9/11 anniversary

[LexusInfernus 908]

On another topic related to the 9/11 anniversary:

A small group of red-necks have managed to wag the dog. First amendment notwithstanding, should there not be some sanctions? This amounts to interference in the external affairs of the country.

Meh, rioting has just become a popular past time in that region. No matter what the US does, its not hard for extremists to rile up a bunch of angry young people and have them start a anti US riot.

[Cobraroll 138]

I just wanted to say this in case anyone else knew about it or would like to clarify this for me(as in how it was possible or where would it come from).

I heard that there was molten steel found in the basements of the Twin Towers as well as World Trade Center 7 after the attacks or during the clean up.

I'm just wondering where that would come from? Not trying to stir an argument I just wanted to know if there were fires below or something like that.

My best guess would be that it wasn't steel, but rather copper from wiring and plumbing, molten office furniture, aluminium from cladding or such. When the towers collapsed, the materials could have been still hot enough to be liquid, and ran to the bottom of the pile where it was found during the clean-up.

In the Twin Towers, a lot of it could have been pieces of molten aircraft as well.

Also:

There is a lot of confusion about WTC7 because NIST has changed their story a bunch of times about whether or not damage or fire brought down the building,

That's called discarding a working hypothesis in favour of a new one in light of new evidence. The first hypothesis was that the debris damaged the building and fires caused the collapse, but it was found later that the fire would have caused the collapse anyway. A study released by the university of Edinburgh concluded that an unfought fire would have brought the building down regardless of how it was initiated.

The preliminary (note: preliminary) report from NIST presented a different hypothesis than the final one. NIST works by examining all available evidence, then drawing a conclusion. It's not like they start with the conclusion (i.e. explosives) and then look for evidence supporting it.

This video also shows examples of a couple other buildings (and an oil platform and even a highway bridge!) collapsing after fires. It certainly isn't impossible.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Exactly what do you propose to do about it? The guy has a First Amendment right to say what he wants.

Exactly what do you propose to do about it? The guy has a First Amendment right to say what he wants.

There is probably some clause in the patriot act that could be used to shut people up.

This would be a bad thing, imho, in case anyone was wondering.

I propose to do exactly nothing. It is up to the American people to look after the stupid loud-mouths in your country who think they are funny or are trying to stir up trouble. This kind of license is simply deplorable.

In my country we would take a positive action to fix this problem, since we have a law against publishing hate.

[Meg 368]

In my country we would take a positive action to fix this problem, since we have a law against publishing hate.

How does that law define "hate"? What does it say, exactly?

[LexusInfernus 908]

I propose to do exactly nothing. It is up to the American people to look after the stupid loud-mouths in your country who think they are funny or are trying to stir up trouble. This kind of license is simply deplorable.

In my country we would take a positive action to fix this problem, since we have a law against publishing hate.

I dont hear Canada going after Canadian black metal bands that are ripping on Christians.

I dont approve of this movie, but lets be fair here, in Europe and America musicians and filmmakers have been ripping on Christians and Christianity for decades now, and how often do you hear of Christians starting riots because Immortal or Dimmu Borgir made a video clip that mocks Christianity, and how many British Embassies got attacked after Cradle of Filth came up with their infamous 'Jesus is a c**t' tshirt? Right, none. So why should we treat Muslims any different? Because they cant it as well as Christians do? Because they get all violent? So their violent behavior gets them a free pass to censor everything they dont like what we do? Thats ridiculous.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Without quoting the Criminal Code of Canada, which anyone can find on-line, I can only give an example:

Recently a public person who at one point was Grand Chief of the Native Peoples of Canada made a more than slightly pejorative remark in public comparing some other persons to Hitler. There was a public outcry and in the end, this person was stripped of his membership in the Order of Canada. We take these things quite seriously.

In another case, years ago now, a person who was somehow involved with the Nazis was found to be in Canada, quite legally and had achieved citizenship. However the charges were such that he was stripped of his citizenship and deported to Germany where he was tried, found guilty and imprisoned.

We don't get very excited very often, but in this case, I think the RCMP would have picked the people involved up and they would now be in the toils of a hate crimes prosecution. Not only is this a hate crime of the worst kind, it has caused considerable international disturbance.

I think where much of the problem with the Muslim world comes in is that they cannot understand the concepts of freedom of practically everything that comes with being an American. Americans have more freedom than even the Romans had at the height of the Republic. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing only history will tell. I believe you should hang on to every shred, but be careful of people who take too much license with it, they make you look bad.

[Meg 368]

I was wondering how such a law would be phrased [link]

Section 319 defines “public incitement of hatred” as an indictable offence:

(1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

However, there are some defences against such charges. Subsection 3 of Section 319 states:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

© if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of (their) removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Some odd "what if"s come to mind. But I shall ponder them before I discuss them.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

CBC's Senior Washington Correspondent on overspin.

The people in these other countries don't vote in the U.S. election, Obama.