“Well, you know the president is getting ready to make an announcement that they’re going to put GPS chips in all the children, so they’re safe. That’s just what the Antichrist is going to do to mark everybody.’”
Are these frightening words the latest warning from Glenn Beck, or one of the other Right Wing fanatics filling the airwaves? Or are they from a paranoid schizophrenic? Hard to tell the difference sometimes, isn’t it?
This time the crazy statement is attributed to the fellow who fired some rifle rounds into the White House last week.
From some reports it seems this guy really is mentally ill.
His mother doesn’t want to accept the evidence he is psychotic, but offers some insight that could help explain why so many conservative Republicans hold on to similar delusional thinking.
She said, ““He might be saying weird stuff that sounds crazy, but that doesn’t mean (he) is crazy. He might be confused and scared.”
Confused and scared. That certainly describes many ordinary Americans who listen to FOX (R), Beck and Limbaugh. Just add some anger into the mix and we get a larger picture of the Republican conservatism being cultivated in the American people.
As we know from a Live Science poll, a large proportion, 24 percent, of Republicans believe Obama may be the antichrist. That’s pretty amusing, seen in the light of Mikey Weiner Savage’ s blatant projection that, “Liberalism is a mental disorder”.
I don’t know, there, Mikey. You’d have to find a lot of liberals who believe a lot more craziness than Righties. Stuff like, “A corporation is a person.” And “Corporate money given to politicians is not corruption, but free speech.” Or “Tax cuts for the rich will trickle down benefits for everyone,” and “Regulations for Wall Street are killing jobs.”
Then according to the poll, there are these Republican indoctrinated beliefs:
38 percent say he wants to take away Americans' right to own guns.
32 percent say he is a Muslim.
29 percent think he wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government.
25 percent say he was not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president.
25 percent say he is a domestic enemy that the U.S. Constitutions speaks of.
23 percent say he is a racist.
Not to mention Obama being the antichrist.
Sorry, as loony as the left can appear sometimes, the vast preponderance of delusional thinking and false beliefs belongs to the Right Wing cult. Thanks to their being confused, scared and angered by the Right Wing media machine, they win in mental disorders hands down.
Mission accomplished.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
110 comments:
"38 percent say he wants to take away Americans' right to own guns."
If Obama vetoes Congress' new carry-permit law that overrides all state and local laws, you can imagine the screeching from the Right. That 38% will probably skyrocket to 90-something percent.
Tom,
It’s interesting that Rep. Dan Lungren of California was a GOP lawmaker on the House Judiciary Committee to reject the measure.
Lungren said, “It’s a clash of two interests: Second Amendment rights and the 10th Amendment, the idea of federalism. I think it’s a states’ rights issue.”
HR,
You have a point. I should be more considerate of the mentally ill than to compare them to cultists who willfully embrace similar delusions.
Heathen Republican, you said...
"Comparing the delusional thinking of a mentally unstable man who shot at the White House to conservative Republicans? Bottom of the barrel."
Speaking of the bottom of the heap, your opposition reminds me of your reply to John Myste (on 2 November 2011, on your blog)...
"I understand you believe it [that water boarding is torture], but there is a legal definition for torture, and water boarding doesn't fit. That's true if a Democrat or Republican authorizes it. As such, the U.S. does not torture."
Delusional thinking is delusional thinking, no matter whether bullets are flying through windows or prisoners are forced into positions of undeniable pain and/or suffering.
Here's an noncrazy Republican lamenting the crazy people running the GOP.
THR, Rick Perry is seen by a great many in the GOP as a legitimate candidate for the presidency. He recently said he'd violate the Constitution by giving the military complete control over military decisions, and remove it from the responsibility--as laid out in the US Constitution--of the Commander in Chief, the US president.
Newt Gingrich's newest great idea is to eliminate child labor laws to help bring back our economy.
Herman Cain. Where to begin. The GOP is in love with a guy who doesn't believe reading is an essential quality in a leader, and who has zero knowledge of anything outside the USof A, and is proud of it.
Michele Bachmann doesn't know 4th grade American history and thinks vaccines cause mental retardation.
Rick Santorum said he will die fighting same sex marriage.
And Jon Huntsman, a thinking, smart conservative with lots of executive and foreign policy experience gets ignored?
I could go on and on, but why bother.
And you and other Republicans don't understand why we think the GOP lives in Crazy Town?
Whew.
Well Jefferson, isn't that just typical. While I conceded that reasonable people can disagree on whether or not waterboarding is torture, you classify me as delusional for having a different opinion than you.
This reminds me of Democrats claiming that when a GOP candidate says he would reinstate waterboarding, he supports torture. If waterboarding isn't torture, Republicans don't support torture by supporting waterboarding. Personally, I don't support torture.
Shaw, that's quite a list. Are you really defending the comparison between a White House shooter who's mentally unstable and your political opponents?
These are political disputes that reasonable people should be able to discuss. You can think Republicans say and do stupid things (that's what I thought of Grayson), but calling us delusional and diagnosing Republicans as having mental disorders? You don't see how that crosses the line?
38 percent say he wants to take away Americans' right to own guns.
It's true. He's on the record being for federal bans on ANY semiautomatic. He's on record to ban hand guns, he's on record to ban any gun that holds more than 3 bullets. In Barack Obama's world, guns are only for hunting and sporting purposes... NOT self defense. He defines a Remington 700 bolt action hunting rifle as an Assault weapon. So I'll go ahead and take his word for it, and say he's not pro second amendment. Being limited to a double barrel shotgun or a single shot .22 is NOT baring arms in my book.
32 percent say he is a Muslim.
I'd say he's the most secular President in the history of this country. I think he only attended church for political reasons. I'd say he's basically non-religious.
29 percent think he wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government.
While I agree he would give far too much deference to the United Nations, I don't think he wants a one world government. However, I think he gets his ass whipped all over the planet because he's too soft a negotiator. He's far too international.
25 percent say he was not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president.
He was born in Hawaii.
25 percent say he is a domestic enemy that the U.S. Constitutions speaks of.
No, that was the guy shooting at Obama's house.
23 percent say he is a racist.
He's an arrogant elitist, and a snobby academian prick - but I don't think he's a racist.
Not to mention Obama being the antichrist.
If that ridiculous buffoon is the best Satan can come up with, the Devil is seriously lacking in evil powers.
Mission accomplished.
Yup, we're now a socialist mixed economy. It's working out so well...
THR: "...but calling us delusional and diagnosing Republicans as having mental disorders? You don't see how that crosses the line?"
Actually, I didn't say any of that.
I just pointed out the poor quality of the current leaders of the GOP presidential campaign.
Mental illness is not funny. My mother suffered from it most of her life, and our family was destroyed because of it.
But I do believe the current GOP is delusional if it thinks it will win an election with an extremist rightwing candidate or any of the current top contenders, since it will take more than votes from the base to win a presidential election.
Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman were grounded smart men who have been rejected by the GOP base as not pure enough--and that is also why Romney is still having problems. Romney is a tragic opportunistic flip-flopper who can't be trusted to stick to a position, but I don't doubt his intelligence.
As for waterboarding, I've been water boarded. It's only slightly worse than being forced by my spouse to see the latest twilight movie. It was certainly more exciting.
free0352,
Barack Obama campaigning in rural Virginia in 2008:
"At a September campaign rally in rural Virginia, Obama declared unequivocally, "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away. .. There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away."
So he has proposed nothing in the way of new federal restrictions on firearms. Even the "assault weapons" ban signed by President Bill Clinton — and allowed to expire in 2004 — has no visible place on Obama's agenda.
"Not only that, he's approved changes that should gladden the hearts of gun-rights supporters, a group that includes me. He signed a law permitting guns to be taken into national parks. He signed another allowing guns as checked baggage on Amtrak. He acted to preserve an existing law limiting the use of government information on firearms it has traced."
IOW, Mr. Obama has expanded guns rights.
Can you please link to evidence that supports your comment? Thanks.
free0352,
"I'd say he's the most secular President in the history of this country. I think he only attended church for political reasons. I'd
say he's basically non-religious."
Your opinion. But not fact.
Have you actually sat down and talked to Mr. Obama about his most private religious beliefs? If not, what you wrote is merely biased speculation, which you're entitled to, but that doesn't make it factual.
The president has publicly stated his belief in Jesus Christ, but that still doesn't dispell your and other's sneaking suspicion that he's faking it. You need to look within yourself to discover why you need to believe that.
"He's an arrogant elitist, and a snobby academian prick - but I don't think he's a racist."
LOL! A guy whose father abandoned him when he was 2 and whose mother, at one time,had to depend on food stamps. A guy who got into elitist schools by dint of his own hard work, and not because of who his father or grandfather was, is an elitist?
Oh, that's truly funny.
BTW, almost every one of our recent presidents went to elitist schools, including the Bushes. But you didn't think they were elitist. And your characterization of him as a "snobby academian prick" may be more of a reflection on your own feelings of inadequacies rather than his. Most decent people admire those who excel under difficult circumstances.
You wanted links, here you go.
Gun control is overwhelmingly disliked by Americans, which is why I think Obama is waiting for his second term to pull that trigger. It's so unpopular he'd never win a second term if he signed any anti-gun legislation. That will change when he doesn't have to worry about an election.
Your opinion. But not fact.
I'd use the word instinct.
While I haven't talked to the President in person about anything, ever... He did tell us all he missed the anti-american sermons of Jaramiah Wright. Clearly he wasn't paying much attention.
Look, I could care less. I'm an atheist myself and I understand you can't get elected in this country as an atheist. So Obama joined a church to get his God Cred. I really don't care.
You need to look within yourself to discover why you need to believe that.
Because I think he's a politician who will do what it takes to get elected. Yeah, that never happens...
Oh, that's truly funny.
I'd say ironic, but your definition of comedy is your own. You could look within yourself to see why you find that funny... just spare me the answer cause I don't care.
BTW, almost every one of our recent presidents went to elitist schools, including the Bushes.
Which tells me these schools are OVERRATED.
Most decent people admire those who excel under difficult circumstances.
You mean a half Hispanic kid who grew up in East Detroit raised by a single mother, who joined the military at 17 to escape gang life, got a college degree from a major university (while interning for a Senator and working in a Circuit Court) and becoming a successful account executive for a major transportation company... then decided to finish what he started by going back into the military, rising through the ranks to lead Soldiers and who will soon start a second small business?
Yeah, what would I know about that stuff.
I don't care what others call President Obama or think he is or isn't, I just want one simple thing from him.
An advanced copy of his concession speech for election nigh,t November 2012.
Romney is a tragic opportunistic flip-flopper who can't be trusted to stick to a position, but I don't doubt his intelligence.
I agree with all of this except the tragic part. The only thing tragic is that anyone would vote for his spineless ass. I sure won't.
"You mean a half Hispanic kid who grew up in East Detroit raised by a single mother, who joined the military at 17 to escape gang life, got a college degree from a major university (while interning for a Senator and working in a Circuit Court) and becoming a successful account executive for a major transportation company... then decided to finish what he started by going back into the military, rising through the ranks to lead Soldiers and who will soon start a second small business?"
I congratualte you and admire all your successes. But it seems strange to me that you think the president is "elitist" and a "snobby academian prick."
You and he have a lot in common. And yet you don't see that. Oh well. I know I'll convince no one whose mind is already made up on not liking him.
He's no hero to me. I don't have heroes. But I do think he's a pragmatic politician who is doing the best he can with an opposition party looking to stop him in everything he proposes to move this country forward.
That will be the GOP's legacy and not his when history is written.
PS. I spent the first years of my life in an orphanage. I tell you this not because I need anyone's pity or praise but to let you know that there're a lot of people out here who've not had the best start in life, but who, like you, can rise above nasty circumstances life throws at us and succeed.
I salute you.
Free0352, you claimed...
"As for waterboarding, I've been water boarded."
That explains a lot...
You and he have a lot in common. And yet you don't see that.
We do and we don't. Riddle me this: Where has Barack Obama actually worked? If he had it so hard, you'd think he'd have some manual labor jobs in there somewhere. Herman Cain and Rick Perry both do. Obama from 71' on lived with his middle class grandparents, his first job from what I can tell was as a community organizer after he graduated from Occidental College, there he helped run a "job training program" which to me is kinda funny since... he never had a job before! It goes on like that from there. Free ride to Occidental, stint in a made up job, Harvard on a free ride, stint as a research lawyer... then a job as a civil rights and labor attorney where he was barely in court. I'm sorry, but this guy isn't like me at all. I first went to work when I was seven years old, washing dishes with my mom at a catering company. Got my first paying job when I was 13 (I lied about my age) working demolition swinging a sledge hammer. Went from there to construction, from there to the Marines. I'm sorry guy, but from where I'm sitting this guy had a charmed life. No real hardship at all.
looking to stop him in everything he proposes to move this country forward.
