Blackman save white women from 10 yea...

Level 8

Since: May 08

Pacific Northwest

#803 May 16, 2013
Janette wrote:
<quoted text>You're correct,and you explained it well. Whites have a history in this country of being vile,as during the slavery period,even the U.S government had no morals,and condoned white brutality against other human beings(slaves,indians).

And not to say that I see whites in general a being immoral or violent,as I instead,judge by individual,not by groups. But whites have already long proven that they can compete with the best of them in violating other people with brutality. Yet in light of all of this, people for some reason choose to stereotype blacks,both black men and black women as the violent,law breaking ones.And that most whites are goody two shoes...
Thank you for the thoughtful reply, Janette. I read your entire post and I agree with your sentiments.

The larger challenge, among others, is to not let these evil haters dominate our consciousness and drag us down to their debased level. We have to stay strong!
Janette

Jamaica, NY

#804 May 16, 2013
Trouble wrote:
<quoted text> I was right from day one, nothing changed. I'm not going through extensive dialogue to "make myself sound like i'm right", i am right. I'm only going through "extensive dialogue" to simplify a concept that you are having problem understanding. Courage alone don't constitute heroism, hence, american soldiers are not heroes because they were "brave" enough to take on the military of foreign nations for imperialistic goals. If a thief is "brave" enough to burglarize the white house, does that make him a hero, yes or no?
Yea sure you were right in your definition of hero.LOL.
Without quoting verbatim every single statement you made,what you did was-you called me ignorant saying that I misused the word hero.Then in your following sentence, you defined the words hero and bravery inadequately,saying that hero and bravery were separate,one having nothing to do with the other. Now that is what you said. I wrote down the dictionary definition of the word hero to show you that my usuage of the term was correct,that hero has everything to to with bravery,in that the dictionary defines hero as a brave person,albeit it is not the only definition for it,but it is the definition.
Had you not been so eager to say that I was using the definition of the word hero wrongly,when in fact I used it by it's proper definition,and had you not gotten so arrogant and wrote to me quote, "I can't believe your ignorance of the meaning of hero", had you not done that,I would not have posted you back about the definition of the term hero. But like I say,if you want to arrogantly fault someone for something,at least have enough sense to check first to make certain that you critique is an accurate one,so as not to embarrass yourself,and then need to go on,and on as you're now doing to justify your mistake.
Trouble

Brooklyn, NY

#805 May 16, 2013
Janette wrote:
<quoted text>Yea sure you were right in your definition of hero.LOL.
Without quoting verbatim every single statement you made,what you did was-you called me ignorant saying that I misused the word hero.Then in your following sentence, you defined the words hero and bravery inadequately,saying that hero and bravery were separate,one having nothing to do with the other. Now that is what you said. I wrote down the dictionary definition of the word hero to show you that my usuage of the term was correct,that hero has everything to to with bravery,in that the dictionary defines hero as a brave person,albeit it is not the only definition for it,but it is the definition.
Had you not been so eager to say that I was using the definition of the word hero wrongly,when in fact I used it by it's proper definition,and had you not gotten so arrogant and wrote to me quote, "I can't believe your ignorance of the meaning of hero", had you not done that,I would not have posted you back about the definition of the term hero.
You did use the definition wrongly, once again, you asserted that courage alone makes one a hero because American soldiers had courgae in war in murdering people in foreign nations for imperialism..courage alone does NOT constitute heroism, like i demonstarated time after time. I see you ignored the video i posted of the American soldier confirming everything i said. That's the difference between fact and opinion.
Janette

Jamaica, NY

#806 May 16, 2013
Harrisson wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for the thoughtful reply, Janette. I read your entire post and I agree with your sentiments.
The larger challenge, among others, is to not let these evil haters dominate our consciousness and drag us down to their debased level. We have to stay strong!
That is so true,as you say,to not allow the devaluing thoughts of others,drag us down.
Trouble

Brooklyn, NY

#807 May 16, 2013
Janette wrote:
<quoted text>
Without quoting verbatim every single statement you made,what you did was-you called me ignorant saying that I misused the word hero.Then in your following sentence, you defined the words hero and bravery inadequately,saying that hero and bravery were separate,
And i stand by my statement that you are ignorant if you say U.S soldiers are heroes simply because they're brave enough to fight wars for plunder,murder, and imperialism..i stand firmly by my statement, i don't retract a thing. For the 50th time, I seperated hero and bravery to make a point in demonstrating that bravery alone does not constitute heroism, as a thief or anyone can be brave at commiting an act, but the act itself is what determines a hero. I only differentiate hero and bravery because you are wrongly asserting that bravery alone is heroism, it is NOT.
Trouble

