That is an insult to theories.
This is conjecture at best.
i finally found what i think is the Chicago Tribune article of July 21, 2004 by John Crewdson. here's an excerpt, which contradicts many of Edmonds' claims about it:
Quote:Five months before Sept. 11, a longtime informant for the FBI reported that Al Qaeda was planning a devastating terrorist assault in which the weapons were to be commercial airliners.
According to two sources familiar with that interview, the informant was short on details. In particular, nothing was said about the precise timing of the airborne attack, its location or its possible targets.
Law enforcement officials who have reviewed the April 2001 interview and at least one follow-up conversation insist that the informant's information, by itself, could not have led the bureau to the Sept. 11 plotters.
source:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1870204
(the link to the page doesn't work, so you'll have to cut & paste the URL to read it after scrolling down a bit)
the underlined sentence is at odds with the claims that
Quote:1) Osama Bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting 4-5 major cities,
4) the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months.
here's another excerpt that contradicts these claims:
Quote:Sarshar, then a career FBI employee assigned to the translation section of the bureau's Washington field office, does remember the Asset saying the attacks might take place in the U.S. or Europe, and also that the terrorist-pilots were "under training."
whereas the actual terrorists had already completed their training as of april 2001.
Quote:You are pathetic people. No wonder the world detests you. The world is not a video game. Americans see the world as an edited version of a video/hollywood game or movie. If it's not in movie form, where you can sit on your fat asses with a giant box of popcorn, forget it.
The loss is yours. This is very pertinent to what is going on in America and the lies that lead up to 9/11. But then, if you know the truth you have to actually DO something rather than sit like a lump on the couch.
Sorry you have the attention span of a gnat, America. Doesn't surprise me, though.
Maybe someone else out there (not American, with brains) can read it. The implications are quite scary- your own FBI is one corrupt place.
Instant entertainment, MTV, shallow people.....that's the American way. EH?
That's why Bush et al will continue the lies. You fools are too lazy to read an article that takes 15 minutes to read - maybe 30 if you're like Bushie reading My Pet Goat. Pretend you're reading a Playboy and it'll be more interesting. I bet you can read those articles eh?
9/11 was a pre-planned attack. If you have the balls to read this, you'll know for sure you have been lied to. The guys in Iraq are there for no reason. Except to enrich the pockets of the rich. I hope when there's a draft that no more young men sign up. I hope NO ONE signs up. Enough is enough.
I'm trying to figure what's more arrogant: Americans' view towards the world, or you. Preliminary results are pointing towards you.
I read most (3/4) of your article and it was mildly interesting and did bring up a few good point although certain cliche 9/11 things were brought up.
And by the way there will be no draft used in the US and if there was no one would sign up. You would be drafted. And you can't dodge a draft. Unless you want to be like Bush and we know you don't want that ;-)
englishmajor wrote:You are pathetic people. No wonder the world detests you....
You have proven nothing whatever other than the fact that
you hate us. The rest of your posts are pretty much just name calling. Your rants certainly don't prove anything. Most likely you're just mentally ill. Why is it that your posts consist of cutting and pasting other peoples' words? Have you so few thoughts of your own?
I hope the Rules of Debate haven't changed since 2001 in BC.
englishmajor, as a service to you I have provided these rules of debate for Americans to follow.
However, it should go unsaid they apply to you also......
I hope I make my point.
2001 Legislative Session: 37th Parliament, 2nd Session
STANDING ORDERS
PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Adopted February 20, 1930
(Effective May 1, 1930)
(Including Amendments of April 1970, February, March, and
October 1973, June 1974, June 1977, February 1985,
March 1987, May 1991, March 1992,
March 1994, April 1996, August 1996
and April 1997
-------------
Chapter III - Rules of Debate
Order in addressing the Chair.
36. Every Member desiring to speak is to rise in his or her place, uncovered, and address the Speaker.
Precedence when two Members rise to speak.