His policy won't move anything forward. See, I'm a self made guy. Self made guys like me who don't live charmed lives with rich grandparents and free scholarships have to bust our asses, and we want the government out of our way. Where I from... dude most white people won't go there. It's too dangerous. I've seen what government dependence looks like. I grew up surrounded by it. The safety net is really a safety noose. I'm lucky I had a proud family who didn't accept that lifestyle, and taught us self reliance instead.
As again for being water boarded, I cracked jokes through the whole thing. I got it several time before SERE school and several times during it. It ain't bad. In fact I bet to this day, if you want to join small craft company in the 2nd Marine Division, you can bet your but at 3AM some crazy jar heads are going to bust in your door and water board your ass... and that will be the least of your problems. It's when they break out the branding iron you need to worry.
Dave, that poll puts numbers to an ugly picture we're painfully aware of on the left. The craziness exists in a minority, but much too large a minority for the nation's psyche to be healthy.
Heathen Republican wrote: "Comparing the delusional thinking of a mentally unstable man who shot at the White House to conservative Republicans? Bottom of the barrel."
Selective reading disorder? Tuning out unpleasant facts, HR? The Live Science poll results indicate the shooter is just at the fringe of crazies who constitute a quarter to a third of the public.
Worse than the bottom of the barrel, the hate-talking, craziness-spreading mouthpieces of the hard right like Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Malkin, Coulter, Savage, Boortz, et al, are at the bottom of the sewer. Day in, day out, they inject the toxic products of lies, distortion and innuendo into what passes for the minds of distressingly large percentage of the population. The poison has its effect, most potently on the delusional and unhinged, like that shooter.
"These are political disputes that reasonable people should be able to discuss."
Sorry, but Reps. Steve King, Michelle Bachmann, Virginia Foxx, Patrick Henry, Joe Walsh and Allen West are not by any definition reasonable people. Nor are Sens. Jim DeMint, James Inhofe, Rand Paul and Tom Coburn. To name just a few.
Since when are James O'Keefe, Andrew Breitbart, Roger Stone and Grove Norquist reasonable people who can be negotiated with? In fact, like those mentioned above, they are extremist bullies and absolutists, the kind of people who'd be right at home in a country run by Iranian mullahs — provided they could be the mullahs in charge.
"If waterboarding isn't torture, Republicans don't support torture by supporting waterboarding."
According to the Geneva Conventions, U.S. statutory law and Army policy, waterboarding is considered torture. The CIA admits it's torture. Intel experts, military experts and board-certified psychologists and psychiatrists not only deem waterboarding torture, they deem it completely unreliable at gaining useful information.
What part of all that justifies your self-serving "if," HR? In fact, none of it does, leaving me to logically conclude you're suggesting delusional thinking could be something else in this case, as if it's an open question. It's not, and the fact a bunch of right-wing talking heads and Republicans in Congress insist otherwise doesn't make it otherwise.
Thanks for not only helping make Dave's case, but providing an illustration of how effective the constant spreading of lies big and small can be.
Examples please of negotiating with former Rep Alan Grayson, Congresswoman Waters and current Senator's Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders. Show examples of their compromise please.
SW, I'd like you to change my mind on waterboarding. Please show me the Geneva Convention that labels waterboarding torture and applies in our situation. I'd also like to see the U.S. Stautory Law if you can point me to it.
The Army policy would also be helpful, but I believe 1) the CIA used waterboarding, not the Army and 2) this is a new policy under Obama. But either way, I'd like to see the evidence if you have it. None of my internet searches have confirmed what you claim.
Anderson is right, we're beyond compromise on both sides. Now it's a political clash of philosophy for the direction of the country. There is zero chance of compromise. I know I'm not interested, and none of you Democrats are either.
As for "torture" if water boarding is torture it's hilarious torture when you're a drunk 21 year old.
I think it's effectiveness is gone. Every person on the planet knows about it now, and they know you can't really drown from it. Therefore, the point is moot. If it ever did work, it won't work now. The subject won't be properly terrified of death to fear down and allow the interrogator to gain his trust.
What we do now is far more nasty. Now we just hand them over to the local governments. I promise you, and Iraqi, Saudi, or Afghan interrogator could give a rat's ass about the Ganeva Convention or the human rights of the subject.
I don't think conservatives are just delusional, unreasonable and ill-informed, I think they are indeed, in varying degrees. certifiably nuts. There's a lot of proof to this claim. Bear with me - this will be a bit long and I don't know how to include links in Blogger comments. My fail.
Let's start with Richard Hofstadter's excellent article in Harper's Magazine back in 1964 - Think John Birch Society and McCarthyism. It is entitled "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." In sum, "it is an historical essay tracing the influence of conspiracy theory and “movements of suspicious discontent” through the course of American history."
http://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/0014706
It is very long, but a brief summary can be found at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paranoid_Style_in_American_Politics
And then there's this recent study, which . . .
"... suggests individuals who call themselves liberals are more likely to have brains that have a larger anterior cingulate cortex while conservatives have larger amygdalas.
According to what is known about the functions of those two brain regions, the structural differences are consistent with some reports showing a greater ability of liberals to cope with conflicting information and a greater ability of conservatives to recognize a threat."
(snip)
"Prior research has suggested that conservatives are more sensitive to threat or anxiety in the face of uncertainty, while liberals tend to be more open to new experiences."
http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/04/11/liberal-conservative-related-to-different-brain-structures/25184.html
And then there's the religious right element, hyperreligiosity, which is all too evident in the current group of GOP candidates:
"Psychiatrists see hyperreligiosity in someone having psychotic episodes or epileptic fits in which they experience God. Politicians see hyperreligiosity in the way terrorists use religion to justify murder and other criminal acts. The author's view of hyperreligiosity contains these definitions but also sees it as any religious activity or thinking pattern that obscures the virtues of a healthy spiritual practice. It is also related to a type of obsessive mental illness in which a person can not use their thinking faculties in the manner and extent in which they were educated towards using them. The author says mental illnesses are sometimes on a type of spectrum, in that, many of us at some time or in some way, have these problems in a greater or lesser form. Hyperreligiosity is no exception."
http://www.rspearson.com/hyperreligiosity.html
There are several solid articles about the connection of HR to mental illness.
Finally, and I think we can see evidence of this right here in some of the comments, there have been numerous non-partisan and authoritative studies showing that Fox viewers are less informed than those who follow other news sources. The most recent study, which has gone viral, takes it a step further - Fox viewers are even less informed than people who don't watch news at all!!! This article sums it up best:
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2011/11/21/ignorance-and-the-alternate-reality-of-the-right-wing/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+liberalvaluesblog%2FMjjM+%28Liberal+Values%29
No doubt conservatives here will claim they don't watch Fox. I put as much stock in that as I did in the claims by Republicans after the Watergate scandal broke that they didn't vote for Nixon.
We're all nuts eh? Now who sounds like a fanatic?
free0352: "Where has Barack Obama actually worked? If he had it so hard, you'd think he'd have some manual labor jobs in there somewhere."
Read his book "Dreams From My Father," and do your own research.
I've worked since I was 12 years old. None of the jobs I've had were manual labor jobs.
Why do you insist that Mr. Obama's experience has to match yours or your idea of what a self-made man's jobs should have been in order for him to be authentic?
free0352: "I'm sorry guy, but from where I'm sitting this guy had a charmed life. No real hardship at all."
You obviously have not read his autobiography, or any bio on him, have you, but that doesn't stop your from making this uninformed statement.
free0352: "Self made guys like me who don't live charmed lives with rich grandparents and free scholarships have to bust our asses."
Let's see Mr. Obama's grandmother worked as a clerk in a bank and his grandfather was a salesman in a furniture store {he also lost many jobs and grandma had to carry the family with her bank salary alone]. Rich grandparents? No. You need to look a George W. Trust Fund President to use that label.
And if you think getting scholarships into prestigious educational institutions involves no work, you're wrong. You haven't read how Mr. Obama's mother woke him every morning at 4 am so that she could make him do extra school work before she went off to her own job.
You're making stuff up either out of jealousy or some other psychological reason when you laughingly call Mr. Obama privileged.
You're obsessing on the wrong dude, Dude. If anyone was a spoiled brat, overprivileged slacker, it was GWB.
But it's always easier to go after the minority kid who suceeds on his own rather than the guy who got everything handed to him on a silver platter.
It was George W. Bush who was born into privilege, not Barack Obama. That you denigrate his achievements and question everything he's accomplished indicates you have a Rovian mind--a person who takes a successful person's strengths and accomplishments and turns them into negatives. It's a slimey GOP tactic, but it won't work, because the truth won't let it.
PS. Waterboarding is torture. The military says so, not you.
If it's so much fun, why don't you open a waterboarding theme park and invite 7 year olds to enjoy the entertainment?
THR: Here's some reading for you.
free0352 says, "Now who sounds like a fanatic?" I used documented evidence to back up my claims. Where's yours?
HR... you're responses are getting, ah, sketchy.... You do not support torture.... but support waterboarding?
Frankly... I think you make stuff up as you go. I really do.
Heathen Republican, you replied to me with...
"While I conceded that reasonable people can disagree on whether or not waterboarding is torture, you classify me as delusional for having a different opinion than you."
No, I don't classify you as delusional for having a different opinion than me. I classify you as delusional, or at the very least, dishonest, for not conceding that waterboarding is a form of torture -- as hundreds of legal scholars, studies, and various legal standards have shown it to be.
But, I'll concede something to you. I do think you're a pompous ass.
Shaw, thank you for the link, but I'm looking for primary sources. I realize you were sincerely trying to help, but anyone can purchase a .org domain, as the "regular guy" who purchased waterboarding.org demonstrates.
I read the page you linked, and I have no dispute over the definition of torture. On my own site I've acknowledged that torture is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted." (I'm using the UN definition.)
The connection that I'm missing is whether waterboarding meets this definition. This is where reasonable people can disagree. The legal opinions from the Bush administration acknowledged that waterboarding caused pain and suffering, but not severe pain and suffering.
That makes sense to me because thingslike pulling out fingernails with pliers are categorically different from waterboarding. That's my opinion. I'm hearing a lot of other opinions expressed as facts, and I don't hear any of you acknowledging that you're expressing opinions instead of facts.
If I'm wrong and "waterboarding is torture" is a fact, then it shouldn't be hard to demonstrate.
SW Anderson claimed that waterboarding is classified as torture by the Geneva Conventions and U.S. statutory law. I have checked and cannot find any conventions or laws that outlaw waterboarding; they simply outlaw torture.
I'm ready to believe. I'd like to see the convention that says "waterboarding is torture" or the U.S. law that says "waterboarding is torture." Short of that, we're left with adding up the number of legal opinions that say "waterboarding causes severe pain" and "severe pain is torture," therefore "waterboarding is torture."
That's all Jefferson has done, and he loses credibility when he starts the name-calling.
Certain extremists in the GOP do not accept that waterboarding is torture. These are the same people from that extreme wing of the GOP who do not accept Evolution as real; who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old; and who cheer on candidates who say global warming is "a hoax."
Those people are NOT rational thinkers.
John McCain, an officer in the US Navy, was a POW, and he was tortured. McCain has stated again and again that waterboarding is torture; the Geneva Convention-of which the US is a signator, therefore it becomes part of US law--the Geneva Convention says that waterboarding is torture; and in fact, after WWII, the US hanged Japanese who waterboarded American soldiers.
What part of that don't the commenters here understand? Did waterboarding magically become legal because the Bush administraation said it was?
And just because some commenter here, who also thinks Mr. Obama lived a life of "privilege," says he underwent waterboarding and thought it was fun, that doesn't change the fact that it is illegal. The only thing that claim explains is that that particular commenter may very well be some strange sort of masochist --someone who enjoys being tortured.
It's a bit kinky, for sure, but his experience doesn't change the fact that waterboarding is illegal.
The conservative fringe lives in an alternate reality and clings to ideas that ARE delusional. I stand by that statement.
It is delusional to deny that Evolution is real; that global warming is occuring, and that waterboarding is torture.
There are GOP candidates right now hoping to win the GOP nomination to run for president who are proud to say they don't "believe" in Evolution, that global warming is a hoax, and that they would resume waterboarding as soon as they took the oath of office.
And yes, that is CRAZY.
"Torture Under U.S. Law
Under 18 USC Section 2340A, torture is defined as "[an] act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control." But there are two complicating factors:1
1.Policymakers can debate all day over whether a specific form of torture causes "severe" physical or mental pain, and
2.The law applies only to U.S. nationals and to torture conducted in the United States.
There are also numerous state laws prohibiting torture within their respective jurisdictions--and one federal law that holds us to an unspecified degree of compliance with international law.
Torture and International Law
The War Crimes Act of 1966 (18 USC Section 2441) prohibits any "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions.
The Third Geneva Convention states that prisoners of war must always be "humanely treated" (Article 13) and prohibits "physical and mental torture, [and] any other form of coercion" (Article 18).
