Could racial profiling stop terrorist attacks on airlines?

The guy that got his a** handed to him is the one that failed to provide proof of a GOVERNMENT conspiracy.

Your refusal to provide evidence of that conspiracy is what makes this a useless debate.

But you ignore the part where that conservative think tank isn't around anymore, and their pet politicians aren't in power.

Your assertions were that this is a GOVERNMENT plot, but that document only outlines CONSERVATIVE thinking, wholly rejected by the Democratic party. (Who happens to be in power at the moment.)

I have yet to see anything YOU have posted to prove your point. Until you do, it's merely another conspiracy theory, unproven and backed by nothing of any substance.

I'm a bit surprised. When I run across something that shows me evidence of something I am impressed with, either positively or negatively, I bookmark it. So I can find it later. I've got lots of bookmarks, so I can go back and send one to people I want to pass that information on to.

I would think that you would have bookmarks of stuff that proved this was true, to make it easy to spread the word.

Oh, well, when you find them, post them back here, I'll get an email when you do, and I'll come back and read it.

Until then, have a nice day.

My demand for sources was for sources that can prove your assertion that the US government is involved in a plot to dominate the world.

Besides, if you thought I'd missed the cite, you could have just pointed it out instead of getting all snarky and privately profane.

As for that link:

""THEY HAD NO SPECIFIC INFORMATION about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement," said a senior Israeli security official.

THE CIA HAS SAID THAT IT HAD NO HARD INFORMATION that would have led to the prevention of the hijacking, but the FBI said it believed that cells operating within America and totalling at least 50 terrorists were behind last week's devastating hijacks; the names of new suspects are being added to the list daily."

Oh gee, and isn't that the name IRAQ in there somewhere? Could it be that Bush may have focused on Iraq because the Mousad may have tipped him in that direction?

If they had NO HARD EVIDENCE, then there is nothing to prove that the US Government was specifically at fault for failing to respond to a tip. Tips have to have specific information in order to be of use.

Again, nothing to prove a conspiracy on world domination, either.

Try again.

I don't recall ever getting upset with you and why should I? You believe in global warming and and I don't. The science is fraudulent, just like the war on terror, but that doesn't matter to people like you. We went back and forth for awhile and I saw no point in continuing a debate with you. I seem to recall from my PM's that you didn't want a debate with me unless I would only discuss the economics of alternative energy. I can go through the PM's and show you if you want.

Well I saw a debate with rwahrens pointless because he seems to know very little about the PNAC or Clean Break and I'm not in the mood to explain something when he can go look it up for himself. If he wants to prove that these things are "right-wing" propaganda, then that's cool, let him prove it, but I'm not going to provide sources just because he demaded it. I remember when Bush was in office, PNAC was considered a "liberal conspiracy theory." Go figure.

The only reason I got snippy with rwahren, is because he demanded sources, where he should have just proven me wrong if it was something he disagreed with, but that wasn't the case.

How am I stalking you? I have sent NO PMs to you, I have merely asked questions and posted counterpoints to your post. You are free to answer or not. I am free to post comments on this topic.

However, the US has signed a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq, and we are abiding with that agreement. The current government has expressed no wish for us to leave, as far as I know.

You are, of course, free to post links to stories that may prove me wrong... I'll be glad to read them.

"Sure let's adopt Israel's racist policies. "

why not, we've already adopted Israel.

"First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested."

Sources, please.

You are assuming a "plot" by the US to dominate the world? I am torn between laughing and crying, the idea is so stupid. The US barely has enough military force left to fight two minor conflicts in two countries that share a border, and you think we're plotting to take over the world?

Remember Occam's Razor? It says, in a nutshell, that in most cases, the simplest explanation is probably the right one, and here, the simplest explanation is that there really ARE terrorist organizations, made up of radical muslim extremists, that are angry with the US for our middle eastern policies.

No need to look for non-existent leads and evidence, and plenty of reasons to rethink our foreign policies and how we should fight non-standard conflicts without violating the human rights of the combatants.

Please, get real and quit believing everything you read on the inter-tubes. Your blood pressure is certain to take a nose-dive.

rwahrens

The US has military bases around the world. If they are not dominating those countries in some way, either directly or by proxy then what the hell are they doing with a bases there? Selling cotton candy and lolipops? Go research it yourself and stop asking me to do it for you.

First of all, don't call me names again or I'll flag your butt. First warning, no more.

Second, of all, YOU are the one making the assertion, YOU need to back it up, or it is worth nothing. I don't need to search for crap.

