PDA

View Full Version : The Mendenhall bin Laden tweets - a year later


TheVet
05-06-2012, 05:38 AM
Even though it's been a year since Mendenhall decided to put the "Twit" in "Twitter", I gotta admit that it still bothers me. Every time I watch him, read about him, or think about him, the first thing that comes to my mind is "what a moron - I can't believe I have to hold my nose and root for this guy." I think this every time, automatically. Those messages were just so offensive, and so incredibly ignorant - just mind-boggling. I wish the Rooneys would have dropped him immediately, and I still want to see him gone.

Does anybody else still feel this way?

TRH
05-06-2012, 09:04 AM
I'm on the fence. He (and most running backs today, not all, but most) are replaceable, almost immediately. In a way i'd like to see him back.......and in another way i'd like to see Redman step up and be THE guy. It's a tough call when someone at this particular position has that severe of an injury. How long do you want to wait it out and mess around?
I will say, though, personally, i don't like the guy. Not at all. He actually said a number of offensive things. The Bin Laden comments aren't the ones i even remember the most...it was the ridiculous "slaves" comments.

FanSince72
05-06-2012, 09:58 AM
Even though it's been a year since Mendenhall decided to put the "Twit" in "Twitter", I gotta admit that it still bothers me. Every time I watch him, read about him, or think about him, the first thing that comes to my mind is "what a moron - I can't believe I have to hold my nose and root for this guy." I think this every time, automatically. Those messages were just so offensive, and so incredibly ignorant - just mind-boggling. I wish the Rooneys would have dropped him immediately, and I still want to see him gone.

Does anybody else still feel this way?

Not me.

I agreed with Mendenhall on two points; One, that celebrating death is wrong - especially when that death is a state-sponsored assassination and Two, that we HAVE only heard one side of the whole 9/11 story and we should have been allowed to hear the whole story.

I would have liked to see bin Laden brought to trial and thus be able to understand once and for all just what transpired that day and exactly who was involved and to what extent, so that one way or another, we would know for sure.

9/11 was a criminal act, not an act of war and should have been treated as such. The only reason anyone believed bin Laden was behind the attacks is because George Bush said so. He may very well have been absolutely correct in that assertion, but with all due respect to the office of president, Bush was not an investigator and I'd rather have seen a proper investigation and a trial and seen evidence presented rather than take one man's word for it.

Back in '93, when the Trade Center was first attacked with a truck bomb, it was treated as a criminal investigation as it should have been. By '95, all of the players had been identified, arrested, tried and convicted. No wars, no assassinations, just a solid law enforcement investigation that provided answers and justice.

That's the way it should be and the way it should have been done with 9/11.

zcoop
05-06-2012, 10:09 AM
Got no problem with Mendenhal. Am an African American and former military. Funny how some attack the messenger and ignore the message.

zsheik22
05-06-2012, 11:36 AM
Not me.

I agreed with Mendenhall on two points; One, that celebrating death is wrong - especially when that death is a state-sponsored assassination and Two, that we HAVE only heard one side of the whole 9/11 story and we should have been allowed to hear the whole story.

I would have liked to see bin Laden brought to trial and thus be able to understand once and for all just what transpired that day and exactly who was involved and to what extent, so that one way or another, we would know for sure.

9/11 was a criminal act, not an act of war and should have been treated as such. The only reason anyone believed bin Laden was behind the attacks is because George Bush said so. He may very well have been absolutely correct in that assertion, but with all due respect to the office of president, Bush was not an investigator and I'd rather have seen a proper investigation and a trial and seen evidence presented rather than take one man's word for it.

Back in '93, when the Trade Center was first attacked with a truck bomb, it was treated as a criminal investigation as it should have been. By '95, all of the players had been identified, arrested, tried and convicted. No wars, no assassinations, just a solid law enforcement investigation that provided answers and justice.

That's the way it should be and the way it should have been done with 9/11.



First off, you have no clue what the situation was. The seal who got NO CREDIT shot him because they said he was picking up a weapon. How many dead seals do you want to bring this guy to America?

Wallace108
05-06-2012, 11:48 AM
Back in '93, when the Trade Center was first attacked with a truck bomb, it was treated as a criminal investigation as it should have been.

Perhaps if Clinton had treated the '93 bombing like an act of war instead of a criminal case, bin Laden wouldn't have been around 9 years later and 9/11 wouldn't have happened. :noidea:

MasterOfPuppets
05-06-2012, 12:20 PM
Perhaps if Clinton had treated the '93 bombing like an act of war instead of a criminal case, bin Laden wouldn't have been around 9 years later and 9/11 wouldn't have happened. :noidea:
clinton did infact take a swing a binladen , and if my memory serves me correct was heavily criticized for it by the GOP...

U.S. missiles pound targets in Afghanistan, Sudan

August 20, 1998

U.S. officials say the six sites attacked in Afghanistan were part of a network of terrorist compounds near the Pakistani border that housed supporters of Saudi millionaire Osama bin Laden.
American officials say they have convincing evidence that bin Laden, who has been given shelter by Afghanistans Islamic rulers, was involved in the bombings of the east African embassies.
In the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, the El Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries factory which U.S. officials say was housing chemical weapons was also attacked.


http://articles.cnn.com/1998-08-20/us/9808_20_us.strikes.01_1_sudanese-television-bin-mullah-abdullah?_s=PM:US

zsheik22
05-06-2012, 12:30 PM
clinton did infact take a swing a binladen , and if my memory serves me correct was heavily criticized for it by the GOP...


http://articles.cnn.com/1998-08-20/us/9808_20_us.strikes.01_1_sudanese-television-bin-mullah-abdullah?_s=PM:US





...and we wonder why they hate us?


Basically we just lobbed some missiles over, hitting and killing who knows what and called it a day. Nice work, team.

Rick5895
05-06-2012, 12:45 PM
Not me.

I agreed with Mendenhall on two points; One, that celebrating death is wrong - especially when that death is a state-sponsored assassination and Two, that we HAVE only heard one side of the whole 9/11 story and we should have been allowed to hear the whole story.

I would have liked to see bin Laden brought to trial and thus be able to understand once and for all just what transpired that day and exactly who was involved and to what extent, so that one way or another, we would know for sure.

9/11 was a criminal act, not an act of war and should have been treated as such. The only reason anyone believed bin Laden was behind the attacks is because George Bush said so. He may very well have been absolutely correct in that assertion, but with all due respect to the office of president, Bush was not an investigator and I'd rather have seen a proper investigation and a trial and seen evidence presented rather than take one man's word for it.

Back in '93, when the Trade Center was first attacked with a truck bomb, it was treated as a criminal investigation as it should have been. By '95, all of the players had been identified, arrested, tried and convicted. No wars, no assassinations, just a solid law enforcement investigation that provided answers and justice.

That's the way it should be and the way it should have been done with 9/11.

Everybody has an opinion on the matter. I'm indifferent to Mendy. He's just another athlete saying controversial things.
I respect your right to an opinion however 9/11 was an act of war. Three separate targets on American soil made it that way, IMO. By your logic then maybe you believe Pearl Harbor was a criminal act aswell.

Steel Peon
05-06-2012, 12:47 PM
The tweets only annoy me because of how dumb and immature he comes off sounding. If you get a shot at an enemy of that magnitude, you just take him out with no emotion and move on........it's your solemn duty.

9/11 was a criminal act, not an act of war and should have been treated as such. The only reason anyone believed bin Laden was behind the attacks is because George Bush said so. He may very well have been absolutely correct in that assertion, but with all due respect to the office of president, Bush was not an investigator and I'd rather have seen a proper investigation and a trial and seen evidence presented rather than take one man's word for it.

Back in '93, when the Trade Center was first attacked with a truck bomb, it was treated as a criminal investigation as it should have been. By '95, all of the players had been identified, arrested, tried and convicted. No wars, no assassinations, just a solid law enforcement investigation that provided answers and justice.

Indeed, and perhaps had the W Bush administration continued the counter-terrorism program that Clinton's administration had in place, we may have avoided 9/11 completely. All Bush would've had to do was SOMETHING besides NOTHING in counter-terrorism, but instead decided that the bombing of the USS Cole didn't require a response.

Perhaps if Clinton had treated the '93 bombing like an act of war instead of a criminal case, bin Laden wouldn't have been around 9 years later and 9/11 wouldn't have happened. :noidea:

To be fair, Jimmy Carter did sign authorization to start funding Afghan guerrillas against the Soviet invasion, but Regan escalated the funding to a large degree, and HW Bush continued that, which gave birth to Al-Qaeda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Mujahideen#Afghan_civil_war

It's hard to blame any one administration during the transitional time period in which Al-Qaeda was born, but clearly not enough attention was being paid to what the leadership was planning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone#Aftermath

Critics of U.S. foreign policy consider Operation Cyclone to be substantially responsible for setting in motion the events that led to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 commonly known as the term blowback. It is also probable that some Taliban presently fighting the U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan were in fact trained, equipped, or funded by the U.S. or its allies during the 1980s, at which time they were more commonly referred to as "freedom fighters"

Either way, GW Bush's apathy on the subject is unforgivable, and the invasion of Iraq was a mistake of epic proportions.

Sixburgher
05-06-2012, 01:08 PM
Indeed, and perhaps had the W Bush administration continued the counter-terrorism program that Clinton's administration had in place, we may have avoided 9/11 completely.

What "counter-terrorism" program would that have been? Bombing empty tents in Afghanistan or lobbing cruise missiles into aspirin factories in Sudan? And do you really think the planning and preparation for 9/11 started in January 2001 when Bush took office?

zsheik22
05-06-2012, 02:06 PM
The tweets only annoy me because of how dumb and immature he comes off sounding. If you get a shot at an enemy of that magnitude, you just take him out with no emotion and move on........it's your solemn duty.



Indeed, and perhaps had the W Bush administration continued the counter-terrorism program that Clinton's administration had in place, we may have avoided 9/11 completely. All Bush would've had to do was SOMETHING besides NOTHING in counter-terrorism, but instead decided that the bombing of the USS Cole didn't require a response.



To be fair, Jimmy Carter did sign authorization to start funding Afghan guerrillas against the Soviet invasion, but Regan escalated the funding to a large degree, and HW Bush continued that, which gave birth to Al-Qaeda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Mujahideen#Afghan_civil_war

It's hard to blame any one administration during the transitional time period in which Al-Qaeda was born, but clearly not enough attention was being paid to what the leadership was planning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone#Aftermath



Either way, GW Bush's apathy on the subject is unforgivable, and the invasion of Iraq was a mistake of epic proportions.



ap·a·thy
   [ap-uh-thee] Show IPA
noun, plural ap·a·thies.
1.
absence or suppression of passion, emotion, or excitement.
2.
lack of interest in or concern for things that others find moving or exciting.