37. When two or more Members rise to speak, the Speaker calls upon the Member who rose first in his or her place; but a motion may be made that any Member who has risen "be now heard" or "do now speak" which motion shall be forthwith put without debate.
Member to resume seat.
38. A Member who is addressing the House shall take his or her seat when
(a) called to order by the Speaker,
(b) a point of order is raised by another Member, or
(c) the Speaker rises.
Motion re Member's conduct.
39. If any motion is made concerning the conduct of any Member, or his or her right to hold a seat, that Member may make a statement, remain in the House during the debate and, notwithstanding Standing Order 18, participate in any resulting vote.
Disrespectful or offensive language forbidden.
40. (1) No Member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty, nor of any Member of the Royal Family, nor the Governor General or the Chief Executive Officer or Administrator for the time being carrying on the Government of Canada, nor of the Lieutenant Governor or the Chief Executive Officer or Administrator for the time being carrying on the Government of the Province.
(2) No Member shall use offensive words against any Member of this House.
Irrelevance in debate.
(3) No Member shall be irrelevant in debate.
Reflection on earlier vote.
(4) No Member shall reflect upon any vote of the House passed during the current Session, except for the purpose of moving that the vote be rescinded.
Reading the question.
41. When the question under discussion does not appear on the Order Paper or has not been printed and distributed, any Member may require it to be read at any time during the debate, but not so as to interrupt a Member while speaking.
No Member to speak twice.
42. (1) No Member may speak twice to a question except in explanation of a material part of his or her speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood, but then the Member is not to introduce any new matter, and no debate shall be allowed upon such explanation.
Reply.
(2) A reply shall be allowed to a Member who has moved a substantive motion, but not to the mover of an amendment or an instruction to a Committee. Such reply shall close the debate.
(3) In all cases, the Speaker shall inform the House that the reply of the mover of the original motion closes the debate.
Irrelevance and repetition in debate.
43. the Speaker or the Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole, after having called the attention of the House or of the Committee to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of that Member's own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct that Member to discontinue speaking and, if the Member still continues to speak, the Speaker or the Chairperson shall follow the procedures in Standing Orders 19 and 20.
Motion in abuse of Rules of House.
44. If the Speaker, or the Chairperson of a Committee of the Whole House, shall be of opinion that a motion for the adjournment of a debate, or of the House, during any debate, or that the Chairperson do report progress, or do leave the Chair, is an abuse of the Rules and privileges of the House, he or she may forthwith put the question thereupon from the Chair, or he or she may decline to propose the question to the House.
Debatable motions.
45. (1) The following motions are debatable: Every motion -
(a) On Orders of the Day except Government notices of motion for the House to go into Committee at a later date;
(b) For the concurrence in a report of a Standing or Special Committee;
(c) For the rescinding of a previous vote;
(d) For the second reading of a Bill;
(e) For the third reading of a Bill;
(f) For the adjournment of the House when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance;
(g) For the adoption in Committee of the Whole, or of Supply, of the resolution, clause, section, preamble, or title under consideration;
(h) For the appointment of a Committee;
(i) For reference to a Committee of a report or any return laid on the Table of the House;
(j) For the suspension of any Standing Order;
(k) And such other motion, made upon routine proceedings, as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the correctness of its records, the fixing of its sitting-days, or the times of its meeting or adjournment.
(2) All other motions, including adjournment motions, shall be decided without debate or amendment.
Time Limit on Speeches and Duration of Debates
Time limit on speeches.
45A. In respect of a subject indicated in the following schedules to this Standing Order, the maximum period for which a Member may speak shall not exceed the period specified opposite that Member, and the other rules in that schedule apply.-----------
Conduct of Members
Decorum in the House.
17. (1) When the Speaker is putting a question, no Member shall walk out of or cross the House, or make any noise or disturbance.
