Stupid Laws.

LOL, it was Clinton who failed after 1993, not Wbya, who enacted the Patriot Act, which I support. That is, he is trying to prevent another attack.

Just as your conspiracy theories are, quite frankly, bizarre. You fear the government more than those sworn to murder you.

Get real. You are a big time supporter claiming that the USA, or US business interests, or CIA are behind these attacks. Reread your posts.

Just because you make a claim does not mean it is fact. You continually make this assumption. In spite of the fact that bin Laden takes responsibility for the attacks, you discount his claim. You are willing to make any stretch to connect anyone else to these attacks except Muslim fanatics. This makes much of what you claim bs.

I ask again, given our leaders have failed us, why should we grant them more power? I couldn’t give a damn whether it was Clinton or Bush. That’s not relevant.

Muslim fanatics have no power to legislate away what remains of democracy in the West. The US and UK governments have that power and are using it for that purpose. A lot more people are needlessly arrested and harassed by the police than are killed in terrorist attacks.

No, I’ve simply presented evidence that would imply that conclusion. I’ve never explicitly stated who I think is responsible. You’ve simply assumed that as a sceptic of the 9/11 commission that I’m a ‘conspiracy theorist’. Whatever it is that you mean by that. I suspect you simply mean ‘someone I disagree with’.

You admitted yourself that you didn’t know of the work of Jim Fetzer, Judy Wood, David Ray Griffin and so on.

Even assuming the Bin Laden claim of responsibility is genuine (despite the video showing a man who is clearly someone else), simply claiming responsibility doesn’t make someone responsible. As I’ve said before, I hereby claim responsibility for 9/11. Does that make me guilty?

A more practical example is the claim of responsibility by the London bombings by a group calling itself ‘Al Qaeda in Europe’, which turned out to be hosted on a Houston server owned by a company with connections to the Bush family. No evidence (at all) has been presented that those responsible for the London attacks were involved with an international terrorist network headed by Bin Laden. So, what are we to make of this?

Well, at the least we should say that a claim of responsibility is not proof of guilt, just as a denial of responsibility is not proof of innocence.

True, but he does claim responsibility, just as Muslims claim responsibility for the train bombings in your neck of the woods and in Spain.

Wake-up :sunglasses:

02.09.07.1913

Virginia, eh? Well, I’ve read somewhere that in Virginia it’s illegal to have sex in any position other than the missionary position? I bet that one makes Pat Robertson real proud. Yes sir, that’s one helluva stupid law… worse than the oral sex one… If I want my woman on top… she will damn well be on top!

…more stupid laws on sex…

Places where oral sex is illegal: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington D.C.

An erection that shows through a man’s clothing is illegal in: Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington D.C. and Wisconsin.

In Georgia those charged and convicted for either oral or anal sex can be sentenced to no less than one year and no more than 20 years imprisonment. (Wow…)

In Missouri sexually deviant behavior between people of the same sex is classified as a class A misdemeanor. (Figures…)

[size=150]WTF?!! - - [/size]In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania it is against the law to have sex with a truck driver in a tollbooth. (What are the odds?)

In Nevada it is illegal to have sex without a condom. (Excuse me sir, I need to inspect your penis… to uhh… make sure it has a condom!) How the hell is anyone supposed to procreate? Sperm banks??

In Willowdale, Oregon it is against the law for a husband to talk dirty in his wife’s ear during sex. (That’s enforceable only if the wife complains… right?)

In Clinton, Oklahoma it is illegal to masturbate while watching two people have sex in a car. (Okay… I kind of agree with that one.)

In Washington State there is a law against having sex with a virgin under any circumstances (including the wedding night!). (…)

In Newcastle, Wyoming it is illegal to have sex in a butcher shop’s meat freezer. (Frozen sex??)

In Washington D.C. there is a law against having sex in any position other than face to face. (Doesn’t that qualify as “missionary”?)

SUPER STUPID SEX LAWS FOR ANIMALS, THAT’S RIGHT ANIMALS…
In Kingsville, Texas there is a law against two pigs having sex on Kingsville airport property. (You pigs are under arrest… stop that… no, stop!)

In Fairbanks, Alaska it is illegal for mooses to have sex on the city sidewalks. (What about in the streets?)

In Ventura County, California, cats and dogs may not have sex without a permit. (There are alternatives… yeah… castration.)

[size=75](Thanks to Ivonne Valle for compiling this data.)[/size]

“Naturally, the common people don’t want war … but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.” - Hermann Goering

So you’re happy to grant your government ANY power it desires, in the name of protecting you?

And you think I’m a paranoid conspiracy theorist…

This is just words. The British government have taken actions - massively increasing the power of the police, the size of the intelligence services, decreasing the right of protest, destroying the possibility of an independent inquiry (e.g. into the London bombings) and, it’s coup de grace, given itself the power to legislate without consulting the elected parliament. So much for Muslims destroying our ‘liberal laws’, the British government is already doing it.

Mohammed Abdul Kahar had his house raided and trashed, he was shot in the shoulder, his family intimidated, his possessions confiscated. He was completely innocent. Yes, that is needless.

So you’re quoting a FOX corp review of a British programme. Hardly a realiable source, since it is second-hand information being interpreted by people who obviously have an agenda to push. You just love these unreliable sources that reinforce your existing prejudices, don’t you? It is interesting to note that a quick search illustrates that the original Dispatches show is available on Google video and Youtube, but rather than use the original source of the information, you’d rather quote a review of it by the FOX corporation. How the hell did you become a teacher when this is your attitude to evidence and argument?