The Fourth Geneva Convention states that civilian prisoners must be protected from "cruel treatment and torture" and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment" (Article 3)."
SOURCES
SOURCES
SOURCES
You obviously have not read his autobiography, or any bio on him, have you
Yes I have, but I couldn't finish it to be honest. It kept putting me to sleep.
It was George W. Bush who was born into privilege, not Barack Obama.
George Bush isn't running for President right this minute. Back in 2004 I cared, but this is 2011 and so I don't.
PS. Waterboarding is torture. The military says so, not you.
The military up until recently said homosexuals were inferior Soldiers. Did you agree with that as well because the Army said so?
If it's so much fun, why don't you open a waterboarding theme park and invite 7 year olds to enjoy the entertainment?
Why pay for something they can get for free?
Shaw
The convention also says to be considered a lawful combatant you have to bear arms openly, wear some type of identification or uniform that can be seen from a distance, and follow the convention yourself.
Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure our enemy don't do these things. Sounds like they aren't protected.
Shaw: "You obviously have not read his autobiography, or any bio on him, have you;"
free03352: "Yes I have, but I couldn't finish it to be honest. It kept putting me to sleep."
Shaw: So you haven't done the work that would inform your opinion. You were too lazy. Okay.
Shaw: "It was George W. Bush who was born into privilege, not Barack Obama."
free0352: "George Bush isn't running for President right this minute. Back in 2004 I cared, but this is 2011 and so I don't."
Shaw: That's not an answer. I refuted your claim that Obama was a child of privilege and gave your an example of a real child of privilege born into a patrician family and who really had everything handed to him on a silver platter. My answer had nothing to do with 2004 or 2011. Apparently, you don't like being corrected.
Shaw: "PS. Waterboarding is torture. The military says so, not you."
free0352: "The military up until recently said homosexuals were inferior Soldiers. Did you agree with that as well because the Army said so?"
Shaw: Bad comparison. You're comparing a civilian imposed rule "DADT" with a code set by the military. BTW, the military said nothing about homosexuals being "inferior soldiers." DADT required gay and lesbians to not talk about their sexual orientation under penalty of dismissal. Many gays and lesbians serving in the military were awarded the highest honors for their superior service.
Shaw: "If it's so much fun, why don't you open a waterboarding theme park and invite 7 year olds to enjoy the entertainment?"
free0352: "Why pay for something they can get for free?"
Shaw: Not an answer either. An evasion of what you apparently believe--waterboarding is fun! If it's so much fun, why not submit your young relatives, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces or any kid you know to its pleasures?
free0352: "Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure our enemy don't do these things. Sounds like they aren't protected."
Wrong again. President Obama stopped the use of torture. Our enemies will not be subjected to waterboarding.
Heathen Republican, you claimed...
"That's all Jefferson has done, and he loses credibility when he starts the name-calling."
You're wrong, I never called you a name. I only told you what I think. It's analogous to the semantics and weird word games you tend to play:
"On my own site I've acknowledged that torture is 'any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted.' (I'm using the UN definition.) The connection that I'm missing is whether waterboarding meets this definition."
and...
"The legal opinions from the Bush administration acknowledged that waterboarding caused pain and suffering, but not severe pain and suffering."
That certainly meets the criteria for delusional, Heathen, which, if you'll recall, was my original contention.
I refuted your claim that Obama was a child of privilege
I didn't say he was privileged, just that living with grandma and grandpa was probably a little easier than East Detroit. You said we had a lot in common, we don't. That was my point.
As for Bush, my point is simple. That was then, I worry about now. Bush isn't running, and when he did I didn't vote for him anyway.
Bad comparison. You're comparing a civilian imposed rule "DADT" with a code set by the military
Article 125, Uniform Code of Military Justice includes homosexual activity in it's definition of Sodomy.
DADT required gay and lesbians to not talk about their sexual orientation under penalty of dismissal.
I'd call that being a second class citizen. I know one of my best friends in the Corps who got kicked out for being gay shortly after winning a NAM with V for actions in Iraq sure thought so. I'm not saying the Military was right in that course of action, just highlighting the fact they often get some things wrong. I work there, I could write a book about things the military gets wrong. You can be for waterboarding, or against it. Whatever. But the hyperbole of calling it torture? Nah, it's not torture.
-waterboarding is fun!
Yeah, it kinda was. There are a lot of things I did while in the Marines that sound pretty crazy, but were actually really fun.
President Obama stopped the use of torture. Our enemies will not be subjected to waterboarding.
Yes he did, and continued and expanded a policy where we hand over detainees in rendition. Which do you think the detainee wants? Where would you rather be a prisoner, GITMO or a guest of the Saudi intelligence service. How is this policy not outsourcing what by any definition would be called torture?
Wease,
I think McVeigh was very unstable, not psychotic, but in a cold calculating way.
JG,
Delusional thinking can lead to dangerous actions whether it is pathological or volitional. It can be difficult to tell the difference without examination.
Shaw,
The fact that Logren, Specter, Hagel, Frum and other Republicans have indicated the GOP has shifted radically to the Right tells it better than we liberals can. They won’t believe us. Well, now they won’t believe former Republicans either. But that proves you don’t have to be a socialist to oppose the radical Rightward shift of the party.
I have a lot of experience with people with mental illness. It's not easy for either them or us.
HR,
Jesse Ventura was waterboarded and he said it was torture. Nobody here has been waterboarded by enemies either. There’s an understanding of boundaries when “friendly” persons administer it. It is not a fair evaluation. Forced fear of drowning is psychological torture. The approval by Bush’s lackey lawyers does not qualify as legal judgment on torture. They were only offering the opinions solicited by their boss and allowed for severe pain levels. Bush’s thugs declared physical torture "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." For a cruel or inhuman psychological technique to rise to the level of mental torture, the Justice Department argued, the psychological harm must last "months or even years."
If it is not torture then you’d have no problem with enemies applying “enhanced interrogation” to our guys? Do they get to define torture, or is that judgment reserved only for Republican lawyers?
SW,
You have a good point, in that delusional ideations are very different when embraced through media indoctrination as opposed to clinical pathology. The similarity is the unwillingness of the believer to consider the possibility that his ideas are not reality based.
Leslie,
There are truly psychotic people and then there are the duped and deluded. Sure we can say they are all nuts, but we should differentiate their etiologies.
Free,
Your fellow Ron Paul enthusiast Ventura disagrees with you about waterboarding. You’re right about Obama continuing the renditions that have amounted to torture. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it. Morality and retaliatory/propaganda consequences aside, if it really worked as an intelligence tool, one would think they would be happy to show us exactly how it helped us, including unforced statements from the detainees swearing it was not torture. I won’t wait for that though.
I too have been sentenced to go to a vampire flick. So tell me, given the choice, waterboarding is quicker, right?
Truth,
That is indeed the big difference. History is full of people getting slaughtered because the killers had “beliefs” that made it ok to kill. And we’re not just talking about terrorists.
@Shaw
"Torture Under U.S. Law Under 18 USC Section 2340A..."
I'm forced to note that waterboarding is not mentioned in the law you've cited. I've already stipulated to the definition of torture. Point #2 is indeed a complicating factor since KSM was not a U.S. National and the waterboarding wasn't conducted in the U.S.
"Articles 3, 13, and 18 of the Geneva Convention"
I don't see waterboarding mentioned here either, only words that can be interpreted one way or another. As Free rightly points out, the men who were waterboarded by the U.S. were not subject to the Geneva Conventions since they were not abiding by the laws of war.
I did not click your three SOURCE links assuming that you had summarized them above, but let me know if I need to click through to get to the passages specifically referencing waterboarding.
@Dave
"Jesse Ventura was waterboarded and he said it was torture. Nobody here has been waterboarded by enemies either. There’s an understanding of boundaries when 'friendly' persons administer it."
Really, going with Ventura on this one? Talk to Free. None of my arguments have been based on the fact that waterboarding is used as a military training technique.
" The approval by Bush’s lackey lawyers does not qualify as legal judgment on torture."
Let me offer a different perspective: These people were at risk of breaking the law, and the consequences of breaking the law would mean being charged with war crimes. I think they had more motivation and incentive to get it right than a bunch of arm-chair quarterbacks who have their own legal opinions.
@Those who think waterboarding is torture
"According to the Geneva Conventions, U.S. statutory law and Army policy, waterboarding is considered torture. The CIA admits it's torture. Intel experts, military experts and board-certified psychologists and psychiatrists not only deem waterboarding torture, they deem it completely unreliable at gaining useful information."
Passages like this one are meant as factual statements. Facts are verifiable and not open to interpretation. By making these "factual" statements, I'm supposed to feel like a climate change denier for thinking otherwise. So far you've only offered legal or political opinions, and nothing factual.
No problem, I have my own opinion on the subject. Perhaps in the future you'd each be willing to preface your comments about waterboarding by saying that you have a different opinion, and don't act like you are in possession of the facts. The hostility and name-calling toward me and Free is silly considering that we simply have different opinions. You act as though we are denying that the earth rotates around the sun.
Since U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions (which don't apply to people like KSM) do not explicitly describe waterboarding as torture, you have no basis for your factual claims. In fact, I have more basis to claim that it's a fact that waterboarding is not torture than you have to claim it is. Yet I don't, because reasonable people can disagree.
@Dave, let me apologize on Jefferson's Guardian's behalf for taking us on this tangent. I know that he's incapable of offering apologies, but since he brought up torture and he has derailed this thread, I'd like to offer one on his behalf.
Forced fear of drowning is psychological torture.
So is listening to Lady Gaga (Or Jesse Ventura), in fact I'd rather be water boarded. Psychological torture is a sliding scale. In my book it's holding a gun to your son's head. In your book it's getting water up a terrorist's nose. Lets be real here, it's not that bad. Come-on here guy. You demean the term "torture" by applying it here. Torture is something you do with a blow torch and a pair of pliers, not a bucket of water and a wet towel.
Your fellow Ron Paul enthusiast Ventura disagrees with you about waterboarding.
He also thinks the CIA was behind 9-11, so-so much for what Jesse Ventura thinks. He's a kook. Maybe you can site some other kooks as sources?
if it really worked as an intelligence tool, one would think they would be happy to show us exactly how it helped us,
Torture has worked as an intelligence tool for 8000 years of human history. You can make a case to me that real authentic torture is morally wrong, but good luck making the case it "doesn't work."
It works. Trust me, I've got to watch groups like the Mahdi Army use it, and Al'Queda. It works, I've seen them make mothers sell out their sons.
waterboarding is quicker, right?
Depends on how fast you talk.
So to sum up my point here,
One: Water boarding has probably lost it's effectiveness as a technique because everyone knows now you can't die from it- hence it's not that scary.
Two: Jesse Ventura is crazy. Like Birther crazy.
Three: If you have to have a debate on "is it torture" it probably isn't torture. If I ripped out the fingernails of a detainee, dislocated his knees, and pulled one of his eyes out there would be no freak'n question. Everybody knows that's torture. If I took your wife, and held a gun to your her head and demanded information... everybody knows that's torture. If I stuck you in a decompression chamber and started popping your joints like pop-corn - everybody knows that's torture. If I poored water in your face... dude that really doesn't compare much. Lets get real here.
Heathen Republican, you offered to Dave the following...
"Dave, let me apologize on Jefferson's Guardian's behalf for taking us on this tangent. I know that he's incapable of offering apologies, but since he brought up torture and he has derailed this thread, I'd like to offer one on his behalf."
I don't need you speaking on my behalf, and as a matter of fact I'd prefer that you did not. There wasn't any "derailing", as you put it, of the thread. It fit in well with the delusional thinking of the right, and I tied it in perfectly with your own concerning what is torture and what isn't torture.
One afterthought, though, and I'll allow your insincerity to wallow in its ineptitude. If I was going to beat the shit out of you, instead of severely beating the shit out of you, would that make it acceptable? By your logic, I'm supposing that it would.
HR,
The Geneva Convention was signed by the US. That makes compliance about us, not the guy we torture.
You didn’t say if it was ok for our guys to be waterboarded and suffer other “enhanced interrogation”. Shall I assume you have no problem with that?
It was definitely not ok in pre-Bush days. This is fact, not opinion.
The torture lawyers, Yoo and Bybee, were unaccountable. They were used to shield Bush from accountability, and well rewarded for doing so. If it was legal there was no risk of breaking the law, right? And if it was legal there would have been no need for such cover, would there?
I have more basis to claim that it's a fact that waterboarding is not torture than you have to claim it is.
See below for basis against your claim. One is even a Republican.
JG was entirely on the topic. One of the sicker Republican beliefs is waterboarding is not torture.
Shaw nailed it with waterboarding magically become legal because the Bush administration said it was. Magically in the Orwellian sense.
Free,
Yes, let’s get real here.
Torture is something you do with a blow torch and a pair of pliers, not a bucket of water and a wet towel.
