Dude I don't know how much clearer I need to make this. The VIDEO does make my point, thats why someone made it so I do not have to waste my time trying to convince people like you. If you do not believe anything thing that they say than so be it. I do not have time to argue with you or anybody, I simply wanted all to see what some people think, feel or want to express. I call it an attempt to uncover the truth, you call it conspiracy.
I made one singular point. A valid one. Perhaps you missed that part of my post? Your er, magnanimous offer, doesn't interest me. Guru-seo sums it up quite well: The VIDEO does make my point, thats why someone made it so I do not have to waste my time trying to convince people like you.
A matter of opinion on what questions should have been asked. Richard Clarke accepted responsibility for the flights. There was no political intervention, because, as Clarke testified: Link During the questioning, also noted, in response to question 2: But then it's a non issue. If 9/11 is a cover up, as you suggest, then why worry about the bin laden family? After all, they disavowed him from the family in 1994 and if it's a cover up, why the worry over the bin laden family? Enemy combatants do not enjoy our Constitutional rights. They are governed by military tribunals and as such, not afforded rights of our citizens. This was covered, with case law: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=641597&postcount=134
There are no provisions or requirements for reporting. A simple opportunity to stand behind assertions by making an argument and using references. It must be overwhelming
Suddenly those that don't have the time to make the argument have plenty of time to watch someone else do their work for them
How would you like it if they took you to Guantanama and called you an enemy combatant you..., without charging you or appointing an attorney to you. They are calling you a "combatant" without proving that you are. You do not see any issue with that??? What if your brother was on a business trip to Pakistan and he was cought by mistake and thrown in jail in Cuba and tagged as an enemy combatant, how would that make you feel? Well there is hundreds of them scattered all over the world that are someones brother, father or whatever that are being held illegally without being charged.
I don't hang out with terrorists, so no worries. Of course, the alternative to the Marriott at Guantanamo would be to kill enemy combatants on the battlefield where they are caught. Hmm, decisions, decisions... You'll forgive me if I show no compassion for those that serve to destroy not only our country, but others as well. I prefer not to make victims out of terrorists.
I have been refraining myself from saying this, but I think you GTech are a total tool! So what are you saying that when I get sick I should not go to the doctor but go to medical school instead, because otherwise I would be called lazy for not going to medical school to do my own research to heal myself? You are a total piece of work, officially I will not waste anymore of my valuable time replying to your idiotic, time-wasting, instigating posts..
Oh heavens no! I don't even recall a conversation about being sick, doctors, medical school, etc. Did I miss that post? I had no idea you were a victim! I was simply admiring how you don't have time to make an argument on something you believe in, but have time to watch someone else do it for you. I'm always amazed at how people don't have the time to put forth effort themselves, but have plenty of time to watch others do it for them. It's kind of smart, actually
Thats why at the end of the day, it is you who is left with the burdeon of your ignorance and I shaking my head in distance feeling sorry for your own doing.
Why is it a non-issue to allow 26 immediate family members of the prime suspect to flee the country 10 days after the worst atrocity ever committed on American soil. You don't have a problem with this? At all? Nifty little catchphrase soundbyte ... 'enemy combatants'. Has the same ring as 'WMD'. These people aren't even having their rights under the Geneva Convention recognised. They're being snatched off the streets (video) in countries with no supposed involvement and spirited away to detention centers then flown to Guantanamo. They didn't have a gun in their hand nor were they on the battlefield. In many cases they were going about their daily lives and were kidnapped. Yet 26 members of the immediate family of Bin Laden get waved onto a plane by the FBI. That sits comfortably with you? You don't have a problem that a key foundation of social justice and one of the kingpins of the freedom that all of these wars and the killings are supposed to protect has been taken away? Seriously? You don't have a problem with indefinite detention without trial or legal recourse? What's the next catchy little soundbyte, do you think? To detain people without trial indefinitely. 'Social Insurgents' perhaps? 'Domestic Despots'? For anyone who causes too much political trouble, maybe?
Of course he doesn't... Gtech believes everything terrorists say, the could never lie! Besides... the bin laden family has done millions of dollars (possibly billions now?) in business with the Bush family... family friends let each other slide by once in a while ya know?
I'm looking at it from your point of view. The "impression" I have, from your statements, is that 9/11 is a put up job: Is that a fair summary of your position? I'll presume yes for now, as your words indicate such. So, the question over the matter is not a question for me, but more for you. If it's a "a 'put up job', or a 'conspiracy'", then why worry about the bin laden family? If unca osama wasn't involved, then the point is moot. The person responsible took responsibility. The FBI said it already had a number of their family under surveillance for years and "since the attacks, the FBI has never said that any of the passengers aboard the flight shouldn’t have been allowed to leave or were wanted for further investigation." There is no report I find in any news outlet about the amnesty interview above. It exists on their site, and a few others that have copied/pasted information about it from their site. Unlawful combatants are not protected by the Geneva Convention. See previous link for definition established in 1863. To that end, as we saw last year with the disgraceful democrat leadership making unfounded accusations, they do pretty well: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160688,00.html I don't consider the detention of those that would harm my country a social injustice. I don't consider the liberation of Kuwait, an ally of our country and others a social injustice. I don't consider my country's involvement in Kosovo or the Balkins or many other areas of the world that needs help, a social injustice. I have absolutely no problem keeping terrorists and those that serve to harm my country and others in detention. These are people fighting us. They are not victims. As long as the next catchy soundbyte isn't "oops, why did we let that one go" AGAIN, I'm fine. Many of those detained at Guantanamo and later released, have gone on to not only fight coalition troops AGAIN and detained again, they have also gone on to commit terrorist attacks in other countries. Sorry, "oops" isn't good enough. We're not dealing with people that wish to bring you flowers on Valentines day. I'll make it as absolutely clear as possible: I'm not interested in the rights of terrorists. Nor will I seek to make them out as victims.