Legal procrastination

quote:

Originally posted by munch:
Its like i said on the other thread . The First Casualty of War is the TRUTH.

And History is written by the victor!

It now appears that Acad's main concern is the Israeli/Palestinian dispute which he somehow sees as relevant to, and justification for, the murderous activies of Islamic 'radicals' (aka terrorists) worldwide.
But the former is prinarily a local territorial dispute whilst the latter is a religious movement instigated by Islamic clerics like the hook-handed mullah Abu Hamsa now serving a jail sentence for inciting the London suicide bombers.

Ok, I can't resist;

quote:

Then give it up - you are obviously out of your depth

Give what up? - contributing to this little talking shop - is there some competition going on - very revealing of your mindset however, you want the last word, right?

quote:

This is crass in the extreme.

I take it you understand the meaning of the word. What is crass about descibing 9/11 as a catalyst for the invasions? It was. It was also provided as a reason (or an excuse if you like) for the so called 'war on terror'

quote:

There are International laws governing the reasons for waging war. It is against these laws to invade another sovereign state on the mere suspicion that they have WMD (in fact the only country in the middle east with undeclared nuclear and biological and chemical weapons is er....Israel). No WMD was found prior to the invasion and none found after the invasion. It is illegal to invade another country on the mere suspician that it may have had something to do with a terrorist act. There was not the slightest evidence to even hint that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Both the erroneous 9/11 linkage and WMD issue have been widely admitted by government officials in the US. The US will likely turn on Blair and his 'sexed up dossier' of bogus Intelligence to act as a scapegoat, and why not? He is as guilty as sin. To call the bogus reasons for invading another country 'mere semantics' is proof you do not have the first clue what you are talking about. Those guilty of waging an illegal law are war criminals and should be impeached. I am hopeful that they will be. Over 650,000 have died as a result of an illegal war.

Can't argue with you there.

quote:

The offer was made to get you to prove your moronic claim and you have singularly failed to do it. It had nothing to do with whether I can use the words 'neocon' or 'false flag'. Obviously

Now name calling is crass. What moronic claim is it that I made to prompt you to offer the five grand challenge. If you cannot provide me with evidence of this false allegation then pay £5000 to my preferred charity.

quote:

Wrong again. The towers were built to withstand the force of 747 Jets flying into them so why did they collapse? Watch the film and learn and stop being so tedious

Another crass remark. The titanic was designed to be unsinkable - it sank. The millenium bridge was designed to be stable it wasn't. IMO conspiracy theories appeal only to those for which they may be erroneously used to support their own arguments. Provide proof and I'll take you seriously.

quote:

Many muslims are locked up in Guantanamo without evidence, without charge and without trial against the Geneva convention. If we were to apply the same lack of legal standards to the 9/11 tragedy then Bush and Co. would be rotting in jail already

Let them out and keep an eye on them would seem to be sensible to me.

quote:

And the evidence for that is what exactly? You have yet to offer one atom of evidence to contradict anything I have said

It is my opinion that you are prone, from what I gather of you, that to lap up any old bollocks if it supports you entrenched views.

quote:

The word is 'revelation' and do you know what 'ambivalent' means?

A spelling check? Things are getting a littler desperate for you - do you want me to trall through your positings and highlight yours? Ambivalent is broadly appropriate, 'couldn't give a shit' is probably more appropriate but that would be crass.

quote:

My solution would be to get out of Arab lands and implement the hitherto ignored UN resolutions against my country. My solution would be to give the arabs in gaza their water and electricity back and allow them out of the enforced ghetto so they could work and their children could go to school. My solution would be give them equal rights. My solution would be to stop practicing apartheid. My solution would be to stop bulldozing arab homes to make way for more jewish settlers and to give up the master plan of a gentile free Israel. My plan would be to build bridges not bomb them. My plan would be to fully integrate with my fellow human beings not segregate them, marginalise them and break their hearts. It is really rather easy. My plan would be to break down barriers not build them. My plan would be to share the land with my brothers. The label 'jew' and 'arab' is less important than the label 'human'. One thing I would not do is cripple an entire country and murder or maim thousands of its innocent people as Israel did recently in an act so barbaric that protests took place in just about every country in the world while the US looked on and supplied more arms (bunker buster bombs particularly). We can be sure that this action has done wonders for Hezbollah recruitment and this is why all such actions are not just futile they are counter-productive. Israel is not a safer place now. It has just recruited more people to hate it. How clever is that

I fully agree with your sentiments (over use of "my plan" though) - be nice to arabs, right? I think the planned economy is a beautiful thing - pity it doesn't work. Where in your plan is your contingency to appease your electorate when one of those rockets kills hits a Tel Aviv secondary school and kills a thousand schoolchildren (not forgetting you are no longer an idealist but Israeli president)

quote:

Where many of you have gone so deeply astray on this thread is indicative of a seriously flawed mindset

The odd IMO would do you so many favours - you wouldn't come over as being so full of your own self righteousness

quote:

If someone criticises A you automatically assume they side with B

No I don't. In your case I think you have a deep rooted and entrenched viewpoint and your views are generally anti Western - I think you find it easier to believe conspiracy theories than see sense. I generally have no time for pacifists - idealistic utopians with no practical solutions IMO - practical as in 'can be done'

quote:

it makes me a person who is against causing suffering to ANY human being regardless of race, creed or nationality

I think most of us are the same.

