The Gravest Threat to World Peace

[georgephillip]

georgephillip,

This is a very tough question.

Rocco...did you support the US government's decision to invade and occupy Iraq?

(COMMENT)

Did I believe that it was a right decision? No

Did I support the government? Yes I served in Iraq a total of 5 years.

v/r
R

Thanks for your honesty.
Once again you seem to rise above the pettiness many on this board (myself included) regularly display.

Here's a question that may be even tougher for someone in your position to face:

If the event that set in motion the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq depended upon the complicity of elements within the US government, which is the greater crime, the murder of nearly 3000 Americans or the cover up that has followed?

Building 7 Implosion: The Smoking Gun of 9/11

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

Yes, in the aftermath of every major traumatic event, there will be a trail of conspiracy theories that accuse everyone from a Kindergarden Class to Santa and his Elves for the event.

Here's a question that may be even tougher for someone in your position to face:

If the event that set in motion the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq depended upon the complicity of elements within the US government, which is the greater crime, the murder of nearly 3000 Americans or the cover up that has followed?

Building 7 Implosion: The Smoking Gun of 9/11

(COMMENT)

There will always be those that think they have uncovered some "smoking gun." It will be a fruitless but never-ending series of theories and debunking. Generally, theories get the upper hand because there are always unknowns in an event.

There is nothing disclosed in the ae911truth article that hasn't already been examined and debunked.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

ima,

Is this an accusatory question?

How many of the iraqis that you shot were innocent?

(QUESTION)

How do you know I shot anyone?

(COMMENT)

This kind of question says something about the that which asks it.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ima]

ima,

Is this an accusatory question?

How many of the iraqis that you shot were innocent?

(QUESTION)

How do you know I shot anyone?

(COMMENT)

This kind of question says something about the that which asks it.

Most Respectfully,
R

Cmon, you were there for 5 years and never fragged anyone? What were you, the official potato peeler?

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip, et al,

Yes, in the aftermath of every major traumatic event, there will be a trail of conspiracy theories that accuse everyone from a Kindergarden Class to Santa and his Elves for the event.

Here's a question that may be even tougher for someone in your position to face:

If the event that set in motion the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq depended upon the complicity of elements within the US government, which is the greater crime, the murder of nearly 3000 Americans or the cover up that has followed?

Building 7 Implosion: The Smoking Gun of 9/11

(COMMENT)

There will always be those that think they have uncovered some "smoking gun." It will be a fruitless but never-ending series of theories and debunking. Generally, theories get the upper hand because there are always unknowns in an event.

There is nothing disclosed in the ae911truth article that hasn't already been examined and debunked.

Most Respectfully,
R

"Let’s consider the evidence:
Speed of Collapse
As documented by video footage, Building 7 collapsed at free-fall acceleration for a distance of more than 100 feet – equal to at least eight stories."

Building 7 Implosion: The Smoking Gun of 9/11

 

[Hossfly]

georgephillip, et al,

Yes, in the aftermath of every major traumatic event, there will be a trail of conspiracy theories that accuse everyone from a Kindergarden Class to Santa and his Elves for the event.

Here's a question that may be even tougher for someone in your position to face:

If the event that set in motion the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq depended upon the complicity of elements within the US government, which is the greater crime, the murder of nearly 3000 Americans or the cover up that has followed?

Building 7 Implosion: The Smoking Gun of 9/11

(COMMENT)

There will always be those that think they have uncovered some "smoking gun." It will be a fruitless but never-ending series of theories and debunking. Generally, theories get the upper hand because there are always unknowns in an event.

There is nothing disclosed in the ae911truth article that hasn't already been examined and debunked.

Most Respectfully,
R

"Let’s consider the evidence:
Speed of Collapse
As documented by video footage, Building 7 collapsed at free-fall acceleration for a distance of more than 100 feet – equal to at least eight stories."

Building 7 Implosion: The Smoking Gun of 9/11

Serious question: How many floors were above the points of impact of the planes that hit each building? I don't have time to google it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

georgephillip, et al,

Yes, in the aftermath of every major traumatic event, there will be a trail of conspiracy theories that accuse everyone from a Kindergarden Class to Santa and his Elves for the event.