News
World news

US chose to ignore Rwandan genocide

Classified papers show Clinton was aware of 'final solution' to eliminate Tutsis

Share 197

Rory Carroll in Johannesburg
The Guardian, Wednesday 31 March 2004 10.59 EST
Article history

President Bill Clinton's administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, according to classified documents made available for the first time.

Senior officials privately used the word genocide within 16 days of the start of the killings, but chose not to do so publicly because the president had already decided not to intervene.

Intelligence reports obtained using the US Freedom of Information Act show the cabinet and almost certainly the president had been told of a planned "final solution to eliminate all Tutsis" before the slaughter reached its peak.

It took Hutu death squads three months from April 6 to murder an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus and at each stage accurate, detailed reports were reaching Washington's top policymakers.

The documents undermine claims by Mr Clinton and his senior officials that they did not fully appreciate the scale and speed of the killings.

"It's powerful proof that they knew," said Alison des Forges, a Human Rights Watch researcher and authority on the genocide.

The National Security Archive, an independent non-governmental research institute based in Washington DC, went to court to obtain the material.

It discovered that the CIA's national intelligence daily, a secret briefing circulated to Mr Clinton, the then vice-president, Al Gore, and hundreds of senior officials, included almost daily reports on Rwanda. One, dated April 23, said rebels would continue fighting to "stop the genocide, which ... is spreading south".

Three days later the state department's intelligence briefing for former secretary of state Warren Christopher and other officials noted "genocide and partition" and reported declarations of a "final solution to eliminate all Tutsis".

However, the administration did not publicly use the word genocide until May 25 and even then diluted its impact by saying "acts of genocide".

Ms Des Forges said: "They feared this word would generate public opinion which would demand some sort of action and they didn't want to act. It was a very pragmatic determination."

The administration did not want to repeat the fiasco of US intervention in Somalia, where US troops became sucked into fighting. It also felt the US had no interests in Rwanda, a small central African country with no minerals or strategic value.

William Ferroggiaro, of the National Security Archive, said the system had worked. "Diplomats, intelligence agencies, defence and military officials - even aid workers - provided timely information up the chain," he said.

"That the Clinton administration decided against intervention at any level was not for lack of knowledge of what was happening in Rwanda."

Many analysts and historians fault Washington and other western capitals not just for failing to support the token force of overwhelmed UN peacekeepers but for failing to speak out more forcefully during the slaughter.

Some of the Hutu extremists orchestrating events might have heeded such warnings, they have suggested.

Mr Clinton has apologised for those failures but the declassified documents undermine his defence of ignorance. "The level of US intelligence is really amazing," said Mr Ferroggiaro. "A vast array of information was available."

On a visit to the Rwandan capital, Kigali, in 1998 Mr Clinton apologised for not acting quickly enough or immediately calling the crimes genocide.

In what was widely seen as an attempt to diminish his responsibility, he said: "It may seem strange to you here, especially the many of you who lost members of your family, but all over the world there were people like me sitting in offices, day after day after day, who did not fully appreciate the depth and speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror."

A spokesperson for the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation in New York said the allegations would be relayed to the former president.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/31/usa.rwanda





He eventually did say sorry, though.


For having a counter terrorism unit as you put it, it didnt do much to prevent the attacks during clintons terms. Even his secret bombings did nothing but antagonize.

Millers the sh!t
05-06-2012, 02:37 PM
Americas elite brought down the towers, not bin laden.

They needed a way to take away more rights from Americans and also get the support (Americans that don't think, an believe everything they're told by the media) to invade innocent countries.

Americas killed it's own multiple times to engage in war.
Pearl harbor, The Lusitania, Panama etc.

Anyone who thinks mendenhalls a fool or should be kicked off the steelers just cause he wants more answers before choosing a side, is a fool themselves.

zsheik22
05-06-2012, 02:52 PM
"Anyone who thinks mendenhalls a fool or should be kicked off the steelers just cause he wants more answers before choosing a side, is a fool themselves."




He's a fool, but even fools should have their right to freedom of speech.

zsheik22
05-06-2012, 02:54 PM
Americas elite brought down the towers, not bin laden.

They needed a way to take away more rights from Americans and also get the support (Americans that don't think, an believe everything they're told by the media) to invade innocent countries.

Americas killed it's own multiple times to engage in war.
Pearl harbor, The Lusitania, Panama etc.

Anyone who thinks mendenhalls a fool or should be kicked off the steelers just cause he wants more answers before choosing a side, is a fool themselves.




Who is "America's" elite? How could the elite make such a massive plan and then cover it up? The government cant even cover up a secret service sex ring, lol. If you think they would be able to cover up something so massive with so many loose ends and people needed.... put the pipe down.

VaDave
05-06-2012, 03:13 PM
This is a football thread? AS it has been said, it is better to reamain quiet, lest one take you as a fool, than to open one's mouth, and remove all doubt.

Mendy should know better, that twitter is a public forum, and he is indeed a football player, not a political commentator. Some things are better left unsaid.

Back to football, There was a post about the success of running football is based on the quality of the offensive line play. I'll agree Mendenhall is not the second comming of Jim Brown, but I'm here to tell you, with the combination of a better offensive system ( thanks for the memories Bruce), a major upgrade in talent ( DeCastro), and a return of the walking wounded ( Pouncey, Colon), we should expect a massive improvement in our rushing attack.

tanda10506
05-06-2012, 03:20 PM
First off, you have no clue what the situation was. The seal who got NO CREDIT shot him because they said he was picking up a weapon. How many dead seals do you want to bring this guy to America?

Thats not what he is saying, of course nobody wants SEALs dead, what he means though is that it was a kill mission. They were not going to take him into custody at all, Obama stated that more than once. I don't think Osama did 9/11 nor do I think he was even alive in 2011 since he was documented as being on dialisis in 2001, so I am not saying I agree or disagree with Fan, but dont accuse him of wanting SEALs dead, the only thing Fan is guilty of is supporting a HORRIBLE OC :chuckle:.

As for me the Mendy tweets have never bothered me, he has an alternative view of 9/11 and doesn't celebrate death of anybody, how is any of that offensive? If he would have said we deserved 9/11 like some people have then yes that would be offensive, but not believing the federal government's story, how is that offensive?

FanSince72
05-06-2012, 03:22 PM
Everybody has an opinion on the matter. I'm indifferent to Mendy. He's just another athlete saying controversial things.
I respect your right to an opinion however 9/11 was an act of war. Three separate targets on American soil made it that way, IMO. By your logic then maybe you believe Pearl Harbor was a criminal act aswell.

Comparing Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is apples and oranges.

Pearl Harbor was a naval installation and was attacked by the Japanese navy, representing the nation of Japan -- clearly an act of war.

9/11 represented civilian targets (except for the Pentagon) but was not (according to the current information) attacked by any military representing any nation. These attacks were allegedly perpetrated by what amounts to a handful of extremists who represented no flag and who had no particular country they could call home.

The methods used, spectacular as they were, were no different than Timothy McVeigh parking a Ryder truck loaded with explosives in front of the Murrah building in OK City. A 767 may be considerably more dramatic than a Ryder truck, but it's essentially the same thing; a vehicle used to destroy a building.

So if what bin Laden / al-Qaeda did was an act of war, then it stands to reason that what McVeigh did would also be considered an act of war and clearly that was not the case.

tanda10506
05-06-2012, 03:29 PM
Who is "America's" elite? How could the elite make such a massive plan and then cover it up? The government cant even cover up a secret service sex ring, lol. If you think they would be able to cover up something so massive with so many loose ends and people needed.... put the pipe down.

They weren't trying to keep the Secret Service scandal that quiet, else they would have not been buying hookers in public. Our government has been caught lying and running false flags before (it's admitted and documented), I am not saying you should believe one way or another on 9/11, just don't accuse others of being high just because they don't believe what the government puts out. It's not even that I want anyone else to think what I think about 9/11, just don't blindly follow what the government who has been caught in MAJOR lies for years chooses to tell you, look into it.

Steelersfan87
05-06-2012, 03:44 PM
Mendy should know better, that twitter is a public forum, and he is indeed a football player, not a political commentator. Some things are better left unsaid.

He does, however, have the freedom to speak his mind. I didn't agree with what he said and found his comments grossly ignorant (outside of the comment about celebrating death, which I detest), but let's be honest, it's quite obvious that there is a large proportion of the American populace that believes the attack on the World Trade Center was an inside job. It's not like he said something uncommon, just not politically correct. I really see no need to hang on these year old remarks and let a few tweets completely color one's perception of an individual. And let's remember also, it's not his job to be intelligent, or our best friend. He gets paid to perform athletic tasks...we just like watching him do it.

tanda10506
05-06-2012, 03:55 PM
Pearl Harbor was a naval installation and was attacked by the Japanese navy, representing the nation of Japan -- clearly an act of war.

I think it could go either way, an act of war or a criminal act depending on how you look at it and what defines an act of war. As far as I know, an "official" act of war can only be committed by one country vs another country, not a group of people vs a country, as Fan is saying.

zsheik22
05-06-2012, 05:04 PM
They weren't trying to keep the Secret Service scandal that quiet, else they would have not been buying hookers in public. Our government has been caught lying and running false flags before (it's admitted and documented), I am not saying you should believe one way or another on 9/11, just don't accuse others of being high just because they don't believe what the government puts out. It's not even that I want anyone else to think what I think about 9/11, just don't blindly follow what the government who has been caught in MAJOR lies for years chooses to tell you, look into it.




It's documented because it was leaked. The same way it would have been leaked for 9/11. It simply would have required too many people to keep quiet. There is a slim to none chance.


I do believe our foreign policy absolutely caused it though. I dont think Bin Laden was sitting around talking about how much he hates freedom and decided to attack the US.

zcoop
05-06-2012, 06:10 PM
It's documented because it was leaked. The same way it would have been leaked for 9/11. It simply would have required too many people to keep quiet. There is a slim to none chance.


I do believe our foreign policy absolutely caused it though. I dont think Bin Laden was sitting around talking about how much he hates freedom and decided to attack the US.

Did you say "foreign policy"? Houston, I think we have a winner here :tt03:. Now thats it! Could it be?

zsheik22
05-06-2012, 06:16 PM
Did you say "foreign policy"? Houston, I think we have a winner here :tt03:. Now thats it! Could it be?

:hatsoff:

FanSince72
05-06-2012, 08:03 PM
I think it could go either way, an act of war or a criminal act depending on how you look at it and what defines an act of war. As far as I know, an "official" act of war can only be committed by one country vs another country, not a group of people vs a country, as Fan is saying.