(2) When a Member is speaking, no Member shall pass between the Member and the Chair, nor interrupt the Member, except to raise a point of order.
(3) No Member may pass between the Chair and the Table, nor between the Chair and the Mace, when the Mace has been taken off the Table by the Sergeant-at-Arms.
Member having pecuniary interest not to vote.
18. No Member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he or she has a direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of any Member so interested shall be disallowed.
Disorderly conduct.
19. The Speaker or the Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole shall order a Member whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the House or Committee of the Whole for the remainder of that day, and the Sergeant-at-Arms shall act on such orders as may be received from the Chair in pursuance of this Order.
Suspension of Member.
20. (1) Any Member who disregards the authority of the Chair or refuses to comply with an order of the Chair, or abuses the rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House, or otherwise, may be named by the Speaker or by the Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole, and, if the offence has been committed in the House, the Speaker shall forthwith put the question, on a motion being made without amendment, adjournment or debate, "That such Member be suspended from the service of the House", and, if the offence has been committed in a Committee of the Whole, the Chairperson shall forthwith suspend the proceedings of the Committee and report the circumstances to the House, and the Speaker shall, on a motion being made thereupon, put the same question, without amendment, adjournment or debate, as if the offence had been committed in the House itself.
(2) If any Member is suspended under this Order, the suspension shall continue for a period not to exceed 15 consecutive sitting days from and including the day of suspension.
(3) When a Member has been suspended under this Order, the Speaker shall order that Member to withdraw immediately from the House, and if the Member shall refuse to obey the direction of the Speaker, when summoned under the Speaker's orders by the Sergeant-at-Arms to obey such direction, the Speaker shall call the attention of the House to the fact that recourse to force is necessary in order to compel obedience to his or her direction, and the Member named by him or her as having refused to obey his or her direction shall thereupon and without any further question being put, be suspended from the service of the House for 30 consecutive sitting days, from and including the day of suspension.
Suspended Member.
21. A Member who is ordered to withdraw or is suspended from the service of the House is also thereby suspended from the Legislative Chamber and Committees of the House for the same period.Suspend sittings.
22. (1) In the case of grave disorder arising in the House, the Speaker may recess or adjourn the House until the next sitting without question put.
(2) In the case of grave disorder arising in a Committee of the Whole, the Chairperson may recess the sitting of the Committee without question put.
Conduct of Strangers
House may be cleared.
23. If any Member takes notice that strangers are present, the Speaker or the Chairperson (as the case may be) shall forthwith put the question "That strangers be ordered to withdraw" without permitting any debate or amendment: provided that the Speaker, or the Chairperson, may, whenever he or she thinks proper, order the withdrawal of strangers.
Conduct of strangers in House, Committees or galleries.
24. Any strangers admitted to any part of the House, Committees of the House or galleries who misconduct themselves, or who do not withdraw when directed to do so, shall be taken into custody by the Sergeant-at-Arms, and no person so taken into custody shall be discharged without special order of the House, or of the Speaker if the House be recessed or adjourned.
englishmajor wrote:You are pathetic people. No wonder the world detests you.
You don't speak for the world. You speak for anti-American trash.
englishmajor wrote:9/11 was a pre-planned attack.
No kidding????
englishmajor wrote:You are pathetic people. No wonder the world detests you.
An absurdity exposed not only by the US Illegal Immigration crisis, but also by the performance of the US on the stage of World Trade.
Chai, nice of you to provide those Rule of Debate - Now, this is just me, but as I recall, A2K has its own version of same, emodied within
Item III B of The Terms:
Quote:B.
1) Be courteous. You agree that you will not threaten or verbally abuse other members, use defamatory language, or deliberately disrupt topics with repetitive messages, meaningless messages or "spam." Spammers will be removed from the service, and their accounts terminated.
2) Use respectful language. You agree not to use language that abuses or discriminates on the basis of race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual preference, age, region, disability, etc. Hate speech of any kind is grounds for immediate and permanent removal from the service.
