HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > The Lounge
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Lounge "...Where the parking lot of the Igloo meets the concourse of the Nassau County Coliseum and the bathroom line of the Skyreach..." - Wickedbsfan

911 Victim Ellen Mariani Open Letter To The President Of The United States

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-30-2003, 02:09 PM
  #51
Hoot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dempsey_k
There all we have is intent, you could add the information and theories on the Pearl Harbour debacle as well going back 20 years before that. If there's something afloat, I don't want to wait 40 years to hear about it, we could have suffered 10 different Bush or Clintons up til then.

Do you have any information about investigation into these allegations ?
No I haven't heard anything about further investigations. Strangely enough there sometimes seems to be a certain reluctance about investigating embarrassing episodes in modern US history.

I pointed out the existance about Operation Northwoods to show that this type of "the end justifies the means" mindset has existed in the US before. President Kennedy was sane and rational enough to shoot that (Op. Northwoods) monstrosity down. (And we know what happened to him :p)

Hoot is offline  
Old
11-30-2003, 02:13 PM
  #52
CoyoteBaloney
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: man you've ever met
Posts: 1,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoot
No I haven't heard anything about further investigations. Strangely enough there sometimes seems to be a certain reluctance about investigating embarrassing episodes in modern US history.

I pointed out the existance about Operation Northwoods to show that this type of "the end justifies the means" mindset has existed in the US before. President Kennedy was sane and rational enough to shoot that (Op. Northwoods) monstrosity down. (And we know what happened to him :p)
oh brother ... what has happened in the past means absolutely nothing regarding this situation. What happened 40 years ago, with a different President and a different administration does not mean that the present President and administration have done the same thing.

CoyoteBaloney is offline  
Old
11-30-2003, 02:45 PM
  #53
dempsey_k*
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Boss Hawg
Country: Thailand
Posts: 12,921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoyoteTony
oh brother ... what has happened in the past means absolutely nothing regarding this situation. What happened 40 years ago, with a different President and a different administration does not mean that the present President and administration have done the same thing.
Tony that's EXACTLY THE POINT, Kennedy didn't do it because it was stupid, and times change, just like you said "What happened 40 years ago, with a different President and a different administration does not mean that the present President and administration have done the same thing", so therefore ....

dempsey_k* is offline  
Old
11-30-2003, 02:58 PM
  #54
punchy1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Kiwiville.
Posts: 2,444
vCash: 500
But again, Kennedeys people DID concieve it and did try and make it happen. It is the same thing that happens with every president. Your arguments seem to be based on things that people in Bush's staff concieve and that is good enough for you to blame Bush for it whatever it might be. Well, if you follow your lead then this *is* Kennedy's fault because his staff concieved of it. In fact, it makes you wonder what else they tried and got away with. Of course, to counter some of your anti Bush stuff we could point out how Kennedy was addicted to pain meds and also had sexual relations outside of his "commitments" but that would be wrong. I only point it out because I have been force fed Bushes coke and booze problems. All of these blokes are only men. All of them are criminals to some extent by the fact that they are politicians. It doesn't make them bad presidents and the fact that their staff has lunk heads on them isn't their fault. I also think it is lame to use a suspected operation that could or could not be true from the early 60's to try and say that Bush is guilty. It is alright though to say that they all do it and that I think is a given.

I also think that Americas greatest presidents (in my lanky opinion mind you) in recent history have been,

Kennedy (I hate some of the things he did to you lot where taxes go and some of his socialists views but other than that I think he was a smart and compassionate man)

Reagan, Voodoo schmoodoo. The worlds economy was allot better when Howdy (thats what he was called in allot of other parts of the world. Howdy Doody) was in office and I think he was a great and compassionate leader.

Clinton. Take all of his lying and "define the word it" nonsense and he was a solid leader with charisma and smarts.

The jury is still out on Bush jr for me. I like what he is doing and has done so far where his foriegn policy is concerned but I still get the shakes when I see that whole side of him that thinks it is good to tell the rest of you what morals you should have. That is bloody nonsense. I am glad that the leader of the "moral majority" is out as well.

That's my nutter of a take.

punchy1 is offline  
Old
11-30-2003, 03:35 PM
  #55
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,916
vCash: 500
If the whitehouse issued a federal advisery or whatever, how the hell would it be delivered, word of mouth? ***** no, it would be through the damn media. Chances are, the whitehouse found out when everyone else did.