(COMMENT)

There will always be those that think they have uncovered some "smoking gun." It will be a fruitless but never-ending series of theories and debunking. Generally, theories get the upper hand because there are always unknowns in an event.

There is nothing disclosed in the ae911truth article that hasn't already been examined and debunked.

Most Respectfully,
R

"Let’s consider the evidence:
Speed of Collapse
As documented by video footage, Building 7 collapsed at free-fall acceleration for a distance of more than 100 feet – equal to at least eight stories."

Building 7 Implosion: The Smoking Gun of 9/11

Serious question: How many floors were above the points of impact of the planes that hit each building? I don't have time to google it.

No plane hit bldg. 7.

 

[Hossfly]

"Let’s consider the evidence:
Speed of Collapse
As documented by video footage, Building 7 collapsed at free-fall acceleration for a distance of more than 100 feet – equal to at least eight stories."

Building 7 Implosion: The Smoking Gun of 9/11

Serious question: How many floors were above the points of impact of the planes that hit each building? I don't have time to google it.

No plane hit bldg. 7.

Why, Tinnie, with two big planes hitting the other buildings, you don't think that Bldg. 7 got hit with some of the debris that made it feasible to pull down. Why not do some research and find out why that building was taken down? And why not read how the person who leased those buildings from the New York Port Authority still had to pay on his lease even though he was not collecting anything from sublessees on the buildings which were no longer there. I don't think even you would pull down a building if you thought you would still have to pay the authorities from whom you leased the building if there was not some good reason to do so.. How nice, though, that there are so many conspiracy nuts in this country!!! Maybe instead of telling us that Elvis is still alive, Tinnie will tell us he spotted Arafat wandering around Pennsylvania.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Serious question: How many floors were above the points of impact of the planes that hit each building? I don't have time to google it.

No plane hit bldg. 7.

Why, Tinnie, with two big planes hitting the other buildings, you don't think that Bldg. 7 got hit with some of the debris that made it feasible to pull down. Why not do some research and find out why that building was taken down? And why not read how the person who leased those buildings from the New York Port Authority still had to pay on his lease even though he was not collecting anything from sublessees on the buildings which were no longer there. I don't think even you would pull down a building if you thought you would still have to pay the authorities from whom you leased the building if there was not some good reason to do so.. How nice, though, that there are so many conspiracy nuts in this country!!! Maybe instead of telling us that Elvis is still alive, Tinnie will tell us he spotted Arafat wandering around Pennsylvania.

...you don't think that Bldg. 7 got hit with some of the debris that made it feasible to pull down.

Sure, there was some damage to the building on one side. If that damage was enough to cause a collapse it would have fallen over to that side. Falling straight down was impossible.

 

[Hossfly]

No plane hit bldg. 7.

Why, Tinnie, with two big planes hitting the other buildings, you don't think that Bldg. 7 got hit with some of the debris that made it feasible to pull down. Why not do some research and find out why that building was taken down? And why not read how the person who leased those buildings from the New York Port Authority still had to pay on his lease even though he was not collecting anything from sublessees on the buildings which were no longer there. I don't think even you would pull down a building if you thought you would still have to pay the authorities from whom you leased the building if there was not some good reason to do so.. How nice, though, that there are so many conspiracy nuts in this country!!! Maybe instead of telling us that Elvis is still alive, Tinnie will tell us he spotted Arafat wandering around Pennsylvania.

...you don't think that Bldg. 7 got hit with some of the debris that made it feasible to pull down.

Sure, there was some damage to the building on one side. If that damage was enough to cause a collapse it would have fallen over to that side. Falling straight down was impossible.

It fell straight up then?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Why, Tinnie, with two big planes hitting the other buildings, you don't think that Bldg. 7 got hit with some of the debris that made it feasible to pull down. Why not do some research and find out why that building was taken down? And why not read how the person who leased those buildings from the New York Port Authority still had to pay on his lease even though he was not collecting anything from sublessees on the buildings which were no longer there. I don't think even you would pull down a building if you thought you would still have to pay the authorities from whom you leased the building if there was not some good reason to do so.. How nice, though, that there are so many conspiracy nuts in this country!!! Maybe instead of telling us that Elvis is still alive, Tinnie will tell us he spotted Arafat wandering around Pennsylvania.