I suppose.

But in a war situation, there are generally two combatants each with clearly defined goals consisting of such things as treasure, resources, territory, political control or simply for empire.

Terrorism in and of itself is not a goal - it's a tactic.
Practitioners of terrorism may wish to win converts to their ideology (which is a goal) by engaging in acts of terror, but an act of terrorism can only serve to draw attention to a cause or to an ideology and is unlikely to serve as a means of conquest.

Secondly, though terrorism may be employed by a single group for a single purpose, such groups do not generally own territory or claim nation status and are generally spread throughout a number of nations. Since an act of war usually prompts a response from those who have been attacked, where, precisely, would they aim their weapons to retaliate?

There is no nation called "Terror". Terrorists exist in all nations but are not representative of those nations. McVeigh was a terrorist and a U. S. citizen; so does that make the United States a terrorist nation? Of course not.
If he had brought his AMFO bomb to a foreign land and killed people there, would you agree that that nation has a right to send its military here to destroy our cities and occupy our country just because of the acts of a single person?

I wouldn't.

What I WOULD want is for that person to be arrested and charged with a crime.

Millers the sh!t
05-06-2012, 09:40 PM
I suppose.

But in a war situation, there are generally two combatants each with clearly defined goals consisting of such things as treasure, resources, territory, political control or simply for empire.

Terrorism in and of itself is not a goal - it's a tactic.
Practitioners of terrorism may wish to win converts to their ideology (which is a goal) by engaging in acts of terror, but an act of terrorism can only serve to draw attention to a cause or to an ideology and is unlikely to serve as a means of conquest.

Secondly, though terrorism may be employed by a single group for a single purpose, such groups do not generally own territory or claim nation status and are generally spread throughout a number of nations. Since an act of war usually prompts a response from those who have been attacked, where, precisely, would they aim their weapons to retaliate?

There is no nation called "Terror". Terrorists exist in all nations but are not representative of those nations. McVeigh was a terrorist and a U. S. citizen; so does that make the United States a terrorist nation? Of course not.
If he had brought his AMFO bomb to a foreign land and killed people there, would you agree that that nation has a right to send its military here to destroy our cities and occupy our country just because of the acts of a single person?

I wouldn't.

What I WOULD want is for that person to be arrested and charged with a crime.

So America itself is a terrorist country for (without reason) invading and destroying a historical country, military, economy, and soon to be religious state of Iraq.

Also the citizens that want to protect their country and way of life (for 1,000's of years) are also labeled as enemy combatants and terrorist. If someone invaded our country (with or without a valid purpose) and we protected it, we would be called patriots.

Kind of hypocritical....

Also people like Ted Kazinski, and Timothy McVeigh
Understood the greed, faults, and hipocrosy withing the US governments and grew tired of watching society, the country and the average man get dragged through the coals. That's why they did what they did. Labeled terrorist today, but would have been historical heroes if they were part of the revolt against the British government during the revolution.

Our founding fathers encouraged the citizens to keep control of their governments with fear, and not the other way around. They also encouraged uprisings and revolutions every generation to keep the government honest, and to serve the people.

They'd be disgusted with the way their vision actually turned out.

Steel Peon
05-06-2012, 11:09 PM
What "counter-terrorism" program would that have been? Bombing empty tents in Afghanistan or lobbing cruise missiles into aspirin factories in Sudan? And do you really think the planning and preparation for 9/11 started in January 2001 when Bush took office?

For having a counter terrorism unit as you put it, it didnt do much to prevent the attacks during clintons terms. Even his secret bombings did nothing but antagonize.

If either of you can highlight ANYTHING whatsoever that the GW Bush administration did in response to the USS Cole bombing, then I will concede the argument and send you a cookie. If you give terrorists a years reprieve then they'll pull something bigger than the last........case in point 9/11. Counter-terrorism was on the back burner when it should have been the first thing addressed. Come to think of it, what did W do for his first year in orifice anyways?

Millers the sh!t
05-06-2012, 11:38 PM
If either of you can highlight ANYTHING whatsoever that the GW Bush administration did in response to the USS Cole bombing, then I will concede the argument and send you a cookie. If you give terrorists a years reprieve then they'll pull something bigger than the last........case in point 9/11. Counter-terrorism was on the back burner when it should have been the first thing addressed. Come to think of it, what did W do for his first year in orifice anyways?


You want it, you got it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGRYPYuFZLk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Bayz101
05-06-2012, 11:39 PM
Everyone knows we brought the towers down to have an excuse to go to war with Iraq and stock up on oil :chuckle:

Am I going to have to move this to a political discussion forum :sofunny:

cubanstogie
05-06-2012, 11:51 PM
I saw a stat on espn the other day. 78 percent of pro football players have financial troubles within 2 years of retiring from the NFL. These guys are great athletes and freaks of nature as far as strength, speed and endurance. They are not the brightest bunnies in the forest. I used the to think the Steelers were exempt from all the off field crap the Ravens are notorious for, Wrong. My advice is watch the games because of entertainment value and because you are a Steelers fanatic. Not because you love and respect these guys as humans. Sure a few are stellar humans as well. I despise Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Clooney and every other Lib actor who spouts off about crap they have no business discussing. But I can now separate the person from the actor and actually enjoy their movies. I don't pay to see them but still watch. Pretty much the same in sports. There is nothing wrong with celebrating the death of someone who killed thousands of people. Best thing to happen during the obama administration. Mendy is clueless, but I still hope he recovers and contributes to SB win number 7.

PhantomJB93
05-06-2012, 11:54 PM
I'm not gonna get into the actual 9/11 conversation, but as far as Mendy's tweets go, the whole thing was SEVERLEY overblown. I'm not saying I agree with what he said, but he asked a a rhetorical question about what our society values and takes as truth and people suddenly acted like he literally typed out "PRAISE ALLAH. DEATH TO AMERICA" To be honest I'm "disgusted" with the people who say they are "disgusted" with him over this.

He didn't say Bin Laden was a hero or be worshiped or anything outrageous. All he said was that it's wrong to celebrate his death, and that we hadn't heard the whole story, which is true. No-one's death should be "celebrated." And we still know very little about the events of his death and his involvement in the terrorist attacks to this day, hence the conspiracy theories and constant arguments.

Now, could he have exercised better judgement as a celebrity/football player/role model and not posted the tweets? Of course. In hindsight he was stupid to say what he did. But, if anything, he should be criticized for that "role model" aspect of the tweets, and not for the content of the tweets themselves.

zcoop
05-07-2012, 12:29 AM
Everyone knows we brought the towers down to have an excuse to go to war with Iraq and stock up on oil :chuckle:

Am I going to have to move this to a political discussion forum :sofunny:

You crazy man. :chuckle:

Prolly gonna have to move it, but it is entertaining though. :popcorn:

AgentGold007
05-07-2012, 12:31 AM
Wow, I went to a political forum and a Steelers conversation broke out.

Hawaii 5-0
05-07-2012, 12:41 AM
Prolly gonna have to move it, but it is entertaining though. :popcorn:




please don't move it, I love reading everyone's opinions on this subject and it is Steelers related because of Mendy's tweets.

I haven't participated in this thread because I wisely learned a long time ago to stay out of political and religious discussions but it is definitely very entertaining! :thumbsup:

Bayz101
05-07-2012, 01:15 AM
Well, you see, this thread is related to the Steelers, as Mendenhall is an employee of the organization. The OP asked users if they felt they way he did about the comments, and a discussion over the events of 9/11 broke out.

As a moderator, all I can ask is that the discussion is limited to what the original poster asked. That's all I can really do :drink:

EDIT:

Their is an off-topic forum within this board. If you'd like to discuss the events of 9/11, you could always make it's own thread. Just my two cents.

http://forums.steelersfever.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8

TheVet
05-07-2012, 01:46 AM
It's been an interesting thread, but I honestly didn't expect that it would veer off into political discussions and conspiracy theories. In retrospect, that sounds kind of naive.

I am curious whether anyone shares my feelings about Mendenhall. There have been a lot of moronic things that athletes have done over the years, but at least for me, this one is different. It's simply too offensive when you consider the many innocent people who lost their lives. I've tried to look past this, but I can't - and it's been a full year. For me, his continued presence on the team is an ongoing irritant. I really expected the Rooneys to draw the line on this one.

Sean95m
05-07-2012, 02:19 AM
The guy made a tweet about how he felt about a certain situation and ESPN as always blew it up in major porportions. Also a thing called freedom of speech does exist. Remember Ray Lewis was charegd with murder at one point in his career yet is the poster child/darling of that great sports channel. All I am saying funny how OP brings this up when a guy is injured. If he had been all pro this wouldn't have been brought up. Too many morons on this board, just sayin......

Steelersfan87
05-07-2012, 02:21 AM
Obviously you have somewhat of a different perspective than me as (I assume by your name) you served in the armed forces, but I don't see anything, from what I can recall anyway, that I would consider offensive. I don't think that his comments in any way diminished the value of the lives lost on 9/11; I think it's safe to assume that 9/11 conspiracy theorists equally mourn the loss of innocent lives, whether it's at the hands of religious extremists or a corrupt government. I do absolutely, 100%, fully agree with what he said about people celebrating the death of Osama, however; perhaps that is where we differ? I consider the death of any creature lamentable, especially if it could be avoided.

TheVet
05-07-2012, 03:33 AM
Dodens -

Thanks for your questions regarding what I found to be offensive. This were his tweets:

- "What kind of person celebrates death? It's amazing how people can HATE a man they have never even heard speak. We've only heard one side ... "
- "I'm not convinced he was even behind the attacks we have really seen no evidence to prove it other than the gov telling us"
- "We'll never know what really happened. I just have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style."
- "I believe in God. I believe we're ALL his children. And I believe HE is the ONE and ONLY judge."
- "For those of you who said you want to see Bin Laden burn in hell ... I ask how would God feel about your heart?"

I've got no problem with much of it - leaving judgement to God, decrying the hatred, etc. That's all fine, although perhaps ill-timed, and susceptible to being misunderstood. The bothersome parts (bolded) are where he questions whether bin Laden was responsible (bin Laden has claimed responsibility multiple times in different venues, and there's even a pre-attack video showing foreknowledge of the plot), and also the doubts about whether "a plane could take down a building demolition style." That's just plain ignorance.

Of course he has freedom of speech, but this was an incredibly painful experience for our country. The topic is too serious for an entertainer or athlete to casually display his ignorance so publicly. It's too hurtful to so many.