Second of all, US bases don't have enough in troops, on average, to do more than defend that base or provide tactical or provisional assistance to other US troops moving through the area. They are not meant to be OCCUPATIONAL bases, and are always in a country under the aegis of an armed forces status of forces agreement, which lays out the details of where we can be, what we can do, and how law enforcement actions against US troops are handled, among a thousand other housekeeping matters.

We maintain them as hedges against both man made threats against our interests overseas within each base's area and as a handy stopover point for US forces moving through the country involved and around the world. We also use them as staging points for disaster assistance within range of each base.

Again, US bases overseas are not occupational in nature, and can be forced to be abandoned by the host country.

The US does NOT have the forces necessary for anything close to world domination, even if there were no armed opposition! Even to suggest the idea is laughable.

rwahrens have you ever read the document the A Clean Break Strategy, A Project For A New American Century, or the A Project For A New American Century's letter to Bill Clinton urging him to invade Iraq way back in 1998?

Well I have, and so have many others, including the individual who wrote the article, so until you have even a vague idea of what these documents discuss, I am not interested in a debate with you.

Oh, please, right wing propaganda? I am sure that strategy went over well in the Clinton White House, and I am SURE it'll be read with interest in the Obama White House - especially now that the organization that wrote it went out of business in 2006.

Please, get back to me when you have substantial evidence that the US GOVERNMENT has undertaken any actions at all in support of your alleged attempt to dominate the world.

Again, YOU are making the assertions, not me (since it is impossible to prove a negative) so YOU'VE gotta prove your positive assertion that your story is true.

Simply repeating it isn't proving jack.

I'm not interested in a debate with you because I don't give a toss what you believe. I've debated plenty of people on 9/11 and the Iraq war on Current and other forums, and I don't feel I need to waste time with someone just demanding sources from me.

If you want to convince me of something other than what I already know, then please feel free to do so, but don't expect me to respond. Also, you can refer to the PM I sent you.

Yeah, about that PM, the admins know about that one, both as a matter of fact. Nice way to hide a personal attack from public view!

No, you don't have to debate, but by not posting your proof, and refusing to do so repeatedly, you forfeit the debate by default.

I posted reasonable answers to your assertions, and you did not even try to counter me, but simply refused to answer. I have to assume that you do so because you have no proof of your assertions.

So see ya 'round.

Thanks for sharing my PM with the mods, let's everyone on Current know know your character.

Also, if you have a short memory, why don't you go on ahead and file that PM away for the next time we meet because I'm sure my sentiments will still stand. See ya.

I truly don't care if you don't like me, I'd expect to be disliked by someone that I've proven cannot back up his argument with facts!

But, that's ok, I'd rather be the one to play by the rules rather than be the one that has to insult others to win an argument - at least I am willing to have a civil debate.

Note to self, never communicate with rwahrens. when losing an arguement he uses the flag option as often as the left plays the race card.

If people didn't use personal attack instead of useful debate or simply linking to sources that actually PROVE their points, it wouldn't be necessary.

The community guidelines SPECIFICALLY forbid personal attacks, because they do NOT advance a debate on a topic.

If you or anybody else posts a topic on this forum, you are subject to public scrutiny. If you cannot prove your point or take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

I will willingly, civilly and properly debate ANYBODY on this site that is willing to do so according to the standards of this community.

I will read their links.

I will consider their points, and make comments, answer counterpoints and post links of my own as appropriate to prove my own points if needed or asked.

I also will not ever, now or in the future, personally attack a person commenting on anything I have written.

If you attack me, I'll give you ONE warning, then will go on with the debate. Do it again, and I'll rat your butt out so fast it'll hurt for a month, because YOU AREN'T SUPPOSED TO ATTACK AN OPPONENT PERSONALLY.

To do so indicates you have no argument, no proof or possibly any debating skills. Otherwise, the personal attack would not be necessary.

Got the picture?

Did she use it on you, ihatethemall?

Waco wasnt bombed, it was set ablaze by the federal government. Thank you Janet Friggin Reno.

Just saying

I thought that Tim McVeigh bombed the Federal building over anger at the high handedness and murderous actions of the ATF and FBI during the Waco standoff. May be a little restraint and intelligence exhibited by the Clinton administration could have saved these hundred's of innocent lives? But of course, politicians are the worst choice for making good decisions. Clinton's and Reno's hands are washed in the blood of children.

r u freakin stupid?...all muslims on this plane...all others on that plane...let them blow themselves to hell...problem solved, simple as that!

i would have to agree with you, im ok with profiling people with sketchy backrounds or people who look suspicious, but to generalize a certain race/creed/region of orgin will only expose holes for people who don't meet the cookie cutter definition.