JACK LAYTON: Votes not to end Afghanistan mission

[wendy]

Layton has called for Canadian troops to leave Afghanistan by next February, slamming the mission there as improperly planned to achieve peace.

The position, strongly endorsed by rank-and-file NDP members at the party's national convention early in September, has put the New Democrats odds with the other three parties in Parliament.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...65-9f07ce673740

Military should focus on coastline, not war: Layton

Federal NDP Leader Jack Layton says Canada's military should be focusing on domestic sovereignty issues, including protecting Canada's coastline from illegal fishing boats, instead of fighting the Taliban in southern Afghanistan.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/sto...tonfishing.html

Just like week from NDP's own website;

Canada must immediately withdraw from Afghanistan: NDP

Thu 19 Apr 2007

http://www.ndp.ca/page/5183

Layton had gone on record dozens of times over he past 2 years being against the Afghan mission/war. Just last week he went on record calling for an immediate withdrawal, never mind in 2 years time. All our leaders are now bought and paid for by the NWO.

Same reason they are silent on the secretive North American Union, WTC 7 and the whole 911 fraud and the fake war on terrorism.

[M.Dancer]

....they are silent on the secretive North American Union, WTC 7 and the whole 911 fraud and the fake war on terrorism.

Now now....just because the NDP are not too swift politically, or that they are left wing idealists doesn't mean they naturally subscribe to every flakey conpiracy theory out there....

[cybercoma]

WTC7 and the so-called 9/11 Fraud have been addressed numerous times, by numerous professionals and thoroughly debunked.

A giant coverup isn't anymore true because you're unwilling to accept the logical answers that have been explained and supported by physical evidence.

For Christ's sake, the US government can't even get away with calling a soldier who was injured a hero, without her stepping forward and telling any media outlet that'll listen that it's an outright lie.

Your conspiracy theories are not logical and not at all supported by any sort of physical evidence or facts.

As far as Afghanistan goes, perhaps we've been there too long. You're right. The troops should come home. But, not before the Afghani government is standing on its own two feet and able to defend itself on its own.

We agreed to attacking that country because the Taliban was harbouring terrorists who've called for the death and destruction of innocent American lives. Now that we've done away with that government, you want us to simply walk away and allow those elements to regain control of that nation before the new Afghanistan is able to defend itself.

You're heartless and that type of hatred for other people should be disgusting to all Canadians. Thank God more peace oriented minds are making the decisions.

[wendy]

cybercoma, you are sadly mistaken;

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2073592843640256739

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=41...expert&hl=en-CA

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007...giulianilie.htm

[M.Dancer]

Oh well, if there's a video, nevermind then......

[cybercoma]

I'm not going to go through the same tired BS.

Popular Mechanics brought all of the information together in one place and there has been follow-ups on the spins that the "truthies" (misnomer) have put on things since then.

You're about 6 years too late, as far as discussing the merits of 9/11 and whether we should be in Afghanistan or not. Terrorists attacked the WTC and succeeded this time around. The US asked the Taliban to turn over those responsible for the attacks (since they've carried out these attacks before and threatened the US with violence on numerous occassions leading up to 9/11) and they didn't. The US asked for international assistance and most nations supported them.

This was 6 years ago. No one has come forward to blow the horn on these government conspiracies -- conspiracies that would take an absurd number of people to pull off. Like I said in my last post, soldiers can't even be labelled as heroes without them crying fraud, let alone the government wiring huge office towers with explosives without anyone in those towers noticing. Not to mention, those explosives would have had to survive the impact of commercial jets and the subsequent burning of jet fuel and office materials.

The conspiracies make zero sense.

And that still doesn't reconcile the fact that you want to pull our soldiers out of a country whose destruction we supported. We're there to rebuild and provide security until they can provide security for themselves. Unfortunately, leaving the Afghanis high and dry because we need to defend our oceans from "fishing" boats is BS.

[madmax]

Layton has called for Canadian troops to leave Afghanistan by next February, slamming the mission there as improperly planned to achieve peace.