Steelersfan87
05-07-2012, 04:21 AM
Are you offended by all of the 9/11 Truthers then? I don't mean to suggest that you not take offense, but given their popularity, it might be more efficient to smile and nod like you do at a child's explanation of where babies come from. I was not offended by Mendenhall's comments that you bolded; I was more bemused at his ignorance. But, in fairness, I'm not one to be easily offended. And I try not to judge people too harshly based on one or two positions.

Wallace108
05-07-2012, 04:49 AM
There is no nation called "Terror". Terrorists exist in all nations but are not representative of those nations. McVeigh was a terrorist and a U. S. citizen; so does that make the United States a terrorist nation? Of course not.
If he had brought his AMFO bomb to a foreign land and killed people there, would you agree that that nation has a right to send its military here to destroy our cities and occupy our country just because of the acts of a single person?

If McVeigh had orchestrated bombings in a foreign country that killed thousands of people, and the U.S. refused to hand him over or apprehend and prosecute him, then yes, the U.S. would be a terrorist nation because it is harboring a terrorist. And the country that he attacked would be within its right to take action against the U.S.

I disagree with your assertion that countries aren't responsible for terrorists operating within their borders. By refusing to apprehend the terrorists, they're essentially aiding and abetting their terrorist acts. If you allow a known fugitive to stay in your house, even though you yourself didn't commit the crime, you're going to be charged with harboring a fugitive.

Millers the sh!t
05-07-2012, 05:12 AM
Dodens -

Thanks for your questions regarding what I found to be offensive. This were his tweets:

- "What kind of person celebrates death? It's amazing how people can HATE a man they have never even heard speak. We've only heard one side ... "
- "I'm not convinced he was even behind the attacks we have really seen no evidence to prove it other than the gov telling us"
- "We'll never know what really happened. I just have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style."
- "I believe in God. I believe we're ALL his children. And I believe HE is the ONE and ONLY judge."
- "For those of you who said you want to see Bin Laden burn in hell ... I ask how would God feel about your heart?"

I've got no problem with much of it - leaving judgement to God, decrying the hatred, etc. That's all fine, although perhaps ill-timed, and susceptible to being misunderstood. The bothersome parts (bolded) are where he questions whether bin Laden was responsible (bin Laden has claimed responsibility multiple times in different venues, and there's even a pre-attack video showing foreknowledge of the plot), and also the doubts about whether "a plane could take down a building demolition style." That's just plain ignorance.

Of course he has freedom of speech, but this was an incredibly painful experience for our country. The topic is too serious for an entertainer or athlete to casually display his ignorance so publicly. It's too hurtful to so many.

There have been a number of cases of plains flying into buildings. Not until 9-11 has a single building ever colapsed. Not just 1 building falling perfectly but 2. Shit don't happen. A number of Firefighters on the scene said they heard and smelt explosive going off. Building 7 also collapsed demolition style and it wasn't even touched by any airplanes. Bomb sniffing dogs normally on location at the towers were taken out of the buildings a few weeks before the event. With all the cameras and security around Washington dc u trying to tell me there ain't a single video of an airplane flying into the pentagon? You honestly think that after a number of airplanes were highjacked and used as weopons, the government wouldn't have fighter jets scrambled in the nations capitals airspace to prevent a plain crashing into the pentagon? Video (during or after) shows no evidence of a commercial jetliner crashing into the pentagon. Also the part the "jet" was crashed into was under construction during that period.

When they killed Bin Laden they "buried him at sea"? Cmon man. Absolutely no proof to American citizens that they killed Americas largest threat in history?!!!! I'm not buying that for a second.

Also because they have a guy on video saying he was responsible isn't really enough to pusuade me of all the facts and loose ends that don't match up.

The government lies big time, and don't care too much about it's citizens. Anyone who doesn't at least question them is a fool.

They invaded Iraq cause they had "weapons of mass destruction". They found absolutely nothing. Only weapons they found were the ones America armed sadam with in the first place. (including the seren gas)

I understand America has to do what it has to do to stay a superpower. But don't lie to and murder it's own citizens and Don't force policies on the world and then turn around and break your own rules at will.

Also, if terrorist really wanted to attack America they could make a point and do it every day of the week for Very cheap and very easily. It don't take 15+ years to make up a plan. Airports, seaports, power grids, water supplies, police/firestations, malls, courthouses, bridges, dams, mass transit produce and meat farms, banks, colleges the list go's on and on.....Gimmie a break. Terrorism is a scam and anyone who's afraid of it is a fool.

Wallace108
05-07-2012, 05:30 AM
There have been a number of cases of plains flying into buildings. Not until 9-11 has a single building ever colapsed. Not just 1 building falling perfectly but 2. Shit don't happen. A number of Firefighters on the scene said they heard and smelt explosive going off. Building 7 also collapsed demolition style and it wasn't even touched by any airplanes. Bomb sniffing dogs normally on location at the towers were taken out of the buildings a few weeks before the event. With all the cameras and security around Washington dc u trying to tell me there ain't a single video of an airplane flying into the pentagon? You honestly think that after a number of airplanes were highjacked and used as weopons, the government wouldn't have fighter jets scrambled in the nations capitals airspace to prevent a plain crashing into the pentagon? Video (during or after) shows no evidence of a commercial jetliner crashing into the pentagon. Also the part the "jet" was crashed into was under construction during that period.

When they killed Bin Laden they "buried him at sea"? Cmon man. Absolutely no proof to American citizens that they killed Americas largest threat in history?!!!! I'm not buying that for a second.

Also because they have a guy on video saying he was responsible isn't really enough to pusuade me of all the facts and loose ends that don't match up.

The government lies big time, and don't care too much about it's citizens. Anyone who doesn't at least question them is a fool.

They invaded Iraq cause they had "weapons of mass destruction". They found absolutely nothing. Only weapons they found were the ones America armed sadam with in the first place. (including the seren gas)

I understand America has to do what it has to do to stay a superpower. But don't lie to and murder it's own citizens and Don't force policies on the world and then turn around and break your own rules at will.

Also, if terrorist really wanted to attack America they could make a point and do it every day of the week for Very cheap and very easily. It don't take 15+ years to make up a plan. Airports, seaports, power grids, water supplies, police/firestations, malls, courthouses, bridges, dams, mass transit produce and meat farms, banks, colleges the list go's on and on.....Gimmie a break. Terrorism is a scam and anyone who's afraid of it is a fool.
Rather than trying to refute your points, let's see what Al Qaeda, including bin Laden's chief deputy and No. 2, has to say about the notion that they weren't behind 9/11 ...
--------------------------------------------------------------



Zawahri: Iran Denies Al Qaeda Credit For 9/11

By MAGGIE MICHAEL, Associated Press Writer

CAIRO, Egypt – Osama bin Laden’s chief deputy in an audiotape Tuesday accused Shiite Iran of trying to discredit the Sunni al-Qaida terror network by spreading the conspiracy theory that Israel was behind the Sept. 11 attacks…

One of the questioners asked about the theory that has circulated in the Middle East and elsewhere that Israel was behind the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Al-Zawahri accused Hezbollah’s Al-Manar television of starting the rumor.

“The purpose of this lie is clear — (to suggest) that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no else did in history. Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it,” he said.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/zawahri-iran-denying-al-qaeda-credit-for-911
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Al-Qaeda warns Ahmadinejad to stop denying 9/11

By Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent

In a curious case of enemies uniting against a common foe, the Yemen-based compiler of the terrorist organisation's Inspire magazine wrote that President Ahmadinejad had appeared "ridiculous" when he questioned the origins of the attack that killed almost 3,000 people.

"The Iranian government has professed on the tongue of its president Ahmadinejad that it does not believe that al Qaeda was behind 9/11 but rather, the US government," it said. "So we may ask the question: why would Iran ascribe to such a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence?"

US diplomats led a Western walkout at the UN General Assembly meeting last week during President Ahmadinejad's speech when he suggested the Osama bin Laden was killed to cover up the events of September 11.

"Would it not have been reasonable to bring to justice and openly bring to trial the main perpetrator of the incident in order to identify the elements behind the safe space provided for the invading aircraft to attack the twin World Trade Centre towers?" he said.

He had previously jointed other "doubters" on the fringes of the political spectrum in claiming the attacks were a "big fabrication".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8794924/Al-Qaeda-warns-Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-to-stop-denying-911.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





And to keep this on topic, I believe now what I believed a year ago .... Mendy has freedom of speech and can say what he wants to say. And people like myself also have freedom of speech and can criticize him for saying what he said.

finesward
05-07-2012, 06:38 AM
So America itself is a terrorist country for (without reason) invading and destroying a historical country, military, economy, and soon to be religious state of Iraq.

Also the citizens that want to protect their country and way of life (for 1,000's of years) are also labeled as enemy combatants and terrorist. If someone invaded our country (with or without a valid purpose) and we protected it, we would be called patriots.

Kind of hypocritical....

Also people like Ted Kazinski, and Timothy McVeigh
Understood the greed, faults, and hipocrosy withing the US governments and grew tired of watching society, the country and the average man get dragged through the coals. That's why they did what they did. Labeled terrorist today, but would have been historical heroes if they were part of the revolt against the British government during the revolution.

Our founding fathers encouraged the citizens to keep control of their governments with fear, and not the other way around. They also encouraged uprisings and revolutions every generation to keep the government honest, and to serve the people.

They'd be disgusted with the way their vision actually turned out.

Patriots? No. Wolverines? Yes. WINNINGGGG

http://i.usatoday.net/life/gallery/2008/l080310%20swayze/swayze-2-dawn.jpg

Steelersfan87
05-07-2012, 06:45 AM
Miller: http://debunking911.com/ / http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/

You're welcome. ;) Read up.

zsheik22
05-07-2012, 10:37 AM
If either of you can highlight ANYTHING whatsoever that the GW Bush administration did in response to the USS Cole bombing, then I will concede the argument and send you a cookie. If you give terrorists a years reprieve then they'll pull something bigger than the last........case in point 9/11. Counter-terrorism was on the back burner when it should have been the first thing addressed. Come to think of it, what did W do for his first year in orifice anyways?




You do understand im not defending Bush, right? As soon as you clear up that someone telling you Clinton was a moron doesnt mean they like George W Bush the happier we will all be.


But I take you for a clinton supporter, no?


http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/218683/facts-about-clinton-and-terrorism/byron-york#


Whole lot more of nothing. The sooner you people learn that Clinton, Bush, Obama, Romney, etc etc dont care about you the better off we'll all be. Were letting these scumbags ruin our country and rape our freedoms. With that said, I still dont think they are dumb enough to have plotted the WTC attacks(There is no way they could have everyone in an operation that big keep quiet). If America ever actually found out our government did it there would be a revolution. Not the peaceful kind, either.