Brooklyn, NY

#808 May 16, 2013
Janette, my video of that U.S soldier blew the lid off your assertion that American soldiers are heroes simply they had the courage to murder and destroy other nations for imperialism..here it is again


here's another American soldier saying the same thing
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
talk to me jan
Janette

Jamaica, NY

#809 May 16, 2013
Trouble wrote:
<quoted text>You did use the definition wrongly, once again, you asserted that courage alone makes one a hero because American soldiers had courgae in war in murdering people in foreign nations for imperialism..courage alone does NOT constitute heroism, like i demonstarated time after time. I see you ignored the video i posted of the American soldier confirming everything i said. That's the difference between fact and opinion.
No where in my post that you are replying to here,did I say that courage alone makes one a hero,in fact nowhere in the passage is the word "courage" used,but the word brave is used. But at any rate,for the last time,the 1st place dictionary definition of hero,is a "brave person"-,the dictionary follows that to further explain what a hero is by adding"strength of character","one who shows great courage".Now those are the definitions by the standard English language.
Now I may see someone's deed as brave,or that it required great courage,and if you don't agree with the reason behind why such person performed said courageous,heroic,brave,or what have you,act,-then of course you are not going to see those discription of the person as fitting. And reversely if I don't agree with the cause behind something that someone who you see as brave,heroic, courageous,etc,performed,then I won't see that person as a heroe,courageous,or brave either. At any rate,your view of any particular war,is not correct just because you think so,and intertainers, soldiers and other think the same as you,because other people can make just as much of a justification in support of a war that you can make against it,and I've heard a lot of them on both sides. The U.S. government is going to start wars, irrespective of what we civilians think,so that debates over whether they should take place or not is mute to me,and it is not an argument that I would waste my time arguing about,since it is going to happen anyhow.The best that we can do,depending upon the circumstances,is vote for the candidate that we feel is the lesser one to get us into a war.

Trouble

Brooklyn, NY

#810 May 16, 2013
Janette wrote:
<quoted text>No where in my post that you are replying to here,did I say that courage alone makes one a hero,in fact nowhere in the passage is the word "courage" used,but the word brave is used.
See this is what i mean, there you go being all technical again. Courage and bravery are synonyms, so why does it matter which one i use? Your position throuought all of this was that American soldiers are heroes, was it not? ok since we've established that hero has dual meanings, you were using one attribute "bravery", as your rationale for U.S soldiers being heroes, They have courage/bravery to kill and plunder other nations for imperialism, just like a bank robber can have courage/bravery to have a shootout with police, but do you think that's what the dictionary has in mind, or rather bravery in doing something good? The latter of course
Trouble

Brooklyn, NY

#811 May 16, 2013
Janette wrote:
<quoted text>
Now I may see someone's deed as brave,or that it required great courage,and if you don't agree with the reason behind why such person performed said courageous,heroic,brave,or what have you,act,-then of course you are not going to see those discription of the person as fitting. And reversely if I don't agree with the cause behind something that someone who you see as brave,heroic, courageous,etc,performed,then I won't see that person as a heroe,courageous,or brave either.
Ok now you're starting to make sense. That's what you should have said from day one. Hero is in the eye of the beholder i guess in this case, but i can say the definition in the dictionary really has courage with a positive act in mind, not fortitude in doing something bad. If a suicide bomber walks into a mall, blows himself up killing a hundred people, it takes bravery/courage to do that but is that the kind of bravery the dictionary is alluding to? i think not. If you want to look at American soldiers as heroes solely on their bravery despite the act that they do, then you are definitely entitled to your opinion.
Janette