3) Use appropriate language. While open exchanges, even about adult-oriented issues, are encouraged, members are asked to consider the different ages and sensitivities of the entire community while participating in the Able2Know service. If necessary, inappropriate language will be deleted or edited, or a topic containing said inappropriate language will be marked as such (e. g. Warning: contains adult language).
4) Vulgar speech is not tolerated. Vulgarisms may be deleted or edited, and may result in a warning or eventual removal of the member from the site.
5) Lively debate is accepted, and even encouraged, but personal attacks are not. Active topics and heated debate are welcome in the Able2Know service. However, personal attacks are a direct violation of this Agreement and are grounds for immediate and permanent removal from the service.
6) While occasional breaches of decorum in the heat of debate will be tolerated, members whose interactions are marked by a consistent pattern of demeaning and abusive interactions will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including permanent removal from the service.
and, as pertains specifically to the forum in which this discussion is being aired, re-itterated in and amplified by the headline topic of this very forum:
Announcement: Politics Forum - Debate Guidelines - PLEASE READ, which offers the following:
Quote:Guidelines for debate in the Politics forum
All members engaging in discussion on the Politics Forum will be expected to adhere to the spirit of the following guidelines.
Overall purpose
Our wish for this forum is that all who attend come away with a richer understanding of the issues being debated, and with an increased appreciation of differing viewpoints held by others. These guidelines are in place to encourage that end above any others.
Most of us will have been involved previously in other discussion communities where some contributors' goals seemed rather different than that - perhaps to bullyingly forward a particular party line while loudly denigrating the perceived political enemy. The assumption that we are already uniquely in possession of the 'truth' is as effective a barrier to learning anything new as a person might possibly devise.
Of course, the tricky part about humility is that it applies to yourself, not to others. Therefore it seems intellectually prudent to be at least as curious and critical regarding our own assumptions as those of others.
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
--Voltaire
Mannerly conduct
As per the membership agreement, it is a given that flaming, rude comments, and personal attacks are not acceptable here. Intellectually vacuous and snide slanders such as 'DemoRats' or 'REPUGlicans' (or local variants if you live elsewhere than the US) are completely unwelcome. But, actually, we ask more of you than those obvious and fundamental rules.
Consider that you are joining a community marked by good will and a shared committment to learn and to help others learn. Thus it is expected that all discussion participants will:
- read others' posts with care and deliberation
- strive to understand the position of those who disagree with you
- value your own experience and knowledge, and allow the same for others
- write your own posts with care and deliberation
- don't hog...keep your posts to a size and frequency which allows others an equal place in the discussion
- respect the intention of the person who originally posted and keep discussion relevant to the topic or question if that is his/her expressed wish, or the wish of others engaged. Always feel free to begin a separate question yourself if a tangent seems particularly interesting or important.
- feel quite free to disagree, but engage in friendly disagreement
- remember that humor and a friendly manner can go far in encouraging your readers to 'hear' your opinion
- and, make your posts helpful to the whole community by following the rules of good scholarship below.
A Modicum of Proper Scholarship, Please
Careful and correct use of language is a powerful aid to straight thinking, for putting into words precisely what we mean necessitates getting our own minds quite clear on what we mean.- William Ian Beardmore Beveridge
* Be specific
Few things are more intellectually irritating (not to mention worthless) than reading some uncautious and poorly thought out claim such as "Liberals never care about truth", or "The conservative mindset precludes empathy". If you happen to be a fan of the TV show "Crossfire" and think the quality of discourse there is just peachy, then you might perhaps be more at home on some other site. Such generalizations are never really true, and they merely function as cliches which let the writer off the hook - he doesn't have to think, it's already done for him.
* Verify your claims...differentiate facts and opinions
Claims you want to argue in your posts ought to be clearly stated, but specific and not unhelpfully generalized. Try to find examples. If your claim isn't something you are able to verify, note that it is your opinion only. Where you can verify, show the sources so others can check. Provide links wherever they are aidful.