The position, strongly endorsed by rank-and-file NDP members at the party's national convention early in September, has put the New Democrats odds with the other three parties in Parliament.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...65-9f07ce673740

Military should focus on coastline, not war: Layton

Federal NDP Leader Jack Layton says Canada's military should be focusing on domestic sovereignty issues, including protecting Canada's coastline from illegal fishing boats, instead of fighting the Taliban in southern Afghanistan.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/sto...tonfishing.html

Just like week from NDP's own website;

Canada must immediately withdraw from Afghanistan: NDP

Thu 19 Apr 2007

http://www.ndp.ca/page/5183

Layton had gone on record dozens of times over he past 2 years being against the Afghan mission/war. Just last week he went on record calling for an immediate withdrawal, never mind in 2 years time. All our leaders are now bought and paid for by the NWO.

Same reason they are silent on the secretive North American Union, WTC 7 and the whole 911 fraud and the fake war on terrorism.

Well, if Stephen Dion agrees with your thinking. So be it.

[wendy]

Popular Mechanics brought all of the information together in one place and there has been follow-ups on the spins that the "truthies" (misnomer) have put on things since then.

Popular Mechanics-Hearst Publishing, the epitime of yellow journalism, and a CIA front to boot, lol! The senior researcher of PM behind the March 2005 cover story who claimed to debunk 911 truth was hired just weeks before 911. His name is Benjamin Chertoff, yes that Chertoff, a cousin of Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

Actually Scholars for 9/11 Truth, http://www.911scholars.org/, have exposed and disproven any claims from your so-called experts at PM and NIST. They have offered to debate them on their terms on any of the 911 issues.....only to be turned down or ignored time and time again.

Cybercoma,

in your own words, please explain major media outlets such as the BBC, CNN, and others reporting WTC 7 fallen 20+ minutes before it even happened. Explain to us how a 47 story building with minimal damage freefalls in 6.4 seconds into its own footprint. Please explain the pools of molten metal under the WTC buildings at a temperature of over 2500'F for several weeks after. Please explain the hundreds of eyewitness testimonies of Fire Dept, Police, Media, janitors, etc, explaining the bombs going off. Please explain the rescue workers and police telling the public to get back because WTC 7 was about to be blown up...and it is demolished at free fall speed into its own footprint just minutes later. Please explain Larry Silverstein telling us they made the decision to "pull" WTC 7 and they watched the building collapse.....when this would take weeks of preparation to do. Please explain how concrete and steel pulverize into dust when a building collapses. Please explain how steel is cut at right angles in 30' lengths when buildings collapse. Please explain how half of the 911 highjackers have turned up alive, lol! Please explain how all the buildings fall at free fall speed with no resistance dispite little or no damage to the floors below... all this dispite a rectangular centre core of 2x4' steel beams which made the cores 600% stronger then the outside of the building....why did the cores not remain or fall later? Please explain how minimal fires and no fire before or since has caused a steel stucture building to collaspe....yet all 3 went down on 911.

You can find all this and much more in these videos;

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2073592843640256739

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=41...expert&hl=en-CA

Thanks cyber and good luck in your response.

[cybercoma]

I answered every one of those questions in the other thread, not to mention that those questions are answered in several places online by experts in those fields. I'm not going to sit here and type up paragraph after paragraph again explaining to you where you're wrong. If you want to know the answers to those questions, look for them. If you don't like the actual answers, too bad for you. That doesn't make your explanations any more logical.

[Topaz]

I'm not going to go through the same tired BS.

Popular Mechanics brought all of the information together in one place and there has been follow-ups on the spins that the "truthies" (misnomer) have put on things since then.

You're about 6 years too late, as far as discussing the merits of 9/11 and whether we should be in Afghanistan or not. Terrorists attacked the WTC and succeeded this time around. The US asked the Taliban to turn over those responsible for the attacks (since they've carried out these attacks before and threatened the US with violence on numerous occassions leading up to 9/11) and they didn't. The US asked for international assistance and most nations supported them.

This was 6 years ago. No one has come forward to blow the horn on these government conspiracies -- conspiracies that would take an absurd number of people to pull off. Like I said in my last post, soldiers can't even be labelled as heroes without them crying fraud, let alone the government wiring huge office towers with explosives without anyone in those towers noticing. Not to mention, those explosives would have had to survive the impact of commercial jets and the subsequent burning of jet fuel and office materials.

