9/11 7 years later

[acenator]

Lol at some people in this topic, "Get over 9/11, yes alot of people died, but GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!.....Poor Terrorists :cry:"

 

Where have any of us said "Poor Terrorists"?

 

People saying that the terrorists should get constitutional rights could be considered a less precise way of saying "poor terrorists."

 

 

 

As for this whole thing about the U.S. revolution, yes, they tarred and feathered the tax collectors and sometimes even the British governors sent over to help" keep the colonists in check." The difference between them and terrorists is that those weren't the general population of England and they were fighting for their own rights instead of the right to take away other peoples' rights and/or to obliterate a race of people.

 

 

 

It is true that, at first, most didn't want to secede, but after the Declaration of Independence was written and signed, each seperate state had their congressional body meet and they voted to secede. Whether they originally wanted to "just make a statement" or secede didn't really matter at this point; they were at war with the British and when you're at war, you try to win (at least, that's how it was back then; nowadays, we got people saying to just give up and wuit even when we're winning)).

 

 

 

Of course there were also the loyalist Tories who thought all the taxes and everything was fine, but these were an even smaller minority than those who thought secession was the only choice. After the Revoutionary War started, many Tories were forced off their land, but, had they been left alone, could have aided the British even more than they did from behind British lines (give them their crops for food, their houses for shelter, information on colonial troop movements, etc.).

[BlueTear]

People saying that the terrorists should get constitutional rights could be considered a less precise way of saying "poor terrorists."

No one currently interned at Guantanamo Bay deserves Geneva Convention rights (Common or full) because they're all terrorists anyway. Would that accurately surmise your position?

 

 

 

edit: Hilarious grammatical error.

[Will H]

Okay, I was just wondering about your wording, it seemed to be talking about all Americans, and assuming we all do that.

 

No, of course not, but I'm not limiting that category to Americans either. There are quite a lot of people in the UK who unnessicarily go on about 9/11 too.

[9Fade1]

Okay, I was just wondering about your wording, it seemed to be talking about all Americans, and assuming we all do that.

 

No, of course not, but I'm not limiting that category to Americans either. There are quite a lot of people in the UK who unnessicarily go on about 9/11 too.

 

 

 

 

 

yeah i'm fed up of people in britain going on about the 9th of november

[Will H]

Okay, I was just wondering about your wording, it seemed to be talking about all Americans, and assuming we all do that.

 

No, of course not, but I'm not limiting that category to Americans either. There are quite a lot of people in the UK who unnessicarily go on about 9/11 too.

 

 

 

 

 

yeah i'm fed up of people in britain going on about the 9th of november

 

:lol:

[dangeresque]

Okay, I was just wondering about your wording, it seemed to be talking about all Americans, and assuming we all do that.

 

No, of course not, but I'm not limiting that category to Americans either. There are quite a lot of people in the UK who unnessicarily go on about 9/11 too.

 

 

 

 

 

yeah i'm fed up of people in britain going on about the 9th of november

 

:lol:

 

 

 

Wow, that is epic fail, but I can see how you thought the wrong date.

 

 

 

The date was September 11th, written as 9/11 by most Americans and Canadians. However, in Europe they would right that as 11/9, which would lead one in Europe to believe the attacks were on November the 9th.

 

 

 

Still though, that was so funny :lol:

[Ginger_Warrior]

yeah i'm fed up of people in britain going on about the 9th of november

 

:lol:

 

 

 

Wow, that is epic fail, but I can see how you thought the wrong date.

 

 

 

The date was September 11th, written as 9/11 by most Americans and Canadians. However, in Europe they would right that as 11/9, which would lead one in Europe to believe the attacks were on November the 9th.

 

 

 

Still though, that was so funny :lol:

 

No, really? Anyone would think that was the point he was making.

[dangeresque]

yeah i'm fed up of people in britain going on about the 9th of november

 

:lol:

 

 

 

Wow, that is epic fail, but I can see how you thought the wrong date.

 

 

 

The date was September 11th, written as 9/11 by most Americans and Canadians. However, in Europe they would right that as 11/9, which would lead one in Europe to believe the attacks were on November the 9th.

 

 

 

Still though, that was so funny :lol:

 

No, really? Anyone would think that was the point he was making.

 

wat

[1_man_army]

As in the guy was being sarcastic in the first place, well done on missing that completely.

[dangeresque]

As in the guy was being sarcastic in the first place, well done on missing that completely.