Implication is never clear. That’s why it is implication, not statement. And it’s pretty certain that someone killed 3,000 US civilians, so I don’t know what you mean by ‘anyone else’. Unless you don’t count terrorists as belonging to ‘humans on the earth’, which would be a little odd.

Again, even if it was Bin Laden on the tape, claiming responsibility isn’t proof of a crime. And when the FBI don’t even mention 9/11 on Bin Laden’s ‘most wanted’ page:
fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
you’ve got to wonder if there’s any proof of his involvement beyond the tape/confession.

This is absolutely untrue, David Ray Griffin discusses the omissions and distortions in the 9/11 Commission Report, in his book ‘the 9/11 Commission Report, Omissions and Distortions’. Which I’ve read. Which you have not read (by your own admission). And he’s not a ‘theologian’, he is a philosopher and theologian, which means he’s an expert at studying how arguments and beliefs are constructed in texts.

You really should try reading his work before dismissing it, because it only makes you look ignorant, biased and stupid.

Right, and as I’ve said (and you’ve agreed), a claim of responsibility is not proof of guilt. You can keep saying ‘but he claimed responsibility’ all you like, it doesn’t prove a damn thing. I have claimed responsibility for 9/11 on more than one occasion, it doesn’t prove a damn thing.

archives.seattletimes.nwsource.c … e=20010923
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 558669.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 559151.stm
telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh … iden23.xml
news.independent.co.uk/world/mid … 216142.ece

Pure fabrication, you say? Try ‘widely reported in the mainstream British press but completely ignored by the 9/11 Commission’. Had you read Griffin’s book (which I have) and looked up his sources (which I have) then you’d probably not make such elementary mistakes. Are you willing to admit that you’re wrong about this?

This is patently ridiculous when you keep denying things that are in the public domain, whereas I can provide multiple links for any claim I make. If you honestly believe a racist blog is worth more than specific, detailed reporting by mainstream journalists then go right ahead and do so. The fact that it detracts from your credibility shouldn’t matter to you.

Right, my ‘true’ enemies. So now I’m not even free to choose my own enemies, I have to have the same as Bush. Can you pronounce ‘dictatorship’?

So anyone can write anything on an open website, and this one is particularly suspicious because the server on which the website is hosted is controlled by a company whose owner is personally connected to the Bush family.

Now forgive me for being paranoid, but when a previously unheard-of group claims responsibility for attacks thousands of miles away, on a server controlled by someone who knows the Bush family, I question its validity.

Neither of which have been connected to Al Qaeda by evidence. And it’s amusing you should mention the London bombings, since many Muslims refuse to believe the Narrative Account (we’ve never had an inquiry - tells you something) that describes four suicide bombers. And they’d be right to do so, since the Narrative Account requires the impossible to happen for the four alleged to even get to London, let alone set off four bombs.

Deeply, deeply ironic, since I’ve derived my opinions from publicly available information whereas you’ve derived yours from a hateful prejudice and simply ignored all the evidence to the contrary. We can keep doing this, whereby you say something and I post half a dozen links showing you to be ignorant, biased and stupid, for as long as you like. I look forward to your next installment of factual inaccuracies, omissions and racist nonsense.

[quote=“Sagesound”]
02.09.07.1913

Another from the knotheads, Sage. Riverside, CA it illegal to carry a lunchbox. There are still numerous laws regarding horses, and how and where they must be tied up outside stores. Many of these laws are obsolete and should be deleted from the books, especially those regarding sex.

However, I believe this thread revolves around the current laws implemented regarding phone, bank and mail security checks. I may be mistaken, as it has been a while since reading the first few posts.

With regards,

aspacia
:sunglasses:

True, but he does claim responsibility, just as Muslims claim responsibility for the train bombings in your neck of the woods and in Spain.

Sigh, this is useless,

We can agree to disagree on this issue.

You know, it’s because of behaviour like this that no one talks to you.

If you could learn how to use the ‘quote’ function, it would help.

I’ll assume by this you mean ‘I concede entirely that the issue of the hijackers still being alive is not fabrication as I previously asserted’.

And yes, I take a primary source (an original documentary) over a secondary source (a review of the programme) any day of the week. As someone who claims to have taught history, you should be able to understand why.

I do not concede a dam thing. Again, you are in the childish mode of “I win, you lose.” We were hit my Muslim fanatics, and have been for a long time. Your fear is misplaced, mine is not.

Your arrogance is beyond belief.

Without regard, appreciation, nor respect,

aspacia

:evilfun:

The survival of several of these fanatics throws the whole identification of the hijackers into question, as you yourself quoted from the news story above. You wouldn’t know a sound argument if it flew a plane into your office.

wow, that turning of the tables was better than any DJ I have heard! =D>

Sure, you will believe any bs that denigrates the US and UK government:
9/11 conspiracy theory

* Steve Herrmann
* 27 Oct 06, 11:33 AM

A graphic of the BBC News websiteA five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.

The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.

Screen grab of original website storyWe later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.

We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.

In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words “A man called Waleed Al Shehri…” to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.

We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.

Steve Herrmann is editor of the BBC News website

well, this is more of an “executive order” but, in America, if the president declares the country in a state of nation emergency, you can be forcefully innoculated or vaccinated against you’re will.

when you really break this down though it makes perfect sense.

The only control the president has regarding vaccinations is military personnel. The emergency is people who want to blow you and me to bits, or force us to submit to Sharia Law, and yes, this is the fanatics game plan.

Remember it only takes a few fanatics, to lead the sheeple.

Know who your enemy is, know the real threat. The U.S.A. has taken much more draconian measures in other times of crisis. What is going on now is mild by comparison.

With regards,

aspacia :sunglasses: