9:28. While traveling 35,000 feet above eastern
Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet.

also:

At 9:32, a hijacker, probably Jarrah, made or attempted to make the following announcement to the passengers of Flight 93:“Ladies and Gentlemen:Here the captain, please sit down keep remaining sitting.We have a bomb on board. So, sit.” The flight data recorder (also recovered) indicates that Jarrah then instructed the plane’s autopilot to turn the aircraft around and head east.

75

The cockpit voice recorder data indicate that a woman, most likely a flight
attendant,was being held captive in the cockpit. She struggled with one of the hijackers who killed or otherwise silenced her.

76

Shortly thereafter, the passengers and flight crew began a series of calls from GTE airphones and cellular phones.

also:

9:41 Transponder is turned off

so, how much altitude can a plane drop in 4 minutes, well admittedly, quite a bit. but don't cell phones have to be below 10,000 feet to work reliably? i guess it comes down to how far off the ground 93 went in those 4 minutes, i'm honestly not sure how much altitude it had when the transponder was lost.

from your own link,

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...cell_air2.html

Who would want airline passengers to be able to make cell phone calls at 30,000 feet? Another federal agency, the Federal Communications Commission, seems to be the leading backer of the idea.

seems like a lot of research is being done to make cells work at higher altitudes, why bother when dozens of calls worked with networks seven years older?

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Also, if cell phones didn't work on planes, why would they continually tell us not to use them?

Cowperson, above, has some good FAA links on their policy towards cell phones, they clearly do work at lower altitudes reliably.

i've been on flights where they've asked the passengers to turn off the phones, maybe it potentially interferes, maybe not. they do interfere with hospital equipment i think.

a lot of planes are still built with 1960s technology and the hull acts as a large antenna, so conceivably a sizable chunk of the transmission gets into the airframe and whatever old-school electric controls are there. planes are madeto take lightning strikes, so i'm not sure how much damage a 6-watt cell transmission can do.

i assume that it's possible that cell phones can interfere with flight controls, which is why the FAA has been leary of their use in the past.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Looger

seems like a lot of research is being done to make cells work at higher altitudes, why bother when dozens of calls worked with networks seven years older?

My following comment is actually coming out of my ass, so take it for what it's worth.

All I know is one time I forgot to turn off my cell phone. Right in the middle of the flight it started ringing. (Fortunately on vibrate mode.) I opened it to turn it off, and noticed before I hit the power button that it was showing analog mode; even though flying from Calgary to Winnipeg we were over the digital towers that dot the Trans Canada Highway.

Here's what I am supposing from this:

- Analog signals travel better. Unlike digital where the signal is either on or off, analog will give a few seconds of static instead of dropping the call.
- Cell signals do reach 32,000 feet

Now I haven't seen the movie in question; but on two other "Flight 93" movies they showed people talking to loved ones, then later calling them back. Myself; if I thought I was going to die I would have let the cell minutes rack up. Perhaps we are all a little partially right; in that the cell phones did work; but there were dropped calls.

Also, I know I have talked on the phone for the better part of an hour on the phone on the highway; so I know that what Telus tells me is true about cell towers handing off calls from one to another.