 

Ty

[Agunimon979]

[hide=]

Also, where in the Constitution does it say we have to give prisoners of war constitutional rights? This is war.

 

 

 

ha, no it's not, War is when two armies are attacking eachother, we invaded, overthrew saddam and now we're just making sure no one steals any of their chickens

 

1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

 

2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.

 

3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.

[/hide]

 

I bolded the key parts. Just because they don't belong to any particular nation or aren't organized the same way as a conventional army doesn't mean we can't be at war with them.

 

 

 

We're not even going to war with an opposing power or parties, we're basically just fighting anti rebels and gangsters and making sure the iraqi people's chickens are safe from harm.

[acenator]

[hide=]

Also, where in the Constitution does it say we have to give prisoners of war constitutional rights? This is war.

 

 

 

ha, no it's not, War is when two armies are attacking eachother, we invaded, overthrew saddam and now we're just making sure no one steals any of their chickens

 

1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

 

2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.

 

3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.

[/hide]

 

I bolded the key parts. Just because they don't belong to any particular nation or aren't organized the same way as a conventional army doesn't mean we can't be at war with them.

 

 

 

We're not even going to war with an opposing power or parties, we're basically just fighting anti rebels and gangsters and making sure the iraqi people's chickens are safe from harm.

 

You really believe that? Yes, we are there to help make Iraq a better, safer place (a noble quest in and of itself), but we are also there to make sure that terrorists, who want to blow you to smitherenes by the way, can't set up/return to any bases from which they can attack innocent civilians around the world. Going into Iraq and Afghanistan has taken the fight to their homeland and away from ours. Would you rather we kill them there or try to stop each individual "terror cell" as they carry out plans to blow something up in the U.S. or Europe? Because I can tell you right now that if we hadn't forced them all to protect their own land, they'd be in ours planning and carrying out more attacks.

 

 

 

 

 

People saying that the terrorists should get constitutional rights could be considered a less precise way of saying "poor terrorists."

No one currently interned at Guantanamo Bay deserves Geneva Convention rights (Common or full) because they're all terrorists anyway. Would that accurately surmise your position?

 

 

 

edit: Hilarious grammatical error.

 

If you read Articles 84 and 105 of Part 3, Section 6, Chapter 3, you would see that the trials they were set up to receive in front of a military tribunal were perfectly fine under the Geneva accords.

 

 

 

As for interrogations, if you check Part 2, Article 13, you'd see that, so long as the prisoners aren't tortured to a state of health that puts their lives at risk, killed, or left to be harmed by anyone outside of the military's control, then the interrogations are perfectly legal.

 

 

 

My position is that we should do what it takes to save the lives of those whom these people would murder were they left to roam freely.

[saif]

i still think 9/11 is a government conspiracy.

 

 

 

google loose change and watch the vid... see what i'm typin about :

[RichieMcD]

i still think 9/11 is a government conspiracy.

 

 

 

google loose change and watch the vid... see what i'm typin about :

 

 

 

It's been said so many times before, why would the government have no problem killing a couple of college kids if they already killed 3,000 innocent people solely for insurance money which they weren't short of already.

[Hoobs]

i still think 9/11 is a government conspiracy.

 

 

 

google loose change and watch the vid... see what i'm typin about :

 

 

 

The points brought up in Loose Change were all proven incorrect in a History Channel program about the 9/11 Conspiracy.

 

 

 

I agree that it shouldn't be brought up every single year. We've moved on. But we shouldn't forget them.

[saif]

i still think 9/11 is a government conspiracy.

 

 

 

google loose change and watch the vid... see what i'm typin about :

 

 

 

It's been said so many times before, why would the government have no problem killing a couple of college kids if they already killed 3,000 innocent people solely for insurance money which they weren't short of already.

 

 

 

they need to get the public to fear them... If they want to have power

[warri0r45]

i still think 9/11 is a government conspiracy.

 

 

 

google loose change and watch the vid... see what i'm typin about :

 

 

 

Didn't they have to revise it twice and basically rip the guts out of it because it was exposed as nonsense?

 

 

 

Anyway, I watched a video of a debate between the people who made Loose Change and two people who debunk their claims in a book. It was interesting seeing the aggression and constant portrayal of anyone else as a liar from the conspiracy theorists, yet the relatively calm (yet intimidated) responses from the people who wrote the book.