Fish on The Sand is online now  
Old
11-30-2003, 03:41 PM
  #56
Hoot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoyoteTony
As I have already explained it is because the news was already one the scene covering the first plane flying into the WTC. When that happened some assumed it was a terroist attack, but not all. It was not know that it was a terrorist attack and as they were covering the first crash the second happened right behind them. The only the government could have been the first to warn us was if they had silenced the media, which unless it is against the law in the USA.

So Hoot, how should the US government have warned us before the media who were actually covering it as it happened?.
The media, at least CNN that I was watching on 9/11, were quick to put up a banner of "America under attack" on the screen. I think Ellen is talking about an official warning from the administration that things were happening. It is one thing for the media to speculate about what is going on. Ellen said: "As President you have a duty to protect the American people. On September 11th you did not instruct your staff to issue a nationwide emergency warning/alert to advise us of the attack on America. We had to receive the news of the attacks via the news networks."

Was there at any point on 9/11 a simultaneous national TV and radio broadcast on all channels from the administration warning that America is under attack?

Ellen is accusing Bush for not doing his job. The media is not responsible for warning the US people about attacks. That responsibility lies with the US authorities.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CoyoteTony
Because at the top of her letter she seeks to earn credibility by claiming she is neither republican nor democrat. She needs to prove it, not just say it. She needs to show her voter registration card and see that she has registared as an independant and not as a republican or a democrat.
.
How come Ellens word is less worth than Bush's? I think Bush needs to prove that he didn't drop the ball on 9/11. You think that Ellen needs to prove that her credibility by proving that she doesn't belong to a party as she says. I think Bush needs to prove his credibility by coming clean on what he knew about 9/11 and why he, for example, blacked out those 29 pages and why he is manipulating the 9/11 commission. Fair enough?


Quote:
Originally Posted by CoyoteTony
Key words are FOR HER. This is personal and she is trying to make sense of it this all and she wants to put the blame on something so she can take another step closer to ending her mourning. For her, you are anyone to claim that the government allowed 9/11 to happen even though they could have stopped is ridiculous and foolish. In the future, prove your unfounded acqusations or keep them to yourself or post that you have no proof and this is based on your feelings and what you want to be the truth but in reality is unfounded and contains worthless information.
What does her legitimate questions have to do with me? Ellen and I are not the same person. Nor is any of the other sources I have quoted me.

How can you claim to know the answers to her questions? You dismiss them as ridiculous out of hand without any information supporting your opinion? Why is her concern "ridiculous and foolish"?

And how can you say that the information I post is "unfounded" and "contains worthless information" without showing us why? Do you get that yet. Your faithbased opinion is not enough. You need to show us why that information is worthless. This is something like the fifth time I have asked you to come up with something else than rethoric in defense of your position. Am I to conclude that it is too much to ask?

Hoot is offline  
Old
11-30-2003, 06:01 PM
  #57
Legionnaire
Kill! Jeff, Kill!!!
 
Legionnaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: LA-LA Land
Country: United States
Posts: 35,430
vCash: 500
Hoot. "All democrats are want to see the fall of the United States, and a communitst system put in place"

.....It is now up to you to prove this wrong.

Legionnaire is offline  
Old
11-30-2003, 06:28 PM
  #58
Hoot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legionnaire
Hoot. "All democrats are want to see the fall of the United States, and a communitst system put in place"

.....It is now up to you to prove this wrong.

No mention of communism here, is there?


Frankly I'm not sure what you're point is with this one.

Hoot is offline  
Old
11-30-2003, 06:40 PM
  #59
Legionnaire
Kill! Jeff, Kill!!!
 
Legionnaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: LA-LA Land
Country: United States
Posts: 35,430
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoot

No mention of communism here, is there?


Frankly I'm not sure what you're point is with this one.
I'll just answer you with your own quote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoot
And how can you say that the information I post is "unfounded" and "contains worthless information" without showing us why? Do you get that yet. Your faithbased opinion is not enough. You need to show us why that information is worthless. This is something like the fifth time I have asked you to come up with something else than rethoric in defense of your position. Am I to conclude that it is too much to ask?

Legionnaire is offline  
Old
11-30-2003, 06:52 PM
  #60
Kirk Muller*
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Montréal
Posts: 3,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoot
Was there at any point on 9/11 a simultaneous national TV and radio broadcast on all channels from the administration warning that America is under attack?

Ellen is accusing Bush for not doing his job. The media is not responsible for warning the US people about attacks. That responsibility lies with the US authorities.
I really don't understand this. Was the government supposed to issue an "advisory" after the first plane crashed, when people thought it might be an accident ? What if the government didn't know it was an attack yet, rather than just an accident ?