...you don't think that Bldg. 7 got hit with some of the debris that made it feasible to pull down.

Sure, there was some damage to the building on one side. If that damage was enough to cause a collapse it would have fallen over to that side. Falling straight down was impossible.

It fell straight up then?

Say it like you think it.

Duh, It fell straight up then?

 

[P F Tinmore]

georgephillip, et al,

The assumption here is that:

1. That establishment of Israel was contingent upon those that "swarmed in from Europe."
2. That the "Arabs always had a majority" is somehow a necessary and sufficient condition for the prevention of the Jewish Homeland.

Unspoken here, but certainly implied, is that the majority (the Arab Palestinians):

1. Has more inherent rights than any immigrant; the "swarmed in from Europe."
2. That only the majority has the right of self-determination and the right to establish a homeland.

Most of the Jews swarmed in from Europe.
Arabs always had a majority in Mandate Palestine prior to al-Nakba.

(COMMENT)

I've also noticed, during the course of the discussions, that:

• The Arab Palestinian insists that there is no objection raised to the incorporation of the 70%+ of the British Mandate to Jordan, a separate sovereignty, but there was an inordinate objection to the half of the remaining 30%(-) for the establishment of the Jewish homeland. (Somehow the Allied Powers have the right to carve-out territory for an Arab State of Jordan --- and that is OK --- that is different. But then they don't have the authority to carve-out a Jewish State; that is somehow wrong.)
• The Arab Palestinian insists it had some sovereign tie (historical control) to the territory, over and beyond that of the Mandate by the Allied Powers, that of the Ottomans, that of the Mamelukes before them, that of the Filastin, or Pompey, or Alexander the Great, or Cyrus the Great, or the Babylonian, or the Assyrians, or King David of the Israelites, or even the Canaanites, when the historical lineage of control was clearly always another. And so, the Palestinian claims to have been slighted by the Allied Powers of their territorial right to control; a control the Palestinian never had going back 3000 years. They constantly refer to it as "their land" and constantly say Britain didn't own it and had no right to give it away. When was it ever under the Palestinians right and control? (Never!)

I have often heard, in these discussions, talk about borders. When did the Palestinians establish borders, and when was their Kingdom established? Who was their first ruler and how did he (she, it) come to control Palestine. Other than that afforded the Palestinian in UN GA Res 181 (II), when did the Rulers of Palestine ever grant the opportunity for the Palestinians to exercise self-rule? (I think maybe never. Yet in the one time they are granted that option, they get greedy and rejected it.)

I am just amazed.

Most Respectfully,
R

You stated in another post.

When Israel steps outside the accepted lines of the "Rule of Law," then I support the "Rule of Law" over and above the interests of Israel. I don't support Israel, in a "right or wrong" condition. Just as I don't oppose the Palestinian whether they are "right or wrong." The "Rule of Law" takes precedence in both cases.

That is the position I have always taken.

Who has the right to the land?

Who has the right to self determination?

Who has the right to a state?

Who has the right to defend themselves?

I believe that in every case the Palestinians hold those rights.

 

[irosie91]

georgephillip, et al,

The assumption here is that:

1. That establishment of Israel was contingent upon those that "swarmed in from Europe."
2. That the "Arabs always had a majority" is somehow a necessary and sufficient condition for the prevention of the Jewish Homeland.

Unspoken here, but certainly implied, is that the majority (the Arab Palestinians):

1. Has more inherent rights than any immigrant; the "swarmed in from Europe."
2. That only the majority has the right of self-determination and the right to establish a homeland.

Most of the Jews swarmed in from Europe.
Arabs always had a majority in Mandate Palestine prior to al-Nakba.