Jamaica, NY

#812 May 16, 2013
Trouble wrote:
<quoted text>All of that is B.S. Seems you're a liitle too gullible, i won't get into this because you will believe that everything you hear in the news media is the gospel truth, that alone means we'll get nowhere. But i noticed you didn't address building 7, you know, that building right next to the twin towers that was NEVER hit by a plane, and collapsed like the other two..what do you say about that?
I didn't read it in the newspaper. I said that I viewed A TV program where a it building architect described in technical detail,how the fuel from the aircraft,together with the damage to the point of plane impact,together with the faulty building of the intereopr supports of the building brought down that building.Did you view that TV airing ?,No.So how can you dismiss what you did not watch?. So far all that you are telling me to support the theory that the US.gov brought down the WT building,is that some firemen on the scene report that they heard explosions within the WT building,and that some intertainers and intellectuals share that same theory,so what? The firemen on the scene during the WT plane hit,heard explosions,of course they did.And they are fool enough to attribute it that the government must have had bombs going off within the building,LOL.
However no surprise that these firemen that you speak of heard explosions,Because there is no way that with the gasoline fuel from the aircraft,pouring down the damaged building to lower floors could do so,without igniting electrical wirings,from airconditioners,and other combustable stuff and do so,without igniting fires and explosions throughout the building,that's the explosions that they heard.But talk about gullible,if you choose to believe this story that is very popular none the less,that the U.S government brought down the WT center killing thousands of Americans,then do so, your privilege to believe it.
And finally,Bin Laddin himself, admitted that he was behind the planning and execcution of the world trade plane hit.Which I believe,because why would he have admitted to it,when it would have been much more self serving to Bin Laddin's cause,to accuse the American gov of murdering their own people,than for him to have taken credit for it.

“I love being a Black Man”

Level 8

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#813 May 16, 2013
He should get a key to the city.
Trouble

Brooklyn, NY

#814 May 16, 2013
Janette wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't read it in the newspaper. I said that I viewed A TV program where a it building architect described in technical detail,how the fuel from the aircraft,together with the damage to the point of plane impact,together with the faulty building of the intereopr supports of the building brought down that building.Did you view that TV airing ?,No.So how can you dismiss what you did not watch?. So far all that you are telling me to support the theory that the US.gov brought down the WT building,is that some firemen on the scene report that they heard explosions within the WT building,and that some intertainers and intellectuals share that same theory,so what? The firemen on the scene during the WT plane hit,heard explosions,of course they did.And they are fool enough to attribute it that the government must have had bombs going off within the building,LOL.
However no surprise that these firemen that you speak of heard explosions,Because there is no way that with the gasoline fuel from the aircraft,pouring down the damaged building to lower floors could do so,without igniting electrical wirings,from airconditioners,and other combustable stuff and do so,without igniting fires and explosions throughout the building,that's the explosions that they heard.But talk about gullible,if you choose to believe this story that is very popular none the less,that the U.S government brought down the WT center killing thousands of Americans,then do so, your privilege to believe it.
And finally,Bin Laddin himself, admitted that he was behind the planning and execcution of the world trade plane hit.Which I believe,because why would he have admitted to it,when it would have been much more self serving to Bin Laddin's cause,to accuse the American gov of murdering their own people,than for him to have taken credit for it.
This subject is too broad for me to give answers in just one post, it is not even worth it i probably will not even be able give you a comprehensive explanation, the way it looks, just from your post, i would be a waste of time and i could be here for weeks explaining and debating this..don't got time for that. you want the truth, go do the research. You still did not address building 7 Miss, that building that was next to the towers that was not hit by a plane but collapsed in the same way as the towers..i see you didn't comment on that. As for bin Laden, the media can say anybody says this or that, or took credit for this attack..so what?, don't mean its true.every piece of footage video they ever showed of bin laden is the same 3 videos of him standing in front of a map or holding a gun, and he isn't ever heard speaking in these videos..but they tell us he says this or that, what does that tell you? Again building 7 that collapsed but was never hit by a plane..comment please.
Janette

Jamaica, NY

#815 May 16, 2013
Trouble wrote:
<quoted text>This is funny. Shorty i always knew hero also mean't bravery/courage, you cant be serious. Check back on page 31 dated last monday. This is what i said. "i think firefighters are ten times the hero as Charles Ramsey, they put their lives in danger everyday yet they don't get the spotlight". From that comment, obviously i already know that courage/bravery is a part of the definition of a hero. Difference between us is you think courage/bravery alone constitute a hero. If guy rob a bank and get in a shootout with police, is he a hero simply because he had the courage to do so, yes or no?
And again I referred to Ramsey as a hero,being that his act, qualifies with the definition of hero,he showed strength of character,by responding to one calling out for help,and accomplished a large feat,that feat being the release of women,long kept in captivity. Note= Definition of hero,1st place definition- a brave person,2nd place qualifiers,-one committing an act that shows courage,or great strength of character.Doesn't lessen his deed of hero,just because many other people would or could have done the same,had they done so,they'd be heroes also.
You mention about if bank robbers rob a bank and get into a shoot out with police,are they heros because they had the courage to do so,no they are not heroes,because that would not fulfill the definition of hero,in that robbing a bank may take courage,or better term to use would be "brazen",but the strength of character is missing, to qualify it as an act of heroism. But then again,I never said that when someone does something like stealing other people money from a bank which is immoral,I never said that such would be considered heroic,not did I. But I was referring to the deeds of soldiers,firemen Ramsey,and in some cases policemen.
And please don't go off disqualifying soldiers from bravery,just because of the controversy about good or lack of good,in some wars that US engaged in. Because first of all I in calling soldiers heroes,was not necessarily speaking about any particular war,but was referring to wars that they have actually done good,maybe world war 1,and world war 2, both of which played major roles in liberating people,but then again that too, would depend upon one's political beliefs.
Janette

