Hollus

There is nothing to hide...the "official story" will always have holes, varying confidence levels of certainty, and outright gaps. However, such unkowns and discontinuities are not proof of government complicity in committing air piracy and mass murder. Hell, you guys are still dicking around with the Air India disaster after more than 20 years. Well then Bush/Cheney, why is it being hidden???? If in fact there is nothing to hide would you please write you governmental representative and request they release the classified Merridian Hotel security tapes so we can all watch flight 77 fly into the Pentagon and put this part of the mystery to rest?

And I dont have to know exactly what happened to know that the 'official story' is blatently wrong. There is no factual evidence to support the 'official' story. Why do you not apply the same standards to the 'official' story as you apply to alternative ones? How do you discern between conflicting professional opinions? Maybe you do have to know its a trick, to know its a trick. Some people believe in magic. There are certianly some very magical mysteries surrounding the events of 9/11 For instance, the magical molten steel. Where did this molten steel come from? The 'official' story: "While it was impossible for the fuel rich, diffuse flame fire to burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to loose half its strength and to deform causing buckling and crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the wieght of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating the domino collapse." Eagar and Musso, MIT 2001 Ofcousre we know that steel, or any substance burned, will never become hotter than the fire or heat applied to it. We know that steel melts at a temperature no less than 2750'F. And, we know that at optimal conditions (such as the burning jet fuel while injecting oxygen) jet fuel will burn at 1800'F. So do you have a proffesional opinion to explain that one?

The idea that someone who questions the official story must provide a bulletproof alternative explanation is ludicrious. If you were to go to a magicians performance and wittiness the dissaperance of an elephant right before your eyes, do you suppose that without knowing the exact nature of the magicians trick, there is no reason to believe the magician did not actually perform an illusion? There are huge holes in the official story. For instance, regarding the impact at the pentagon. If Flight 77 struck the Pentagon as the official story states, why has the surveillance videos from the near-by Meridian Hotel and gas stations which had clear view of the impact zone been confiscated and classified? What is there to hide?

No it was not. The UN was not involved in the initial invasion of Afghanistan. I'm not sure if you understand the point. The US didn't need to ask permission of the UN, they US Invoked article 51, which is their right....... Whatever, the rest of my post stands. However, I will point out that Afghanistan did not attack the US, they were simply issued an ultimatum demanding they give up Al Queda residing within their boarders. I dont see how Article 51 applies to their case.

No it was not. The UN was not involved in the initial invasion of Afghanistan. You said it. It doesnt say allowing the United States to decide when an application of force is required Once again you seem to be confused of who holds the authority to enforce UN resolutions. Let me clear this up for you: The authority lies strictly with the Security Council. Now if you take a look at the words preceding those you have italicized, who does it enable to take urgent military measures? Say it with me: UNITED NATIONS, not United States. I know they both have the word United in them, but they really mean to very different things. The crime of war of aggression is listed in Article 5.1 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as on of the four most serious crimes of concern to the international community, and it falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Yes, it exists.

The international law regarding the use of force is stated in the UN charter. In particular, Article 2(4): All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. Article 51" Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

Does the United States have the legal right to unilaterally enforce the violated resolutions? Where is the UN resolution that sanctions military action against Iraq?

My apologies. In regards to weapons violations I know of the missiles that had a range of approximatly 100miles over the allowable limit as deemed by UN regulations. Hardly constitutes a threat to the American people. The Iraqi Liberation Act really doesnt matter as the Bush admin will be persecuted under international law (or atleast they should be). Yep. So you agree the Iraq war was illegal.

I am mistaken about what? I asked you (bushcheney2004) to reclarify your original reply (which still makes absolutly no sense as you wrote it). So what? Yes many people wanted more inspection time. At the time inspectors were scurried out Hans Blix was saying that it would only be a matter of months before he would be able to determine wheather or not WMD's existed. But as I said before, the question of inspections is beside the point. Where is the evidence for the allegations? I believe you are mistaken. The International Commission of International Law Jurists drafted a legal document to advice Bush/Blair of the legal grounds for war prior to invasion. The authoritive document stated that (1) it would be blatantly illegal under international law for the US/British to invade Iraq; and (2) that their joint decision as Commanders-in-Chief to commence hostilities would constitute prosecutable war crimes. Yes the bombing campiagn in Kosovo was illegal. Though nowhere near the scale of Iraq

What are you trying to say with this? I believe your order of events are mixed up. I know only of the sanctions and dissarmement obligations imposed on Iraq in response to the invasion of Kuwait. What are these renewed inspections you speak of? Anyway, the question is not about IAEA and UNSCOM inpsectors ensuring Iraq had complied to dissarmement. The question is why should anyone have believed the Bush admins claims that Iraq had reinstated nuclear/biological/chemical weapons when they could not present any factual evidence to support it? Its illegal and tyrannical.