The conspiracies make zero sense.

And that still doesn't reconcile the fact that you want to pull our soldiers out of a country whose destruction we supported. We're there to rebuild and provide security until they can provide security for themselves. Unfortunately, leaving the Afghanis high and dry because we need to defend our oceans from "fishing" boats is BS.

I have a question for you. IF the Taliban are such bad people, why did Cheney invite them to the White House to have talks about a pipeline from the Capsian Sea through Afghanistan, in 2001?? Why did they attack the Taliban only after they had told Cheney they would be charged in Euros when buying the oil??? I've reported this before and I'll say it again. About 2 years ago while surfing the web, I came across a letter in Russian and English, written to Putin from Uday Hussein, saying that their "brothers" were going to attack the US , THE "BOTHERS" WERE GOING TO BLAME IT ON OBL AND THAT THE PLAN HAD HELP FROM the AMERICANS!! The letter was dated 2000. Why did Cheney get a memo saying the "family" wanted their money a week after 9/11?? Why was boxes of US$$$ sent to the PHillipines after a FBI and CIA met with someone there??? Why is there money missing from the US treasury and the US military???

[cybercoma]

People associated with OBL flew planes into the WTC and Pentagon causing thousands of deaths and millions of dollars of destruction. When the Taliban refused to co-operate with bringing OBL and al-Qaeda forward, they were bombed by the United States whom had the support of the international community. All of this other crap you're on about is neither here nor there. I'm sure the history of violence against the US and threats from OBL mean absolutely nothing. It's all about running a pipeline.

[stignasty]

I have a thought. Why don't you (wendy) and those with a similar outlook on the world start your own political party. The environmentalist movement started the Green party, why don't you start a "Truth Party." If your views are as widely accepted as some claim you should have no problem organizing.

[Catchme]

Back to the topic, yes the NDP did vote No, and continue to call for immediate withdrawal, as they have from the beginning.

The Liberal motion was of the most spurious sort, and not worth the expending of taxpayers money. It was a smoke and mirrors ploy, of the worst sort, playing politics with innocent Afghan lives and Canadian military personal, their family and communities lives. Not that the CPC are any better, indeed they are worse, for keeping them there, and for trying to cover up their knowing about prisoner torture and executions without trial. And finally being forced, after lying at length to Canadians, though the Freedom of Information Act, to fessing up. This is heinious on their part, not only are we in breach of the Geneva Convention we are in breach of contract with Afghan peoples.

But will not go off further than outlining this the reasons, why Jack Layton and the NDP are absolutely, correct in calling for withdraw immediately.

The Liberals refused to make the ammendments the NDP asked for in order to support the motion. The Liberals wanted this motion to fail, they were not serious with it in the first place. They wanted to create a wedge issue to use for headlines against the NDP. This was to try and depict the NDP as propping up the CPC.

The NDP would not vote for the motion for several reasons:

1. They recognize this situation in Afghanistan is out of control and being mishandled by the Defense Minister and the CPC, they have proven grossly incompetant, and Canadian lives are being lost, many more permently disabled and in order to stop this, the only way is, is to have immediate withdrawing. And they recognize the only way innocent Afghans will stop dying, at Canadians hands, is by our leaving. It is a shame, Canada's good regard around the world is being destroyed by the CPC.

2. The Liberal motion only stated that our military presence would be moved out of the "southern" portion of Afghanistan and not Afghanistan itself in February 2009.

3. The NDP actually want the government to work and stop the nonsense games being undertaken by the Liberals and the CPC, Canadians lives are being lost, families and communities devastated while they are playing games.

4. They recognize what the situation in Afghanistan is, and that truthfully Afghans want the occupiers from their lands, and that the actions of the military, are not the mission Canadians agreed to when it was undertaken, and as a result all Canadians are complicit with the crimes being committed against Afghans, that at best are being conducted with the "new" Canadian government and military in full knowledge and they want it to stop immediately and investigations to begin.

[Canadian Blue]

Theirs alot of nuts out there....

[scribblet]

Theirs alot of nuts out there....

