In my view 9/11 was on inside job considering 95% of the buildings space was empty at the time. But that is for another discussion.
The real perpetrators of the planes’ hijacking was never truly identified. Back then there were talk boards on this subject that covered video’s of the buildings’ collapsing.
Again I go astray.
You oh wise one, please define “they”-?
Thanks (:-
Why are you bringing Bush into why we are going after them now? I would ask Obama. He said this was the good war, and he’s the one executing it now, no Bush.
Thank you for educating me on this subject.
Again, thanks 
May you and yours live long and prosper
for all time to come
Those cites do not provide the info I asked.
9/11 and the fact that Taliban was providing the haven for Al Queda? You really were not aware of that?
That is a debatable statement. At the moment the President Of The United States is doing all he can to get us out of there despite all the internal resistance he is and has been confronted with.
btw Israel is not America’s 51st State.
just saying
I have heard that myth before.
Do you by-the-way write commic books toooo-?
just asking
I’m not usually one to say, “Your credibility is gone,” but…this does damage your credibility a lot.
What does the Zionist Entity have to do with this discussion?
Also who has ever asserted they are “the 51st State”?
In actual fact, the Twin Towers were 99.5% empty
From here.
10,000,000 square feet (rentable)
50,000 people worked in the towers.
That’s 200 square ft per person.
I don’t think that’s what he meant, though. 
Tooldtocare, I don’t know what you think you are doing, but you are out of line. So far you have posted a “rebuttal” to a poster that actually agreed with his position, a fairy tale claim that the WTC/Pentagon attacks were an inside job, an erroneous claim that the Taliban did not identify themselves by that word, and now a denial that al Qaeda was living under the protection of the Taliban run Afghan government at the time of those attacks. And you have not provided a single post addressing the actual topic of this thread. That sort of stunt might be viewed as threadshitting or trolling, but it has no place in this forum.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating]
And as near as I can tell, from the cites given, it’s true; certainly, to the extent that it matters in this debate, the central point (that the US has considered waterboarding to be torture and a war crime for the better part of a century) is true. I see no reason to get sidetracked into a pedantic discussion of whether it was considered a capital war crime, when you bring no cite to the table and when that’s not the central point anyway.
BOO!
Okay, now that’s accomplished, and I didn’t need to do your monkeydance in order to accomplish it.
If you’re unwilling to concede any ground in the argument, I think your request for a cite is…wait for it…disingenuous.
Yep, they do. It’s there. Read it again.
When someone claims that to be true, and refuses to back it up, that becomes a point. Look at the OP in the other thread:
“The same practices, e.g. waterboarding, that had men sentenced to death in the trials following WW2”
Again, an assertion that doesn’t look true to me, with no backup to it whatsoever. Seems that people think if they repeat it enough, no one will question it.
Did. Please quote the part that shows that the crime of waterboarding is what caused the capital sentence.
With great power comes great irresponsibility.
Yeah, y’all can’t prove that they were executed for waterboarding! :rolleyes:
All you can prove is that the US and the rest of the civilized world thought that waterboarding is torture and a war crime! :dubious:
Oh . . . wait . . . that’s really really bad isn’t it? :smack:
CMC fnord!
They also committed a number of other, much more serious crimes.
I’m sure those men also slapped a few people in the face. But that wasn’t what got them executed.
You’re misinterpreting “e.g.” to mean “exactly and only.” That isn’t what the term means.
Of course that is not what got them executed. Tell that to people here in this thread that claim that it did.
“Much more serious crimes” - hey, you listen to some posters here and they would say there is no “more serious crime”. Apparently waterboarding is it, the epitome of immorality. Way worse than killing people, for example.
And “e.g.” means “for example”. Put that in the sentence above and it still claims that waterboarding was the reason for the execution. Which is bunk.
So, then, his behavior was acceptable, or no? If the death sentence was not appropriate for his crimes, then what was? Did the tribunal that tried him specifically exempt waterboarding, dismissing it as insignificant? What, precisely, are you hoping to prove with your correction?