Now that’s a very narrow definition. How about electrodes attached to genitals? Or is that just a frat house prank, but only when we do it? Turns out you can drown someone with a bucket of water and a wet towel. You can instill fear and panic and desperate gasping for air. That’s all very real.
If you have to have a debate on "is it torture" it probably isn't torture.
The debate is over. It is torture, and it was torture before our Authoritarian Right decided they liked it. And still we see no evidence it saved one American life. Again, not the point.
“We actually prosecuted Japanese war criminals specifically for the act of waterboarding against America.”
“it doesn’t work. If you put enough physical pain on someone, they will tell you anything they think you want to hear.”
“Waterboarding is an affront to all of the standards that we believe in and adhere to of humane treatment of people who are human beings.”
-John McCain
You ignore McCain and disregard Ventura’s actual experience. Ventura doesn’t have first hand knowledge of 9-11, but in our proto-fascist culture, merely asking questions about 9-11 draws condemnation from the media and political correctness thought police. That’s irrelevant anyway. By your logic, Ventura is just as wrong about Ron Paul too, then. Good to know. He had first hand experience with waterboarding. Maybe more intense than yours.
So did Lt. Chase J. Nelson.
At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."
He called it torture. That sounds real to me.
And in Texas:
In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."
The prosecutors and judge called it illegal, and that is getting real, dude.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
You didn’t say if it was ok for our guys to be waterboarded and suffer other “enhanced interrogation”. Shall I assume you have no problem with that?
It doesn't matter what I say because they are going to do it anyway. In fact they'll do far, far worse. And that's my point, what enemy have we ever fought that followed the convention? Germany didn't, Japan didn't, North Korea and China didn't, North Vietnam didn't, Iraq didn't, the Somalis didn't and Al'Queda the Taliban and any Islamic terrorist group doesn't. Why should we play by those rules when no one else does- especially when following some of the rules of the convention make it harder to protect Americans. What are we getting out of this treaty?
Now that’s a very narrow definition.
And yours is too broad. You're being so open minded your brain fell out. Yeah, you're fundamentally telling me splashing a man in the face with water out of a bucket is tantamount to being drawn and quartered, or having bamboo shoved under the fingernails. It's a rediculous assertion to equate them.
. How about electrodes attached to genitals?
Obviously more severe than splashing somebody in the face with water. Again, it's rediculous to equate the two.
You can instill fear and panic and desperate gasping for air.
Yeah that's the whole point of it. To make someone very uncomfortable so they give information they wouldn't normally give to avoid the discomfort. And as for it's lethality, it's less dangerous than using your shower sprayer to wash your face - which isn't dangerous either. Ever got water up your nose? That's what if feels like if you keep a calm state of mind.
“it doesn’t work. If you put enough physical pain on someone, they will tell you anything they think you want to hear.”
Which is why you might want to check out what the subject said, and if given false information you could re-commence the water boarding to get accurate information.
As for John McCain, me and big John are just going to have to disagree on this like we do a lot of things.
. Ventura doesn’t have first hand knowledge of 9-11, but in our proto-fascist culture, merely asking questions about 9-11 draws condemnation from the media and political correctness thought police.
So you support all those kooks who think Barack Obama was born in Kenya right? It's basically the same brand of stupid. Or are all conspiracy theories in your book not created equal? Well they are in mine. Idiots, pure and simple.
. He had first hand experience with waterboarding.
So do I, in fact if he got boarded we likely had it done in the same place in the same room - just at a different time.
Maybe more intense than yours.
Maybe less? The Marine Corps isn't known for doing anything NOT balls to the wall.
As for his thoughts on Ron Paul, Ron's right about economic issues but when it comes to foreign policy and counter terrorism the man is clueless.
Heathen Republican wrote: "SW Anderson claimed that waterboarding is classified as torture by the Geneva Conventions and U.S. statutory law. I have checked and cannot find any conventions or laws that outlaw waterboarding; they simply outlaw torture.
". . .I'd like to see the convention that says 'waterboarding is torture' or the U.S. law that says "waterboarding is torture."
You're either ignorant of how the law work or are feigning ignorance in an effort to win an argument.
Most human beings drink at least a few ounces of water every day. Except in areas where fracking is going on, it's considered a safe, benign and even healthy thing to do. But it's possible to force enough water into someone to kill him. That's called acute water intoxication, and it can be fatal. People have been killed that way.
Nevertheless, I'd be surprised if you could dredge up a statute specifically stating it's against the law to force so much water into someone that they die.
What you will find with little trouble are statutes aplenty outlawing murder. As history makes clear, there are many, many ways to commit murder, with new ones being dreamed up from from time to time. The law doesn't attempt to describe all possible ways, letting those whose killing falls outside the list of defined ways go with a warning. Which is to say the law isn't that stupid.
What the law does is give a basic, generalized description. A reasonable person serving as a juror in a murder trial hears evidence against the accused. Then the juror, using his/her understanding of the general legal description of what murder is, weighs whether the evidence against the accused fits the description beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Likewise, you won't find statutes that list every possible act of torture that could be employed. Instead, you find generalized descriptions. These include making the victim think he/she is about to be killed, maimed or subjected to severe pain.
There is documented testimony from people who have been waterboarded that they believed they were being drowned and about to die. That testimony fits the torture description perfectly. And, those who have done waterboarding for the CIA were quoted as telling others the idea is for the victim to think they're about to die.
(continues)
You might've heard that precedent is very important in law. So is stare decisis, or what's considered established law. With that in mind, you should read, Yes, We Did Execute Japanese Soldiers for Waterboarding American POWs.
Then, you decide if you're prepared to argue the court that sentenced Japanese prisoners to die for waterboarding POW's made a ghastly mistake because waterboarding isn't torture.
You should also read something from Paul Begala. Here's part of it.
"Sen. McCain was right and the National Review Online is wrong. Politifact, the St. Petersburg Times' truth-testing project (which this week was awarded a Pulitzer Prize), scrutinized Sen. McCain's statement and found it to be true. Here's the money quote from Politifact:
"'McCain is referencing the Tokyo Trials, officially known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as "water cure," "water torture" and "waterboarding," according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning.' Politifact went on to report, 'A number of the Japanese soldiers convicted by American judges were hanged, while others received lengthy prison sentences or time in labor camps.'"
We almost had a federal statute specifically defining waterboarding as torture and outlawing the practice. In 2008, Congress passed a law that included that provision. Not surprisingly, President Bush vetoed the bill. (Much the way I'm sure Bernie Madoff would've vetoed a law against financial fraud if he had been in a position to do so before he was tried and convicted of financial fraud.)
Finally, you could learn quite a bit by reading Waterboarding is Illegal. It complements the excellent item Shaw pointed you to.
That's great SW, I can accept that reasoning. Murder is a crime but all of the possible ways to murder aren't listed in the statute. I get it.
Of course, even you agree that there's room for interpretation and opinion, whether by a jury, a judge, or attorneys, which was my point all along. I'm glad we could end on a point of agreement.
Free,
You correctly noted:
If I took your wife, and held a gun to your her head and demanded information... everybody knows that's torture.
Why is that torture? What if the gun was empty? Would that be torture?
What if your buddy holds what you are certain is an empty gun to your head? I don’t think that’s torture.
Maybe the answer to the question of why can be found in our little exchange.
“You can instill fear and panic and desperate gasping for air.”
Yeah that's the whole point of it.
Thank you. This is why it is torture.
If your buddy splashes water in your face, it is not torture. This is where you are again correct.
However if an enemy or a criminal waterboards someone to instill fear and panic and a desperate gasping for air, it is torture. Psychological torture is real. This is where I am correct.
There. Now we’re both correct.
SW,
You, Shaw and I have clearly presented the case that waterboarding is illegal, cruel, and is indeed torture. Sane and compassionate humans get it. The point of my post is cultish beliefs of the radical Right push the boundaries of sanity. When such beliefs, coupled with a cold indifference to human suffering, are nurtured or tolerated by a dominant political party, our national prestige and culture fall into decadence, and any moral standing we have collapses.
Why is that torture? What if the gun was empty? Would that be torture?
What if the bucket was empty?
If you can't tell the difference between the potential lethality of a gun and a bucket of water and a fire arm you should
A: Be forced to take a fire arm safety class
B: Learn critical thinking.
What if your buddy holds what you are certain is an empty gun to your head? I don’t think that’s torture.
I'd call it prelude to an ass whopping - not torture.
However if an enemy or a criminal waterboards someone to instill fear and panic and a desperate gasping for air, it is torture.
Oh god forbid we scare the poor terrorist or hurt his whittle feewings. I thought the Exorcist was a pretty freaky movie, does making a detainee watch it equal torture because it's really scary?
Psychological torture is real.
Yes, Yoko Ono keeps putting out albums.
This is where I am correct
Nah, this is where you lack judgement and ability to critically discriminate circumstance.
compassionate humans get it.
Compassion doesn't have much use in a war - especially for people who are unlawful combatants because they like to cut the heads off of school girls. God forbid we scare them or hurt their feelings.
Free,
Well, well.
Your flippant and evasive dismissal of my points indicate they have prevailed.
Those evasions and dismissals, along with the single point you actually addressed on compassion, explain much about you.
War is the extreme consequence of humans’ lack of compassion. You have no use for it because it has no value to your militaristic thinking. You clearly carry the same disdain for compassion in your “me first, screw the rest” political ideology. You are as qualified to lecture me about compassion as I am to lecture you about IED’s. In fact, if George Bush was a compassionate man, you and your comrades would never have been hit by those IED’s in Iraq.
Religious fanatics believe their god condones their killing. You only needed to believe the Neocon agenda that condoned your killing. We know you hold on to your political beliefs like jihadists hold their beliefs. You are both absolutists purged of conscience and compassion by your beliefs. Or maybe you’re just an adrenaline junky with sociopathic tendencies. But I think you are a true believer.
Because the enemy is barbaric and cruel, you would allow yourself to become like them, provided you had no legal restraint or disincentive to do so. You have told us you enjoyed killing human beings. Therefore we may surmise you would also enjoy torturing them. Not that you would ever admit what you were doing is torture.
Your authoritarian lack of compassion and conscience blinds you to the fact that your belief is an insult to servicemen who suffered far more than you in wartime. Servicemen like Lt. Chase J. Nelson.
Read this again, or for the first time.
At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."
He called it torture. I agree with him, not you and the Japanese soldiers. I passionately disagree with you; even if you didn’t have the cold-blooded arrogance to say I lack judgment by taking this man’s word over yours and your authoritarian leaders Bush and Cheney.
The way this country is headed, people like you will be only too happy to round up people like me someday. And they would be delighted to use new “enhanced interrogation” methods.
All they will need is an authoritarian leader to clear away the pesky legal hurdles and tell them it’s the patriotic thing to do. “Liberals are destroying America” is their propaganda.
Fascists have no use for compassion, and proponents of compassion and democracy are their enemies.
You say I side with the Japanese? I say I side with William T. Sherman, a guy who did more to free the Slaves than any other.
"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war. The United States does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe that such is the national feeling. This feeling assumes various shapes, but always comes back to that of Union. Once admit the Union, once more acknowledge the authority of the national Government, and, instead of devoting your houses and streets and roads to the dread uses of war, I and this army become at once your protectors and supporters, shielding you from danger, let it come from what quarter it may. I know that a few individuals cannot resist a torrent of error and passion, such as swept the South into rebellion, but you can point out, so that we may know those who desire a government, and those who insist on war and its desolation.
You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride.
Or your favorite President, FDR- who was quite harsher in his treatment of terrorists.
Dave, you concluded your last comment with...
"Fascists have no use for compassion, and proponents of compassion and democracy are their enemies."
Your truth could fill the Grand Canyon a hundred times over. People like Free0352 have no compassion, no remorse, and no absence of malice. He's the perfect spokesman for the neo-conservative agenda, which still lives and thrives in the current administration. Free0352 is a classic, what I call, "Reich-Winger". He's a foot soldier for the burgeoning Fourth Reich that's laying the groundwork for a wholesale sellout to the corporate-state. He does their dirty work, and enjoys it immensely. He spouts the dutiful slogans of "freedom" and "liberty" and wraps himself in the American flag, as if it provides immunity and justification for the atrocious acts he himself has committed.
As you said, because who he views as the enemy is barbaric and cruel, he has allowed yourself to become just like them, justifying his actions under the guise of securing democracy for all.
Undoubtedly, people like you and me, if the fascist philosophy prevails and strengthens, will be rounded up and transported to a "detention center" by the likes of Free0352. Either that, and if he has his way, we'll be buried face-down in a watery grave of his choosing. Because, ultimately, this is what democracy means to them.
On this day I give thanks that the mentality and likes of Free0352 is still a small minority. We need to make sure it stays that way.
"On this day I give thanks that the mentality and likes of Free0352 is still a small minority. We need to make sure it stays that way"
So much for the big liberal tent and diversity liberals talk so much about.