Sure are

Actually if the NDP really didn't agree with this, why didn't they just stay away, they would come out looking more principled if they hadn't voted with the CPC

[madmax]

Actually if the NDP really didn't agree with this, why didn't they just stay away, they would come out looking more principled if they hadn't voted with the CPC

The CPC could have stayed home too? What kind of thinking is that?

[scribblet]

Actually if the NDP really didn't agree with this, why didn't they just stay away, they would come out looking more principled if they hadn't voted with the CPC

The CPC could have stayed home too? What kind of thinking is that?

The CPC didn't have to, more aptly the NDP would have been more principled if they had abstained.

Speaking about the Taliban, maybe this is one of the reasons we should stay, to help prevent more of these atrocities.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/...rticle_continue

Global outcry at Taliban's use of boy in filmed beheading

The Taliban's use of a young boy to behead a man drew international criticism yesterday, with Unicef condemning the incident as "a terrible example of how children can be used by adults to commit heinous crimes in times of conflict".

In the videotape of the beheading the boy, who appears no older than 12, is seen standing over a blindfolded man, brandishing a long knife. Wearing a combat jacket, oversized sneakers and a white headband, he denounces the man in a high-pitched voice. "He is an American spy. This is his fate," he says.

[cybercoma]

These are the people Dion wants to bring to Canada, so they're not tortured in Afghani prisons.

Riiiight.

[Catchme]

The NDP would not stay away from the vote on the Liberal motion. as they are asking, and have been asking for immediate withdrawl of the military's counter insurrency mission, why would they let it pass, as it actually, in its wording, extended the counterinsurrgency mission past February 2009, just not in the south. And it stated nothing about reconstruction and development.

Moreover, the NDP tabled a motion today, to be voted on Monday, asking for the immediate and secure withdrawing of the military in their counter insurgency mission. As follows is part of the brief:

“The NDP motion, to be debated Thursday and voted on Monday, calls for an immediate safe and secure withdrawal of our troops from the counter-insurgency mission and to focus our assistance, not through counter-insurgency but through development and aid,” said NDP leader Jack Layton. “Both Liberals and Conservatives admit that the conflict in Afghanistan won’t be won militarily. We believe that two more years of participating in the wrong mission for Canada is two years too long.”

The NDP motion is consistent with the party’s position since the counter-insurgency mission began, unlike Liberal leader Stéphane Dion’s recent flip-flop on the issue.

... “NDP MPs take their responsibility as Parliamentarians very seriously when we put young women and men in harm's way. The question for the Liberals is simple: If the mission is wrong for Canada, why are they asking our brave men and women to participate in it two more years?”

The NDP’s motion re-iterates the NDP’s support for Canadian troops and calls on Canada to focus its efforts in assisting the people of Afghanistan by re-doubling its commitment to reconstruction and development.

They in fact are not asking for us to leave Afghanis to a failed state destroyed by the occupiers, they are asking that the mission become what it was, when it was sold to Canadians by the Liberals, reconsruction and development.

And that is a very good querstion, if the Liberals and the Greens and the Bloq feel it is the wrong reason wrong mission, why do they want our military, and innocent Afghans, in harms way for 2 more years?

Part of the actual motions is:

(1) all Members of this House, whatever their disagreements about the mission in Afghanistan, support the courageous men and women of the Canadian Forces; (2) the government has admitted that the situation in Afghanistan can not be won militarily; (3) the current counter-insurgency mission is not the right mission for Canada; (4) the government has neither defined what ‘victory’ would be, nor developed an exit strategy from this counter-insurgency mission; therefore this House condemns this government and calls for it to immediately notify NATO of our intention to begin withdrawing Canadian Forces now in a safe and secure manner from the counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan; and calls for Canada to focus its efforts to assist the people of Afghanistan on a diplomatic solution, and re-double its commitment to reconstruction and development.

http://www.ndp.ca/page/5205

[segnosaur]

Popular Mechanics-Hearst Publishing, the epitime of yellow journalism, and a CIA front to boot, lol! The senior researcher of PM behind the March 2005 cover story who claimed to debunk 911 truth was hired just weeks before 911. His name is Benjamin Chertoff, yes that Chertoff, a cousin of Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

Normally I'd say that's totally irrelevant. Chertoff was only one of several people who worked on the article for Popular mechanics. Not all of them were related to Michael Chertoff, and more importantly, all of the information in its articles can be double-checked with other mainstream sources. When you make the claim that B. Chertoff is lying, you are implying HUNDREDS of people are also lying.