 

 

 

Needless to say the conspiracy theorists ideas weren't compelling in the slightest. They really love jumping to conclusions. For example, it's incredibly rich of them to demand more evidence that a plane crashed into the pentagon when they claim that a missile did, with zero physical evidence whatsoever.

[BlueTear]

If you read Articles 84 and 105 of Part 3, Section 6, Chapter 3, you would see that the trials they were set up to receive in front of a military tribunal were perfectly fine under the Geneva accords.

 

 

 

As for interrogations, if you check Part 2, Article 13, you'd see that, so long as the prisoners aren't tortured to a state of health that puts their lives at risk, killed, or left to be harmed by anyone outside of the military's control, then the interrogations are perfectly legal.

 

 

 

My position is that we should do what it takes to save the lives of those whom these people would murder were they left to roam freely.

... And Article 17 states "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

 

 

 

For a political treaty, I have to say I think that section is pretty [bleep]ing unambiguous. No room for "well, we weren't really going to kill him". The first sentence of Article 13 is also an interesting - albeit slightly ambiguous - statement; "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated." Yes. Well done.

 

 

 

What I was getting at though, was the significant number of detainees released without actually being sentenced for anything. "These people", are not guilty of anything because the US military saw fit to throw them into lock-up. Which is why so many - I believe someone quoted a number earlier - have been released. You're not talking about brutal treatment for individuals whose guilt is beyond all reasonable doubt; You're talking about brutal treatment for people who were in the wrong place, at the wrong time. The fact that the preceedent that sets for your governments actions doesn't scare the [cabbage] out of you, well, scares the [cabbage] out of me.

[____]

Technically, terrorism suspects don't fall into the category of POW since they don't fight for any recognised armed forces. The problem, however, is when they screw up they've got their arsed covered by all these bloody loopholes in their own laws which allow them to torture and get away with it.

[baalboy5]

I remember 911 because of the people that rather jump to their death then going down in the collapse. It just so sad that people made those choices because of 911.

[jackattack]

If you read Articles 84 and 105 of Part 3, Section 6, Chapter 3, you would see that the trials they were set up to receive in front of a military tribunal were perfectly fine under the Geneva accords.

 

 

 

As for interrogations, if you check Part 2, Article 13, you'd see that, so long as the prisoners aren't tortured to a state of health that puts their lives at risk, killed, or left to be harmed by anyone outside of the military's control, then the interrogations are perfectly legal.

 

 

 

My position is that we should do what it takes to save the lives of those whom these people would murder were they left to roam freely.

... And Article 17 states "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

 

 

 

For a political treaty, I have to say I think that section is pretty [bleep] unambiguous. No room for "well, we weren't really going to kill him". The first sentence of Article 13 is also an interesting - albeit slightly ambiguous - statement; "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated." Yes. Well done.

 

 

 

What I was getting at though, was the significant number of detainees released without actually being sentenced for anything. "These people", are not guilty of anything because the US military saw fit to throw them into lock-up. Which is why so many - I believe someone quoted a number earlier - have been released. You're not talking about brutal treatment for individuals whose guilt is beyond all reasonable doubt; You're talking about brutal treatment for people who were in the wrong place, at the wrong time. The fact that the preceedent that sets for your governments actions doesn't scare the [cabbage] out of you, well, scares the [cabbage] out of me.

 

 

 

Just because they are releasing them doesn't mean they are innocent. They just don't have enough for a conviction for most of them. Even Osama Bin Laden's assistant who helped him escape Afghanistan when we invaded only got 5 1/2 years. They still shouldn't have let the prisoners who they aren't going to charge with anything go until the war is over. Something like 50 have been confirmed to go back to terrorism.

[BlueTear]

Just because they are releasing them doesn't mean they are innocent. They just don't have enough for a conviction for most of them. Even Osama Bin Laden's assistant who helped him escape Afghanistan when we invaded only got 5 1/2 years. They still shouldn't have let the prisoners who they aren't going to charge with anything go until the war is over. Something like 50 have been confirmed to go back to terrorism.

And this relates to "being arrested does not make you guilty" in what way...?

[jackattack]

Because being released doesn't make you innocent either.

[BlueTear]

Because being released doesn't make you innocent either.

And unless you intend to argue that everyone released is really guilty and thus deserving of torture, that's totally [bleep]ing irrelevant.

 

 

 

Thanks for sharing though.

[jackattack]

I don't seeing what being guilty has to do with torture. And I would say most of them are guilty. There are probably a few who were captured based on bad intelligence from other tribes or something but not that many.