HR (et. al.) :
Holy misery! I missed this post!
I considered Shaw’s comment beginning with this, extremely powerful, primarily because I noticed no creditable attempt to refute it:
Certain extremists in the GOP
As for whether waterboarding is torture, it is a silly question. It is used to inflict so much agony that the victim will cooperate. That is the point of torture and its method. How is waterboarding different?
I'm forced to note that waterboarding is not mentioned in the law you've cited.
I am sorry to inform you that Supreme Court does not consider this a criterion for rejection. Where a specific case is not mentioned, the courts job is to determine what “A reasonable Congressman supporting the law would have done, had the point been considered explicitly.” Regardless of political leaning, this is a judicial standard. If you don’t believe me, ask Free. He served attorneys coffee, and so he claims to be a legal authority. If Free disagrees, however, see (Stephen Breyer’s, Active Liberty).
I realize that the Geneva Convention is not a domestic document. Nonetheless, this is how our nation perceives law. Specific mention is never needed for an act to be implicitly included.
Passages like this one are meant as factual statements. Facts are verifiable and not open to interpretation. By making these "factual" statements, I'm supposed to feel like a climate change denier for thinking otherwise. So far you've only offered legal or political opinions, and nothing factual.
That is strong rebuttal to the arguments used by my side. However, it does nothing to support your position. It does weaken my side’s assertions. Maybe that was your intention, I don’t know.
HR said:
let me apologize on Jefferson's Guardian's behalf for taking us on this tangent. I know that he's incapable of offering apologies, but since he brought up torture and he has derailed this thread, I'd like to offer one on his behalf.
I would like to thank Jefferson’s Guardian for the same thing. Threads like this do go off in other directions and become very interesting because of it. If the host objects, he can. Were I Dave, I would be pleased.
Free Says: Torture has worked as an intelligence tool for 8000 years of human history.
What does that have to do with Waterboarding? Why would waterboarding work, Free?
It works, I've seen them make mothers sell out their sons. Of course torture can work. I don’t deny that. I was disturbed by the truth of Orwell’s treatment of torture in his novel, 1984. The fact that it sometimes works is not justification for using it.
Free said: Three: If you have to have a debate on "is it torture" it probably isn't torture. But in fact, the exact opposite is more accurate.
Finally, as S.W. Pointed out, waterboarding simulates drowning. The experience of drowning, which I know first-hand, is torture.
Free,
So is listening to Lady Gaga (Or Jesse Ventura), in fact I'd rather be water boarded.
T. Paine made this same argument. At the time, I found the argument so powerful that he temporarily changed my mind:
Playing Lady Gaga is definitely torture and it should not be allowed in civilized society.
However, your point that some unpleasant things may not be torture does an adequate job of proving that water boarding is not torture. I was under the mis-apprehension that purposefully causing someone agony was torturing them. Now that I know about Lady Gaga, it would seem there is really no such thing as torture and my mistake was in thinking otherwise. If some things are not torture, even though we don't like them, then torture does not exist. I concede to you that torture is a myth and that inflicting agony on someone in an effort to extract data from them is OK.
Your additional argument that we have tortured our own soldiers for training purposes is noted. How many days were they trained against their will again? Drowning is torture by the estimation of some, but they don’t know about Lady Gaga.
In conclusion, I would like to repeat what I have learned: there is no such thing as torture and Lady Gaga is guilty of torturing T. Paine, and it is OK if Bush tortures the enemy so long as he also tortures some friends.
[Understanding complete]
John Myste, your last comment to Free0352...
Priceless!
What does that have to do with Waterboarding? Why would waterboarding work, Free?
I have yelled at people and literally made them cry. Is that torture? After all, it worked. Your definition of torture is anything the subject doesn't like.
That's too broad. I say the standard should be Physical injury. Your side however, seems overly concerned with the level of fear a detainee experiences and their emotional stability. I admit, I'm not. I reserve that for people who deserve it, like their victims.
it is OK if Bush tortures the enemy so long as he also tortures some friends.
Then you missed the point entirely. My point was I've been though it, and it isn't torture. Comparing getting water up your nose through a wet towel for the length of time it takes to pour out a bucket of water (10 seconds, maybe?) is hardly on par with say, getting put through "the ropes" at the Hanoi Hilton... which dislocated joints. Waterboarding causes no long or even short term harm to the subject... it just scares the crap out of them.
I don't care if a terrorist is scared. However, I've said here on this thread several times that waterboarding has likely lost it's effectiveness. It's been so well covered in the news media, everyone on Earth knows it isn't fatal or can even cause injury - hence limiting or eliminating entirely it's ability to cause fear and therefore be an effective tool. I guess we need to find a new way to psychologically shock the hell out of terrorists during interrogation for you all to complain about and label "torture."
Free,
I have yelled at people and literally made them cry. Is that torture? After all, it worked. Your definition of torture is anything the subject doesn't like.
You have convinced me, sir. We should yell at them instead of waterboarding them.
That's too broad. I say the standard should be Physical injury.
So, if they are scarred for life and can live a normal life again, even that is fine, as no physical injury was done. Makes sense. Let’s also add that the physical injury must be done via a metal object in order to be considered torture, OK?
Then you missed the point entirely. My point was I've been though it, and it isn't torture.
Actually, you missed mine. I was responding to the absent T. Paine, who said this. I paraphrased it for him, because I know he likes it when I clarify his position. However, I will now address yours. The purpose of waterboarding is to simulate drowning. I have experienced drowning and I cannot image a greater agony. The fact that one of your backward friends threw a towel over your face and squirted you with their water gun does not count. You admitted that for you that was not the sensation of drowning, so by your own admission, the water gun did not do its job.
Waterboarding causes no long or even short term harm to the subject... it just scares the crap out of them.
You made this up. It causes both agony and likely long term psychological damage. I don’t think long term psychological damage would be identifiable in you.
I don't care if a terrorist is scared.
Neither do I.
If you think waterboarding is tantamount to yelling at them, then yell at them. I think most of them would laugh in your face, but try it if you think it will help. If you think waterboarding is more effective than yelling, then you admit that you find it a greater agony than the sound of your voice. Therefore, don’t intentionally make false comparisons.
Let’s also add that the physical injury must be done via a metal object in order to be considered torture, OK?
Nah, lets stick with physical injury caused by anything. Then again I wouldn't call beating the shit out of a terrorist torture either, however that shouldn't be authorized - assuming the detainee isn't trying to escape or something.
The purpose of waterboarding is to simulate drowning. I have experienced drowning and I cannot image a greater agony.
Key word here being simulate.
The fact that one of your backward friends threw a towel over your face and squirted you with their water gun does not count.
Actually as I recall it was a plastic garbage bag, then a towel and a huge trash can filled with water (and god knows what else.) This was after my first Zodiac training mission. As a little tradition our NCOs who were the coxwains burst into our rooms at 2AM, beat the crap out of us, water boarded us, then burned a "Z" into our right arms to signify that we were now Zodiac qualified for waterborne assault with a metal coat hanger formed into the shape of the letter and a blow torch. I'll go ahead and qualify that as torture- but I didn't mind. Marines are sort of known for being a little crazy.
The second time I got it was at SERE Bravo in Okinawa. That time it was pretty hard core, the detention portion of the course is classified, however I promise you it's a fucking bitch. SERE school is kinda legendary for that. I lost 18 pounds in under 3 weeks. During SERE, you actually get treated far worse than the detainees at GITMO do.
It causes both agony
If you're a wuss I guess it does.
and likely long term psychological damage.
I'm not too concerned with the fragile inner children of terrorists.
I don’t think long term psychological damage would be identifiable in you.
Nor Dave's favorite example John McCain - and he was definitely tortured. So much for psychological damage.
I think most of them would laugh in your face,
Well, I'm not a human interrogator, I'm a humble infantrymen so it's not really my job. However, I bet you're right... hence the need for enhanced measures.
Nor Dave's favorite example John McCain - and he was definitely tortured. So much for psychological damage.
So there's no such thing as PTSD?
No, Free. McCain is not my favorite example. But I think psychological damage is a good explanation for how we were threatened with the possibility of a President Palin.
Maybe McCain bombed a civillian or two as well, so he probably deserved to be tortured, er waterboarded too, in your esteemed opinion. After all we were never attacked by Vietnam.
Actually the Doolittle raider was my “favorite example”. Since he may have bombed children or innocent civillians, I'm sure the Japanese soldiers were doing the right thing in your esteemed opinion.
He said it was torture. I agree with him.
Free0352, you said (and provided a link)...
"Marines are sort of known for being a little crazy."
A "little"?
Aside from being delusional, marines are masochistic and sadistic. Looks like you're proud of that.
As I said to you many many posts ago, you're scary.
So to sum up, Dave Dubya: More concerned with the inner children of terrorists than prevention of terrorist attacks that kill Americans.
With Democrats like that, no wonder Bush won that second term.
Looks like you're proud of that.
Damn right.
you're scary
Thank you. They don't pay me to NOT terrify the enemies of this country you know.
“no wonder Bush won that second term”
Thanks to Diebold and politicized “terror alerts”.
” More concerned with the inner children of terrorists than prevention of terrorist attacks that kill Americans.”,
False. More concerned with not becoming the brutes our enemies are. If prevention of terrorist attacks were important, you’d condemn, as I do, your authoritarian leaders Bush and Cheney for ignoring the August 2001PDB and Richard Clarke. Instead you are a true believer. You and your leaders wanted war no matter what. And now you bitch about the debt...
Free..
//I have yelled at people and literally made them cry.//
how terribly civil of you. did your grandmother ever forgive you?
Free0352, you replied with...
"They don't pay me to NOT terrify the enemies of this country you know." [Emphasis my own]
So, I guess you admit you're a terrorist. Good, you've confirmed what I've believed all along.
The only "enemies" are those created for propaganda purposes; those deemed necessary to serve the illegitimate and illegal objectives of the military-industrial-congressional-security-surveillance complex. The threat of terrorism is a fraud and a hoax. There is no "enemy", unless you include the U.S. military as being the primary perpetrator of terrorism -- which you agreed is the case.
I've finally figured out why you're adamantly against the idea, even the chance, that 9/11 was an inside job. If it were true, and it's a distinct possibility, it would shatter your whole world paradigm -- your belief system that has been force-fed to you since day-one. It would be contrary to your ragtag belief system that allows for the freefall of buildings into their footprint due to a jet-fuel fire (and even one that wasn't hit), and the total disintegration of a commercial aircraft when it supposedly bored a clean hole through at least six steel-reinforced concrete walls when flying at less than 350 knots. It would be tantamount to a Christian's worldview if it were proven, without a shadow of a doubt, that Jesus never existed. It would mean you're living a lie.
You are.
If prevention of terrorist attacks were important, you’d condemn, as I do, your authoritarian leaders Bush and Cheney for ignoring the August 2001PDB
Yup, we should have taken Bin Laden and crew more seriously going back to 1996. That was a mistake, one that Jefferson here seems to still be making when he says -
The only "enemies" are those created for propaganda purposes;
That was the mentality. Terrorists like Bin Laden were treated like criminals instead of the national security threats they were/are.
I was never a policy maker obviously, however I must admit I didn't take them very seriously either back then. Then the events of September 11th which we all watched live on TV showed we have to take them very seriously. That we had to change and adapt to a new way of warfare. That change has been very slow, it didn't happen all at once - and we're still adapting. There are those in the military that actually want to go back to focusing on fighting big wars like WWII... as if that were a likely scenario! I for one think the days of "Big Wars" are over. Small wars are the norm now.
did your grandmother ever forgive you?
Where do you think I learned it? She was married to a Marine for 55 years, she knew how to kick some ass.
I've finally figured out why you're adamantly against the idea, even the chance, that 9/11 was an inside job.
Well I would be confused because it would violate the laws of physics. Go Google what the MOS 0352 and 0351 are. Dude, I'm trained to demolish buildings. There was more than enough energy released from the pressure wave of impact from a vehicle traveling at over 300 miles per hour weighing over 10,000 pounds... not to mention I've seen TANK ARMOR melt from less. More over, buildings (even your house) don't teeter and fall over from damage... they weigh too much. They fall strait down.
But to really hammer this point home, just go read the most compelling evidence against the conspiracy theory
You know, I have a theory as to why YOU can't admit 9-11 was caused by radical Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. It's because then the actions taken by the Bush administration would be justified, not to mention these wars. You just can't wrap your mind around that one. Instead because you feel powerless over your life (probably because you suck at it) you invent these overly complex, silly conspiracies to justify all that is wrong with your world when probably 95% of it is your own fault - something that must be hard to come to terms with.
. It's because then the actions taken by the Bush administration would be justified
Not to mention the Obama administration... the guy you all voted for. I was worried when he got elected but must admit I've been pleasantly surprised by how well he'd one following the Bush plan line item by line item.