Howver, this is more than just irrelevant.... it is also totally wrong. Benjamin Chertoff and Michel Chertoff are not related (unless of course you want to consider them 'related' because of them both being mammals.)

Normally, I don't like to stick to mainstream sources for references. (I'll let the conspiricy theorists stick to using non-experts like Jones for 'proof'.) However, since YOU have provided absolutely no proof that the 2 Chertoff's ARE related, I thought it would be safe to provide THIS reference (which actually comes from Chertoff himself):

Here's the story, as best as I know: I'm not related to Michael Chertoff, at least in any way I can figure out. We might be distant relatives, 15 times removed, but then again, so might you and I. Bottom line is I've never met him, never communicated with him, and nobody I know in my family has ever met or communicated with him. From: http://www.911myths.com/html/benjamin_chertoff.html

From the looks of things, the claim that they are cousins came from a statement from B. Chertoff's mom saying they "might" be related. That's because you may never know if someone is a distant cousin several times removed. But nobody (not Scholars for 911, not Alex Jones, nobody) has ever shown any actual proof they are directly related. Its one of those myths which stems from conspricy theorist taking things out of context.

Actually Scholars for 9/11 Truth, http://www.911scholars.org/, have exposed and disproven any claims from your so-called experts at PM and NIST. They have offered to debate them on their terms on any of the 911 issues.....only to be turned down or ignored time and time again.

Probably the reason nobody wants to bother with Scholars for 9/11 Truth is because few (none last time I checked) are actually experts in structural engineering. You don't invite automechanics to talk at medical conventions. You don't invite farmers to talk at astronomy conventions, and you don't invite experts in humanities and social science (as many of the S911 group are) to discuss structural engineering.

If the S911 have something important to say, let them publish their findings in peer reviewed journals dealinig with engineering (not just peer-reviewed by each other). Until they can actually come up with something accurate enough to be accepted by referees at such journals their work should be considered suspect.

You know, the whole 'scohlars for 911 truth' remind me a lot of the folks who believe in creationism. They too like to point to a small group of 'scholars' who dispute evolution, even though those scholars usually have no background in biological research.

Later in your post, you repeated a lot of the 'myths' that conspricy theorists like to cling to. I'm sure these have probably been debunked on this forum before, but the threads covering 9/11 are fairly long and I haven't had a chance to wade though them yet. I know its probably a fool's errand, but I figure I may as well debunk this garbage, in case anyone else has wondered about how this stuff is explained.

in your own words, please explain major media outlets such as the BBC, CNN, and others reporting WTC 7 fallen 20+ minutes before it even happened.

Simple... firemen knew the building would collapse hours ahead of when it did. They knew because they could see signs of strutural failure. Go back and listen to what the news reports actually say. When you hear the CNN reports, they tend to say that WTC7 "is collapsing", indicating an event in progress. Given the way support beams were shifting and sagging at the time, saying that the building "is collapsing" is accurate (even if you don't see the building falling at that time.)

(see: http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...gz/hayden.html)

Explain to us how a 47 story building with minimal damage freefalls in 6.4 seconds into its own footprint.

Simple... The building did not have 'mimimal damage'; it had a HUGE areas ripped out, almost a dozen stories high.

See: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%...pse%20Final.pdf (page 17)

Or consider this quote from one of the firemen on duty that day: you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors... From: http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html

Please explain the pools of molten metal under the WTC buildings at a temperature of over 2500'F for several weeks after.

Where exactly are you getting the idea that the temperature was "over 2500"? Likely another red herring on the part of the conspricy theorists. If you're assuming that that's the temperature needed to melt steel.. well guess what? No "molten metal" was ever tested, and there WERE other metals at the site (such as Aluminum from the airplane) which DO melt at much lower temperatures.