(COMMENT)

I've also noticed, during the course of the discussions, that:

• The Arab Palestinian insists that there is no objection raised to the incorporation of the 70%+ of the British Mandate to Jordan, a separate sovereignty, but there was an inordinate objection to the half of the remaining 30%(-) for the establishment of the Jewish homeland. (Somehow the Allied Powers have the right to carve-out territory for an Arab State of Jordan --- and that is OK --- that is different. But then they don't have the authority to carve-out a Jewish State; that is somehow wrong.)
• The Arab Palestinian insists it had some sovereign tie (historical control) to the territory, over and beyond that of the Mandate by the Allied Powers, that of the Ottomans, that of the Mamelukes before them, that of the Filastin, or Pompey, or Alexander the Great, or Cyrus the Great, or the Babylonian, or the Assyrians, or King David of the Israelites, or even the Canaanites, when the historical lineage of control was clearly always another. And so, the Palestinian claims to have been slighted by the Allied Powers of their territorial right to control; a control the Palestinian never had going back 3000 years. They constantly refer to it as "their land" and constantly say Britain didn't own it and had no right to give it away. When was it ever under the Palestinians right and control? (Never!)

I have often heard, in these discussions, talk about borders. When did the Palestinians establish borders, and when was their Kingdom established? Who was their first ruler and how did he (she, it) come to control Palestine. Other than that afforded the Palestinian in UN GA Res 181 (II), when did the Rulers of Palestine ever grant the opportunity for the Palestinians to exercise self-rule? (I think maybe never. Yet in the one time they are granted that option, they get greedy and rejected it.)

I am just amazed.

Most Respectfully,
R

You stated in another post.

When Israel steps outside the accepted lines of the "Rule of Law," then I support the "Rule of Law" over and above the interests of Israel. I don't support Israel, in a "right or wrong" condition. Just as I don't oppose the Palestinian whether they are "right or wrong." The "Rule of Law" takes precedence in both cases.

That is the position I have always taken.

Who has the right to the land?

Who has the right to self determination?

Who has the right to a state?

Who has the right to defend themselves?

I believe that in every case the Palestinians hold those rights.

All people SHOULD have such rights No people should be subject
to the kind of oppression that non muslims face under islamic rule.
The secession of south sudan from sudan is a great victory---compensation
to the victims and freeing of the children enslaved under the filth that tinnie
supports remains an issue. I support enslavement of the children of those
who support the DHIMMI ORPHAN law that threatened the life of my
mother-in-law and which has resulted in the enslavement and rape
and abuse of tens of thousands of children under the KHARTOUM
regime that tinnie supports

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

These are good (very good) questions!

That is the position I have always taken.

Who has the right to the land?

Who has the right to self determination?

Who has the right to a state?

Who has the right to defend themselves?

I believe that in every case the Palestinians hold those rights.

(SIMPLE ANSWERS)

• Q1: Who has the right to the land?

A1: It is a question of rightful ownership. Who owns the land by deed or grant?​

• Q2: Who has the right to self determination?

A2: The population that takes the initiative to pursue it.​

• Q3: Who has the right to a state?

A3: This is a question of establishing sovereignty. The authority changes over time. In 1900 the authority rested with the Ottoman Empire. In 1940 it rested with the Mandatory, the Allied Powers and the UN/LoN. Today, since Resolution 181, the Camp David, Dayton, Oslo, it was available through negotiation (Offer and Acceptance). Or,since the offers were declined, annexation.​

• Q4: Who has the right to defend themselves?

A4: Any sovereignty attacked. Article 51.​

This last question is tricky because it Israel, a sovereignty, is under siege by an aggressor that is trying to over turn its sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ima]

P F Tinmore, et al,

These are good (very good) questions!

That is the position I have always taken.

Who has the right to the land?

Who has the right to self determination?

Who has the right to a state?

Who has the right to defend themselves?

I believe that in every case the Palestinians hold those rights.

(SIMPLE ANSWERS)

• Q1: Who has the right to the land?

A1: It is a question of rightful ownership. Who owns the land by deed or grant?​

• Q2: Who has the right to self determination?

A2: The population that takes the initiative to pursue it.​

• Q3: Who has the right to a state?