Jamaica, NY

#816 May 16, 2013
Trouble wrote:
<quoted text>See this is what i mean, there you go being all technical again. Courage and bravery are synonyms, so why does it matter which one i use? Your position throuought all of this was that American soldiers are heroes, was it not? ok since we've established that hero has dual meanings, you were using one attribute "bravery", as your rationale for U.S soldiers being heroes, They have courage/bravery to kill and plunder other nations for imperialism, just like a bank robber can have courage/bravery to have a shootout with police, but do you think that's what the dictionary has in mind, or rather bravery in doing something good? The latter of course
Here again you are cleverly trying to interpret my post to mean other than what I wrote. No I was not calling U.S soldiers heroes just because being a soldier requires bravery,but I had in mind that they fighting resulted in liberating people to enjoy democracy,as opposed to tyranny.Did my writing state that the brave courageous soldiers were only brave and courageous?,no I did not,So where did you get that from?. I mean it stands to reason that if I call a soldier a hero,I'm equating what he did as as decent,I'm thinking anyone wo knows the usuage of the word hero should know that when it is used,it equates one who performs a decent act,and doesn't apply to harmful deeds,I expected that for anyone who has command of the English language that would have automatically understood.
And by the way I mentioned no particular war,even though while writing it,I did have a couple of U.S. wars in mind. It was you who brought up that the Vietnam,and middle eastern wars were not noble wars,when I didn't mention a thing about the good or bad of either of those 2,when I wrote that soldiers are heroes.
Trouble

Brooklyn, NY

#817 May 16, 2013
Janette wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't read it in the newspaper. I said that I viewed A TV program where a it building architect described in technical detail,how the fuel from the aircraft,together with the damage
Architects paid to propagate B.S for the benefit of imperialists, i know. but when i said reading the newspapers and the news, i was referring to mainstream news in general, that fostered the official 9/11 story, that 19 hijackers with boxcutters(some of whom were seen alive post 9/11)orchestrated an unprecedented attack on the most powerful nation on earth, that's what you read in the newspaper and television.
Janette

Jamaica, NY

#818 May 16, 2013
Trouble wrote:
<quoted text>It's kind of like religion. There are like a thousand different religions out with the same goal, how to get right with God. All of these religions have their own way to in which they think will get them right with God, so how do we know which one is the right one? Everybody can't be right..someone has to be right, someone has to be wrong..only one is right. You want to know one of the main reasons i'm right about my views on the wars, aside from examining history, using my head and not believing everything im told just because they say it on the news, is because of examples like this, here is a U.S soldier from his own mouth that confirm everthing i said so don't just take my word for it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =WnudVPJ7WK8XX
Well he's one soldier. May be for every five soldiers who spoke out against that war,2 or 3 may have spoken in favor or it.So Well of course if you view this news video,and hear a soldier crying about the horrors of war,and at the same time see children crying,it will have an emotional impact upon you,possibly causing one to see that war as doing no good,but suffering. But there is still another side to that war,and it is not all in that one video,and is not all said by that one soldier. But that is enough to turn you against a war,or at least help to do so,therefore who is qullible. If that is the case,then you are quilty of being gullibly persuaded by visual sights,same as you are faulting me for being gullible by believing the newspaper,even though all or even most of my beliefs about U.S.actions don't come very much from the newspaper,that's only your assumption.
Janette

Jamaica, NY

#819 May 16, 2013
Trouble wrote:
<quoted text>Architects paid to propagate B.S for the benefit of imperialists, i know. but when i said reading the newspapers and the news, i was referring to mainstream news in general, that fostered the official 9/11 story, that 19 hijackers with boxcutters(some of whom were seen alive post 9/11)orchestrated an unprecedented attack on the most powerful nation on earth, that's what you read in the newspaper and television.
I got on here and told of how I viewed an architectural engineer on TV go into explicit detail of how that WT building came down,after the impact of the aircraft. You're saying that he was planted by the gov,to tell a lie to cover for the gov.
You mind telling me what do you stand behind to qualify the validity of your saying that the architectural engineers were speaking falsehoods of propaganda to cover for the U.S. government?. Got anything however brief,to back up your statement, other than just saying that the architect was lying?.
Trouble

