| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/16/2004 02:21:24 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
What is it you would like me to come away with from that very long timeline article of the first link you posted below? The article brings up many discrepancies about Norad's response to scramble jet fighters:
"8:46 a.m. At the time of the first WTC crash, three F-16s assigned to Andrews Air Force Base 10 miles from Washington are flying an air-to-ground training mission on a range in North Carolina, 207 miles away. Eventually they are recalled to Andrews and land there at some point after Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 9/9/02] F-16s can travel a maximum speed of 1500 mph. Traveling even at 1100 mph, the speed NORAD Major General Larry Arnold says two fighters from Massachusetts travel toward Flight 175, at least one of the F-16s could have returned to Washington within 10 minutes and started patrolling the skies well before 9:00 a.m. Why are they recalled so late, and then ordered back to base (and then to take off again) instead of being sent straight to Washington?" |
First of all, you're playing dirty pool. That entire quote of yours was NOT from the link that I posted. Rather, it was from a different link - HERE
And that thread contains many twisted versions of the truth.
In fact, the three F-16's that that link says were over North Carolina were 1) NOT Regular Military aircraft, but those of the Air National Guard; 2) on an air-to-GROUND training mission ( hence, not equipped with air-to-air armament ). Also, their squadron, the 121st ANG, was NOT on alert on Sept. 11th because it was not assigned to the North American Aerospace Defense Command. Ref THIS Article which YOUR article quotes ( though not in full truthfullness ).
Ron
(edited to fix link syntax)
Message edited by author 2004-03-16 14:23:38. |
|
|
|
03/16/2004 04:00:43 PM · #127 |
they also had tanks and men and guns that they didn't use against us. They had WMD is 1991 and didn't use it either.
Fact, 30,000,000 people have been freed from murderous oppretion, and all you can do is complain about it.
To paraphrase Tony Blair - if we hadn't overthrown Saddam, who would celebrate and who would weep?
So, the war with Iraq (which was called Operation Iraqi Freedom BTW) had nothing to do with the war on terrorism, but the terroristist attacked us because of it? Where were the attacks in retaliation for Afghanistan?
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Wouldn't you have to ask: if Hussein had the wmd's when we invaded Iraq last year, then wouldn't he have used them on coalition troops since he's a madman if he had them?
Originally posted by Zeissman:
RonB,
Thanks for being a voice of reason on here. To those that say there have been no WMD is Iraq since 1994, you may want to look in the 2/17/2003 issue of the Seattle PI to find an article on the UN destroying mustard gas stash that was discovered in 1998, but inspectors were forced to leave before it could be destroyed.
Now, if they didn't destroy weapons that they knew we had found, why would they destroy others that we didnt?
BTW, I am very sorry for the loss of life in Spain, and I am equally saddenned that the terrorists won that battle, which will probably embolden them and lead to more terrorism against countries that dare take a stand. |
|
|
|
|
|
03/16/2004 04:11:26 PM · #128 |
And now the wire is reporting al-Qaeda threatens France.
Certainly at some point....those who wanted to stick their head in the sand, will find no friends in al-Qaeda. They will be forced to make some tough decisions. Decisions that should have been made in concert a year ago.
The wire is also reporting that al-Qaeda planners had targeted Spain as the "weak" link with at least 3 major "events" planned (over the last year) to influence the withdrawl of Spainsh troops from Iraq.
Obviously the wires could be all wrong on these stories. Time will tell.
edited to correct spelling
Message edited by author 2004-03-17 06:27:39.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2004 07:01:59 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I believe that it is prudent for Presidents to act diliberately, and with calmness in the face of such calamity. People see his demeanor and act accordingly. No panic ensues. Resolve, yes; Panic, no.
Ron |
I agree and believe that is precisely what I was trying to describe ... sitting around discussing the matter with one's top advisors is not quite the same as sitting in an elementary school classroom listening to a child read a story. Pleasse try my little role-play in real-time and see just how LONG five minutes is.
I don't understand why you keep trying to make out I'm saying something I'm not, changing the subject, or drawing false and misleading analogies, except that it's a well-known debating technique when you have no logic or facts with which to defend your position.
Unless you mean to imply that he didn't need to go get more info right away since he already knew what was going on ... I suppose THEN he could just calmy sit there for five minutes, knowing his indifference to the situation wouldn't change anything. |
|
|
|
03/16/2004 07:04:23 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by andywightman:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by andywightman:
since on the basis of their claims, we invaded a sovereign country in a pre-emptive military strike killing thousands of innocent people. |
I challenge you to back up the claim that our military killed "thousands" of innocent people. Soldiers don't count. Human shields don't count. And I would also not include those innocents who died as a result of being used by the Iraqi military for cover. It is against the "rules of war" to use civilians as shields. If they died as a result of military action against Iraqi military targets, then it is the Iraqis who are responsible for their deaths, not our military.