Stu Pidasso
05-07-2012, 12:42 PM
There's only three things I refuse to discuss on a message board: Religion, politics, and the Great pumpkin.

Vis
05-07-2012, 01:00 PM
There's only three things I refuse to discuss on a message board: Religion, politics, and the Great pumpkin.

How about Hitler?

lloydwoodson
05-07-2012, 03:05 PM
Everyone should be entitled to their opinion. People should be entitled to like and dislike others based on the opinions they hold. When someone risks losing their livelihood because of their opinion something is seriously wrong. Anyone who would hire or fire someone based on their opinions or beliefs, especially opinions concerning matters of state, is a fascist. Plain and simple. You hire someone because they can get the job done. To hate Mendenhall is valid, it is an opinion, but to ask that he loses his livelihood is reprehensible. Mendenhall is a solid NFL starting running back who stays out of trouble. I personally hope he is a Steeler for a long time. :tt04:

pete74
05-07-2012, 04:51 PM
Show me were a boeing 767 crashes into a building? It hasn't happened, sorry. Maybe a single engine Cessna but a 767 is much larger, stronger and carries alot more fuel. There is no conspiracy, Bin Laden ordered and approved the operation, the terrorists flying were well trained and they took down the buildings. Anyone saying differently needs to wake up. There is no big foot, there are no aliens in area 57 and president Bush didn't blow up the twin towers

There have been a number of cases of plains flying
into buildings. Not until 9-11 has a single building ever colapsed. Not just 1 building falling perfectly but 2. Shit don't happen. A number of Firefighters on the scene said they heard and smelt explosive going off. Building 7 also collapsed demolition style and it wasn't even touched by any airplanes. Bomb sniffing dogs normally on location at the towers were taken out of the buildings a few weeks before the event. With all the cameras and security around Washington dc u trying to tell me there ain't a single video of an airplane flying into the pentagon? You honestly think that after a number of airplanes were highjacked and used as weopons, the government wouldn't have fighter jets scrambled in the nations capitals airspace to prevent a plain crashing into the pentagon? Video (during or after) shows no evidence of a commercial jetliner crashing into the pentagon. Also the part the "jet" was crashed into was under construction during that period.

When they killed Bin Laden they "buried him at sea"? Cmon man. Absolutely no proof to American citizens that they killed Americas largest threat in history?!!!! I'm not buying that for a second.

Also because they have a guy on video saying he was responsible isn't really enough to pusuade me of all the facts and loose ends that don't match up.

The government lies big time, and don't care too much about it's citizens. Anyone who doesn't at least question them is a fool.

They invaded Iraq cause they had "weapons of mass destruction". They found absolutely nothing. Only weapons they found were the ones America armed sadam with in the first place. (including the seren gas)

I understand America has to do what it has to do to stay a superpower. But don't lie to and murder it's own citizens and Don't force policies on the world and then turn around and break your own rules at will.

Also, if terrorist really wanted to attack America they could make a point and do it every day of the week for Very cheap and very easily. It don't take 15+ years to make up a plan. Airports, seaports, power grids, water supplies, police/firestations, malls, courthouses, bridges, dams, mass transit produce and meat farms, banks, colleges the list go's on and on.....Gimmie a break. Terrorism is a scam and anyone who's afraid of it is a fool.

FrancoLambert
05-07-2012, 06:08 PM
OK armchair politicians, put it to rest.
Some of your comments are worse than the subject of this thread.
Your comments prove without a doubt that discussing religion and politics and trying to change someone's mind/opinion is the biggest waste of time and energy.
Football PLEASE,......this is not Face the Nation.

harrison'samonster
05-07-2012, 08:41 PM
I really don't feel that what Mendenhall said was offensive. I do think though, as stupid as it sounds, that it is WHO said it that is offensive.

Mendenhall has a right to his opinion, and I agree with him that we shouldn't celebrate anybody's death, but when a celebrity tweets something like what he did, it's a lightning rod for controversy.

Let's not forget that whether one see's Bin Laden as a soldier or terrorist, his tactic was to kill innocent people and as spectacularly as possible. With his money he could have just as easily led a peaceful mission to stop violence in the Arab world.

I would rather have seen him go to trial, but I'm glad he's no longer planning the death's fellow human's

Stu Pidasso
05-07-2012, 09:23 PM
How about Hitler?

He's not as controversial. :)

tanda10506
05-07-2012, 09:43 PM
There have been a number of cases of plains flying into buildings. Not until 9-11 has a single steel framed building ever colapsed. Not just 1 building falling perfectly but 2. Shit don't happen. A number of Firefighters on the scene said they heard and smelt explosive going off. Building 7 also collapsed demolition style and it wasn't even touched by any airplanes. Bomb sniffing dogs normally on location at the towers were taken out of the buildings a few weeks before the event. With all the cameras and security around Washington dc u trying to tell me there ain't a single video of an airplane flying into the pentagon? You honestly think that after a number of airplanes were highjacked and used as weopons, the government wouldn't have fighter jets scrambled in the nations capitals airspace to prevent a plain crashing into the pentagon? Video (during or after) shows no evidence of a commercial jetliner crashing into the pentagon. Also the part the "jet" was crashed into was under construction during that period.

This is all true, and the bold is actually all well documented. That's what bothers me, the people trying to "debunk" the "conspiracy theorists" claim that these things are made up or not true, when actually all these things happened. 3 steel structures did collapse even though none had before and one wasn't even hit by a plane, fighter jets were sent over the Atlantic Ocean specifically away from NY, NORAD was running "training exercises" of the exact same situation the exact same day causing them to "think it was just a drill", there is no video of a plane hitting the Pentagon but there are numerous witnesses saying a missile hit it, the original footage can be seen on youtube of the fireman saying explosives were going off, not only were the dogs removed, they were removed when an unknown "construction" crew worked on the buildings "core" unsupervised for two weeks and not only is that documented it's on video from near by buildings. I could give at least 10 more examples but that's not the point. The point is if you hear all the evidence of a "conspiracy" and still don't believe it that's fine, but don't claim that all these weird anomaly's and all this shady behavior did not exist, because most of it is documented and pretty well known.


When they killed Bin Laden they "buried him at sea"? Cmon man. Absolutely no proof to American citizens that they killed Americas largest threat in history?!!!! I'm not buying that for a second.

Nothing weird about that, world recognized figures drop by my house all the time and I specifically do not pictures and go out of my way to make sure nobody see's them leave. Don't you?

Steelersfan87
05-07-2012, 11:18 PM
Please see the links I posted above (like this one (http://debunking911.com/pull.htm) about building 7, for example). As far as pictures of Bin Laden go, where do you get that the White House said they don't exist? Of course they said they exist. Congressmen that doubted Obama were shown pictures.

cubanstogie
05-07-2012, 11:49 PM
This is all true, and the bold is actually all well documented. That's what bothers me, the people trying to "debunk" the "conspiracy theorists" claim that these things are made up or not true, when actually all these things happened. 3 steel structures did collapse even though none had before and one wasn't even hit by a plane, fighter jets were sent over the Atlantic Ocean specifically away from NY, NORAD was running "training exercises" of the exact same situation the exact same day causing them to "think it was just a drill", there is no video of a plane hitting the Pentagon but there are numerous witnesses saying a missile hit it, the original footage can be seen on youtube of the fireman saying explosives were going off, not only were the dogs removed, they were removed when an unknown "construction" crew worked on the buildings "core" unsupervised for two weeks and not only is that documented it's on video from near by buildings. I could give at least 10 more examples but that's not the point. The point is if you hear all the evidence of a "conspiracy" and still don't believe it that's fine, but don't claim that all these weird anomaly's and all this shady behavior did not exist, because most of it is documented and pretty well known.




Nothing weird about that, world recognized figures drop by my house all the time and I specifically do not pictures and go out of my way to make sure nobody see's them leave. Don't you?

what color is the sky in your world. I would bet my life you are on or will be on psych medications in your lifetime.

TomBradyWearsUggsLOL
05-08-2012, 01:05 AM
I see absolutely nothing wrong with Mendy's comments last year. While 9/11 is a touchy subject (and rightfully so), his comments were misunderstood by many. He actually gained my respect by speaking his mind. So I've no problem with him as a person, I just wish he'd learn to run forward and pick up what the D gives him.

ricardisimo
05-08-2012, 01:42 AM
Moved to the Locker Room. This thread is tangentially about the Steelers at best.

For the record, I think Mendenhall is a fellow of exceptional feeling, which is what it takes even just to pause for a moment before saying "Ya voll mein fuehrer" and then believing everything you are told.

Does that mean the CIA brought down the towers? No.

tony hipchest
05-08-2012, 01:44 AM
There have been a number of cases of plains flying into buildings. :link: Not until 9-11 has a single building ever colapsed. Not just 1 building falling perfectly but 2. Shit don't happen. A number of Firefighters on the scene said they heard and smelt explosive going off. Building 7 also collapsed demolition style and it wasn't even touched by any airplanes. Bomb sniffing dogs normally on location at the towers were taken out of the buildings a few weeks before the event. With all the cameras and security around Washington dc u trying to tell me there ain't a single video of an airplane flying into the pentagon? You honestly think that after a number of airplanes were highjacked and used as weopons, the government wouldn't have fighter jets scrambled in the nations capitals airspace to prevent a plain crashing into the pentagon? Video (during or after) shows no evidence of a commercial jetliner crashing into the pentagon. Also the part the "jet" was crashed into was under construction during that period.

.we aint talking about cropdusters bouncing off of steel barns, kid.

you mean to tell me you think 4 jetjiners just disappeared into thin air like a fart into the wind?

i'll admit i have never really looked into any of the 9-11 conspiracy theorists reasonings or given them any credence, because i know they are absolute rubbish and i have much better things to do with my time such as jacking off to imaginations of rosie o'donnell and whoopie goldberg in bed with pee-wee herman. :jerkit:

but please humor me so i can laugh some more. what ever happened to all the explosives that were hidden in the white house or capitol that failed to go off?

:yawn: anyways, i really dont have anything against mendenhalls tweet. i would say i was over it the day after, but i was never under it. i dont think he has tweeted since, so appearantly he got the message (or better yet, used better judgement to be less inflamatory).