It is well known that if you fuck with Israel they will reply ten-fold. HizBollah knew this and got exactly what they wanted.

The twin towers were not felled by the impact of the aircraft, it was the subsequent fire that did the real damage - physics not conspiracy.

quote:

quote:
There are International laws governing the reasons for waging war. It is against these laws to invade another sovereign state on the mere suspicion that they have WMD (in fact the only country in the middle east with undeclared nuclear and biological and chemical weapons is er....Israel). No WMD was found prior to the invasion and none found after the invasion. It is illegal to invade another country on the mere suspician that it may have had something to do with a terrorist act. There was not the slightest evidence to even hint that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Both the erroneous 9/11 linkage and WMD issue have been widely admitted by government officials in the US. The US will likely turn on Blair and his 'sexed up dossier' of bogus Intelligence to act as a scapegoat, and why not? He is as guilty as sin. To call the bogus reasons for invading another country 'mere semantics' is proof you do not have the first clue what you are talking about. Those guilty of waging an illegal law are war criminals and should be impeached. I am hopeful that they will be. Over 650,000 have died as a result of an illegal war.


Can't argue with you there.

Before you ram that down my throat, a slip of the slidy pad led to that - you used to be able to edit your posts on here!

What I meant to say was;

quote:

There are International laws governing the reasons for waging war. It is against these laws to invade another sovereign state on the mere suspicion that they have WMD (in fact the only country in the middle east with undeclared nuclear and biological and chemical weapons is er....Israel). No WMD was found prior to the invasion and none found after the invasion. It is illegal to invade another country on the mere suspician that it may have had something to do with a terrorist act. There was not the slightest evidence to even hint that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Both the erroneous 9/11 linkage and WMD issue have been widely admitted by government officials in the US. The US will likely turn on Blair and his 'sexed up dossier' of bogus Intelligence to act as a scapegoat, and why not? He is as guilty as sin.

Can't argue with you there.

quote:

To call the bogus reasons for invading another country 'mere semantics' is proof you do not have the first clue what you are talking about.

This makes no sense - I didn't do this.

se·man·tics [ sə mántiks ]

Definition:

1. study of meaning in language: the study of how meaning in language is created by the use and interrelationships of words, phrases, and sentences

I hate to appear condescending in the provision of a dictionary definition but I fail to see that your issue with my use of the word 'catalyst' when describing the effect of 9/11 and its relationship with the invasions (as opposed to your prefered descriptor 'excuse') can possibly be twisted by you as evidence of anything.

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:
Wrong again. The towers were built to withstand the force of 747 Jets flying into them so why did they collapse?

As a structural engineer, that is probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on this forum. Are you David Icke?

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:
Wrong again. The towers were built to withstand the force of 747 Jets flying into them so why did they collapse?

As a structural engineer, that is probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on this forum. Are you David Icke?

Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's

designed to withstand the impact of the largest airliner of the day

Towers built to withstand jet impact

The building was designed for the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft

Engineers have anticipated planes crashing into tall buildings

Leslie Robinson designed his towers to withstand being hit by a 707

Are you a qualified structural engineer?

ps of course the 'black boxes were designed to be virtually indestructible but all four were destroyed - one wonders how? 'black boxes'

Acad's links seem to support the "fire not impact" theory.

Perhaps he thinks the CIA flew the 'planes?

The taking out of small areas of the outriggers over, say, 3-5 floors would create a situation where the very minor loads to the outer skin would redistribute around the damage, because it is normal practice to design against progressive collapse anyway, but the main load is in the core. The consideration of a plane hit is one thing, but to read into that the design against a passenger airliner being deliberately flown at full speed directly into the centre of a tower is another thing entirely. You are deliberately taking this stuff out of context. An attack like that could never have been anticipated or a design be financed without "acceptable risk". What if there were 10 planes? What about a meteor strike? Do you not understand the concept of "acceptable risk"?.

quote:

Are you a qualified structural engineer?

No, I'm a reptilian alien from the planet Gullible sent to spy on the humans on their primitive internet, to ensure that they don't discover President Bush is one of our placements.

Try this one