Lots of people had the answers back in 2002. They just were not being disseminated over the mass media. All of the evidence the US presented as justification for the war had been discredited. All one had to do is take was look at the most comprehensive presentation the Bush admin made for their cause (Colin Powell Feb 5, 2003 address to UN security council) and see that the presentation was full wild speculation based on discredited information. The UN knew it was BS. The Canadian Prime Minister knew it was BS. A 125 Democrat Senators knew it was BS. They were all right. Any Senator that voted for the war was either conciously voting to decieve the American public and luanch an imperialistic conquest of Iraq, or they were far to inept to be serving as Senators.

Regarding the Iraq War, Dennis Kucinich has the most credibility out of any of the democrat/republican candidates. In 2002 he distributed an analysis of what a war in Iraq would mean for the US and of how the administrations advances to use military force were unsubstantiated. He led the effort in the House that resulted in 125 Democrats voting NO to the Iraq War resolution. He has remained steadfast in his fervent opposition to this illegal war and has introduced articles of impeachment against Vice Pres. Dick Cheney documenting how Cheney fabricated the case for war by manipulating the intelligence process and fixing fualty information. Unlike the other candidates, Kucinich has consistently voted against funding for the war. I think Obama looks bad in this respect, voting against the war but signing the checks to make it happen. Regarding the different pull out strategies, I see the main issues pertaining to wheather or not the US will maintain their military bases in the region and to whom the control of oil resources are granted.

What do you mean by less regulation? As I understand, a lack of regulation has led to a more consolidated market.

As I understand it, a properly functioning democracy requires a properly functioning free press. What is your opinion of Canadian media in serving this purpose?

I agree with gerry's rant. I read the article and the one that followed the next day. My concern is not so much with the intellectual types who pay attention to world news; my concern is the effect it has on the majority of people. People who seen the giant sized picture of two Jews from the holocust wearing yellow stars underneath the headline reading that Iran is enforcing such a dresscode. People who might not of noticed the small side-bar article the next day that offered an officail Iranian refute. In this way the more eyecatching headlines can sway public opininion, much like the Bush admins. statments about Saddam Alqueda connections that left over 50% of americans believing it.

We are not them. You work with the premise that this can continually go back a half centurey when the here and now reality is that there are millions of people who need to live together as none of them are moving. So, historical references to British and biblical times are not going to work in any way shape or form. I dont see any references to British or biblical times in the qoute of mine that you posted, so I dont really know what your saying. I guess your reffering to the mention of Zionist terrorism in the mid-century that I had made in a different thread. I thought it was worth mentioning that Israel was founded thanks in part to terrorism. I was making what I think is a valid point between to minorities that used terrorism for political purpose. What is terrorism? How do you distinguish between a battalion of soldiers rolling down the street shooting at everything in sight and a suicide bomber? Working on the premise that this can continually go back a half a century? What premise was Israel founded on? As for the qoute of mine about north americans giving up there homes for a minority: I think the best comparrison would be if our Torontonians and New Yorkers were to give up their cities- through dictation by foreign nations- for the creation of a Native American state. How would that be any different than what happened with the creation of Israel? No, afraid you have that a bit skewed. Hamas likes to position their operations in civiliian facilities so they will get the added protection of using people as a shield. There are enogh legitimate targets that israel does not need to do as you have said and, while mistakes are made, they are no 100% hit on civillians like the PLO and their Hamas buddies continually do. While you do have a point about Hamas using human shields(somthing Israel also does), you are wrong about there being no 100% hits on civilians and I dont think its a fair comparrison being that Israel has a well funded military to carry out its operations. If Palestinians could storm into Israel with armour and air support to arrest militants Im sure they'd drop the suicide thing pretty quick. I know Im defending some perpetraitors of some henious acts. Its just that I notice the majority of people side with Israel and look down on Palestine as some barbarian race. I think its important to look beyond the horror of their tactics and try to understand the cause. In the American War of Independence revolutionaries used unconventional tactics against british forces that were considered barbarious and uncivilized at the time. During World War II and Vietnam cities were indesriminatly bombed; Japanese used komakazi. It does not surprise me that an out gunned force would use such tactics as suicide bombing civilian populations as a means for war, so I dont think that nation should be isolated based on their sorry state of military force.

