It sucks that they are willing to use evidence obtained under torture. I suppose at least the French didn't ship him out there for the purpose.
That's what the UK can now do as well. The latest legislation from Tony Bliar has got some real nasties in it.Changleen said:
Yup, I can't help thinking that they brought that upon themselves. Even if they had been imprisoned wrongly, breaking out and killing has a good chance of ending in death.$tinkle said:
I think we can probably share...$tinkle said:
you can make terrorism go away?JMAC said:
from this:Changleen said:
the makeup of the remaining 20 is inconclusive, and as such do not know the basis for which you make your claim that the remainder have not committed a terrorist act. silly me, i actually think convicts who are in cahoots with al-queda might actually be terrorists.
no, but they certainly are.Changleen said:
How are we supposed to give someone something to live fore when they live in countries ran by corrupt governments? We could stop supporting their corrupt governments but we certainly are in no position to force feed them futures.Changleen said:
first off, the neocon agenda is too burdensome, so for that & a few other reasons, i say it needs some refinement; if we could get to a live & let live culture, then i'm buying the cristal.Changleen said:
I think you missed the point of that.$tinkle said:
Well, rather than trying to change the governments as a first step I'd suggest market reform. Enable the channels for such places to trade with the West on fair terms if they so desire. Pretty soon human greed will do all the work for you. Once you've got trade going to a decent degree (and don't do anything to artificially prop up the regieme a la Saudi) the government will almost be forced to reform to a certain extent to best capitalise on the new situation. Once you're not dealing with such an extreme difference of (capitalistic) cultures, suggesting and pressuring reforms becomes a lot easier and doesn't have to involve invasions and violence. I don't agree that we 'must' enforce democracy on everyone. I don't agree it is 'the' solution. Democracy has proven to be just as open to corruption and human rights abuses as any other system. The focus should be on making the system that you have as free and fair as possible rather than starting off with a wholesale shift as a starting point which (as demonstrated again and again) results in a lot of death and not so much change.Westy said:
Is bin Laden a terrorist in your view?Changleen said:
You really do need to come back to reality. I have no love of the neocons but that particular conspiracy theory is way out there.Changleen said:
Probably. It is beyond doubt that he has provided funding to actual terrorists, and more than likely been heavily involved in planning, which makes him a criminal - although there is little or no proof he has actually helped carry out any attacks. The definition is a bit daft really, especially for some of the people on this forum who'll happily label any Arab who doesn't buy into American culture a 'terrorist'.fluff said:
Until someone can explain some of the more ludicrous aspects of those events your denial of the issues are as 'daft' as my questions about them. How do steel framed towers, still largely intact, fall at 9.81ms-1 without planned assistance for a start? Anyway, like I said, this is not the place.fluff said:
i defer to the experts: popular mechanixChangleen said:
Lame - for many reasons. Primarily, it doesn't actually address even the point I raised, and presents the most paranoid side of most of the other issues. It by no means addresses the science of of it's claims and most of the explanations it gives are contradictory to observed conditions. For example it states that the towers fell due to weakening of the entire structure by fire throughout the building. There was no fire throughout the entire building. Indeed, the fire was largely out shortly after the impact and way before the collapse. It does not even try to address the fact that the towers fell at a speed that indicates there was zero resistance to the fall. His explanation of the squib phenomena is also screwed as if you actually watch the video, it is plain that the 'puff of debris' are ejected before the collapse of the associated floor, not during it.$tinkle said:
That doesn't explain the interview I saw with the engineer of the building who figured out what must have happened and broke up on camera about it...Changleen said:
Did you see that building in Milan that burned recently?Silver said:
Maybe, maybe not. Bush didn't need to know. To be honest after 4 years it really doesn't matter. There is the official version of events which informs world politics, so for most intents and purposes that might as well be what happened. I don't think I'll ever believe there was nothing shady about 911 though.
No, the one that burned on every floor for 18 hrs and did not fall.Silver said:
No steel framed building in the history of steel framed buildings has ever collapsed by fire except fot WTC 1+2. WTC7 apparantly had the order given for it to be 'pulled' 8 hours after impact 1. Review the video of the failure mode of WTC7 and then compare it to 1+2.
wrt the video of puffs:Changleen said:
interesting you would deem popular mechanics refutable, and all the while not providing a source in kind.Changleen said:
halliburton?Changleen said:
So? The puff is still distinctly (2+ stories) in advance of the collapse front. A 'shallow bowling' would make no difference.$tinkle said:
Go look at the 'contact us' section. Oh, it's owned by a huge media corporation. Shocker! Seriously, for a 'serious' article, it's awful light on technical details, and far, far from a comprehensive rebuttal.
EVERY gov't has some corruption.