There WERE hot spots underground for a long time after 9/11... that is totally expected. Debris will act as an insulator, and some fires will continue to smoulder and add heat even in a low oxygen environment. Readings from the site suggested temperatures in the rage of 800 degrees C, around the point which Aluminum melts. (See: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html for information on thermal readings.)

Please explain the hundreds of eyewitness testimonies of Fire Dept, Police, Media, janitors, etc, explaining the bombs going off.

Not one of those 'eyewitnesses' actually SAW a bomb. Any time I hear of any of these 'eyewitnesses', its always from someone who HEARD something, or they were reporting what they heard 2nd hand. Guess what? In a fire, people here things... walls collapsing, batteries in UPS systems exploding, etc. Not every report of an 'explosion' means that there was a bomb involved.

Of course, if 'eyewitness' testimony is so important to you, why don't you accept the eyewitness testimony of the firemen who saw evidence of structural failure in WTC7 long before it fell?

Please explain Larry Silverstein telling us they made the decision to "pull" WTC 7 and they watched the building collapse.....when this would take weeks of preparation to do.

First of all, the use of the word 'pull' meant 'pull the firemen away' from WTC7. Firemen at the site have used similar terminolgy.

Secondly, you yourself said that it would take 'weeks' of preparation to do... why did not one worker in all those 47 floors actually notice anything in that time. And what type of explosives do you think can withstand being subject to fire for hours ahead of time before they are detonated?

Lastly, why would Silverstien demolish his own buildings when the amount of insurance he had would be less than what he needed to replace the buildings? And in fact, at one point he was only going to take out $1.5 billion in insurance, and only increased the coverage when his creditors demanded it. (Not the act of someone who knows what's going to happen...) See: http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html

Please explain how concrete and steel pulverize into dust when a building collapses.

Red herring... the building wasn't pulverized 'into dust'.

Here are some pictures showing plenty of non-pulverized debris:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2194525.stm

http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/12000/12100/12190/image187.gif

By the way, why exactly do you think that the building being 'pulverized' into dust proves explosives were used? When they use controlled demolition, they DON'T try to pulverize the entire building; they just take out key supports and let it fall in on itself.

Please explain how steel is cut at right angles in 30' lengths when buildings collapse.

Why is that suprising? Each support beam had a maximum length of 38 feet to begin with. (See: http://www.civil.columbia.edu/ce4210/FEMA_...fs/403_apb.pdf). The beams were 'overlapped' by a few feet... why wouldn't they fail at the weakest point (the point of overlap)?

Please explain how half of the 911 highjackers have turned up alive, lol!

There are around a billion muslims in the world, and many of them are Arabic. Don't you think that its at least possible that the claims of 'living hijackers' can be due to confusion over 2 or more people having the same name?

Oh, and what exactly do yo uthink that says about the 'consspiricy'? Why have only some alive? Wouldn't such a masterful conspricy be able to 'clean up' all the loose ends, or at least create clean identities for the hijackers?

Please explain how all the buildings fall at free fall speed with no resistance dispite little or no damage to the floors below...

Simple physics... the amount of force required to stop something that's falling is much greater than the amount of force required to keep it stationary.

Here's a suggestion... take a rock, and balance it on your head... it should sit there without causing you too much pain. Now, take that same rock, and get someone to drop it on your head from 2 meters above. Chances are it will break your skull. Why? Because the force required to decelerate the rock to 0 (i.e. when it hits your skull) will be higher than it can handle, eve if it can handle a 'resting' rock.

Please explain how minimal fires and no fire before or since has caused a steel stucture building to collaspe....yet all 3 went down on 911.

First of all, these were not 'minimal fires'. WTC7 had uncontrolled fire on at least 6 floors (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf page 20). And while WTC1&2 only had fires buring on floors near the impact area, its estimated that those fires reached temperatures above 1000 degrees, more than hot enough to weaken steal by at least 50%. (See: http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Cha...20V%20Fire.pdf)

Secondly, you DO realize that all of those buildings, in addition to the fire, ALSO had structural damage (either from the airline impacts or from the other towers collapsing.)