Ron |
The most authoritative source on this subject is //www.iraqbodycount.net
For example, " As many as 10,000 non-combatant civilian deaths during 2003 have been reliably reported so far as a result of the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq . These reports provide figures which range between a minimum of 8,235 and a maximum of 10,079 as of Saturday 7th February 2004." at //www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial_feb0704.htm
Personally, I do include innocent conscript soldiers as innocent people. If we hadn't invaded they'd still be alive. But even excluding them the count is in thousands. Not all of these innocents died directly at the hand of the invading forces but they died as a consequence of the war that the invaders initiated. |
I took a look at "the most authoratative source" you linked to and the first entry I saw looks like this:
Incident Code: K021
Date: 01 Feb
Time: 11:00 AM
Location: Irbil
Target: offices of PUK and KDP
Weapons suicide bombers carrying explosives
Reported Minimum: 107
Reported Maximum: 109
Sources: AP 04 Feb; NYT 10 Feb
I did not do a complete analysis, but I don't think that I would include the victims of suicide bombers in MY "civilian death" count, unless the suicide bomber was a U.S. Infantryman. There are row after row of similar "incidents".
Ron |
Just to clear this up - a visual analysis is provided HERE based upon iraqbodycount.net. Between 20 March 2003 and 2 May 2003, approximately 7500 civilian vasualties were inflicted out of a total of arouind 10,000 in total since the outbreak of hostilities. So 7,500 innocent civilians died as a consequence of the invasion during the period of official hostilities. |
|
|
|
03/17/2004 12:51:51 AM · #131 |
I am not "playing dirty pool" as you've suggested. When I went to the web site of the first link you posted the first thing I saw was the article entitled: "Bush on 9/11." Since you wanted me to look at the chronology of events surrounding 9/11 I went immediately to the left of that article to one entitled "The Complete 9/11 Timeline." That's what I thought you wanted me to read. That's where I pulled out the quotes from. I did nothing wrong here and don't you go accusing me of any wrong doing on my part.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
What is it you would like me to come away with from that very long timeline article of the first link you posted below? The article brings up many discrepancies about Norad's response to scramble jet fighters:
"8:46 a.m. At the time of the first WTC crash, three F-16s assigned to Andrews Air Force Base 10 miles from Washington are flying an air-to-ground training mission on a range in North Carolina, 207 miles away. Eventually they are recalled to Andrews and land there at some point after Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 9/9/02] F-16s can travel a maximum speed of 1500 mph. Traveling even at 1100 mph, the speed NORAD Major General Larry Arnold says two fighters from Massachusetts travel toward Flight 175, at least one of the F-16s could have returned to Washington within 10 minutes and started patrolling the skies well before 9:00 a.m. Why are they recalled so late, and then ordered back to base (and then to take off again) instead of being sent straight to Washington?" |
First of all, you're playing dirty pool. That entire quote of yours was NOT from the link that I posted. Rather, it was from a different link - HERE
And that thread contains many twisted versions of the truth.
In fact, the three F-16's that that link says were over North Carolina were 1) NOT Regular Military aircraft, but those of the Air National Guard; 2) on an air-to-GROUND training mission ( hence, not equipped with air-to-air armament ). Also, their squadron, the 121st ANG, was NOT on alert on Sept. 11th because it was not assigned to the North American Aerospace Defense Command. Ref THIS Article which YOUR article quotes ( though not in full truthfullness ).
Ron
(edited to fix link syntax) |
|
|
|
|
03/17/2004 09:25:38 AM · #132 |
I thought I'd post this before anyone else (like my son) found it.
 |
|
|
|
03/17/2004 10:19:12 AM · #133 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I am not "playing dirty pool" as you've suggested. When I went to the web site of the first link you posted the first thing I saw was the article entitled: "Bush on 9/11." Since you wanted me to look at the chronology of events surrounding 9/11 I went immediately to the left of that article to one entitled "The Complete 9/11 Timeline." That's what I thought you wanted me to read. That's where I pulled out the quotes from. I did nothing wrong here and don't you go accusing me of any wrong doing on my part. |
When I went to the link that YOU posted about the F-16's, I found another link to the full Aviation Week article, that I quoted in response. Note that I did not say "the article that you linked to", but rather explicitly pointed out that it was a link in that article, not in the article itself.