Wallace108
05-08-2012, 03:37 AM
Everyone should be entitled to their opinion. People should be entitled to like and dislike others based on the opinions they hold. When someone risks losing their livelihood because of their opinion something is seriously wrong. Anyone who would hire or fire someone based on their opinions or beliefs, especially opinions concerning matters of state, is a fascist. Plain and simple. You hire someone because they can get the job done. To hate Mendenhall is valid, it is an opinion, but to ask that he loses his livelihood is reprehensible. Mendenhall is a solid NFL starting running back who stays out of trouble. I personally hope he is a Steeler for a long time. :tt04:

A lot of people don't understand the concept of freedom of speech. Mendy is free to say whatever he wants to say. He's not going to be arrested and jailed for his comments. But just as he's free to say what he wants to say, other people are free to agree or disagree with him. And companies are free to decide whether they want someone with his views representing them. If a company believes that Mendy will make them money, they'll keep him. If they believe his comments will hurt them, they'll get rid of him. There's nothing at all fascist about that.

IowaSteeler927
05-08-2012, 03:48 AM
I'd say old Osama Bin Laden got treated better than he should've. A bullet was obviously what he wanted. He would rather die that come to America to sit in an American Prison. I would've personally rather watched him rot in an American Prison cell than of seen him dead for that sole reason.

He's dead though and there's no changing that. Terrorists hate us because of what we have and who we are. They apparently like sitting around in their impoverished countries under the rule of dictators and they can't stand the "American Dream". They killed innocent Americans on 9/11 because of their twisted religious views and I personally could give less of a rat's ass what their reasons were. Bin Laden killed innocent people for no good reason and he got better than what he deserved for his crimes.

Mendenhall is a conspiracy theorist at best and any respect I had for him before went right out the window when he made those idiotic comments on twitter. I root for the Steelers as a whole so if he does good, good on the Steelers, I could care less about him after his comments.

mesaSteeler
05-08-2012, 08:17 AM
Mods, many thanks for moving this thread where it belongs. Enough with the mixing politics and sports.

FanSince72
05-08-2012, 09:39 AM
If you allow a known fugitive to stay in your house, even though you yourself didn't commit the crime, you're going to be charged with harboring a fugitive.

What about extradition for murderers?

Nations such as Ireland and Canada have policies of non-extradition for persons facing execution in their home country. If an American convicted of or facing prosecution for capital murder flees to either of these countries, those countries will not extradite such persons if execution is a possible punishment.

There have been cases in the past in which such fugitives were protected by those countries as long as execution remained as a possible punishment and were only allowed to be apprehended when the possibility of execution was removed.

Are those countries "harboring a fugitive"?
Or are they simply exercising their right to oppose capital punishment?

Do we attack them as well?

lloydwoodson
05-08-2012, 10:06 AM
What about extradition for murderers?

Nations such as Ireland and Canada have policies of non-extradition for persons facing execution in their home country. If an American convicted of or facing prosecution for capital murder flees to either of these countries, those countries will not extradite such persons if execution is a possible punishment.

There have been cases in the past in which such fugitives were protected by those countries as long as execution remained as a possible punishment and were only allowed to be apprehended when the possibility of execution was removed.

Are those countries "harboring a fugitive"?
Or are they simply exercising their right to oppose capital punishment?

Do we attack them as well?

No! Don't attack Canada! We will give you all the doughnuts, maple syrup and beer you want! Just dont attack us!

SteelCityMom
05-08-2012, 10:19 AM
Everybody has an opinion on the matter. I'm indifferent to Mendy. He's just another athlete saying controversial things.
I respect your right to an opinion however 9/11 was an act of war. Three separate targets on American soil made it that way, IMO. By your logic then maybe you believe Pearl Harbor was a criminal act aswell.

Acts of war are when a country attacks you (such as Japan launching an attack at Pearl Harbor). 9/11 was not Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan claiming war on us, it was a Al Quada...big difference.

*Edit* Sorry for the redundant explanation, I see this was already stated a page or two after your comment.

lloydwoodson
05-08-2012, 10:19 AM
A lot of people don't understand the concept of freedom of speech. Mendy is free to say whatever he wants to say. He's not going to be arrested and jailed for his comments. But just as he's free to say what he wants to say, other people are free to agree or disagree with him. And companies are free to decide whether they want someone with his views representing them. If a company believes that Mendy will make them money, they'll keep him. If they believe his comments will hurt them, they'll get rid of him. There's nothing at all fascist about that.

It is illegal for any company to terminate an employee's tenure for their political opinion. If Mendenhall was terminated because of his Bin Laden comments he would have a very strong case for wrongful dismissal. If you don't believe me you should consult any number of law websites. It's ok, a lot of people don't understand the concept of freedom of speech. Some people believe it is the freedom to be fired for stating a personal conviction- crazy isn't it?

SteelCityMom
05-08-2012, 10:46 AM
It is illegal for any company to terminate an employee's tenure for their political opinion. If Mendenhall was terminated because of his Bin Laden comments he would have a very strong case for wrongful dismissal. If you don't believe me you should consult any number of law websites. It's ok, a lot of people don't understand the concept of freedom of speech. Some people believe it is the freedom to be fired for stating a personal conviction- crazy isn't it?

No, it's actually not...especially if said employee is under a high priced contract similar to Mendy's. There are usually stipulations in those contracts. This is why Hank Williams Jr. has no basis for a lawsuit, for example.

Freedom of speech is limited to Congress' ability to limit your speech or imprison you for it (with certain restrictions, like yelling 'fire' in a movie theater).

I don't know how it is in Canada, but every state in the US (except Montana) has "at will employment". That means, unless you are under contract with certain stipulations, or the company has set termination policies in their handbooks, you can be fired for any reason at all (minus obvious discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin...and even those can be hard to prove if the employer has record of other reasons to fire the employee). Also, add unions to the list of those who cannot be fired at will.

http://www.alllaw.com/articles/employment/article21.asp
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/employment-at-will-definition-30022.html
http://www.calaborlaw.com/2008/01/21/can-my-boss-fire-me-at-any-time-for-any-reason-what-is-%E2%80%9Cat-will%E2%80%9D/
http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/can-you-be-fired-for-a-facebook-post.aspx
http://prospect.org/article/speechless-work

As an employment lawyer who has represented employees for 25 years, I find that everyone thinks they already know their rights. After years of watching shows like The Defenders, Fairly Legal and Damages, Americans have absorbed lots of legal information. Unfortunately, most of it is wrong. Before you mouth off to your boss about your rights, I thought I'd share with you the top 10 laws most employees think exist- that don't.

1. "I was wrongfully terminated."
Maybe if you lived in Montana you'd have a point. Montana is the only state in the nation with a law saying you can only be fired for just cause. Otherwise, you live in an at-will state. That means you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all. They don't have to have a good reason. They don't even have to give a reason in most states. Boss in a bad mood? He or she can fire you. HR didn't like the shoes you wore that day? Buh-bye."

5. "I exercised my First Amendment rights."
If you work for a private employer, you really shouldn't have done that. Only government employees have free speech protections, and those are very limited. Otherwise, you can be fired in most states for your speech (including political speech) in the workplace or outside the workplace. You can't be fired for speaking on behalf of coworkers in order to improve work conditions or for objecting to something illegal, but be very careful to make sure you're protected before you speak out.

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/05/03/10-workplace-rights-you-think-you-have-but-dont/

"It seems reasonable to ask what business Michael Italie's political convictions were to his employer. But when the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union looked into Italie's case, it discovered, as Pastrana evidently had, that Goodwill was on strong legal footing. "There is no legal case to be brought," explains Miami chapter president Lida Rodriguez-Taseff. "The law is pretty clear that a private employer can fire someone based on their political speech even when that political speech does not affect the terms and conditions of employment." A public employer would be prevented from firing someone based on political speech (because that would constitute the government itself suppressing free speech)."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2002/07/can_your_boss_fire_you_for_your_political_beliefs. html

MasterOfPuppets
05-08-2012, 11:33 AM
It is illegal for any company to terminate an employee's tenure for their political opinion. If Mendenhall was terminated because of his Bin Laden comments he would have a very strong case for wrongful dismissal. If you don't believe me you should consult any number of law websites. It's ok, a lot of people don't understand the concept of freedom of speech. Some people believe it is the freedom to be fired for stating a personal conviction- crazy isn't it?
tell that to the US military who just pulled the plug on a scheduled ted nugent concert for his latest obama rant.

http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/2010/02/Donald%20Trump%20Wants%20Al%20Gore%27s%20Nobel%20P eace%20Prize%20Stripped.jpg

pete74
05-08-2012, 12:59 PM
What about extradition for murderers?

Nations such as Ireland and Canada have policies of non-extradition for persons facing execution in their home country. If an American convicted of or facing prosecution for capital murder flees to either of these countries, those countries will not extradite such persons if execution is a possible punishment.

There have been cases in the past in which such fugitives were protected by those countries as long as execution remained as a possible punishment and were only allowed to be apprehended when the possibility of execution was removed.

Are those countries "harboring a fugitive"?
Or are they simply exercising their right to oppose capital punishment?

Do we attack them as well?

if the person poses a threat to the security of the united states then hell yea. there is a huge difference between someone convicted of murder hiding in a non extradition country and a group of terrorists having training bases set up in another.

alot of people can say us invading afgan wasnt right or whatever but i gurentee you more innocent americans would be dead now if we didnt. they have been on the run since and that is way no major attacks have happened since(aside from inside afgan and iraq).

im sure the same people saying we are wrong for invading afgan would be the 1st to cry that we did to little if we never invaded and a biological weapon was released in there town. what we did was necessary to protect the everyday person and national security of the united states of america

Steel Peon
05-08-2012, 01:22 PM
You want it, you got it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGRYPYuFZLk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Ha ha! Nice! You win.......your cookie is in the mail.

SteelCityMom
05-08-2012, 02:08 PM
if the person poses a threat to the security of the united states then hell yea. there is a huge difference between someone convicted of murder hiding in a non extradition country and a group of terrorists having training bases set up in another.

alot of people can say us invading afgan wasnt right or whatever but i gurentee you more innocent americans would be dead now if we didnt. they have been on the run since and that is way no major attacks have happened since(aside from inside afgan and iraq).

im sure the same people saying we are wrong for invading afgan would be the 1st to cry that we did to little if we never invaded and a biological weapon was released in there town. what we did was necessary to protect the everyday person and national security of the united states of america

Thing is, they (terrorists) don't need to perform some kind of elaborate attack anymore. They've already gotten our gov't to vastly restrict certain liberties of ours and spend billions of dollars unnecessarily.

“Operation Hemorrhage” - al Qaeda’s name for the ink-cartridge attacks - cost only $4,200, which they claim “will without a doubt cost America and other Western countries billions of dollars in new security measures. That is what we call leverage.” The fact that the attacks failed is irrelevant; the underwear bomber didn’t detonate his bomb but the Obama administration went off the deep end in response. It is “such a good bargain,” al Qaeda explains, “for us to spread fear amongst the enemy and keep him on his toes in exchange of a few months of work and a few thousand bucks.”

