Controversial Statements

MuGen · 02-02-2005, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Controversial statements

In his essay Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, CU professor Ward Churchill argues that:

• The Sept. 11 attacks were in retaliation for the Iraqi children who were killed in a 1991 bombing raid and for economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations following the Persian Gulf War.

• Hijackers who crashed jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11 were "combat teams," not terrorists.

• The people killed inside the Pentagon were "military targets."

NEWS/HEADLINES - Ward Churchill's controversy...

Ok... I'm not one to shun or exile anyone, but that is just insanity. How could anyone say that? 9/11 and the Pentagon may have been in retalliation, however that doesn't make it right to say those who died were not innocent.

And correct me if I'm wrong but the united nation sanctions in 1991 was not imposed only by America... the UN consists of many nations.

This guy just pisses me off entirely.

EDIT: This guy needs to re-educate himself... because Combat Teams are trained for combat and not suicides.

Jonbo298 · 02-02-2005, 02:37 PM

I expect this thread to sprial downward but I'll give a small opinion.

A 757 (or whatever commercial airliner was mentioned) never hit the Pentagon. I've seen the proof and it was disturbing to say the least to see that the Gov't would lie about a disaster as big as 9/11.

Happydude · 02-02-2005, 03:26 PM

there are live video feeds on the internet somewhere, showing the planes acually crashing into the twin towers...made me feel really disgusted when i first saw it.

as for the pentagon, i don't think a plane crashed into it either...the damage was too small.

and as for this thread, might as well lock it up now.

GameMaster · 02-02-2005, 04:21 PM

Dyne warned me about you, Kyuzo. Whispers from Middle-Earth say you like to stir up trouble.

Anyway, from our perspective, those statements are wrong. From Iraq's perspective (or the people who ruled Iraq), the statements are right. There's really nothing to debate. It's an opinion.

When a rule is violated in here, a lock will be fastened...

Neo · 02-02-2005, 04:23 PM

I was just looking at the conspiracy sites which argue that the towers could not have been brought down by jet fuel and that there is evidence of demolition packages present in both the towers and building 7. Crazy sounding stuff

MuGen · 02-02-2005, 04:39 PM

i dunno about that... maybe there was an insider...

Gamemaster: what is good if there is no evil... vice versa

Typhoid · 02-02-2005, 04:50 PM

Honestly, a plane to the top of the buildings (WTC) couldnt have brought them down.

Some say it was the fire that brought them down.

But Im fairly certain that they were to be able to withstand a fire without collapsing.

And about the plane and the Pentagon, I think it hit the ground in front of it, and basically evaporated because the heat, and impact.

What about the plane over Pittsburgh...or Pennsylvannia or something, Why did it just go down when it was heading for the White House? American Jet planes shoot it down? Who knows.

Honestly, The whole thing is probably some huge cover-up. For what? Who knows.

I doubt it would be by The President, because would he risk his own people like that? And 2 of the landmarks of New York? No, he wouldnt risk his own people, because he would lose popularity.

But wait.

The WTC and attacks spawned the war, and spawned relief, which basically is the basis of EVERY G.W.B speech. We've all heard how "America Is safer" and how "9/11 changed the world" and things.

Could Bush have wanted this to happen? Without this, would he still be President? Would he have any basis for a speech? What basis could he have gone to war on, if not a Terrorist attack?

Like I said, None of us will ever know whats going on now. And if we do, it wont be until we are in our 70's or 80's. When it makes no difference, and the scandal changes nothing.

GameMaster · 02-02-2005, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyuzo

i dunno about that... maybe there was an insider...

Gamemaster: what is good if there is no evil... vice versa

Why do you divide your world into black and white when the real answer is just gray?

Jonbo298 · 02-02-2005, 04:54 PM

A large commerical airplane evaporates with no debris and doesn't put this huge hole in the pentagon?

I think the plane over PA went down because people were calling their loved ones on the ground and they mentioned ot them in plane about the attacks going on and the passengers took matters into their own hands and threw the plane into the ground rather then risk having it do much worse damage.

Blackmane · 02-02-2005, 05:05 PM

This guy is just an extremist trying to turn all of this around to make the United States look like the evil in the world when we aren't.

Frankly, our country (not just the government, but the people here and the corporations in our country) does more good in the world through charities and such than most other nations (I don't want to say all because I don't have any numbers on me, but I think we are the most)

All this conspiracy theory stuff is all fine and dandy, because everyone loves to assume that behind some closed doors, some higher up officials are planning something nasty for us peasants to blaim on somebody else. But before people start even remotely considering conspiracy was behind the 9/11 attacks, you need to consider how much work needs to go into something like that. Do you know how many people would have to be kept quiet in order for this to remain a secret. It's not like someone can just plan between him and one confidant to press a button and make it happen. If it was explosives, the team that set them would have to be all kept quiet or killed, plus they would have to set them in a building that is filled with people most of the time and covered in survallence the rest. Not to mention the hierarchy that the officials have to go through to get it done. Everyone of them has to keep quiet too. Also, the media has to be in the dark the whole time, because you know if even a whiff of real evidence for controversy came to their doorsteps, they would be reporting it. It would be too huge of a story to be kept quiet.

Also, it has been said that a huge fire couldn't take down the building if it was at the top or the bottom, but the middle is more vunerable because there is more weight above it so if one level collaspes, a lot more weight hits the next and that one collapses too, like dominos.

Neo · 02-02-2005, 05:22 PM

Well the argument has to do with the temperature at which steel melts. I agree that is highly unlikely there could be a conspiracy so deep as to involve the placing of charges as someone would eventually talk. Covering up the shooting down of an airline is within the realm of possibility, but there would be evidence on the ground as they couldn't have simply vaporized it. The fact that the initial hole in the pentagon was too narrow to accomodate a plane could be some sort of optical illusion.

Typhoid · 02-02-2005, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo

The fact that the initial hole in the pentagon was too narrow to accomodate a plane could be some sort of optical illusion.

Movie/CGI graphics are that good.

Sometimes you cant tell them apart from real accidents.

Im just saying.