United 93, opening old wounds and exposing some truth?

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

You kind of brought it on yourself by claiming that White Supremacists had never killed Jews for ideological reasons. In point of fact, Mr. "History Minor," the holocaust isn't even the only time that has happened, but is one of a long list of instances dating back to medieval times.

Maybe you should have paid a little more attention in your 4 history classes.

As for the so-called "statistical proof" that most terrorists are muslims--I suspect that what we'll find is that a lot depends on 1. your definition and 2. the particular theater of global politics you happen to be paying attention to. You don't think there are THOUSANDS of militants in Darfur who could be described as terrorists? No-one's denying that terrorism is a problem in the middle east. But it might be time to take off the FoxNews blinders: there's a whole world out there.

Well first of all, I'm talking about now. I have not linked terrorism with Genocide which is what you seem to be awkwardly trying to do.

Second of all - interestingly enough - Darfur is another example of muslim extremism. The muslim/arab government is backing the 'janjaweed' who are muslims that, are, according to reports, committing genocide on the black, predominately Christian population of the Darfur region. Interesting that when extremist muslims have the power of government can turn terrorism into genocide though isn't it?

Perhaps you should be paying closer attention to current events, especially if you want to come off as well informed on an internet forum discussing said events.

I do appreciate you responding to a post that was not directed to you though. Perhaps you need another 'critical reading' course in your English degree?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Well first of all, I'm talking about now. I have not linked terrorism with Genocide which is what you seem to be awkwardly trying to do.

Second of all - interestingly enough - Darfur is another example of muslim extremism. The muslim/arab government is backing the 'janjaweed' who are muslims that, are, according to reports, committing genocide on the black, predominately Christian population of the Darfur region. Interesting that when extremist muslims have the power of government can turn terrorism into genocide though isn't it?

Perhaps you should be paying closer attention to current events, especially if you want to come off as well informed on an internet forum discussing said events.

I do appreciate you responding to a post that was not directed to you though. Perhaps you need another 'critical reading' course in your English degree?

Sorry White Doors but you are wrong here.

They are doing this to BLACK Muslims whom Arabs feel are inferior.


They finished off the Christians long ago without a wimper from all the caring souls inthe West.

[White Doors]

"Terrorism is an international problem and not just a middle eastern problem or muslim problem. The reason it is such a problem in the muslim world is because of the fragmentation and tribal structures which prevents modern military constructs from being utilized. Their only alternative is to turn to the terrorist and guerilla methodology of war. This is the only way the poor can fight back, whether we like it or not"

And this is just asinine. Nepal has just about succeeded in bringing democracy to that country through demonstrations. While not always peacful, they did it. To suggest that terrorism is a legitimate, or one's ONLY recourse that the poor can fight with is the ultimate in moral-equivelancy and is pathetic.

There is NEVER a need to purposefully target civilians to further one's cause.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by greasesuck

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...20890224991194

Here's a good video about the conspiracy.

and about the cell phones here you go

http://gatorpress.com/badsam/page5.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_co...ere_impossible

I will find more links about the cell phones.

Again for links that say cellphones don't work there are links that cell phones work from planes, some of them placed in this thread earlier. And this video is similar to the one about man not landing on the moon where they take inconsequential details and magnify them a thousand times. For every one of these crackpot consipiracy thoery videos there are videos that show that it happened.

I'm sorry but I find it impossible to believe that anyone including the illuminati could create a conspiracy this big and be able to attend to all of the details.

An example was a news special on the collapse of the World Trade centers that showed how it happened to the details, and these videos weren't made by somebody who has to see a man in black behind everything.

There was a video shown earliler that had a demo of a airplane crashing into a concrete wall, and there was nothing left of that plane, but that theory is being discounted here.

Again there are documented incidences that prove that 9-11 happened exactly the way it did. I also don't see the main stream news services lining up to interview the people who made this video.

The cell phone calls did happen, we heard the transcripts we have the witness reports, unless your telling me that the U.S. government diverted the planes, send replacement planes to crash into the buildings and forced these people to make these phonecalls with a gun to thier heads before eliminated them because they knew to much.

In order for any of this crap to be true it would have to debunk credible media sources such as popular mechanics excellent article which shreds these conspiracy theories.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie.../1227842.html?




5 sided island theory

http://www.911-strike.com/pentagon.htm

Page of links refuting the conspiracy theories laid out in your movie

http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/refute.htm

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Sorry White Doors but you are wrong here.

They are doing this to BLACK Muslims whom Arabs feel are inferior.


They finished off the Christians long ago without a wimper from all the caring souls inthe West.

I guess they can't stop themselves now.. Or perhaps that is why they seem open to peace talks now? The job is done?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Well first of all, I'm talking about now. I have not linked terrorism with Genocide which is what you seem to be awkwardly trying to do.

Sure you did. You set the criteria yourself when you said "when White Supremacist blow up Jews for ideological reasons, we'll talk. As I said before, terrorism is pretty hard to define. If your point is that "terrorism" is usually defined by state agencies against whom it's directed, you're probably right. But that doesn't change the fact that you stepped in it bigtime. For the record, I don't think you're a "holocaust denier"--and only one person intimated that you might be. However, I do think you misspoke--and that's forgivable. Here's an idea--admit that you misspoke, and we'll move on; no harm, no foul.

Second of all - interestingly enough - Darfur is another example of muslim extremism. The muslim/arab government is backing the 'janjaweed' who are muslims that, are, according to reports, committing genocide on the black, predominately Christian population of the Darfur region. Interesting that when extremist muslims have the power of government can turn terrorism into genocide though isn't it?

Also for the record, I don't particularly care how "well informed" I seem to strangers on an internet message board. I merely pointed out an example where terrorism was being carried out outside the middle east. The question of course is whether your claim that "most terrorists are muslims" was an ethnic or a religious generalization. As you've now clarified, you are making a religious generalization rather than an ethnic one. Fine. That doesn't make you right.

I do appreciate you responding to a post that was not directed to you though. Perhaps you need another 'critical reading' course in your English degree?

Thanks for the advice. In point of fact I was under the apparently mistaken impression that this was a discussion forum, meaning that I could initiate a discussion with anyone if I wanted to. I stand corrected. Henceforth I will politely stand by until spoken to directly. You were of course, free not to respond to my post, which was really only intended to clarify why people were offended at your assertion that White Supremacists had never killed Jews.

The larger point, which is whether most terrorists are muslim, is not one that I feel qualified to comment on. And neither should you. For better or worse, terms like "terrorist" are notoriously hard to define. This isn't pop-philosophy here: in this case, the definition is EVERYTHING. If you define terrorism as flying planes into buildings, then you could safely make the generalization that ALL terrorists are muslim. Would that make you happier? It strikes me that trying to generalize without a working definition, or quantitative data based on that definition, is the height of FoxNews silliness. It may be time to take your own advice on that "critical thinking" course.

In a sense, we're probably splitting hairs. There are terrorists in every theater of global politics. That doesn't mean that terrorism isn't a major problem in the middle east--and in all probability a much more urgent problem than terrorism in, say, South America. I just think that inflammatory and probably incorrect generalizations help no-one, and do nothing to address the core problems here.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Sure you did. You set the criteria yourself when you said "when White Supremacist blow up Jews for ideological reasons, we'll talk. As I said before, terrorism is pretty hard to define. If your point is that "terrorism" is usually defined by state agencies against whom it's directed, you're probably right. But that doesn't change the fact that you stepped in it bigtime. For the record, I don't think you're a "holocaust denier"--and only one person intimated that you might be. However, I do think you misspoke--and that's forgivable. Here's an idea--admit that you misspoke, and we'll move on; no harm, no foul.





Also for the record, I don't particularly care how "well informed" I seem to strangers on an internet message board. I merely pointed out an example where terrorism was being carried out outside the middle east. The question of course is whether your claim that "most terrorists are muslims" was an ethnic or a religious generalization. As you've now clarified, you are making a religious generalization rather than an ethnic one. Fine. That doesn't make you right.


Thanks for the advice. In point of fact I was under the apparently mistaken impression that this was a discussion forum, meaning that I could initiate a discussion with anyone if I wanted to. I stand corrected. Henceforth I will politely stand by until spoken to directly. You were of course, free not to respond to my post, which was really only intended to clarify why people were offended at your assertion that White Supremacists had never killed Jews.

The larger point, which is whether most terrorists are muslim, is not one that I feel qualified to comment on. And neither should you. For better or worse, terms like "terrorist" are notoriously hard to define. This isn't pop-philosophy here: in this case, the definition is EVERYTHING. If you define terrorism as flying planes into buildings, then you could safely make the generalization that ALL terrorists are muslim. Would that make you happier? It strikes me that trying to generalize without a working definition, or quantitative data based on that definition, is the height of FoxNews silliness. It may be time to take your own advice on that "critical thinking" course.