Or was it supposed to issue the advisory before the attacks ?

Kirk Muller* is offline  
Old
11-30-2003, 09:42 PM
  #61
Sabot55
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoot
"As President you have a duty to protect the American people. On September 11th you did not instruct your staff to issue a nationwide emergency warning/alert to advise us of the attack on America. We had to receive the news of the attacks via the news networks."

Was there at any point on 9/11 a simultaneous national TV and radio broadcast on all channels from the administration warning that America is under attack?

Ellen is accusing Bush for not doing his job. The media is not responsible for warning the US people about attacks. That responsibility lies with the US authorities.
I have a friend who graduated from my school a couple years ahead of me, who was working as the staff duty officer at the White House the afternoon of 9/11. Putting out a redundant warning was the least of what needed to get done.

First, the State Department had to contact every single nation in NATO, the Chinese, and the Russians, as well as Middle East nations to assure them that the United States would inform them of any military reaction. The rest of the world was legitimately scared.

Second, the entire government, to include the National Command Authority, was completely decentralized for security reasons. The NCA was more worried about inbound flights from the Atlantic then giving out a formal message.

And what would a formal message the morning of 9/11 achieve that Bush did not achieve that night during his address to the nation? Was the government going to say the nation was under attack? No kidding... And if we knew who it was that day, it wasn't going to be released for reasons of national security.

This argument is pretty pointless. Nothing was left to be said that CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, and FOX hadn't said one hour after the first plane hit.

 
Old
12-01-2003, 02:24 AM
  #62
JCD
Registered User
 
JCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country:
Posts: 14,432
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoot
Frankly I'm not sure what you're point is with this one.
What a shock....

JCD is offline  
Old
12-01-2003, 03:13 AM
  #63
Hoot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legionnaire
I'll just answer you with your own quote.
I am using information from real sources as a basis for my arguments. You are not. There's the difference.

Hoot is offline  
Old
12-01-2003, 03:46 AM
  #64
CoyoteBaloney
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: man you've ever met
Posts: 1,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoot
I am using information from real sources as a basis for my arguments. You are not. There's the difference.
You justb don't get it do you? After the second plane flew into the WTC everyone knew it was a terrorist attack. Who cares when the government offically warned us after that? It wasn't like Pearl Harbor when it was the government who informed people of the attack, the attack was shown live on TV -- the public found out about the terrorist attacks when the government did. Anything the government announced after that was redundant.

How can I claim that your information is unfounded? Simple, Who the heck is Ellen??? The only thing we know about her is what she claims to be and not to be. Where is the proof backing her claims up? That's all the stuff you ever use ... from unreliable sources of information claiming this or claiming that and never providing proof of their claims.

Why is Ellen's words less valuable then Bush's? Because Ellen has not earned any credibility. Who the heck is she? How do I know who she is? Is she even female? Would this be the first time writer lied about a story to try and sensationalize their point so that it gets picked up by more newspapers/media sources? Of course not. As I have said many times in this thread, it is easy to claim something -- now if you want those claims to be viewed as being credible you must provide proof.

What does Ellen's letter have to do with your posts? Ellen doesn't prove a thing. She has no credibility. You have already bought her story hook line and sinker without even knowing if it is the truth and now you post in such a manner that says we should all believe Ellen as well because since it is in print and supporting your views and ideas ... even though there is no proof.

My faith based views has nothing to do with looking at these things you post logically. Of all the people who have disagreed with you and question the informational sources you use to support your points is it only the Biblical Christians who have opposed you? No. So why did you even bother to mention that?

CoyoteBaloney is offline  
Old
12-01-2003, 03:49 AM
  #65
CoyoteBaloney
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: man you've ever met
Posts: 1,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoot
I am using information from real sources as a basis for my arguments. You are not. There's the difference.
Even the NY Times and the Washington Post have been proven to have had writers on their staff that have admitted to lying in their work. It is not just the media source that you need to be careful with, but also the writer. The media source needs to be credible as well as the writer needs to be credible. Please tell me what rag did you get this Ellen letter from? And tell me why I should view Ellen as someone being credible.