I apologize for saying that it was "dirty pool" but do maintain that it was misleading.
Ron |
|
|
|
03/17/2004 11:10:03 AM · #134 |
Ron, that you for the apology, it made me feel better as I did not mean to be misleading or underhanded in anyway. Apology accepted.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I am not "playing dirty pool" as you've suggested. When I went to the web site of the first link you posted the first thing I saw was the article entitled: "Bush on 9/11." Since you wanted me to look at the chronology of events surrounding 9/11 I went immediately to the left of that article to one entitled "The Complete 9/11 Timeline." That's what I thought you wanted me to read. That's where I pulled out the quotes from. I did nothing wrong here and don't you go accusing me of any wrong doing on my part. |
When I went to the link that YOU posted about the F-16's, I found another link to the full Aviation Week article, that I quoted in response. Note that I did not say "the article that you linked to", but rather explicitly pointed out that it was a link in that article, not in the article itself.
I apologize for saying that it was "dirty pool" but do maintain that it was misleading.
Ron |
|
|
|
|
03/17/2004 11:11:27 AM · #135 |
Ron, thank you for the apology, it did make me feel alot better, as I did not mean to be misleading or underhanded in anyway. Apology accepted.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I am not "playing dirty pool" as you've suggested. When I went to the web site of the first link you posted the first thing I saw was the article entitled: "Bush on 9/11." Since you wanted me to look at the chronology of events surrounding 9/11 I went immediately to the left of that article to one entitled "The Complete 9/11 Timeline." That's what I thought you wanted me to read. That's where I pulled out the quotes from. I did nothing wrong here and don't you go accusing me of any wrong doing on my part. |
When I went to the link that YOU posted about the F-16's, I found another link to the full Aviation Week article, that I quoted in response. Note that I did not say "the article that you linked to", but rather explicitly pointed out that it was a link in that article, not in the article itself.
I apologize for saying that it was "dirty pool" but do maintain that it was misleading.
Ron |
|
|
|
|
03/17/2004 12:22:46 PM · #136 |
General, I really don't understand your point? How would the world be any different if the President had left in 13 sec, or 5 min? This is just the silliest kind of nit-picking. Itis diverting the argument to something of absolutely no consequense.
It probably took him a few minute to completely obsorb the information. I was listening to it as it actually happened, and I didn't even believe it until I could confirm it.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
I believe that it is prudent for Presidents to act diliberately, and with calmness in the face of such calamity. People see his demeanor and act accordingly. No panic ensues. Resolve, yes; Panic, no.
Ron |
I agree and believe that is precisely what I was trying to describe ... sitting around discussing the matter with one's top advisors is not quite the same as sitting in an elementary school classroom listening to a child read a story. Pleasse try my little role-play in real-time and see just how LONG five minutes is.
I don't understand why you keep trying to make out I'm saying something I'm not, changing the subject, or drawing false and misleading analogies, except that it's a well-known debating technique when you have no logic or facts with which to defend your position.
Unless you mean to imply that he didn't need to go get more info right away since he already knew what was going on ... I suppose THEN he could just calmy sit there for five minutes, knowing his indifference to the situation wouldn't change anything. |
|
|
|
|
03/17/2004 01:47:51 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by Zeissman:
General, I really don't understand your point? How would the world be any different if the President had left in 13 sec, or 5 min? |
I also do not fully understand the relevance of reaction time. I believe it is intended to convey a sense of not caring on the part of the President, or a sense that reading a story to a children's class was more important than taking comand of the situation.
I do not believe either of these scenarios to be accurate.
Personally, I was in a factory in Romulus, Michigan...when someone mentioned that a plane had just flown into a building in New York. It did not move me to go seek out a TV, nor did it strike me as reason to listen to the radio on the drive home. It wasn't until several hours after the fact that I even knew the scope of the carnage or that there were 2 planes/2 buildings, let alone the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.
Not that anyone reading this has committed or participated in an act of deception, like adultery, but often the victim of the cheater is challenged to recall all the signs and signals that they should have picked up on. The warnings of the event that was to come. Deception by its very nature is intended to "Fly under the radar" so to speak, and go unnoticed. Many times, even when it is fairly obvious to others outside the relationship, the person violated refuses to "see" the pattern before them. Often, even after the fact, the violator is forgiven or at least continues in the relationship.
We are seeing many examples in the news of violators that were within the grasp of law enforcement, known to law enforcement, known to neighbors, known to the family to be unstable, etc etc etc. Perhaps we need a self assessment.....the old "see the plank in your eye, before pointing out the sliver in your brothers". Monday morning quarterbacking and reviewing the game films are valuable as long as we use them to improve. Caution should be used when the intent is to destroy.
