If all you can do is call people fat and nutcase then that is ver, very sad my friend.
Philip Zelikow, impartial?
- Thread starter Docker
- Start date
If all you can do is call people fat and nutcase then that is ver, very sad my friend.
Go back and read the MANDATE of the commission, as I transcribed directly from the report. Now tell me, given that mandate, why the president should not have chosen the director?
Now, if you asked me, should BUSH get to choose who is on a commission to investigate his competence or lack their of, or negligence wrt 9/11, I would say, a resounding NO!!
Get my point. I do not dispute that a committee created to investigate someone shouldnt be chosen by that person, but that IS NOT what the 9/11 Commission was for, that was not its mandate.
TAM
Now, if you asked me, should BUSH get to choose who is on a commission to investigate his competence or lack their of, or negligence wrt 9/11, I would say, a resounding NO!!
Get my point. I do not dispute that a committee created to investigate someone shouldnt be chosen by that person, but that IS NOT what the 9/11 Commission was for, that was not its mandate.
TAM
I agree. In my opinion the mandate is wrong. Bush should have had to appear alone. Those victims families are disgusted with that commission and rightly so.
Well stop talking to me then
Ok. If you are now saying that you disagree with the MANDATE of the commission, that is something entirely different.
I personally feel that at the time, the MANDATE was satisfactory, in that it addressed the issues put to it at the time. At that time there was no great cry to investigate the USG for incompetence. If the general public now believes there is, than perhaps a SEPERATE Commission or committee, to investigate this, is appropriate.
TAM
I personally feel that at the time, the MANDATE was satisfactory, in that it addressed the issues put to it at the time. At that time there was no great cry to investigate the USG for incompetence. If the general public now believes there is, than perhaps a SEPERATE Commission or committee, to investigate this, is appropriate.
TAM
You and I are in total agreement. A new commision with the ability to apportion blame and the ability to call any witness and ask any question is what we are asking for.
I sometimes wonder what people think the truth movement is asking for. They don't want a violent revolution and Bush to be lynched on the whitehouse lawn, well most don't?
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
ah, but this point is where we may not agree, it is not quite so clear, and it is where alot of the "debunkers" part ways with the "truthers".
You see, while most debunkers would have no issue with investigating the USG for INCOMPETENCE, as we suggest, I think most truthers want the USG investigated for COMPLICITY, or taking part in the ORECHESTRATION of 9/11, for which most debunkers feel there is little if any evidence to warrant such an investigation. Such an investigation would require much more man power, and its implications would be so much more profound.
So Docker, you personally, you want the USG investigated for INCOMPETENCE, or COMPLICITY?
TAM
edit: my comments are all referring to DOCKER's post.
You see, while most debunkers would have no issue with investigating the USG for INCOMPETENCE, as we suggest, I think most truthers want the USG investigated for COMPLICITY, or taking part in the ORECHESTRATION of 9/11, for which most debunkers feel there is little if any evidence to warrant such an investigation. Such an investigation would require much more man power, and its implications would be so much more profound.
So Docker, you personally, you want the USG investigated for INCOMPETENCE, or COMPLICITY?
TAM
edit: my comments are all referring to DOCKER's post.
Who mentioned sensitive? I just found it amusing that the people here have a fixation on a man they dismiss as a lunatic. I thought the avatar would play that a bit.
Why is there a need to pick one? A truly open, thorough and independent investigation would reveal if there was complicity or negligence, without necessarily having to seek either.
I think the investigation would have to start by looking at the real issues. Not hologram planes etc, but the Mahmood business, the August 8th briefing etc
The families who debunkers claim they are defending should have input into the commision.
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
I haven't been "talking to" you except for the response to your stupid post that you directed to me, so your post is rather lame (as was your previous one in which you misquoted me).
That said, you've nothing to worry about since I'm not in the habit of "talking to" pathetic cretins who lack even the most basic of critical thinking skills, and who do nothing but post ridiculous, unsupported assertions that they cannot support with facts.
Here's a hint, though, since you seem to lack even the most basic understanding of how internet forums work, posting on a thread that you happen to be posting on, and commenting on one or even dozens of your unsubstantiated posts on a given thread, does not mean that someone is "talking to" you.
Edit to add: and none of that has anything to do with the fact that you have failed to comprehend what I said, and that your posts have been largely a waste of time and bandwidth.
Last edited:
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,474
ive often wondered if truthers realize that an investigation like that woudl require the commission to go through personal records and other private documents
do truthers think that have enough evidence to get a warrant issued? i know their usual response when asked for evidence is "thats why we need a new investigation" but i dont think thats going to fly in a courtroom
ah, I am not so sure. You see to investigate, let us say negligence or incompetence, we would merely look at the actions or lack their of on the day, and days leading up to the attacks. This investigation would be limited in scope, and cost, and would not be looking into "Treason" etc...
An investigation into possible collaboration/planning of the 9/11 attacks by the USG would involve a much more extensive and exhaustive investigation, and as I said before, the implications would be astronomically more profound.
TAM
An investigation into possible collaboration/planning of the 9/11 attacks by the USG would involve a much more extensive and exhaustive investigation, and as I said before, the implications would be astronomically more profound.
TAM
This is where I think we differ. I believe there MAY be a case to investigate elements of the USG for incompetence, perhaps even negligence, but I DO NOT feel there is sufficient evidence to warrant investigating the USG for COMPLICITY/PLANNING/COLLABORATING in the 9/11 Attacks.
TAM
TAM
I would set up the biggest commission in world history because, lets not forget, these were the biggest terrorist attacks in history and have had profound effects all over the world.
To quote steven jones, I would put all the evidence to the commision and "let the chips fall where they may.
If the government are complicit, it 's not the whole government. Just a rogue element with help from the CIA. I doubt bush has a clue what goes on around him, he's a figurehead.
dirtywick
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 10,286
I agree. Any type of new investigation into incompetence relies on the acceptance that the event happened the way the 9/11 Commission report says it did. If you want a new investigation into possible incompetence/negligence that varies differently from it, you may as well ignore it completely and reinvestigate the whole thing. Of course, something like that, which completely throws away the previous and official findings, would probably require evidence.
I'm a little curious about something though, Docker. If all you wanted was to play the blame game, why start out with accusations against Zelikow, the man in charge of an investigation that's totally unrelated to what you're asking for?
Well even that type of an investigation, while I feel there is not enough proof to warrant it, I would not totally disagree with.
What I do disagree with, are all the rediculous, unfounded theories that the vast majority of CTers propose as likelihoods, without even the smallest bit of evidence to back it up. This whole "We are just asking questions" doesnt work, because the movement considers itself a single unit, but has a world of disparity within it in terms of beliefs.
My suggestion is that the LIHOPS/LIHOIS seperate themselves from the idiocy of the MIHOP group, and then they might actually see some support.
TAM
What I do disagree with, are all the rediculous, unfounded theories that the vast majority of CTers propose as likelihoods, without even the smallest bit of evidence to back it up. This whole "We are just asking questions" doesnt work, because the movement considers itself a single unit, but has a world of disparity within it in terms of beliefs.
My suggestion is that the LIHOPS/LIHOIS seperate themselves from the idiocy of the MIHOP group, and then they might actually see some support.
TAM