Lastly, its always amazing when a conspricy theorist points out how 'unique' the WTC collapses were, without stopping to consider what THEIR conspricy would mean:

- Never before have buildings higher than 100 stories been destroyed by controlled demolition. Yet conspricy theorists want us to believe that's what happened

- Never before have buildings that were to be 'demolished' been subject to fires for an hour or hours beforehand. (I wonder what they would have used for explosives?) Yet conspricy theorists want us to believe that's what happened

- Never before have buildings been destroyed 'top down' by controlled demolition. Yet conspricy theorists want us to believe that's what happened

- Never before have buildings shown signs of collapse before the 'detonation' to bring them down. Yet conspricy theorists want us to believe that's what happened

[ScottSA]

The NDP would not stay away from the vote on the Liberal motion. as they are asking, and have been asking for immediate withdrawl of the military's counter insurrency mission, why would they let it pass, as it actually, in its wording, extended the counterinsurrgency mission past February 2009, just not in the south. And it stated nothing about reconstruction and development.

Moreover, the NDP tabled a motion today, to be voted on Monday, asking for the immediate and secure withdrawing of the military in their counter insurgency mission. As follows is part of the brief:

They in fact are not asking for us to leave Afghanis to a failed state destroyed by the occupiers, they are asking that the mission become what it was, when it was sold to Canadians by the Liberals, reconsruction and development.

And that is a very good querstion

Here's a very good answer: Because while it's nice and cuddly to build schools and pass out candy and flowers to school children, it wears thin if it's all taking place in a hot war zone. Allied forces didn't cross the Rhine with their arms full of candy of flowers on the lookout for children to feed and schools to build while the Panzers were firing at them from the opposite bank. I know Layton has never been within 100,000,000 miles of a bullet fired in anger, but one would think that this is a common sense proposition.

[madmax]

Speaking about the Taliban, maybe this is one of the reasons we should stay, to help prevent more of these atrocities.

Global outcry at Taliban's use of boy in filmed beheading

You don't have to enlighten me with regards to the activities of the Taliban, Northern Alliance or the general culture of Afghanistan. The use of children in violence, war and torture is terrible and occurs in many failed states around the globe whom have been involved in a cycle of violence and warfare that transcends generations. Similar activities occur in Africa.

But we are talking about a vote that occurred put forth by the Liberals. Abstaining from the motion or voting against it as both the CPC and the NDP did, will do nothing to change the situation you describe above. Don't overplay a Liberal motion and the CPC response to that motion as the be all and end all of the problems in Afghanistan.

[madmax]

I know Layton has never been within 100,000,000 miles of a bullet fired in anger, but one would think that this is a common sense proposition.

It doesn't appear that you have either. You remind me of that enlightened individual south of the border.

"Bring em on".

[scribblet]

I guess the Liberals are forgetting that Paul Martin and Bill Graham chose the Kandahar mission knowing that our troops would be in hamrs way.

Back in the fall of 2005, Bill Graham on a tour across Canada warned us that the Kandahar mission would be costly.

Graham said: "Our troops will be engaged in a much riskier and more dangerous mission than they were engaged in, in Kabul."

Graham said: "From a Canadian perspective, our mission in Afghanistan is totally consistent with Canada's new international and defence policies; in fact, it is the first and most significant tangible expression of those policies in action. Our role in Afghanistan is also quintessentially Canadian: We are helping rebuild a troubled country and we are giving hope for the future to a long-suffering people. This is a clear expression of our Canadian values at work."

Graham said: "So when I hear voices who call for the withdrawal of our troops, who suggest that we are engaged in a war there against Islam ... I say: 'Let them talk to the Afghans, Afghans who are Muslims themselves, Afghans who want us there to help them transform their country' ..."

[cybercoma]

I know its probably a fool's errand, but I figure I may as well debunk this garbage, in case anyone else has wondered about how this stuff is explained.

I just want to thank you for going through all that garbage because much too lazy and unwilling to put the time in to do it. Especially considering the people that need to read it aren't going to change their opinions anyway. Their only concerned with supporting things they want to believe instead of actually looking at what happened. They seek to confirm their predetermined idea that the US government had a hand in the deaths of all those people on 9/11, instead of actually looking at the physical evidence that you're posting.

Thank you though, for taking the time to do that even though it is most unfortunate that it truly is a "fool's errand".