The 1949 Armistice Agreements stated: 5(2). In no sense are the cease-fire lines to be interpreted as political or territorial borders and their delineation in no way affects the rights, demands or positions of any of the parties to the cease-fire agreements regarding the final disposition of the Palestine question. 5(3). The fundamental objective of the cease-fire lines is to serve as a line beyond which the armed forces of each of the parties will deploy. I wonder how people here in north america would react if an ethnic group were promised a large area of densely populated land by foriegn powers. How many Torontonians or New Yorkers would happily pack up and move in a matter of hours into a refugee tent so that some persecuted minority in Africa could have a home. Does Israel recognize Palestines right to exist? They deliberatly drop 1000lb bombs on Palestinian schools, shoot Palestinian children for no apparent reason and retaliate for attacks by targeting civilian infustructure.

While I fully agree that there are many Palastinian parents who love their children too much to allow them to take part in agressive activities against fully armed Israeli soldiers, I think that there are also many on both sides of this conflict that live vicariously through the violent acts of their children. http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=980 I can't find any justification for taking either side in this dipute as each of them are equally responsible for violent acts perpetrated on the other. Muslim and Jewish parents are to blame for teaching children to hate with the kind of venom that results in a child growing up to become a soldier who fires a round in to a childs head or a suicide bomber who stands in the middle of crowded market and goes boom...literally. Israel is an invading force. They are the only nation in the world that does not have declared boarders. Everyone talks about how Palestine wants to eliminate Israel but that is not happening. It is Israel who is eliminating Palestine.

Palestinians are killed on a daily basis by an occupying force. The difference is Israel have guns and Palestine dont. Its a war between an impovrished nation and an imperial supported rich one. Israeli terrorist group "Lehi conducted small-scale operations such as assassinations of British soldiers and police officers and, on occasion, Jewish "collaborators". Another strategy, (1947) was to send bombs in the mail to many British politicians. Other actions included sabotaging infrastructure targets: bridges, railroads, and oil refineries. Lehi financed their operations from private donations, extortion, and bank robbery."wiki The actions of these and other zionist terrorist groups of the time played a decisive role in pressuring the British Labour Party to support the zionist vision of Israel.

Its legal in Denver and Alaska. Its decriminalized in a few other states. Seems like the US is further ahead in marijuana reform than Canada.

Here's a few:Snipers with children in their sights , Officer who emptied M16 into girl given compensation by state , Two girls, two shots to the head, Video of Israeli soldier shooting palestinian boy, Palestinian girl shot while at UN school in Gaza Strip dies of injuries They are not hard to find, otherwise I would have posted them before. These are not isolated cases. You understand that the children are being killed for throwing stones at fully armoured tanks right? Yes, they love the oppertuntiy to hit exposed soldiers, but the soldiers are not so stupid to expose themselves without well positioned gunmen to shoot anything that moves. Or of course their continued use of human shields. Israeli Army Continues Use of Palestinians as Human Shields Somthing I think niether you or I could relate too. Ive never lived under a military occupation. Have you?

I highly doubt Hamas would be a terrorist organization if they had the 3 Billion dollars per year of aid that the US supplies to Isreal. Im pretty sure they'd rather fight fire with fire. Desperate people do desperate deeds. 5 REASONS to Stop US Military Aid to Israel

Its legal to have an ounce of bud on your person in Denver, but here in Vansterdam its still illegal. Its legal in Alaska too. Not that Im complaining about the drug enforcement around here. I can pretty much blaze infront of the 5.0 without being harrased. Though it pisses my off when they raid my summer crops. Damn CIA wants me to buy from their suppliers. :angry:

Who are we negotiating for in this dispute? Emmerson is in a clear conflict of interest here, but no one seems to care. His former employer [Canfor] has just acquired New South Companies Inc. giving it a profitable U.S. timber producer, which is also an opponent of the Canadian industry in the softwood lumber dispute. IMO this dispute is only serving to consolidate the industry into the most powerful conglomerates. Tariffs still stand for smaller companies while the big fish play both sides unaffected.

such as?