In a sense, we're probably splitting hairs. There are terrorists in every theater of global politics. That doesn't mean that terrorism isn't a major problem in the middle east--and in all probability a much more urgent problem than terrorism in, say, South America. I just think that inflammatory and probably incorrect generalizations help no-one, and do nothing to address the core problems here.

Well I never said that Terrorism was a 'middle eastern' problem. I will say that it seems to be a predominately Arab and Islamic one however.

Also, I did not step in anything. If you care to review the context of the conversation, the other poster was referring to the KKK-like organizations. Linking that and Nazism and the genocide that occured there was a large leap and one that was made simply to try and villify me.

I am talkign about present day. I was never speaking in a historical context and I have said that numerous times.

In fact, my opening statement ont he subject was thus:

'Not all muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are muslims.'

You can see that I am referring to present tense and that could include the past 5 years or so I suppose, but to accuse me of being a holocaust denier from something that happened 60 plus years ago is disingenious and insulting.

If you can't see that then you just don't want to.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

'Not all muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are muslims.'

It's like deja vu. I have no interest in a conversation where you make a claim, are challenged to prove it, and do so by repeating your claim without any compelling evidence.

[White Doors]

So you are saying that you disagree that most terrorism is committed by Muslims these days? Are you serious?

[RougeUnderoos]

Not all Christians are child molesters, but most child molesters are Christians.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Not all Christians are child molesters, but most child molesters are Christians.

Back this up loser......

I back up mine withdetailed numbers. How about you?

Something tells me you can only provide numbers from countries that acually record this and they are ....... Western

The sort of thing that the useful idoit could do to the West duringt the cold War. Every single atrocity real or make-believe could berecorded about the USa (ie West) but nothing from the Utopia( USSR). Yet we know they murdered 30 million PLUS.




Go home apologist.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Back this up loser......

I back up mine withdetailed numbers. How aboutyou.


Something tells me you can only provide numbers from countries that acually record this and they are ....... Western


Go home apologist.

Wow. Way to come off as a child. Calling someone a loser doesn't make your point more valid.

Something tells me you can only provide numbers from countries that acually record this and they are ....... Western

What the hell does that even mean? Because they make records of this, the records are false?

I think you did nothing but prove the point Rouge was trying to make.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Back this up loser......

I back up mine withdetailed numbers. How about you?

Something tells me you can only provide numbers from countries that acually record this and they are ....... Western

The sort of thing that the useful idoit could do to the West duringt the cold War. Every single atrocity real or make-believe could berecorded about the USa (ie West) but nothing from the Utopia( USSR). Yet we know they murdered 30 million PLUS.




Go home apologist.

I am at home.

And you haven't proven anything, so why should I?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Lanny...seriosly....give the conspiracy theories a rest. What frikk'n planet are you from?

The site is a NON-partisan site. A quick look at the place and it is quite obviously NOT some propaganda machine.

Time to come home Lanny....Earth to Lanny.....

http://www.cfr.org/bios/11490/

Executive Bush Planted Editor FOR Porpoganda

Michael Moran
A writer and broadcaster on foreign and national security affairs and a former correspondent for the BBC, MSNBC and Radio Free Europe, Moran is now in charge of the editorial vision of the Council’s website, cfr.org, and contributes analysis to it and other publications.
Expertise:

International news coverage, free expression and Internet policy abroad, U.S. media strategy and public diplomacy.
Experience:

Senior correspondent, MSNBC.com (2003-05); senior producer, International News and Special Reports, MSNBC.com (1996-2003); U.S. affairs analyst, BBC World Service (1993-96); senior editor, Radio Free Europe (1990-93), former reporter for Associated Press, St. Petersburg Times, Sarasota Herald-Tribune (1985-88).
Languages:

Fluent in German; familiar with Spanish.

BBC...MSNBC...total Neocon!!!!!!!!!! The fluent in Spanishand German is just to throw people. He is really from the South East of the Good'ole US of A!! Hee Haw!

It's a conspiracy now? Wow. I don't even know why I talk with you. You have zero idea how this country works and how money makes things happen. I too was naive when I moved here, but learned a great deal during the next few years. I really got an awakening when I started working for the government and got to see how things are really done and how little information makes it into the public view.