YOU true believers must be so frustrated, here you wanted Mr. Anti-War and instead got the guy who invaded Pakistan to shoot Bin Laden in the face... something Bush didn't have the balls to do!
Free0352, you said...
"I'm trained to demolish buildings."
So, you provided two military job description postings showing me exactly, what, that you're trained to "blow up" buildings? So, "dude", does that mean you're trained to implode an over one-hundred story steel-framed building into a free fall and right into its own footprint?
Yes or no?
Then you proceeded with...
"...read the most compelling evidence against the conspiracy theory."
Your "compelling evidence" is your own blog article of September 10th? You're kidding, right?
And then you ended with this great attempt at distraction...
"...you invent these overly complex, silly conspiracies to justify all that is wrong with your world when probably 95% of it is your own fault."
I didn't invent anything. This was all information I've been able to garner over the last couple of years through reading books on the subject, not to mention the great resources available on the Internet. As far as it being a conspiracy, if more than one individual worked, in tandem with another, by definition it is a conspiracy. That's what "conspiracy" means. Here, I'll look it up for you: "An evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot." So, by definition, we're agreeable to this, correct?
Secondly, it isn't a "theory". For example, in "theory", if I play the lottery, I can win. But it's only a theory, because I haven't played. If I don't plop down my dollar, I have absolutely no chance of winning, correct? However, once I put down my dollar to play, the theory turns into a possibility; a probability. However infinitesimal it may be, I still have a chance of winning. It has turned from a theory to a possibility. Correct?
Therefore, the possibility of 9/11 being an inside job definitely is not a "conspiracy theory". It's definitely a conspiracy possibility.
Oh, and as far as the last part of your statement, yeah, you're right, it is my fault. It's been my fault for believing anything the corporate-state tells me. But I don't any more.
does that mean you're trained to implode an over one-hundred story steel-framed building into a free fall and right into its own footprint?
Yes.
You're kidding, right?
Nope. It was a valid point.
This was all information I've been able to garner over the last couple of years through reading books on the subject
Let me ask you did the space aliens from area 51 help blow up the twin towers? Was BusHitler behind the concealment of Obama's Kenyan birth?
great resources available on the Internet.
Hahaha. You're basically the Democrat version of a birther. That's hilarious. I wonder, do you worry about little green men? Does your tin foil hat irritate your head? Does the CIA beam mind control waves into your brain through the filling in your teeth? Is the water department putting floride in the water part of an Illuminati plot? Are the Free Masons behind it all?
It isn't a "theory" it's a delusion.
Behold the liberal! One who bases opinion on shady fact, and less evidence!
It's been my fault for believing anything the corporate-state tells me
I would tell you to go with what your sense of vision told you, but clearly your mind it too feeble to interpret the images that they saw.
Ah what the heck, for the benefit of readers other than JG (who will discount whatever I say because he holds a fanatical faith belief) I'll go ahead and debunk the Twoofer fallacy... using something that he won't understand. Science.
A Boeing 767 (the type of jet that hit the Trade Center) carries about 23,000 gallons of JP-8 jet fuel, which burns at an average temperature of 565 degrees in the open air. Further, it has a calculated Net Explosive Weight (NEW- relative explosive force in relation to a base NEW of TNT) of .25 or a quarter the explosive energy density of TNT. Therefore, the explosive force of jet fuel igniting explosively under pressure is about NEW 5750, or over 5000 pounds of TNT. More over, it burns at a temperature after the explosive shock of 565 degrees FH. Steel liquifies at a little over 1300 degrees FH. HOWEVER, it will loose 70-80% of it's structural integrity at as little as 500 degrees, depending on it's condition. So, the WTC was hit by the force of 5750 pounds of TNT and then it's steel frame was subject to temperatures in excess of 550 degrees FH which is more than enough to cause at least a 50% reduction in it's structural integrity... perhaps more.
The WTC buildings were constructed using a square steel skeleton of steel girders. These steel beams held the weight of the building, which was at least 500,000 tons. In essence, the WTC was a giant "table" with four legs at the corners which served as primary weight baring structures. By taking not one, but two of these out with the force of the explosion and the heat of the burning fuel, there was no other possibility for the building's over all structural integrity to fail. The only reason the structure didn't instantly collapse upon impact were the numerous secondary load bearing beams welded across the frame... which did eventually fail due to thermal damage.
Why didn't the building teeter over and instead collapse strait down? Ask yourself this, if you dropped your car on your kitchen table, would it teeter over or would your table just go "splat." Well, the damaged internal frame of the WTC buildings already weakened from the heat and force of the explosion were finally forced to endure the upper floors collapsing on top of them. I have no idea what the upper floors weighed, but it was many thousands and thousands of tons. This was like the car making the table go "splat" strait down. Gravity pulled the collapsing mass the shortest distance between the collapsing mass and the center of the Earth, which is strait down. The steel frame of the building was nowhere strong enough to take such stress, and simply went "splat." As the debris fell, it began to pool at the foundations of the buildings and then once hitting the ground shot out in all directions sort of how water or dirt does when you poor it out of a bucket... sending huge chunks of debris traveling at many hundreds of miles per hour into surrounding buildings- causing their structural integrity to be compromised. What further damaged them was the earth quake-like effect 1,000,000 tons of combined weight of debris caused when it hit the ground at terminal velocity.
The end result was what we all saw on the news.
Further, I did not factor into my calculations the force of a 180,000 pound airplane slamming into a building at over 200 knots would do. We've all seen what a car accident going as little as 60MPH in a vehicle that weighs far less can do to the steel frame... as in crumple it into a ball. Add the explosive force of the ignition of the fuel under pressure. Then add the force of the collapsing top floor. Thats a hell of an equation, but I do know that JUST THE FUEL would have been more than enough to topple either building. Adding the force of the crash just doomed it.
So to sum this ALL UP. 9-11 was caused by a "conspiracy," of about 19 hijackers, most of whom were from Saudi Arabia, training in Afghanistan under Osama Bin Laden, then unleashed on America to cause death of the Infidel.
Free0352, you replied in typical and expected fashion with...
"Let me ask you did the space aliens from area 51 help blow up the twin towers? Was BusHitler behind the concealment of Obama's Kenyan birth?...do you worry about little green men? Does your tin foil hat irritate your head? Does the CIA beam mind control waves into your brain through the filling in your teeth? Is the water department putting floride in the water part of an Illuminati plot? Are the Free Masons behind it all? "
No; no (Obama was born in Hawaii); Only men wearing fatigues - green or otherwise; I don't wear a hat - tin foil or otherwise; Do they? - I'm sure you would have insight on this; I doubt it; And no, but the banksters undoubtedly are.
"It isn't a "theory" it's a delusion."
No, as I've already explained, It's a distinct possibility.
"I would tell you to go with what your sense of vision told you, but clearly your mind it too feeble to interpret the images that they saw."
Oh, I saw a couple of buildings fall, all right, right into their footprint. But I also saw WTC Building 7 fall, in the exact same fashion - right into its own footprint, and that building was never hit by an airplane. Gee, I wonder how that happened?
TO BE CONTINUED...
PART II
"...if you dropped your car on your kitchen table, would it teeter over or would your table just go 'splat.'"
No, your analogy would be more appropriate if a bridge were to collapse, not something that's a solid structure underneath, that hasn't been compromised.
"...sending huge chunks of debris traveling at many hundreds of miles per hour into surrounding buildings- causing their structural integrity to be compromised."
You're kidding, right? Is this the best explanation you can pull out of thin air to explain the pancaking collapse of Building 7? Gee, with this rationality, the 1993 truck-bomb explosion of the WTC North Tower should have pancaked also. Did it? Did I miss the news story on that? (Oh, it couldn't have, it came down on 9/11/01.)
In conclusion, that building (WTC 7), just like the other two towers, had remnants of thermite in the smoldering rubble (which included liquid, molten, steel). I wonder where that came from? Gee, I'm sure you'd know, being the demolition expert that you are (or claim to be). Oh, I forgot, what's the melting temperature of steel, once again? And the burning temperature of jet fuel? I must have misplaced that information...
You're not a demolition expert; you're an infantryman, by your own admission, a doughboy of the new millennium. That's where your expertise ends and your credibility starts. If I needed to know the best boots for walking, then I'd put credence in what you had to say. Otherwise, you're just another conservative fraud.
You're not a demolition expert; you're an infantryman, by your own admission
From the NavMac job description for 0351-
. Assaultmen provide rocket fire against fortified positions in support of the rifle squads, platoons, and companies within the infantry battalion. Additionally, assaultmen employ APOBS, demolitions, and breaching/infiltration techniques to facilitate infantry maneuver in the offense, and demolitions and expedient counter mobility measures in the defense. Assaultmen are found in the assault sections of weapons platoons of the infantry rifle companies. Noncommissioned officers are assigned as gunners, team, squad, and section leaders.
I did this job for 8 years, before I was promoted. During that time I was not only a Marine, but a section leader for 12 of such Marines, where I thought Demolitions almost daily and conducted many thousands of ranges and live combat detonations (shots). Further, I've graduated from Urban Breacher's Course and SAPPER school. That doesn't count the 8 years of OJT. The only MOS who know more about blowing stuff up than me are SF Engineers and EOD Techs. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where the load bearing structures in a building are and compute what it will take to cut them. It's simple algebra. X amount of NEW will cut Y amount of homogenious steel or concrete.
But I also saw WTC Building 7 fall, in the exact same fashion
Sure, it was hit by hundreds of pieces of debris shooting out the bottom of the shot traveling at near terminal velocity which weighed hundreds of tons. It's like getting hit by a million, hundred thousand pound cannon balls at once while undergoing an Earth quake caused by 500,000 tons of rubble hitting the ground within 400 feet. Nah, that couldn't damage the structural integrity of a steel girder... Of course the more likely explanation is Big Foot planted bombs.
had remnants of thermite in the smoldering rubble
A: Source?
B: Thermite doesn't explode or cut, it burns. Hot. It would take many tons of termite to eat through the steel girders. I think people would have noticed that... and the the concrete being torn away from the outside walls to get a 360 degree burn on the corner girders at least hours prior to the attack. Forget what you've seen on TV, thermite doesn't have the properties you give it here. You use thermite to burn a hole, not cut down a building. For that you use det cord wraps and C-4 base charges. What you are suggesting is that super secret agents used a technique equivalent of lighting a camp fire next to a tree to burn it down when they had an axe. It doesn't make any sense. You would need something like 0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb to burn a hole in an engine block. To take out a steel girder, you'd need something like 150 lbs per burn to weaken the structure... let alone melt it. That's why we don't make JDAMs out of termite, we use PET-N instead. It works for that kind of thing, thermite does not.
But keep going Jefferson, making you look like a delusional crazy person is fun... and informative for Dave's readers.
Free0352, in typical fashion, you patted yourself on the back while continuing to evade the key questions...
"Sure, it was hit by hundreds of pieces of debris shooting out the bottom of the shot traveling at near terminal velocity which weighed hundreds of tons. It's like getting hit by a million, hundred thousand pound cannon balls..."
Nonsense! That's a copout of the most extraordinary magnitude! You know (and you're the "expert"), as well as I, that even if that were the case, the structural integrity of the building (WTC 7) couldn't possibly be compromised evenly in order to allow it to pancake, in full freefall, and pile upon itself like a perfectly coordinated demolition -- unless it were one. If your Urban Breacher's Course and SAPPER school didn't teach you this -- or more likely you didn't learn it -- then both you and I (the taxpayer) got screwed.
"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where the load bearing structures in a building are and compute what it will take to cut them."
You said it yourself. I'm sure it could be performed discretely and perfunctory, with a minimal amount of planning and coordination.
"Source?" [to claim that thermite was extracted from the rubble]
Here. By the way, despite your "expertise", I'll put my money on the thousands of architects and engineers worldwide who disagree with your assessment.
"It would take many tons of termite to eat through the steel girders. I think people would have noticed that..."
I don't know how much it would take, and I suspect you don't either. People did notice...
TO BE CONTINUED...
PART II
"Forget what you've seen on TV, thermite doesn't have the properties you give it here."
I never gave it any properties. But I'm sure you will.
"What you are suggesting is that super secret agents used a technique equivalent of lighting a camp fire next to a tree to burn it down when they had an axe."
That's a piss-poor analogy. Can't you come up with something better than that? To suggest that a debris field would cause a perfect demolition is ludicrous. Looking at the site plan, it would seem other buildings, more apt to be in a direct line of fire from "shooting debris", would have fallen in the same fashion. They didn't. These include the Verizon Building and the Old Post office Building (adjacent to WTC 7), and even closer to the fallen twin towers, with no buildings standing between them and the towers, the American Express Building and the Merrill Lynch Building. Critics hold as wildly improbable the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) concept that the impact-area core beams all gave way at once, allowing for a symmetrical collapse of both towers nearly simultaneously and in identical manners. Instead, if there was the loss of holding power in some beams, the towers would have tilted and crashed in an asymmetrical manner, as all other similar cases with fires in buildings have. No other high-rise steel buildings have ever collapsed in such a manner without the use of explosives. Ever.