CoyoteBaloney is offline  
Old
12-01-2003, 07:06 AM
  #66
Hoot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoyoteTony
You justb don't get it do you? After the second plane flew into the WTC everyone knew it was a terrorist attack. Who cares when the government offically warned us after that? It wasn't like Pearl Harbor when it was the government who informed people of the attack, the attack was shown live on TV -- the public found out about the terrorist attacks when the government did. Anything the government announced after that was redundant.
Redundant in your opinion yes. Ellen doesn't think so. There is a difference between a journalist reporting/speculating and a official statement from a government spokesperson don't you think? Actually when I read the letter again I find that she doesn't so much ask a question as makes a statement that Bush wasn't doing his job on 911.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoyoteTony
How can I claim that your information is unfounded? Simple, Who the heck is Ellen??? The only thing we know about her is what she claims to be and not to be. Where is the proof backing her claims up? That's all the stuff you ever use ... from unreliable sources of information claiming this or claiming that and never providing proof of their claims.
Ellen Marinari's husband died on 911. She wants to know why he died and if his death could have been prevented. Very understandable don't you think?

Is the US government unreliable? The information regarding the "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" memo came from the White House. I've used known facts as basis for my arguments. You do not. You speculate about sources and credibility and proclaim truths based on your own opinion without factual basis showing why your opinion is correct.

For example:
Bush did let the Saudis go home after the attacks.
Bush did black out 28 or 29 pages of the 911 committee report.
Bush did know that Bin Laden planned strikes in the US.

These are undeniable facts, not speculation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CoyoteTony
Why is Ellen's words less valuable then Bush's? Because Ellen has not earned any credibility. Who the heck is she? How do I know who she is? Is she even female? Would this be the first time writer lied about a story to try and sensationalize their point so that it gets picked up by more newspapers/media sources? Of course not. As I have said many times in this thread, it is easy to claim something -- now if you want those claims to be viewed as being credible you must provide proof.
Ellen has not earned any credibility? And you are saying that Bush, a proven liar, has more credibility than Ellen? We do not know if Ellen is a liar. That remains to be seen. We know for a fact that Bush is a liar. So you are supporting a known liar over a woman who has not yet been shown to lie based on the rationality that she hasn't earned any credibility. I don't have a problem with you being sceptical of what Ellen has to say, but I do have a problem with your rationale that Bush is automatically more credible than her.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CoyoteTony
What does Ellen's letter have to do with your posts? Ellen doesn't prove a thing. She has no credibility. You have already bought her story hook line and sinker without even knowing if it is the truth and now you post in such a manner that says we should all believe Ellen as well because since it is in print and supporting your views and ideas ... even though there is no proof.
No, Ellen doesn't prove a thing. Her letter is her opinion. I posted it to show that I am not alone in questioning the President about his actions on and before 911. Ellen accuses the President of a cover up and thinks he is covering up the facts about what happened on 911 and his failure to protect the American people.

Why are you going on about the credibility thing? Ellen, whose husband was killed on 911, has every right to find out what happened on 911 and if her husbands death could have been prevented. Why is that wrong? Why don't you think she should learn the facts about what happened? Or do you know what happened on 911 and what the Bush administration knew. No you don't. So why are you opposed to her finding out the facts?

If your wife had died on 911 would you accept the official line from Bush despite the inconsistencies in the story line? I wouldn't, thats for sure.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CoyoteTony
My faith based views has nothing to do with looking at these things you post logically. Of all the people who have disagreed with you and question the informational sources you use to support your points is it only the Biblical Christians who have opposed you? No. So why did you even bother to mention that?
I mention it because I feel that you are not basing your defense for Bush on facts but on your belief in him and his policies. You share your faithbased worldview with Bush, and it is not surprising that you support his policies as a result. But that does not mean that Bush is infallible, does it? Or that he didn't know more about what was going on on 911 than he is telling us.



Quote:
Originally Posted by CoyoteTony
Even the NY Times and the Washington Post have been proven to have had writers on their staff that have admitted to lying in their work. It is not just the media source that you need to be careful with, but also the writer. The media source needs to be credible as well as the writer needs to be credible. Please tell me what rag did you get this Ellen letter from? And tell me why I should view Ellen as someone being credible.
Ellen wrote her open letter herself. I found it here.

Why do you view Bush as credible as Ellen?

Yes the NY Times and Washington Post have made mistakes, everybody does (even Bush). That does not mean that everything they write is wrong.

Noam Chomsky was asked a question regarding the credibility problem and media in a chat I read:

"Question from tennisball: What do you consider the most reliable source of news covering the WTC and the alleged conspirators?

Noam Chomsky: The best thing to do is read widely and always skeptically. Remember everyone, including me, has their opinions and their goals and you have to think them through for yourself."

Now that is sound advice I think.

Hoot is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:26 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.