CFR is a propaganda organ. Has been recognized that way since its creation. Just because they have a guy that is a "liberal" does not make then non-partisan, moron. Or are you saying that Alan Colmbs presence on FoxNews makes them "non-partisan too. Let me guess, you think the Heritage Foundation is non-partisan as well? Jesus, you should really are a trip. Follow the money, jack ass, and you'll find who runs the show and which way these bodies lean. There is a reason why certain organizations lean given ways, its where the money comes from. Its where the people come from (hand picked neo-cons educated at conservative univerities in conservative programs on scholarships paid for by neo-cons) and where thei support comes from (other neo-conservative think tanks that routinely quote each other for support because they both have the same end goal). You really need some exposure to the political process in this country and how it really runs. Those with the money, those with the ability to develop these support organs, and those with the ability to lobby strongly, run this country, not the voters.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

So you are saying that you disagree that most terrorism is committed by Muslims these days? Are you serious?

That actually isn't what I said. If you'd read my post in its entirety, you'd have seen this:

The larger point...whether most terrorists are muslim, is not one that I feel qualified to comment on. And neither should you. For better or worse, terms like "terrorist" are notoriously hard to define. This isn't pop-philosophy here: in this case, the definition is EVERYTHING. If you define terrorism as flying planes into buildings, then you could safely make the generalization that ALL terrorists are muslim. Would that make you happier? It strikes me that trying to generalize without a working definition, or quantitative data based on that definition, is the height of FoxNews silliness. It may be time to take your own advice on that "critical thinking" course.

What that means, in plainer language, is "I don't know." My point is, neither do you. Don't pretend otherwise. To borrow a phrase from you, if you don't see that, you don't want to.

I'm getting pretty bored of this issue, to be honest. It all came up because you made a generalization that you can't support--and it's not really that relevant to the actual topic of this thread. Can't we just get back to bashing the conspiracy theorists who don't believe 9/11 happened? On that issue, my suspicion is that we're on the same side.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by White Doors

There is NEVER a need to purposefully target civilians to further one's cause.

Says the dufus who has in the past attempted to justify the fire bombing of Tokyo, the carpet bombing of Germany and Vietnam. Nice double standard.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by White Doors

"Terrorism is an international problem and not just a middle eastern problem or muslim problem. The reason it is such a problem in the muslim world is because of the fragmentation and tribal structures which prevents modern military constructs from being utilized. Their only alternative is to turn to the terrorist and guerilla methodology of war. This is the only way the poor can fight back, whether we like it or not"

And this is just asinine. Nepal has just about succeeded in bringing democracy to that country through demonstrations. While not always peacful, they did it. To suggest that terrorism is a legitimate, or one's ONLY recourse that the poor can fight with is the ultimate in moral-equivelancy and is pathetic.

There is NEVER a need to purposefully target civilians to further one's cause.

Interestingly, many of the terrorists we currently hear about are targeting American/Allied forces in Iraq. Do we still classify them as terrorists? Freedom fighters?

Allied forces - particularaly the US with the nuke bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima - targetted civilians in the great wars. Hell, virtually every armed conflict in human history saw innocents suffer greatly.

I wonder, should we define all of these organizations, rebels, governments as terrorists as well?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by White Doors

It's the law. There are laws in war.

I like this comment for its naivety.

There are, of course, laws in war. They are also generally only enforcable by the victors.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The Geneva convention has about as much relevance to Islamic fundamentalists as the UN has to neo-Conservatives. ie. It's good when it serves your own purposes, but easily ignorable every other time.

Originally Posted by White Doors

It's the law. There are laws in war.

So, howcome the U.S. feels it is exempt from the Geneva Conventions in the war on terrorism? It's either not a real war, or the conventions are ignored.

If it is not a real war, then how can there be illegal combatants (which was your defintion of what a terrorist is)? And if they are being ignored by the U.S., then how can any tactic be considered illegal?

[Blue]

Wow, I'm going to jump in here but I know I probably shouldn't. I read the first page of this and well, being an American didn't really want to read anymore. The title caught my attention because I've had a lot of discussion about this movie with friends. First off I have to say I am stunned by the hatred I read on this board for Americans. I have always found Canadians to be wonderfully nice, good people. This and other threads here shock me.

As someone who watched 911 happen before her eyes and who had a brother working in the Pentagon in that section I felt compelled to read this thread. Have I seen the movie? No. Why? Because the memory of that day still hurts and I don't want to. To me the people on that plane and every other plane were heros. As were all the people that died that day. You want to call us Pom Pom waving Americans so be it.