I agree, this is fun! I love your lame excuses for an incident that took place and was unprecedented in the history of modern building design. The fact that a building collapsed that was designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner and the ensuing spillage of jet fuel, and it collapsed in typical demolition pancake fashion -- not once, but three times, tells me that was one, huge, magic bullet! ;-) As a friend of mine noted, for one who constantly acts like every facet of government is your enemy, in this singular area you seem to have unshakable faith in their 9/11 storyline. I find that very ironic.
You know (and you're the "expert"), as well as I, that even if that were the case, the structural integrity of the building (WTC 7) couldn't possibly be compromised evenly in order to allow it to pancake
What, looks like you don't know much about construction. I mean I'm no civil engineer (all of whom agree with me BTW) but damn... no body is going to build a gigantic building designed to tip over if a load baring structure is taken out. It's so obvious what happened to anyone but a faith believer like you... one of the corners was taken out and it "pancaked" just like it was designed to do. Who would build a quarter of a mile high building designed to fall on it's neighbors when it had to be demolished? Not to mention, we're talking gravity again here... it can't help but fall one way... strait toward the center of the Earth- accelerating towards terminal velocity as it goes. I didn't need to learn this in the military, we're into high school physics now. It's easy.
As for your Twoofer link, I got a quote come back for it from that traditional right wing extremist... Nomb Chombsky-
Noam Chomsky: Hard for me to respond to the rest of the letter, because I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission.
Not one peer review... let alone a successful one. You've been had, but then again you wanted to be had so it was easy. You are bereft of logic.
That's a piss-poor analogy.
You were talking about thermite which clearly you know nothing about. It was a dead on analogy. Thermite is used in the military to destroy equipment like engine blocks or arty tubes, and in the civilian world for exothermic welding, which is inefficient as hell and basically only used to weld together the third rail on sub-ways and electric trains because ARC welding is so much more efficient (but the weld will block an electric current sometimes- exothermic welding will not.) Thermite DOES NOT EXPLODE. Therefore, throwing some thermite on a steel beam... I don't care how much... would be like trying to burn down an oak tree with a can of gas and a match. Pretty stupid for our super secret agents who have access to the most powerful plastic explosives in our inventory- which definitely can cut. Using thermite to cut a steel beam or girder would be dumber than using Composition B to do it- which is closer to what actually happened. No professional would do that.
To suggest that a debris field would cause a perfect demolition is ludicrous.
What I'm suggesting is physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. So what I'm talking about is chunks of reinforced concrete and huge steel girders falling at terminal velocity (the action) would hit the ground and "bounce" (the reaction) away. How far? How's 400 feet sound? The distance to tower seven. How fast were they going? 185-250 MPH. How much did they weigh? Tons. How many were there? Thousands of tons worth. Thousands of jagged, hurtling objects the size of an SUV. Gee, I wonder if any one of those could smash through a foot of outer concrete and bend just one steel beam that acted as a corner support? Nah, it must be big foot and the illuminati (who appear to know nothing about demolition) pulled off the biggest conspiracy ever. Covering up 9-11. Yeah right. I'm pretty sure it was the combined kenetic force of a 28,000 steel and aluminium air plane carrying the equivelent of over 5000 pounds of TNT, with the secondary damaged caused by 1,000,000 tons of rubble crashing into the Earth at about 200 miles per hour then splashing out the sides and crashing into tower 7 (and other stuff in a 360 degree radius) at near the same speed. The only thing ludicrous here is anyone would take your wild ideas seriously. It flies in the face of basic earth science, physics, and what we all saw with out own eyes as it happened.
Twoofers, clearly the stupidest people on the internet. You aren't birthers, you're dumber than birthers. Unlike September 11th, I didn't watch Barack Obama being born on live TV, and still I figured that one out.
Free,
Please show us the context of the Chomsky quote.
Reasonable questions are unanswered, both for no. 7 and the Pentagon. Sure looks like a missle strike. If not, it was a heck of a good aim by a novice pilot. Why was none of the confiscated video released of the event?
Maybe al-Qaeda had help. I'm not saying who, apart from them, did it. Again, I don't know. There were multiple parties' interests at stake, though.
Again, why did Bush and Cheney appear to ignore the al-Qaeda threat, the August PDB, and demote and dismiss Richard Clarke from cabinet meetings? Was it because they hated Clinton so much?
Even if the official version of 9-11 were true, the whole thing still reeks.
One thing for certain, it didn't happen because of the "they hate us for our freedom" lie. That one we can add to the Saddam/AQ WMD connections and nukular aluminum tubes lies.
And since when have we ever been told the truth by the Pentagon and national security complex?
It must feel good to be a true believer.
National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) concept that the impact-area core beams all gave way at once,
Remember when I told you it was like dropping a car on your kitchen table. Well, the NIST agrees with me it seems. The construction of load bearing beams on the WTC were never designed to take what they went through. Heck, I can't think of a sky scraper that is. Of course it collapsed the way it did, there was nothing else it could have done.
Coming right up.
Reasonable questions are unanswered, both for no. 7 and the Pentagon. Sure looks like a missle strike.
No it doesn't. Missiles use the the Monroe Effect to cause damage. That leaves a small hole, not a huge blast crater. 5000 pounds of NEW would do that, which is conveniently the Net Explosive Weight of the JP5 in the Jet... never mind the jet it's self was a 20,000 pound lawn dart moving at over 200 knots. I'm amazed it didn't do MORE damage. Thank god they just upgraded the Kevlar in the walls...
it was a heck of a good aim by a novice pilot
I'm pretty sure if I were trying to crash my airplane into the Pentagon I'd have tried to hit the middle of it as opposed to one of the outside walls but hey, it stands to reason if you can land a plane you can crash it into something.
Maybe al-Qaeda had help
Why would they need help? You can get a pilot's license pretty easily. They get funding from donors- so I guess in that regard they got help.
Again, why did Bush and Cheney appear to ignore the al-Qaeda threat
Because they were stupid. Can't really point the finger though, I always thought of them as no serious threat... up until they proved without a doubt they were. So I guess I'm guilty of underestimating them too. Don't worry, won't make that mistake again.
it didn't happen because of the "they hate us for our freedom" lie
No, they hate us because we're infidels. They kill more Muslims per year than we ever have for not being "Muslim" enough. They are crazy, hyper violent fanatics who hate everyone who isn't a fan of living in a 13th century religious commune. In short, don't try to figure out why crazy people are crazy. There is no logic to it. They just hate you, because you're you and not them. This is a fairly common human trait.
It must feel good to be a true believer.
Better confidence in the facts and evidence than conspiracy taken on faith. Nomb Chomsky and I don't agree on much, but you should be able to figure out when you have Libertarian Free0352, Republicans, and Nomb freak'n Chomsky the communist all telling you this is crazy - and the best you can do is Jesse Ventura, that you might want to rethink your position on the issue.
Free,
First I won’t let you attach me to what Ventura said about 9-11. I don’t know what he believes, do you? I referred to his experience with waterboarding, remember?
I defer to your real expertise in weapons, and thank you for the info on Mr. Monroe. As an amateur WW2 historian I appreciate the history of shaped charges that led to bazooka rockets and anti-tank rounds. You see, I can be very reasonable and agreeable when you are correct.
Your expertise on Bush and Cheney being stupid is something where I must both agree and disagree. Bush had many stupid moments, but Cheney was a conniver all along. And I can point the finger at them. Clinton knew well enough that AQ was a threat; even before you. And even as his actions against them were condemned by the Right as “wagging the dog”. He appointed Richard Clarke to a cabinet level position to deal with it. You probably don’t remember that, or didn’t care.
Dick and his aristocratic stooge quickly dumped Clarke out of the loop. Cheney and the Shrub saw the threat as a potential opportunity. An attack would serve as an excuse for “war president” status and the political leverage Bush talked about in ’99. See quote above.
They didn’t plan 9-11, but they capitalized and benefited from it more than al-Qaeda ever did. All that separated your heroes from greatness was sabre rattling and war mongering and lies. They barely showed interest in catching OBL. And why should they? He was good for their business of scaring Americans into blindly supporting their agenda. Saddam was declared the greatest threat to America since Hitler and liberals, maybe worse, and it was off to the races for you.
they hate us because we're infidels
Now that’s not much more accurate than “they hate us for our freedom”. As you pointed out they kill Muslims too. Yes they are religious fanatics, but even they have political agendas. Because of our military presence and policies coddling the Israeli radical Right, we were a political target with the typical cloak of religion cast over it. Your Bible thumping heroes on the Right use that trick all the time. Bush almost called his war for oil, political power, and crony profit a “crusade”, for Pete’s sake. He was quickly talked out of the idea by his handlers. But speaking of “fanatics who hate everyone who isn't a fan of living in a 13th century religious commune”, you are right. Those are the kind of rabid Righties who think liberals are communists and Obama is a Muslim...or the anti-christ. And they really do, as you say, just hate you because you're you and not them.
Some of them even walk into churches and shoot doctors or Unitarians. Or go packing against somebody Glenn Beck told them was evil.
But in this type of mental disorder, there is absolutely logic to it. It is a political agenda. Those beliefs are nurtured by the FOX(R) Limbaugh, Pat Robertson propaganda machine to dupe people into voting against their interests and for the elites’ redistribution of wealth into their pockets. Works like a charm....as long as the indoctrinated ones don’t ask questions.
How about that? Back on topic.
First I won’t let you attach me to what Ventura said about 9-11. I don’t know what he believes, do you? I referred to his experience with waterboarding, remember?
Well birds of a feather...
Clinton knew well enough that AQ was a threat;
That must be why he fired those cruse missiles into random desert. Look, nobody took terrorism seriously until 9-11. It was looked at as a law enforcement problem prior to that day - by pretty much everybody including me.
An attack would serve as an excuse for “war president” status
Or a really, really good reason to go to war and be a war president.
they capitalized and benefited from it more than al-Qaeda ever did
I don't think they profited at all from 9-11, we've been kicking the shit out of them for 10 years now, and the Mid East hates them for what they did in Iraq. They've suffered great losses. They'd have been smarter to just go back to herding goats and shit and never fucked with us in the first place.
As you pointed out they kill Muslims too. Yes they are religious fanatics, but even they have political agendas
Religion is politics for them. They don't separate the two. For the Jihadist, politics are a means to a religious end.
Bush almost called his war for oil, political power, and crony profit a “crusade”, for Pete’s sake.
Kinda like Esenhower called invading France a crusade? It's a figure of speech, and we didn't got to war in the Mid East over religion. We went to war in Afghanistan for harboring Al'Queda and Osama Binladen - same reason we're fighting covertly in a lot of other countries these days. We went to Iraq real frankly, because Saddam didn't comply with the agreement he signed with us in 91 and after 9-11 we were through putting up with his shit.
Some of them even walk into churches and shoot doctors or Unitarians.
Wow, that handful? I'll take them over 3000 dead Americans and countless more dead over seas any day.
When dealing with Jihadists you aren't dealing with rational people. These are people who think we are the soldiers of a zionist, world wide, jewish conspiracy (damn conspiracy theorists) to... well I'm not sure exactly but they think it's bad - and it's their mission from allah to wipe us all out for God. Shit is strait out of the Protacals of Zion, and Mien Kamph... two of their favorite books along with the Koran. You can't reason with them, they're freak'n crazy. The only thing that will appease them is our blood. All of it. Can't coexist. It's us or them. We didn't make it that way, they did.
Free,
You didn’t answer my question about Ventura’s 9-11 beliefs. Your dismissive and flippant “Birds of a Feather” doesn’t mean anything. You’re slipping.
That must be why he fired those cruse missiles into random desert. Look, nobody took terrorism seriously until 9-11. It was looked at as a law enforcement problem prior to that day - by pretty much everybody including me.
So law enforcement uses cruise missiles? And creating an anti-terrorism post at the cabinet level is not taking it seriously? You’re slipping again. Maybe my admission on the missile strike thing went to your head.
My point was Bush/Cheney exploited 9-11 for political gain. They were not above instilling a little fear and terror themselves. And they did so by throwing out inflated and contrived “terror alerts” at strategic times. One was just after May 18, 2002. The first details of the president‘s daily briefing of August 6, 2001 were revealed, including its title “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in U.S.”
Two days later, FBI Director Mueller declares that another terrorist attack is “inevitable.” The next day, the department of Homeland Security issues warnings of attacks against railroads nationwide and against New York City landmarks, like the Brooklyn Bridge and the Statue of Liberty.
February 7, 2003, anti-war demonstrations take place around the globe. Homeland Security Secretary Ridge cites credible threats by al Qaeda and raises the terror alert level to orange.
I could go on and on with this very clear pattern. Like they politicized the Justice Department over baseless “voter fraud” cases, Bush and Cheney politicized terror.