"Al Qaeda has correctly diagnosed that the most effective terror attacks are not “spectaculars” like Sept. 11, 2001, but numerous small-scale strikes that prompt the government to overreact. “To bring down America we do not need to strike big,” they reason. “In such an environment of security phobia that is sweeping America, it is more feasible to stage smaller attacks that involve less players and less time to launch and thus we may circumvent the security barriers America worked so hard to erect.” They call this “the strategy of a thousand cuts. The aim is to bleed the enemy to death.” The new strategy may show the influence of al Qaeda operations commander Saif al Adel, who until recently had safe haven in Iran, and who has long challenged al Qaeda’s orthodoxy favoring “big bang” attacks.

The terrorists feel confident enough in their position to taunt the United States. The ink-cartridge bombs were mailed to synagogues in Chicago, which they call “Obama’s city.” The names on the packages were based on famous historical enemies of Islam, and one of them contained a copy of the novel “Great Expectations” because they were “very optimistic about the outcome of this operation.” Responding to a British government restriction on toner cartridges weighing over 500 grams (only 17.6 ounces), the jihadists asked “Who is the genius who came up with this suggestion? Do you think that we have nothing to send but printers?”

So while the government is overreacting by instituting costly and humiliating full body-checks at airports, al Qaeda chalks up a victory and moves on to other forms of attack. The terrorists say the Western world has two choices: “You either spend billions of dollars to inspect each and every package in the world or you do nothing and we keep trying again.” Something to think about the next time a TSA employee is inspecting your package."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/22/tsa-is-a-joke-to-al-qaeda-too/

Trading liberties for security gives you neither liberty nor security. ~ Benjamin Franklin


And so I have to ask...after all these years of war, what exactly has been accomplished, other than our own citizens losing their rights and their lives and gov't basically setting money on fire? Have we defeated al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization? No....in fact, they seem to be laughing at us. It's a war that cannot be won, plain and simple.

ricardisimo
05-08-2012, 02:31 PM
if the person poses a threat to the security of the united states then hell yea. there is a huge difference between someone convicted of murder hiding in a non extradition country and a group of terrorists having training bases set up in another.

alot of people can say us invading afgan wasnt right or whatever but i gurentee you more innocent americans would be dead now if we didnt. they have been on the run since and that is way no major attacks have happened since(aside from inside afgan and iraq).

im sure the same people saying we are wrong for invading afgan would be the 1st to cry that we did to little if we never invaded and a biological weapon was released in there town. what we did was necessary to protect the everyday person and national security of the united states of america

You can guarantee that? Really? How, exactly? And if so, why are you not working for Homeland Security?

It's odd, because I can guarantee you what the CIA itself determined several years ago: these wars have boosted al Qaeda recruitment and have made us significantly less safe, not more.

And for the record, I consider the US soldiers who have died over there defending a lie innocent Americans. Make sure you add them in when you're calculating just how safe Americans are now.

pete74
05-08-2012, 03:18 PM
You can guarantee that? Really? How, exactly? And if so, why are you not working for Homeland Security?

It's odd, because I can guarantee you what the CIA itself determined several years ago: these wars have boosted al Qaeda recruitment and have made us significantly less safe, not more.

And for the record, I consider the US soldiers who have died over there defending a lie innocent Americans. Make sure you add them in when you're calculating just how safe Americans are now.

recruitment, yes, but its hard to plan anything when your on the run. wake up and smell the coffee. your insane if you honestly think al qaeda is stronger now then post 9/11. we made sure they dont have the capability of attacking US soil again. if you dont like the decision to attack the country that gave these terrorists a safe haven then write your local congressman.

PS. you dont need to work for the homeland security or CIA to realize the obvious. people in our armed forces are laying there lives on the line to save you and everyone else here. its happened thru every war and will happen again in the future.

ricardisimo
05-08-2012, 04:06 PM
recruitment, yes, but its hard to plan anything when your on the run. wake up and smell the coffee. your insane if you honestly think al qaeda is stronger now then post 9/11. we made sure they dont have the capability of attacking US soil again. if you dont like the decision to attack the country that gave these terrorists a safe haven then write your local congressman.

PS. you dont need to work for the homeland security or CIA to realize the obvious. people in our armed forces are laying there lives on the line to save you and everyone else here. its happened thru every war and will happen again in the future.

Recruitment yes, but they're not stronger now? Huh? You think a couple dozen guys who caught an inept US government off-guard were stronger than an al Qaeda tens of thousands of members larger, whose officials are now local and regional power brokers? Really?

And if I'm a fool, so are those CIA number crunchers and analysts.

pete74
05-08-2012, 04:10 PM
Recruitment yes, but they're not stronger now? Huh? You think a couple dozen guys who caught an inept US government off-guard were stronger than an al Qaeda tens of thousands of members larger, whose officials are now local and regional power brokers? Really?

And if I'm a fool, so are those CIA number crunchers and analysts.

If the officers are gone then who draws up the battle plans and who leads the troops? We killed most of the top members and the rest are on the run

SteelCityMom
05-08-2012, 04:15 PM
If the officers are gone then who draws up the battle plans and who leads the troops? We killed most of the top members and the rest are on the run

You think they can't be replaced?

From the excerpt I posted...

"The new strategy may show the influence of al Qaeda operations commander Saif al Adel, who until recently had safe haven in Iran, and who has long challenged al Qaeda’s orthodoxy favoring “big bang” attacks."

And they can perform on the run too...their strategies right now are not time consuming or expensive.

What you are proposing is that war can defeat an ideology...it cannot.

pete74
05-08-2012, 04:25 PM
I defiantly feel someone like Bin Laden can not be replaced. He was a special kind of person. He was respected and followed like a Messiah. He had the funds to back his ideas and the following to pull it off.

I agree they can perform on the run but defiantly not as easily as sitting in a mansion. Look at the Kenya bombings, the US Cole and the trade center. Now compare that to the shoe bomber. We definitely hurt there ability to pull off a major operation outside of there home countries.

pete74
05-08-2012, 04:27 PM
I understand we will never agree. Everyone.e has different opinions and I respect that.I respect everyone's views except for the people who feel our government was behind 9/11.

SteelCityMom
05-08-2012, 04:32 PM
I defiantly feel someone like Bin Laden can not be replaced. He was a special kind of person. He was respected and followed like a Messiah. He had the funds to back his ideas and the following to pull it off.

I agree they can perform on the run but defiantly not as easily as sitting in a mansion. Look at the Kenya bombings, the US Cole and the trade center. Now compare that to the shoe bomber. We definitely hurt there ability to pull off a major operation outside of there home countries.

Read the article I posted. They are not interested in big attacks anymore, and the leader now was never really in favor of that in the first place.

Their aim is to send our people and gov't into panic, waste money, and create laws that hurt us more than them. So far, they're doing a good job of that.

I have deep respect for our military, but not our gov't (well, gov't officials). This war has accomplished nothing for us except extreme amounts of debt.

FanSince72
05-08-2012, 06:25 PM
Read the article I posted. They are not interested in big attacks anymore, and the leader now was never really in favor of that in the first place.

Their aim is to send our people and gov't into panic, waste money, and create laws that hurt us more than them. So far, they're doing a good job of that.

I have deep respect for our military, but not our gov't (well, gov't officials). This war has accomplished nothing for us except extreme amounts of debt.

BRAVO on this and your other posts!

If modern man stood on two feet on a Monday, then terrorism existed by late Friday afternoon. It's been there since humanity was born and it will always be there. It can't be bombed into submission and no amount of "elite" special forces can get rid of it.

The simplest way to defeat terrorism is to treat all people fairly and don't allow fear to run your life.

The "War on Terror" is a farce and is nothing more than a moneymaker for the hundreds of companies associated with the war machine and none of them have any interest in actually "winning" anything as that would put them all out of business.

The number of people killed or injured in the United States by shark attacks outnumbers the amount killed or injured by terrorist attacks yet we blithely pour TRILLIONS of our tax dollars into this phony "war on terror" and we swallow - hook, line and sinker all of the crap fed to us by our government 99.9% of which is unadulterated Bullshit!

WAKE UP!
STOP ALLOWING THIS TO HAPPEN!

STOP WORSHIPING AT THE ALTER OF WAR!

pete74
05-08-2012, 06:59 PM
Come on terrorists killed more people in 1998 then all the sharks in the last 50 years combined. If history has taught us anything it is that you have to fight for your freedom and what is yours. You have to crush the aggressor as quickly as possible.

Unless your Muslim and oblidge by there strict islam rules were women are no better then your pet you are there enemy.

BRAVO on this and your other posts!

If modern man stood on two feet on a Monday, then terrorism existed by late Friday afternoon. It's been there since humanity was born and it will always be there. It can't be bombed into submission and no amout of "elite" special forces can get rid of it.

The simplest way to defeat terrorism is to treat all people fairly and don't allow fear to run your life.

The "War on Terror" is a farce and is nothing more than a moneymaker for the hundreds of companies associated with the war machine and none of them have any interest in actually "winning" anything as that would put them all out of business.

The number of people killed or injured in the United States by shark attacks outnumbers the amount killed or injured by terrorist attacks yet we blithely pour TRILLIONS of our tax dollars into this phony "war on terror" and we swallow - hook, line and sinker all of the crap fed to us by our government 99.9% of which is unadulterated Bullshit!

WAKE UP!
STOP ALLOWING THIS TO HAPPEN!

STOP WORSHIPING AT THE ALTER OF WAR!

lloydwoodson
05-08-2012, 07:08 PM
SCMom, yes I think there are probably significant differences in the US and Canada court systems regarding wrongful termination. There has to be an explanation given for every firing or lay-off in Canada and it is stated on the Record Of Employment given to everyone who loses employment. In terms of the private sector in Canada, I don't think companies would risk firing someone on the grounds of political opinion when they could assert the employee was deficient in some other way. That being said, the best outcome of any termination lawsuit would be a modest settlement and then it would be business as usual.
That being said, I think it is ludicrous that Hank Williams Jr. was dropped by ESPN. He compared Obama to Hitler in the context of him having a strong opposition to John Boehner who he compared to Netanyahu. His point being is it would be like oil and water. Williams used an analogy where the head of state was a fascist and was immediately marginalized, demoted and vilified... irony at its finest.
I can't think of an incident like this in Canada. Our politics are not nearly as polarized as yours. We have Don Cherry who is a broadcaster on CBC. He is an ex NHL coach who has a segment called Coach's Corner. Cherry has openly criticized women, homosexuals and europeans (in the context of hockey) multiple times and has been doing so for thirty years and he still has his job- it is all hilarious actually. Although CBC is a government corporation this is the best example of freedom of speech I can think of. I am thankful some of us are not slaves to political correctness.

