Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I don't remember if the voting rights decision came before or after the school desegregation decision.
"There are times that I want to have tests given to ensure that a prospective voter at least has a concept of rational thought."
Something similar was tried in the South and shot down by the Supreme Court. One of the schemes for keeping blacks out of the voting booth was to give prospective voters a test on reading and understanding the state constitution, which, as I recall, was said to be pretty challenging reading. Presumably this was combined with less money going to schools that had more than average numbers of black students.
"The media speculated that it may not be Saddam -the media specutlates on everything."
Amen! I never saw such a hysterical bunch of nincompoops. Some of the questions they ask make me cringe for the unrealistic expectations they betray.
Re: "this can not be true. the US and britain can not be right.
It must be propaganda. "
Why "must" it be propaganda? What criteria do you use for deciding what is propaganda and what is not?
As I posted a few days ago, a Yahoo search revealed that there really is a photographer named Daniel Pepper, and that he apparently has enough of an interest in the Middle East to have visited previously.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=867639
If you have questions about Daniel Pepper's experiences, or his reaction to them, why not ask him about it? Since the Daily Telegraph published his article, they would probably forward your inquiry to him if you asked them to. I suggest the "Contact Us" link on the left side of their Web page:
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk
It would be amusing, if it were not so tragic, that the Iragi government, which has funded deliberate attacks on non-combatants for years, is now decrying even accidental killing of them.
You can say that again!
Here is an article written by one of the former human shields:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2003%2F03%2F23%2Fdo2305.xml&sShee....
The author, Daniel Pepper, is mentioned in a couple of previous articles:
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/02/wshiel202.xml&sSheet=/news/....
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20030307.shtml
These Web pages confirm that there really is a photographer named Daniel Pepper. (Search on "pepper" within each page.)
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/02/020510.fota.shtml
http://newhouse.syr.edu/alexia/2002/main.html
http://www.spaces.org/reader/2002/November_8.htm
The Aziz story was debunked easily enough. I guess we'll have to wait and see as to whether this one is confirmed or not.
Protecting the Kurds might be a great idea, but what in the Geneva Conventions requires it?
That story didn't come from the Bush Administration. It came from private citizens via UPI.
I think my second explanation is the most probable, namely, that what he saw before entering the classroom was live coverage of the second airplane appearing to hit the first building.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=862227
On looking at the video linked in that post, that may have been the first view I saw of the second airplane when I was watching the coverage that day. I think I didn't see the footage that was taken of it from other angles until later.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. When trying to reconcile conflicts in the reported facts, the best explanation is the one that does not strain credibility.
My explanation has two problems:
1. Although the live coverage I believe he saw was shot from an angle that makes it look like an airplane is crashing into the first building, it also shows that the building was already on fire.
2. One of the timelines on the Web has President Bush inside the classroom from 9:02 am until approximately 9:25 am, whereas the second plane is reported to have hit at 9:03 am.
In order for my explanation to work, it is necessary to assume the following:
1. That in the few minutes between the time when he saw a plane hit and the time someone whispered in his ear inside the classroom, the president didn't realize the implications of the fact that the building was already on fire before the plane hit. Note that in the White House link you provided, the president is quoted as saying that he was whisked off to the classroom and didn't have much time to think about it before his chief of staff told him it was an attack.
2. That he actually entered the classroom after 9:03 am, not 9:02. It's not hard to believe that someone's watch was off by a couple of minutes, or that someone simply misreported the time by that much.
Neither of the above two assumptions strains credibility.
The "CIA feed" explanation has a lot more problems:
1. All of the people involved in setting it up would have to have been keeping quiet about alleged treasonous behavior on the part of the president. Considering what happened to President Clinton over something far less serious than treason, that alone strains credibility.
2. This was in a public school, so setting up the feed would have had a severe risk of discovery. If what he saw was a regular television, getting a CIA feed to it would have been non-trivial, raising the likelihood of witnesses seeing evidence of it. If they had set up a satellite dish, brought in the cable from outside, unplugged the school's cable from the TV, and plugged in their own, members of the public would have seen it. If they switched the feed at the cable company, employees of the cable company would have seen it, and the same signal would have been seen not only all over the school, but by all of the cable company's subscribers, raising the likelihood of being discovered. Of course, they could have encoded it on a special channel, but then they would have had to make sure there was a decoder box installed on the individual television set. They also would have had to confirm ahead of time that there would be a TV in the room where the president would be waiting, and that it was connected to cable rather than an antenna. No matter how they could have done it, there would have been a severe risk of discovery, and for what? A photo op? Give me a break.