A3: This is a question of establishing sovereignty. The authority changes over time. In 1900 the authority rested with the Ottoman Empire. In 1940 it rested with the Mandatory, the Allied Powers and the UN/LoN. Today, since Resolution 181, the Camp David, Dayton, Oslo, it was available through negotiation (Offer and Acceptance). Or,since the offers were declined, annexation.​

• Q4: Who has the right to defend themselves?

A4: Any sovereignty attacked. Article 51.​

This last question is tricky because it Israel, a sovereignty, is under siege by an aggressor that is trying to over turn its sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel was the original aggressor and that war isn't over.

 

[RoccoR]

ima, et al,

Let's, for the sake of argument, say this is true. What are the consequences?

P F Tinmore, et al,

These are good (very good) questions!

That is the position I have always taken.

Who has the right to the land?

Who has the right to self determination?

Who has the right to a state?

Who has the right to defend themselves?

I believe that in every case the Palestinians hold those rights.

(SIMPLE ANSWERS)

• Q1: Who has the right to the land?

A1: It is a question of rightful ownership. Who owns the land by deed or grant?​

• Q2: Who has the right to self determination?

A2: The population that takes the initiative to pursue it.​

• Q3: Who has the right to a state?

A3: This is a question of establishing sovereignty. The authority changes over time. In 1900 the authority rested with the Ottoman Empire. In 1940 it rested with the Mandatory, the Allied Powers and the UN/LoN. Today, since Resolution 181, the Camp David, Dayton, Oslo, it was available through negotiation (Offer and Acceptance). Or,since the offers were declined, annexation.​

• Q4: Who has the right to defend themselves?

A4: Any sovereignty attacked. Article 51.​

This last question is tricky because it Israel, a sovereignty, is under siege by an aggressor that is trying to over turn its sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel was the original aggressor and that war isn't over.

(CONSEQUENCES)

• Q1: Who has the right to the land?

A1: Unchanged --- the owner (supra)​

• Q2: Who has the right to self determination?

A2: Undecided --- trial by combat is still in-progress.​

• Q3: Who has the right to a state?

A3: Already decided ... Israel is established, and Palestinians rejected.​

• Q4: Who has the right to defend themselves?

A4: Five Arab Armies attacked, outcome still undecided. Israel could annex the Occupied Territories. Occupation still authorized because the hostilities have not ended.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[irosie91]

Khaybar 629 AD the rapist pig of arabia attacked the children of Israel----that war is
not yet over------the ass lickers of the rapist pig---muhummad ibn abdullah----were the
aggressors-----that war is not yet over

 

[ima]

Khaybar 629 AD the rapist pig of arabia attacked the children of Israel----that war is
not yet over------the ass lickers of the rapist pig---muhummad ibn abdullah----were the
aggressors-----that war is not yet over

Iro, go suck the shit from your dog's ass.

 

[georgephillip]

"The fundamental problem is the failure to face the fact that government policies don’t come out of a vacuum. Mearsheimer and Walt are realists in international relations theory, which basically holds that the domestic power structure is not a significant factor in the formation of state policy.

"State policy is supposed to be concerned with something called 'the national interest,' which is a kind of abstraction made in the interest of the population, but isn’t.

"For centuries it’s been understood that there are different factors within the society, different distributions of power, some more powerful than others…. "

Among the most powerful factions in US society are those who profit obscenely from the mass killing of civilians for political means, i.e., terrorism. "Choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth will never remove that threat.

http://www.zcommunications.org/reflections-on-a-lifetime-of-engagement-with-zionism-the-palestine-question-and-american-empire-by-noam-chomsky

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

I'm not sure I agree with this, as applied to the US.

Among the most powerful factions in US society are those who profit obscenely from the mass killing of civilians for political means, i.e., terrorism. "Choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth will never remove that threat.

(COMMENT)

While we've heard of examples of this, relative to Southeast Asia, the Arab world and Africa, I've not known the US to go on a campaign to target civilians since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And in war, there are exceptions and situations that constantly evolve.

War profiteering will always be with us; no matter what country you talk about. If it ever engages in war, there is a profit to be made. But generally, the US does not make a profit on civilian casualties. That has an adverse impact on the development of an economy.

Most Respectfully,
R