Not kinda like Eisenhower. France is not a Muslim country. We invaded to fight the German occupiers, not Muslims. Bush invaded a sovereign Muslim country and called it a crusade. Get the nuance there? Still slipping, I see.
Yeah, here’s the thing. That “handful” you dismiss were Right Wing indoctrinated Americans killing fellow Americans. They think it’s their mission from God to wipe out liberals. Like jihadists, religion is politics for them And there are more where they came from, and more being indoctrinated by Mullahs of the Right like Glenn “Obama hates white people” Beck and Bill “Tiller the baby killer” O’Reilley. Birds of a feather? As you say, “You can't reason with them, they're freak'n crazy. The only thing that will appease them is our blood. All of it. Can't coexist. It's us or them.”
Thanks for keeping us on the topic of mental disorders.
Dave Dubya, you said to Free0352...
"You didn’t answer my question about Ventura’s 9-11 beliefs. Your dismissive and flippant 'Birds of a Feather' doesn’t mean anything. You’re slipping."
He's always dismissive and defective. He also never answered your inquiry concerning the context of the Chomsky quote. I'd be interested in the source of that, myself.
Waiting...
So law enforcement uses cruise missiles?
You are I think deliberately missing an obvious point. The Clinton Administration clearly didn't take Al'Queda as seriously as I'm sure Bill Clinton took Bin Laden after September 11th. Even though he didn't take them seriously after the Kenya and Tanzania bombings, the first attack on the WTC, or the near sinking of the USS Cole. Clinton logically thought that if that was the best Al'Queda could do, it wasn't worth going down the same road Russia went and invading Afghanistan. Turned out that was the wrong call, but I doubt he could have mustered support for a war in 1999 or 2000 after the Cole attack. The peace nicks are all upset about it after September 11th. Imagine the resistance had Clinton (or Bush) gone to war over a damaged Navy ship? No one, including Clinton was going to put boots on the ground until after September 11th, and the only person who wouldn't have after that would have been Ron Paul- because on foreign policy the man is clueless.
My point was Bush/Cheney exploited 9-11 for political gain.
What would those politics have gained? Winning the war Democrats wanted to pull out of? If that's the case I'm glad they did it. Politicians do that, so what? Did you miss Obama's victory lap after the SEALs got Ben Laden? Who cares?
And they did so by throwing out inflated and contrived “terror alerts” at strategic times.
Sometimes they weren't as "inflated" as you think. Further, why would that help them in an election... that is unless the American people don't trust Democrats to defend them that is... which I think might have been the case. If voters really thought John Kerry would have defended them better, wouldn't terror alerts and threats against the country helped Kerry? Well, you say they didn't, care to answer why?
The first details of the president‘s daily briefing of August 6, 2001 were revealed, including its title “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in U.S.”
That's like getting a brief that say's "Water wet, sky blue." Do you know how many threats are leveled against this country on a daily basis? Do you think the President of the United States should put troops on the street every time a terrorist group say's they're going to get us? You'd be tripping over me and my M-4 carbine on the way to the grocery store. Everyone knew Bin Laden wanted to hit the U.S. ... hell he had before during the first WTC bombing.
FBI Director Mueller declares that another terrorist attack is “inevitable.”
It still is inevitable. Right now there are many thousands of Jihadists who want to kill Americans on American soil. Again, that's a report that say's water is wet, sky is blue. When it comes to terrorist attack, we can't afford to be wrong once, they can fire and miss and keep attacking. That's how it is, and why it's important we fight them "there" as opposed to "here." Thats why we do that. Of course Bin Laden wanted to hit America prior to 9-11, everyone knew that. You probably knew that if you watched CNN. He sure was all over it saying as such. It's just no one thought he could really do it, let alone as bad as he did. Bin Laden proved a lot of experts wrong when it came to capability. Everyone knew his motivation, but nobody really predicted how inovative they could be.
Not kinda like Eisenhower. France is not a Muslim country. We invaded to fight the German occupiers, not Muslims.
Eisenhower invaded Libya and Algeria also. They are muslim countries.
They think it’s their mission from God to wipe out liberals.
That's kinda funny because AL'Queda has the exact same mission. My response is, shoot em' in the face then. Point em' out, if you know who these people are. Lets start with a buy name list you have of current, active right wing terror cells. Where are they? I don't know about them. If you do, let's hear it. One or two wackos doesn't make a terrorist group. You need an organization, where are these people. For example the KKK was definitely once upon a time a terror group... till the FBI broke it over it's knee. If all these "right wing terrorists" were out there you'd think they'd be
A: Killing some liberals
B: Making demands
C: Getting their message out
If I ask a guy on the street, name me one "Right Wing" super scary terrorist group... he's going to go aaahhhhhhhhh what? If I ask the same guy to name a Muslim terrorist group if he's stupid he'll say "Al'Queda" and if he's smart he'll say "Al'Queda, Hammas, Hezzbullah, Islamic Jihad, AIAI, Abu'Nagreb, Jaish'Al'Mhadi, Badr Brigade."
Come on guy, the two hardly compare. I guess like Al'Queda I'll just have to not take them seriously till they fly some planes into some buildings.
He also never answered your inquiry concerning the context of the Chomsky quote.
I suppose giving him the link to the entire conversation word-for-word must be part of the BusHitlerBurton conspiracy. That's right, we've managed to brain wash Nomb Chomsky. Not only do you know nothing of science, but it looks like clicking my BIG BLUE LINK was too tough.
I don't think they profited at all from 9-11, we've been kicking the shit out of them for 10 years now, and the Mid East hates them for what they did in Iraq. They've suffered great losses. They'd have been smarter to just go back to herding goats and shit and never fucked with us in the first place.
Oh I see, you thought I was talking about the last administration here. My bad, I was talking about Al'Queda. As for Bush and Chaney... I already answered above.
Free0352, you said...
"Not only do you know nothing of science, but it looks like clicking my BIG BLUE LINK was too tough."
Sorry, didn't check the link initially. Notice, however, that Dr. Chomsky didn't have the advantage of reading the Hoffman study I provided, Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust, which wasn't published until April 2008, well over a year after the Rense interview. I wonder whether he'd have a very different response about it today?
By the way, I'm sure my knowledge of science is better than ninety-five percent of Americans. That I'm very confident about. As far as your understanding of the English language, could you please stop using the word "strait" when "straight" would be the proper word? You keep repeating this very obvious misuse of the two words. Appreciate it!
Dave, before we're done I have one more comment. You mentioned to Free0352 that "[r]easonable questions are unanswered, both for no. 7 and the Pentagon. Sure looks like a missile strike", to which he replied...
"No it doesn't. Missiles use the the Monroe Effect to cause damage. That leaves a small hole, not a huge blast crater."
This sequence (last two photographs) shows the building before the walls/roof collapse. It looks like a relatively "small hole" to me; certainly no "huge blast crater".
Thank you, Free0352, for pointing this out and collaborating our understanding of what really hit the Pentagon. You've been most helpful.
JG,
Asking 9-11 questions is unpatriotic, or stoopid. One would think we'd have seen videos of a plane strike if that is what happened. Maybe Mossad somehow insured the level of destruction. Some that angle to it. Apart from Bush/Cheney and al-Qaeda, I'd imagine they had a significant interest in a devastating blow to the US by Islamic terrorists. One thing for sure, all three of those parties care little about Americans being killed, and all three wanted the US to go to war in the Middle East.
Unlike others, I admit I don't know what happened. I guess that makes me stoopid. But I do know better than to be a true believer of anything from the military/security state apparatus.
It looks like a relatively "small hole" to me; certainly no "huge blast crater".
This hole was caused by a medium sized missile and the damage to the outer hull is consistent with the boring effect a shape charge would make from either a TOW or Hellfire missile. This is a picture of the Pentagon shortly after it was hit.
Please note the difference.
Also from the Pentagon picture, there is no crater in the ground, only damage to the building. A conventional bomb would have left a crater we call and Evacuation Crater in the ground. None is visible. The damage to the Pentagon IS consistent with fuel/air thermobaric detonation. IE, 5000 NEW worth of jet fuel exploding under pressure.
How do you spell "YOU ARE IGNORANT OF EXPLOSIVES"
I think I'll go with what Chomksy said when he said-
one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet
I think I'll take my 12 years of experience with this over your surfing. Thank you for playing. If you buy into the 911 Twoofer drivel, I'll leave judgements into how you love your country aside but the measure of your intellect is quite clear. Chomsky hit that nail on the head.
Free0352, your first illustration leaves no measure of scale. For all I know, that hole could be a mile wide or two inches wide.
Also, your picture of the Pentagon "shortly after it was hit" was taken after the walls and roof collapsed. The pictures I provided were taken before that occurred -- consistent with the boring of a missile strike (as you described). If not a missile, certainly not a Boeing 757.
Again, thank you for your unintentional cooperation. As they used to say in WWII, "loose lips sink ships." You ought to quit while you're still behind.
Think COKE CAN size. Our biggest missile for ground attack is I believe the Maverick Missile... which burns a hole about the size of a basketball. One man can pick up all these missiles, even a rocket from a MLRS hasn't got enough raw HE to do that all by itself. You would need...about 5000 lbs of Net Explosive Weight to do that, or a tank. I didn't see any tanks there that day on the news, but I did see an airplane...
And don't worry, any Soldier would be laughing too hysterically reading me school you to bother being upset with me making a total mockery out of your stupid, crazy conspiracy theory.
but KKK and other hate groups have grown since Obama was elected. Hutari Militia, Aryan Brotherhood, the Georgia Ricin attack plotters, etc. not to mention the rest of the lone wolves in the FOX(R) Limbaugh fan club.
Yawn. All told here you've got, about 200 people of which less than 1% will have the balls to do anything. Call the FBI if you're so worried. We in the military have bigger fish to fry. How many have Islamic Jihadists killed again?
Just a bunch of left wing feigned outrage. You're entitled to it I guess, have fun... but don't expect to take a bunch of low rent, semi-literate, back woods rednecks seriously. How bout you go join the Army or FBI and you can handle the 20 rednecks and I'll keep dealing with the 30,000,000 probably jihadists.
Free0352, you claimed...
"...making a total mockery out of your stupid, crazy conspiracy theory."
Didn't we already establish it's not a conspiracy theory. Bad memory on your part?
If anything, you've confirmed the ideas I've had. Your inability to adequately and convincingly deflect the idea of explosives found in the WTC dust, and now the bore size of the Pentagon hit, only galvanizes everything I thought.
Appreciate it!
By the way, I hope you never consider the legal profession for a career. You'd never win a case. If I were you, I'd stick to the foot soldiering. It suits you.
Right On Dave!
We both know FAUX news is perpetuating anti-obama sentiment in Amerika!
Just recently, Gallup say Obama's approval rating has gone below Jimmy Carters!
News Alert!
This Just the FOX(R) kind of “fact” flashes across the wires...
.... Gallup say Obama's approval rating has gone below Jimmy Carters!....
You don’t say? Gallup has been reporting Obama’s approval has basically been fluctuating between 40 and 50% for two years now. He was over 50% just last May.
That puts him up at least twice the tea party’s approval level and way way over the GOP Congress.
Let us know when Gallup says Obama is down to your Oily Aristocrat’s 65% disapproval. If not this term, then maybe his next one, eh?
Boy..& Howdy... that Free Guy sure has everything figgered out... gees, next thing you know he's gonna say he is an Astronaut and that the moon is really flat. Maybe we should take that canal back from Panama.. or sell Lake Superior to Canada... hmmm and stuff.
that Free Guy sure has everything figgered out..
That's right, I normally tell people to think for themselves, but Twoofers abuse their own brains. I make exceptions for them. You'd all be better if you just listened to just about anyone else, because just about anyone else is more intelligent. Twoofers make George Bush, Paris Hilton, and Jessica Simpson looks like freak'n Plato.
Yeah,
Anybody who has questions about 9-11 is oviously way dumber than someone who thinks Obama may be a foreign born Musim antichrist, set on a-takin' are guns away from us and surrenderin' US sovernty over to that thar one world gubmint, cause he's a racist domestic enemy of all us real Amerikins.
Yup. I mean how dumb can ya git?
hhmmmm I was just called a Twofer?
Oh oh oh... I'm hurt! I'm hurt!
Open the pod bay doors, Hal!
hey, I gotz to apologize... this comment is a little Troll-like.
I will be nice in the future. Mostly;)
Anybody who has questions about 9-11 is oviously way dumber than someone who thinks Obama may be a foreign born Musim antichrist
Well Birthers and Twoofers are neck-and-neck in the race for total ignorance, but I'd have to say Twoofers are dumber because we got to see the towers fall on live tv and there is video of Bin Laden admitting responsibility. Barak Obama's birth however, was not live on CNN. This makes Twoofers who can't even examine what they've seen accurately slightly dumber.
Post a Comment