3. If you want to postulate that he was watching a wireless Palm-type device and not a TV, then you need to find witnesses to this fact. Remember, this was in a PUBLIC shool. They would have had to set up a transmitter somewhere, and if he was not watching a TV, you have to deal with the fact that he said it was a TV. So the theory then becomes that they somehow covered up the preparations perfectly, but he's out there in public taking the risk of telling people it was a TV when it was wasn't, which is something that could be EASILY checked.
4. If the alleged motive was to have a photo op, the elaborate preparations and the high risk of discovery would have served no purpose. It would be much less risky to simply not have the video feed and just tell people, "this is when I found out it was an attack." Without the TV in the waiting area, no one would have had reason to question it.
5. In setting this up, they would have needed to know when the second plane would hit in order to be consistent with his finding out about it while he was in the classroom. I am a pilot, and I can tell you that predicting the time of reaching a destination requires training, careful planning, and calculations. Given that the winds aloft data are forecasts and not actual observations, and that they give the same forecast for a twelve hour period, guaranteeing an accurate arrival time is nearly impossible. The airlines have very highly trained pilots, and even they can't guarantee on-time performance. The 9/11 planes were being flown by people who barely had enough training to steer them into a target, let alone guarantee an arrival time.
In summary, the "CIA feed" explanation requires unreasonable assumptions that strain credibility, whereas my explanation does not.
Another possibility to consider is that what Bush may have seen was the second plane crash. This occurred at 9:03, just a few minutes after he arrived at the school. Here's a video of that second crash:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1535000/video/_1537652_wtc13_evans_vi.ram
Note the actual wording of the quote from your link:
"I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower..."
Notice that in that video, it appear as though the plane is hitting the first tower, whereas it is actually hitting the second one which is hidden behind it. As he says, he was whisked off and didn't have much time to think about it, so it's possible that it may not have registered in his mind that the building was already on fire when the plane he saw appeared to hit it.
OK, I've had a chance to look at some of the conspiracy theory Web sites on this issue.
If you're going to base your beliefs on what is obvious, then you should consider the possibility that Bush was mistaken when he said he saw the first plane crash into the tower before entering the classroom.
I have no doubt that he could have seen televised coverage of the burning building at that time, so he would have been aware of the fact that a plane had crashed into it. Bear in mind that eyewitness accounts by different people witnessing the same event are known to vary widely. If the conspiracy theory Web sites are correct that footage of the first plane was not televised until later in the day, we can't rule out the possibility that Bush saw it whenever it was televised, and simply mixed up the sequence of when he saw what. Or he may have simply misspoken. (Gosh, that would never happen, would it? - ROFL)
In order to prove that Bush knew it was a terrorist attack before he went into the classroom, it takes more than an invented explanation about a hypothetical "CIA feed." How come these conspiracy theorists don't tell us about asking school officials if there was any special video feed piped into their school at the time? The most likely explanation is that they didn't bother to ask.
"Do you have ANY concept of what this means? Our President watched an attack on our country before ANYONE knew we were being attacked. This is HIGH TREASON!"
That statement makes NO sense at all.
Thanks.
" (Joni Netanyahu fell during the Entebe raid to free a hundred plus innocent Jewish travelers held hostage (only because they were Jewish, non Jewish passenger were let go, and the French crew, rightfully decided to stay with their passengers) by Palestinian Terrorists, he led that raid)"
I'm afraid this passage has pushed my limited knowledge of Hungarian far past its limits. <g> Would you translate? TIA
I too wish that President Bush had not made his "axis of evil" statement. I bet Gore wouldn't have made statements like that.
"This is an international airport. Is an international airport a civilian target?"
Not if there are Iraqi military forces there at the time. What do you suppose are the chances of Iraqi military forces staying away and letting us use their airport unopposed?
OK, sorry, I misread it.
"And WWII warfare is exactly what the Palestinians are doing. No different than dropping a bomb in a city. We did that during WWI almost everywhere."
Actually, the U.S. tried to engage in "precision" daylight bombing of military targets like munitions factories, fuel depots, etc., while the British preferred night bombing, which required them to use "area bombing" to have any hope of hitting the target.
Making war on civilians in WW II was not inevitable, it was a conscious decision. I do not think that we should go back to doing it that way.
Even with the British approach of night area bombing, my understanding is that Dresden had no military significance, so there was no justification for going after it with either approach. I guess you think the firebombing of Dresden was OK?
"You are making my point. Don't know if you are saying anything else. My point was that this all happened because I'm anti-Sharon and I think he is a butcher fascist towards the Palestinians and he thinks the opposite."