This political season will be a choice between essentially 2 candidates, neither of which is necessarily the best person for the job. So that will leave us with ideology as a determinate. Choose carefully. We will live and or die by our decisions. The actions of my generation caused the congress to stumble, be uncommitted, question their resolve to finish what was entered into. Consequently, many thousands of american boys were killed....one of which I will travel to DC this Memorial Day to rub his name off a wall. War is a terrible thing. Unwelcome by any who have ever experienced it. But a war we have. A war against terrorist cells that want you dead. A cleansing if you will of the infidels. The choice is ours. Fight now or fight later, but we will be forced to fight. I pray that our resolve does not cost more thousands of lives, because we were uncommitted to finish what was started.
Flash
|
|
|
|
03/17/2004 02:14:14 PM · #138 |
| what if it meant bush knew what was coming? after all, its known that the bush family and bin laden family have deep finacial ties (why that is not all over the news only shows how gov controls media even further). and its also been said by many inside the white house that bush wanted his hands on iraq way before 9/11 started. and we all know 9/11 started what was bush's modivation for invading iraq. |
|
|
|
03/17/2004 02:19:06 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
what if it meant bush knew what was coming? after all, its known that the bush family and bin laden family have deep finacial ties (why that is not all over the news only shows how gov controls media even further). and its also been said by many inside the white house that bush wanted his hands on iraq way before 9/11 started. and we all know 9/11 started what was bush's modivation for invading iraq. |
It's really not hard to respond to this post by reaching through the internet and hitting you with a pot...
Working backwards, OF COURSE BUSH HAD PLANS FOR IRAQ before 9/11. Not only was he USING PLANS AND ACTIONS LEFT TO HIM BY Clinton, but Iraq was activly breaking UN mandates and shoving it in our face. I would be mad if he DIDN"T have plans before hand...
As to your first accusation? I'm not going to reward this stupidity with anything other than saying your doing nothing but repeating the words of some wacked out extremist making stuff up. The same people that think that also think we already have Osama in custody, but HAVE ABSOLUTLY ZERO PROOOF, other than that they dislike Bush....
you should go here
Message edited by author 2004-03-17 14:28:18.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2004 02:26:06 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
what if it meant bush knew what was coming? after all, its known that the bush family and bin laden family have deep finacial ties (why that is not all over the news only shows how gov controls media even further). and its also been said by many inside the white house that bush wanted his hands on iraq way before 9/11 started. and we all know 9/11 started what was bush's modivation for invading iraq. |
MadMordegon,
I believe I follow your thought process. Because of financial ties bewteen Bush and the Bin Laden Family, Bush probably had foreknowledge of the Sept. 11th attack, sat in a classroom reading to children because he already knew that it was going to happen, and used that event to launch a war against Iraq, which he was going to do anyway.
Having been a participant in some underground anti-war activities many years ago, I am familiar with the rehtoric. I even believed it once. I have a different perspective now. I know that you are seeking truth and that you feel passionately about your positions. I hope that 30 years from now, you will not have regrets as I do.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2004 02:28:00 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by andywightman:
Just to clear this up - a visual analysis is provided HERE based upon iraqbodycount.net. Between 20 March 2003 and 2 May 2003, approximately 7500 civilian vasualties were inflicted out of a total of arouind 10,000 in total since the outbreak of hostilities. So 7,500 innocent civilians died as a consequence of the invasion during the period of official hostilities. |
Now, that's another interesting website. Beneath the long list of X's showing the "Iraqi Civilian Fatalities" column, there are these two lines:
"4,895 to 6,370 (independent estimates) Shown here are 5,633 - the average of the two estimates.
Sources: DoD, CentCom and Anitwar.com"
Now, if you took the time to go to those sources, you would find that there are no Iraqi Civilian Fatalities listed at either DoD or CentCom, but at Antiwar.com you find THIS line:
"Iraqi Military (independent estimate) 4,895 to 6,370"; Ref HERE
Now isn't that interesting? The Antiwar.com website says 4,895 to 6,370 Iraqi MILITARY fatalities, but somehow that got translated to Iraqi CIVILIAN fatalities on the Infoshout.com website.
Now, which would you believe?
Never mind, you don't have to tell me. I already know.