SteelCityMom
05-08-2012, 07:44 PM
SCMom, yes I think there are probably significant differences in the US and Canada court systems regarding wrongful termination. There has to be an explanation given for every firing or lay-off in Canada and it is stated on the Record Of Employment given to everyone who loses employment. In terms of the private sector in Canada, I don't think companies would risk firing someone on the grounds of political opinion when they could assert the employee was deficient in some other way. That being said, the best outcome of any termination lawsuit would be a modest settlement and then it would be business as usual.
That being said, I think it is ludicrous that Hank Williams Jr. was dropped by ESPN. He compared Obama to Hitler in the context of him having a strong opposition to John Boehner who he compared to Netanyahu. His point being is it would be like oil and water. Williams used an analogy where the head of state was a fascist and was immediately marginalized, demoted and vilified... irony at its finest.
I can't think of an incident like this in Canada. Our politics are not nearly as polarized as yours. We have Don Cherry who is a broadcaster on CBC. He is an ex NHL coach who has a segment called Coach's Corner. Cherry has openly criticized women, homosexuals and europeans (in the context of hockey) multiple times and has been doing so for thirty years and he still has his job- it is all hilarious actually. Although CBC is a government corporation this is the best example of freedom of speech I can think of. I am thankful some of us are not slaves to political correctness.

Haha! I love Don Cherry! He cracks me up.

Yeah, only gov't can't restrict your speech....beyond that, you're 100% responsible for what you say, and if an employer doesn't want to be connected to you because of what you say in public or on the internet, they can fire you.

I don't like PC either, but it is what it is. Most businesses don't really care, and if you have a high end job, you can negotiate a contract with certain stipulations. But you've got to know your legal rights, and your employers legal rights.

SteelCityMom
05-08-2012, 07:47 PM
Come on terrorists killed more people in 1998 then all the sharks in the last 50 years combined. If history has taught us anything it is that you have to fight for your freedom and what is yours. You have to crush the aggressor as quickly as possible.

Unless your Muslim and oblidge by there strict islam rules were women are no better then your pet you are there enemy.

Sorry, but it's never going to happen. You're fighting a religion and an ideology. That doesn't go away. It's like trying to grasp sand in your hands. Some of it'll stick, but most of it will slip through the cracks. You could fight this war for 100 years and still never gain any ground.

There's a reason why Switzerland has one of the most stable economies and living standards in the world...

Sorry to sound so pessimistic about it, but at some point you've got to know when to walk away.

pete74
05-08-2012, 08:03 PM
Do you really think they will just stop if we walk away? Do you belive they won't try to obtain a nuclear bomb or a biological weapon to unleash on American soil. 9/11 happened even though we were not attacking them at the time

SteelCityMom
05-08-2012, 08:10 PM
Do you really think they will just stop if we walk away? Do you belive they won't try to obtain a nuclear bomb or a biological weapon to unleash on American soil. 9/11 happened even though we were not attacking them at the time

I'm not saying just ignore them. Just get out of this war. Of course you want to keep intel on things like bombs and what not. But you do know that we do have technology here that can detect and detonate nuclear weapons before they even reach us. Were they ever to go that far, they know we'd turn them to glass. They're crazy, not stupid.

Their mission right now is simple. Disrupt our nation and strike fear into its citizens.

You think they couldn't have managed to fly another plane into a building by now, if they really wanted to? It's naive to think they couldn't have. Not only is our airport security subpar, but there are foreign nations that have flights that go right over or into the US where the security is even more subpar. TSA is a joke...if you want to stop bombs and drugs from getting on planes, replace the TSA with dogs. It's a very simple fix (and very cost effective too...cheaper to train dogs than inept humans). A quick sniff and you're on your way.

By the end of all this (if there ever is an end), not only will the war not have been won, but we will have lost so many of our liberties in the process. I do not see a rosy picture ahead for the US if people don't get out of the 'fear the terrorists' mentality.

ricardisimo
05-08-2012, 09:15 PM
Do you really think they will just stop if we walk away? Do you belive they won't try to obtain a nuclear bomb or a biological weapon to unleash on American soil. 9/11 happened even though we were not attacking them at the time
That's more than a little naive. We have troops all over the planet, largely unwelcome troops. Bin Laden's stated gripe from Day One was the presence of US troops in his native Saudi Arabia. We are the Empire, the occupying power, and although we might want to believe in our benign intent, they are under no obligation to do so. If we really didn't want to be hated we'd bring our troops home.

MasterOfPuppets
05-08-2012, 11:07 PM
That's more than a little naive. We have troops all over the planet, largely unwelcome troops. Bin Laden's stated gripe from Day One was the presence of US troops in his native Saudi Arabia. We are the Empire, the occupying power, and although we might want to believe in our benign intent, they are under no obligation to do so. If we really didn't want to be hated we'd bring our troops home.
wow..talk about naive.... everybody knows the terrorists hate us because of our freedoms... freedoms that are slowly being stripped from us under the guise of keeping us safe... but freedoms none the less....:popcorn:

hey pete... google the term "operation northwoods" .

Wallace108
05-09-2012, 12:56 AM
I agree with Mom that the war on terror probably isn't winnable. But I don't think that means we shouldn't fight it. We'll also never stop all murders, but that doesn't mean we should stop having our police investigate threats.

Here's why we need to continue the fight:

Al Qaeda bomb plot was foiled by double agent

WASHINGTON — The CIA takedown of an Al Qaeda plot to blow up a U.S.-bound airliner involved an international sting operation with a double agent tricking terrorists into handing over a prized possession: a new bomb purportedly designed to slip through airport security.

U.S. officials Tuesday described an operation in which Saudi Arabia's intelligence agency, working closely with the CIA, used an informant to pose as a would-be suicide bomber. His job was to persuade Al Qaeda bomb makers in Yemen to give him the bomb.

After weeks operating undercover in Yemen, the double agent arranged to deliver the device and a trove of vital intelligence to U.S. and other authorities waiting in another country, officials said. He is now safely out of Yemen.

Experts are analyzing the device at the FBI's bomb laboratory at Quantico, Va., to determine whether it could evade current security systems. Officials said it appears to have a more advanced triggering device than that of the so-called underwear bomb that fizzled instead of exploding aboard a packed passenger jet over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-bomb-plot-20120509,0,4461116.story

Even if we can't win the war, we need to win these battles.

pete74
05-09-2012, 04:32 AM
i agree 100% Wallace.

pete74
05-09-2012, 04:36 AM
wow..talk about naive.... everybody knows the terrorists hate us because of our freedoms... freedoms that are slowly being stripped from us under the guise of keeping us safe... but freedoms none the less....:popcorn:

hey pete... google the term "operation northwoods" .

im aware of it but there was never an intent to kill thousands of americans.

pete74
05-09-2012, 04:46 AM
That's more than a little naive. We have troops all over the planet, largely unwelcome troops. Bin Laden's stated gripe from Day One was the presence of US troops in his native Saudi Arabia. We are the Empire, the occupying power, and although we might want to believe in our benign intent, they are under no obligation to do so. If we really didn't want to be hated we'd bring our troops home.

so you really think we serve no purpose having our military based across the world? thats naive. instead of thanking these troops for laying down there lives for your freedom you act as if there actions are pointless

SteelCityMom
05-09-2012, 07:33 AM
I agree with Mom that the war on terror probably isn't winnable. But I don't think that means we shouldn't fight it. We'll also never stop all murders, but that doesn't mean we should stop having our police investigate threats.

Here's why we need to continue the fight:



Even if we can't win the war, we need to win these battles.

Of course threats should be investigated, it would be ridiculous not to. You can pull troops out and still do intel.

Terrorism cannot be stopped by applying force, and the main problem with this war is approach and methodology. It is an ideological war and it requires ideological solutions.

Nothing is going to change until the top leaders of Islam take a firm position against terrorism, and until some Arab nations begin to adopt more western ideals (not saying they have to be totally westernized like Japan).

Until then we are wasting time, money, and lives.

Like I said before, these guys are crazy...not stupid. They know we have bases set up all around them. Of course they're not going to try some major attack like a nuclear bomb. That would be stupid and totally defeat their purpose.

Also, the US needs to stop supporting some countries dictators, while denouncing others. It makes us look like complete assholes.

I'm in no way saying that getting out of this war (which is akin to our own 'war on drugs') would be easy. It would take some people with some serious balls to step up and do something to change the way our gov't deals with foreign policy.

ricardisimo
05-10-2012, 12:31 AM
so you really think we serve no purpose having our military based across the world? thats naive. instead of thanking these troops for laying down there lives for your freedom you act as if there actions are pointless

It's not pointless. There's obviously a point to it. The Obamas and Bushes of this world know what they are doing and how to do it. It just that the point is not what we are led to believe, and it certainly has absolutely nothing to do with my freedom.

I agree with Mom that the war on terror probably isn't winnable. But I don't think that means we shouldn't fight it. We'll also never stop all murders, but that doesn't mean we should stop having our police investigate threats.

But theoretically the poice are actually investigating murders, and not simply responding to crime by indiscriminately shooting black folk or blowing up project buildings in Philly, Chicago or LA... oh, wait... Never mind. :doh:

Seriously though, your analogy hit the nail on the head, whether you meant it or not. Terrorism is technically a crime, not an act of war. If we believe terrorists are acting as proxies for a foreign government, then we collect the evidence and present it to the world body. Real evidence, of course, not fabricated. Thank you Colin Powell.

MasterOfPuppets
05-10-2012, 05:01 PM
im aware of it but there was never an intent to kill thousands of americans.
no the intent was to manufacture a false excuse and to put fear into the american citizens to gain their support to start a war... our history is littered with "false flag" events.
58,000 americans lost their lives over the Tonkin excuse. which former secretary of state robert Macnamara openly admitted it was a fabricated lie to expand the war in vietnam.

History of
American False Flag Operations
http://www.911review.com/articles/anon/false_flag_perations.html

Bayz101
05-10-2012, 05:04 PM
no the intent was to manufacture a false excuse and to put fear into the american citizens to gain their support to start a war... our history is littered with "false flag" events.

And next thing you know there'll be another attack, which gives the US excuse to put martial law into effect. I'm moving :chuckle:

Steel Peon
05-11-2012, 08:52 PM
everybody knows the terrorists hate us because of our freedoms....
I'm pretty sure you're being facetious by saying that, due to it being stated largely as propaganda by you know who, and because you know about Operation Northwoods.