* Request logical arguments of yourself
It isn't expected that everyone has or needs to study a course in logic. But there are some simple things to keep in mind when you write your posts. For example, address the claim that is being argued rather than the speaker of it. For another example, don't assume something must be true simply because an 'authority' says so, or because some large number of people believe it to be so.
It's likely that now and again someone will use a term from logic. You can refer to an online dictionary
http://dictionary.reference.com/ to clarify the term. If you find yourself interested in learning more about logic, try
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Introduction
Do not attempt to enforce these guidelines yourself. They are for your edification. Please leave the enforcement of the rules to the Moderators.
Seems to me some folks might benefit through revisting those bits, and thereby be of benefit to the overall website and to the forum-interaction experience of all its members.
But then again, that's just my take; mebbe some see it differently.
Thanks timberlandko
I was thinking about A2K terms, but started thinking that maybe putting the rules on someones own turf might make a bigger impression.
Hmmmm.....If we were to adopt of rules of debate of BC, who would get to be Sargent-at-Arms?
I think Englishmajor has just confused his hate for the bush administration with hate for the actual citizens of the US.
I respectfully disagree with some of the statements he makes towards Americans. Even though they may disagree with their current administration it doesnt mean they have to be anti-american. They are Americans in America, they have a sense of nationalism; calling them stupid isn't really the best basis for your future debates.
I grew up with my parents in the States (I am a citizen). What I saw there was a gross misinformation of the world situation to the standing public. FOX 11, CBS and even CNN have always had a slight bias. My opinion of most media has always been on the bad side, and after coming back to India I have been opened to what seems like a much more worldly perspective. Of course there are junk bias news sources here too, I find it MUCH easier to get a hand on text that displays facts of the events, instead of being slightly laced with small bits of propaganda.
In America , you have the freedom to do ANYTHING. You can search for the truth, you can find it, or you can believe what you are being fed is the truth. I for one believe that the American people have been mislead. While I believe this isnt fair, I accept that such is the game of politcs.
In hindsight, articles like this seem to complete a perfect puzzle and point out how stupid the Americans have come to be, but to call ANYONE stupid you need to get to the root of the problem.
The government is great at providing a blanket for the average joe. This blanket protects them from the outside and is warm and plentiful on the inside. The average person will be satisfied by this and over time will come to be comforted by their security. This leads to the cemeted thinking that what the government is doing is correct. What is sad is that these people are the vast majority and they have been taken advantage of. They are led to believe that if they are happy, the rest of the world is happy, and the government is doing a great job. THIS is where people get the notion that Americans are stupid.
Back home most people have realized their lives are completely safe and have busied themselves with other things. shopping, business, college, mtv, etc. Even during the "high terror alerts" people go about with their normal lives. They even go so far as to poke fun.
Americans are certainly far from stupid, all it takes in this world for the general public to be enlightened is a good leader.
Your article brings up valid points that cannot be ignored, but you have to realize that every single day there are threats made. If you are receiving so many threats on a regular basis the best you can do is provide a perimeter of general security and hope for the best. Although the current homelan security and patriot act leave something to be desired, terrorism of this kind is a new frontier, complete and thorough protection against it will take time and inevitably lives as well.
I for one believe that it is the job of the leader to point the country in the right direction, but it is the job of the citizen to discern and asess the world situation. I don't agree with GWB and his administration on many things, but the problem isnt soley on his shoulders. It runs deep, just as the problems do of any country. The corruption, political defects, and greed of most countries in this world runs too deep to put the blame on any few people. Problems like this arise slowly through time and the gradual implementation of wrong ideals and values.
Its up to people like you guys on A2K to let people know what is really going on. Problems with human character right down to our next door neighbors. Be it USA, Canada or anywhere else.