If that is your point, then I am NOT making your point. He never said "you can't post here because you disagree with me about Sharon." He took offense at your equating people who prefer civilian targets with World War II freedom fighters, and your posting of the "Jews are running everything" conspiracy theories.
"IMO, there is not a single Palestinian that 'prefers' a civilian target."
When they send bombers into civilian areas with no military significance, their actions say otherwise.
"All Palestinians have one and only goal of freedom from occupation and the creating of their own state (with the agreement that Israel also has the right to exist)."
Some Palestinians accept the right of Israel to exist and some don't. For those who do, it is not their goal that I take issue with, it is their selection of targets.
"And that IMO makes all Palestinians freedom fighters."
I don't think the leadership of the Palestinian terrorist groups care one whit about freedom.
" Until the Palestinians get their land and state, they will always be freedom fighters and will use whatever means necessary to achieve freedom for their people and their homes from occupation and suppression."
Does "whatever means necessary" include the 9/11 attacks? If Al Qaeda had been fighting on behalf of the Palestinians, would that make the World Trade Center attacks justified?
Larry, the Bill of Rights prohibits the government from abridging freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but it does not require any non-governmental entity (like IHub) to publish the writings of everyone who comes along. If you send a letter to the editor of a newspaper, the government is prohibited from arresting you for it, but the newspaper gets to decide whether to print it.
"<If you stop killing Jews, they'll stop killing you>
Who's 'you'? I'm not a palestinian or an israeli."
You wrote, "Should we all just drink some poison to make it easier for you? Should we all assume the fetal position before you shoot us???"
I thought you were talking about the Israeli killing of Palestinians, but I could have been mistaken.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/replies.asp?msg=823353
"All is fair in love and war"
So if Israel decided to evacuate the settlements and nuke the occupied territories, would that be "fair"?
I think you're taking that old saying too literally. Quoting it would certainly not help you if you were called before a war-crimes tribunal.
In another post you wrote, "Just because I agree with these jewish views it does not mean they should not be discussed cause Zeev does not want anything negative said about Sharon."
When I asked you for a link to where he said that, you responded with links where Zeev defended Sharon, and you wrote:
"Zeev is making up this whole thing because of it. He has numerous posts where he defends Sharon’s record as a 'butcher'."
Zeev's post's don't constitute a defense of Sharon's record as a butcher, they constitute a denial that Sharon is a butcher. In none of those posts did he say that negative views on Sharon cannot be discussed.
It looks to me like Zeev was offended by your equating those Palestinians who prefer civilian targets with World War II freedom fighters, when in fact their selection of targets was very different. The last straw appeared to be your posting of the old antisemitic "Jews are taking over the world" conspiracy theory. Besides pissing Zeev off, I think you really damaged your credibility with that one.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=823315
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/replies.asp?msg=823329
SADDAM'S SOLDIERS SURRENDER
Mar 9 2003
Mike Hamilton reports from Camp Coyote in Kuwait
TERRIFIED Iraqi soldiers have crossed the Kuwait border and tried to surrender to British forces - because they thought the war had already started.
The motley band of a dozen troops waved the white flag as British paratroopers tested their weapons during a routine exercise.
The stunned Paras from 16 Air Assault Brigade were forced to tell the Iraqis they were not firing at them, and ordered them back to their home country telling them it was too early to surrender.
The drama unfolded last Monday as the Para batallion tested mortars and artillery weapons to make sure they were working properly.
The Iraqis found a way across the fortified border, which is sealed off with barbed-wire fencing, watchtowers and huge trenches.
A British Army source in Kuwait contacted me to explain how the extraordinary surrender bid unfolded. The source said: "The British guys on the front-line could not believe what was happening. They were on pre-war exercises when all of a sudden these Iraqis turned up out of nowhere, with their hands in the air, saying they wanted to surrender.
"They had heard firing and thought it was the start of the war.
"The Paras are a tough, battle-hardened lot but were moved by the plight of the Iraqis. There was nothing they could do other than send them back.
"They were a motley bunch and you could barely describe them as soldiers - they were poorly equipped and didn't even have proper boots. Their physical condition was dreadful and they had obviously not had a square meal for ages. No one has ever known a group of so-called soldiers surrender before a shot has been fired in anger."
Last night the Ministry of Defence officially denied the incident had taken place, but the story was corroborated by an intelligence source.
Meanwhile Saddam Hussein has ordered thousands of troops back to Baghdad as he turns the city into a fortress.
It is believed that two rings of steel are being established around Baghdad. The outer one consists of regular Iraqi army soldiers and the inner one is made up of Republican Guard fighters - thought to be the only troops that will put up fierce resistance.