Ron |
|
|
|
03/17/2004 04:27:44 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by andywightman:
Just to clear this up - a visual analysis is provided HERE based upon iraqbodycount.net. Between 20 March 2003 and 2 May 2003, approximately 7500 civilian vasualties were inflicted out of a total of arouind 10,000 in total since the outbreak of hostilities. So 7,500 innocent civilians died as a consequence of the invasion during the period of official hostilities. |
Now, that's another interesting website. Beneath the long list of X's showing the "Iraqi Civilian Fatalities" column, there are these two lines:
"4,895 to 6,370 (independent estimates) Shown here are 5,633 - the average of the two estimates.
Sources: DoD, CentCom and Anitwar.com"
Now, if you took the time to go to those sources, you would find that there are no Iraqi Civilian Fatalities listed at either DoD or CentCom, but at Antiwar.com you find THIS line:
"Iraqi Military (independent estimate) 4,895 to 6,370"; Ref HERE
Now isn't that interesting? The Antiwar.com website says 4,895 to 6,370 Iraqi MILITARY fatalities, but somehow that got translated to Iraqi CIVILIAN fatalities on the Infoshout.com website.
Now, which would you believe?
Never mind, you don't have to tell me. I already know.
Ron |
Nothing got mixed up. The. website in question shows two large blocks of crosses. The first is for civilians and the second is for Iraqi military. The 4895 to 6370 figures appear quite clearly beneath the Iraqi Military Fatalities, not the civilian numbers. The reference under Iraqi civilian casualties is the iraqbodycount website.
Perhaps you scrolled down the page too fast?
I think these figures are as well established as it's possible to get. I only engaged in this thread to confirm that my original assertion of thousands is in fact borne out by the best available evidence.
Hope you agree ? |
|
|
|
03/17/2004 05:36:17 PM · #143 |
Let's say there were 5,000 killed, that is a far cry from the 500,000 that the UN estimated, and that the liberals quoted - they lied, they lied! Of course, most of those attacking US troops did not wear uniforms, were they soldiers or civilians?
I am sure a site named iraqbodycount.com is extremely fair and balanced.
How many civilians did Saddam kill each year? How many lives saved by this war? |
|
|
|
03/17/2004 06:18:47 PM · #144 |
|
|
|
03/17/2004 07:16:51 PM · #145 |
| ouch russel. taking things a little personal? oh well, to each his own. |
|
|
|
03/17/2004 07:29:38 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
ouch russel. taking things a little personal? oh well, to each his own. |
No I just feel sorry for you, and for our future seeing as how I'm sure you can vote...
An early president of the United States once said that the:
"One of the most dangerous threats to our country is an uneducated voter"
No it's not a direct quote and I can't find out who said it now, but thats the jist of it. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson though.
Message edited by author 2004-03-17 19:30:07.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2004 07:32:18 PM · #147 |
And who exactly do you think IS fair and balanced?
BTW...wasn't it Fox News that sued the comedian Al Franken for using that phrase and lost? That's just an aside.
Originally posted by Zeissman:
Let's say there were 5,000 killed, that is a far cry from the 500,000 that the UN estimated, and that the liberals quoted - they lied, they lied! Of course, most of those attacking US troops did not wear uniforms, were they soldiers or civilians?
I am sure a site named iraqbodycount.com is extremely fair and balanced.
How many civilians did Saddam kill each year? How many lives saved by this war? |
|
|
|
|
03/17/2004 07:40:27 PM · #148 |
russel, i find it a little hard to believe that you being only 23 and having 2 of your own business's you could find the time to be an expert in politics, as the way you talk would suggest you are an authority on the subject.
but as allways, i could be wrong. |
|
|
|
03/17/2004 07:40:43 PM · #149 |
In the news:
The independent panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks announced Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as their counterparts in the Clinton administration, William Cohen and Madeleine Albright will all testify at a two-day hearing next week. CIA Director George Tenet and Clinton's national security advisor Sandy Berger will also testify. One top official who is not scheduled to appear is national security advisor Condoleezza Rice who repeatedly declined on the advice of the White House, citing separation of powers.
Meanwhile Time Magazine reports the President Bush-appointed panel to examine intelligence failures before the invasion of Iraq has yet to meet -- five weeks after the committee was formed. It is unclear when the panel will hold its first meeting.
Blurb found at: www.democracynow.org |
|
|
|
03/17/2004 10:50:22 PM · #150 |
From that ultra-liberal pinko commie rag,
Business Week.
Toting the Casualties of War
Since members of the current administration seem so bent on stonewalling on the issue of the civilian casualty count from the last war on Iraq, I feel it incumbent to have a healthy skepticism of any information they may deign to divulge to us now. |
|
