Bin Laden Transcript

[Atom]

Originally Posted by ferret77

jezz you want some knee pads

No. I actually believe that what I'm saying is true, ferret.

[ferret77]

"Ideal freedom - the ability to do as I please without interference as long as my actions do not imping upon the rights of others."

Yeah like Gay marriage,

I don't think they shoot down civilain airplanes for fun, or on purpose unless its absoulty necccessary to save lives

the president gave orders to shoot the plane down although they claim they didn't get a chance

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../17/se.35.html

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...ht+93%22&hl=en

Had to dig a bit for that, I knew I read it once though it might have been in the 911 commission

[Atom]

Originally Posted by awall19

of course the official stance is OOPS!!!

but if you really believe that then I got oceanfront property in Arizona.

<added:> go ferret </added>

Do you believe that it was not done unintentionally?

[Atom]

Originally Posted by ferret77

"Ideal freedom - the ability to do as I please without interference as long as my actions do not imping upon the rights of others."

Yeah like Gay marriage,

Yeah like, yeah.

[awall19]

Originally Posted by Atom

Do you believe that it was not done unintentionally?

I don't know if anyone here has ever been in the military on a war vessel before (like me), but we do things most people do not know about (some of which I don't and some of which I do but can't say), and it is exceptionally rare that we would accidentally do something like misidentify and shoot down a commercial airliner. with all the surrounding events its rather hard to view that as "just an accident"

some of our technology for identifying certain things (like airplanes) is rather advanced...one unrelated example, underwater the US by far and away has the best sonar systems in the world.

just imagine the size and altitude and speed and there are lots of other things we can figure out about a plane...and we couldn't tell a war jet from a commercial airliner. that is complete garbage.

we can shoot missles from underwater and have them land on target and you think the companies that bring us those technologies can't even give us technology to tell a warplane from a commercial airliner.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by awall19

I don't know if anyone here has ever been in the military on a war vessel before (like me), but we do things most people do not know about (some of which I don't and some of which I do but can't say), and it is exceptionally rare that we would accidentally do something like misidentify and shoot down a commercial airliner. with all the surrounding events its rather hard to view that as "just an accident"

some of our technology for identifying certain things (like airplanes) is rather advanced...one unrelated example, underwater the US by far and away has the best sonar systems in the world.

just imagine the size and altitude and speed and there are lots of other things we can figure out about a plane...and we couldn't tell a war jet from a commercial airliner. that is complete garbage.

Ok, well I see that your opinion on that issue would be a more intelligent one than mine so, I think it might be wise for me to refrain from comment on this one.

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by Atom

Well no, no credentials..

.. but it's just very obvious to me that John's debating tatics involve raising very simple questions that if actually answered and not misinterpreted and evaded, could provide for some very meaningful discussion. But people's apparent unwillingness, or what ever the reasons, to actually answer questions presented, in itself makes for very poor debating. People seem to want to progress forward only, but that cannot be done properly without a substancial amount of, and frequent regression, IMO.

To me John's use of "raising very simple questions" is perhaps good debating tactics, but applicable only in debates with people who see the world in two colors. The world is painted in many more colors, so a choice between black and white is not always possible. Even if only black or white is eventually selected as the answer, it often happens after a number of shades of gray have been considerd. It would be great if the wordl were so simple - black and white, good or evil. Unfortunatelly it isn't, so we may as well use the right tools to describe it and debate it.

In my view, John's debating "tactics" (but not necessarilly John, nor you) shows a person who has very crystalized views and who is potentially easily irritated if someone tries to show him other aspects of a problem at hand. These aspects can be close to black but not quite black, or they can be close to white, but not really purelly white. A two-color person (but not necessarilly John, nor you) is an ideal candidate for a religious fundamentalist. In religion it's either right or wrong - with little room in between. "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me" is actually a pretty scarry fragment of the New Testament when you give it some deep thought. That's the kind of a debate tactics that makes you happy.

Going back to the civillian plane shooting, I don't think I am the only one who sees things inmore colors than black and white:

As the planes track toward Washington, a discussion begins about whether to shoot them down. “I discussed it with the president. ‘Are we prepared to order our aircraft to shoot down these airliners that have been hijacked?’ He said yes,” recalls Cheney. “It was my advice. It was his decision.”

“That’s a sobering moment to order your own combat aircraft to shoot down your own civilian aircraft,” says Bush. “But it was an easy decision to make given the – given the fact that we had learned that a commercial aircraft was being used as a weapon. I say easy decision, it was, I didn’t hesitate, let me put it that way. I knew what had to be done.”

full article:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in521718.shtml

[Atom]

Originally Posted by littleFella

To me John's use of "raising very simple questions" is perhaps good debating tactics, but applicable only in debates with people who see the world in two colors.

Oh?

littleFella:

Originally Posted by littleFella

... John's use of "raising very simple questions" is perhaps good debating tactics,

True.

Originally Posted by littleFella

but applicable only in debates with people who see the world in two colors.

False.

[Ferre]

the ability to do as I please without interference as long as my actions do not imping upon the rights of others.

Funny, that's exactly the basis of our Dutch constitution and protected by law here. That and the right to privacy.

Point is, It's exactly what we have too.

[SVB]

Originally Posted by Ferre

Funny, that's exactly the basis of our Dutch constitution and protected by law here. That and the right to privacy.

Point is, It's exactly what we have too.

Originally Posted by Job Cohen

"Theo van Gogh picked fights with many people, myself included, but that is a right in this country."

That doesn't sound too good....