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/news/page.cfm?objectid=12715943&method=full&siteid=106694
That's correct. That doesn't mean I don't sympathize with your position, however. His habit of calling you a liar is outside the realm of civilized discussion.
I don't know whether you counted me as voting for him to remain, but I am actually abstaining.
That guy is completely nuts, and his wife is even more nuts for going on a hunger strike over it.
"his beliefs that no law required him to file a return"
He seems to have overlooked 26 USC Section 6001:
Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe. Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary it is necessary, he may require any person, by notice served upon such person or by regulations, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such records, as the Secretary deems sufficient to show whether or not such person is liable for tax under this title...
"You fight wars with what you have. If you want less percentage of casualties then give them the same money and military that we give to one side. If not, then they get to fight with what they have. And all it's fair in love and war."
That's a red herring. If their weapons are less precise, OF COURSE they can't protect civilians as well. That does not justify targeting civilians ON PURPOSE.
"You left one post out."
Which one?
"(not to mention the massacre in Dresden)."
I addressed that. I think it was wrong.
"Are you equating Dresden to what the Palestinian suicide bombers are doing?"
No. Although they both violate the same principle, Dresden was a much greater crime because of its massive scale.
"So was my Dad. He fought the Germans as well during WWII as one of those 'terrorists' or freedom fighters. And he did whatever was necessary to kill as many Germans as possible. That included deaths in the civilian population either by accident or in the vicinity of a military target they were after or very rarely collaborators."
Yes, and that is very different from what the Palestinian suicide bombers are doing. They are NOT killing civilians "by accident or in the vicinity of a military target." They are killing civilians ON PURPOSE.
"But I know by talking to my Dad, that if they were able to go to Germany and kill Germans, they would have."
If he had gone to Germany and killed Germans with no active role in the war effort, that would have been wrong - for the same reason that the firebombing of Dresden was wrong, even though it would have been on a much smaller scale.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=823414
"Oh come on! You are not being honest here."
Au contraire, I meant every word I wrote.
"The two do NOT have the same military capability. One has modern warfare military and the other is fighting with WWII or even less type of equipment."
That's equivalent to saying that being on the losing side justifies war crimes.
"So I expect casualties to be equivalent to those wars given their military. Not unlike what we did in Dresden."
Dresden was NOT an inevitable consequence of the equipment of the time. It was a CONSCIOUS DECISION to target civilians. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=823430
I don't know. It's obvious that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolution 1441, but whether resuming the war against them will have undesirable consequences, as Zeev suggests, is the big question. I wish I knew.
I have replied to your post here:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=823375
This is a reply to a post on Zeev's politics thread:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=823363
I disagree that Israel's current policies are comparable to Nazi Germany. I agree that some PROPOSALS made by INDIVIDUALS may have commonality with SOME of the Nazis' ideas, but I don't think that every Jew is obliged to defend the statements of every other Jew, and the same applies to Swedes like me.
I am against forcing people out of their homeland. At the same time, I think that what the Arab countries have done to the Palestinian refugees is unforgivable.
Sylvester, one thing I don't understand is why you expect the Jewish members of Zeev's thread to account for the opinions of every Jew who disagrees with them. Do you take responsibility for the opinions of every member of your ethnic group?
Sorry, I should stop inciting him to reply here.
If you stop killing Jews, they'll stop killing you. I would stake my life on that.
"Yet how one jumps from this to saying something about Zeev's parents, is a mystery, a slander and an outright LIE. And I expect an apology."
You equated people who attack primarily civilian targets with WW II freedom fighters, who generally did not. Since Zeev's father was one of the latter, it's not hard to see why he takes offense at that, especially since in the same post you equated Israel with Nazi Germany. And then YOU want an apology? Give me a break!
"Either that, or you better have a very good explanation about all this Nazi talk coming from jewish people. Sheesh..."
He is no more responsible for all statements by people of his ethnic group than you are for all statements made by people of yours.
"Zeev does not want anything negative said about Sharon."
Can you provide a link to where he said this?
I'm not interested in comparisons of numbers of people killed by each side. In any war, usually one side or the other wins, and the winning side kills more people. It's an ugly fact of life, but I don't know any way to change it.
What's more relevant is what percentage of casualties caused by each side are persons who do not take an active part in the hostilities.
My objection to the Palestinian tactics is that they are not even trying to avoid civilian casualties, and in fact as far as they are concerned, the more the better. They had better hope and pray that people like you don't convince Israel that it's not necessary to try to avoid civilian casualties.