Brooklyn, NY

#820 May 16, 2013
Janette wrote:
<quoted text> I got on here and told of how I viewed an architectural engineer on TV go into explicit detail of how that WT building came down,after the impact of the aircraft. You're saying that he was planted by the gov,to tell a lie to cover for the gov.
You mind telling me what do you stand behind to qualify the validity of your saying that the architectural engineers were speaking falsehoods of propaganda to cover for the U.S. government?. Got anything however brief,to back up your statement, other than just saying that the architect was lying?.
This, because there are many architects who negate the official 9/11 story and have testified that fire CANNOT bring down a building, here is one of them explaining it

Janette

Jamaica, NY

#821 May 17, 2013
Trouble wrote:
<quoted text>This, because there are many architects who negate the official 9/11 story and have testified that fire CANNOT bring down a building, here is one of them explaining it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =ssuAMNas1usXX
I viewed the video,in respect that you took the effort to post it to me. What the engineer on it said was interesting,and likely true that some suspicious combustible chemicals that could not have been of the normal structure of the WT building,(airconditioners heating systems,and such) nor from the jet fuel of that aircraft,were discovered in the ground zero debris.Further it may even be true,that the fuel of the plane that hit the tower,was not sufficient enough to have caused combustibles within the WT tower to explode and burn out the entire inner structure. I did however notice that the engineer in the video was like, inferring, that the US alone could have planted these special chemicals throughout the WT tower to cause explosions.And it was only the show host who
allowed for,and uestioned him about-couldn't the terrorists along with flying a plane into the tower,couldn't they have planted these chemicals throughout the building as well. And he answered no not likely,which makes me think that he was only pressing for the argument that the world fall was not done by the middle eastern foes alone. He was much too quick to dismiss the possibility,that the host interjected, that the same terrorists who planned and employed the plane hit to the WT tower,could also have planted chemicals throughout the WT building. Contrary to what that engineer said,the world trade has security yes,same as most federal places have,but the WT building security is not all that tight. I live just blocks from the WT center,usued to go riding up the excalators in it all the time,and never once have I had to do anything more than show an ID,no medal detectors,nor anything. Anyone could've gone up in that tower and planted anything. The middle eastern adversaries were intent on killing people in the WT center,and destroying that building,had done so years prior to the plane hit. So it is not that hard to allow for the possibility that this time,the took steps to assure that the WT building came down,by planting explosive chemicals within it in addition to ramming an aircraft into it.
The engineer on the show said that it was not possible for terrorist to have possession of such chemicals as they found at the WT sight? Is he kidding? There are middle Eastern terrorists all throughout the U.S. some likely in positions of U.S authority, so therefore whatever access to chemicals that we Americans have, have middle eastern terrorists have as well,as they don't even need to be made by them.
Trouble

Brooklyn, NY

#822 May 17, 2013
Janette wrote:
<quoted text>I viewed the video,in respect that you took the effort to post it to me. What the engineer on it said was interesting,and likely true that some suspicious combustible chemicals that could not have been of the normal structure of the WT building,(airconditioners heating systems,and such) nor from the jet fuel of that aircraft,were discovered in the ground zero debris.Further it may even be true,that the fuel of the plane that hit the tower,was not sufficient enough to have caused combustibles within the WT tower to explode and burn out the entire inner structure. I did however notice that the engineer in the video was like, inferring, that the US alone could have planted these special chemicals throughout the WT tower to cause explosions.And it was only the show host who
allowed for,and uestioned him about-couldn't the terrorists along with flying a plane into the tower,couldn't they have planted these chemicals throughout the building as well. And he answered no not likely,which makes me think that he was only pressing for the argument that the world fall was not done by the middle eastern foes alone. He was much too quick to dismiss the possibility,that the host interjected, that the same terrorists who planned and employed the plane hit to the WT tower,could also have planted chemicals throughout the WT building. Contrary to what that engineer said,the world trade has security yes,same as most federal places have,but the WT building security is not all that tight. I live just blocks from the WT center,usued to go riding up the excalators in it all the time,and never once have I had to do anything more than show an ID,no medal detectors,nor anything. Anyone could've gone up in that tower and planted anything. The middle eastern adversaries were intent on killing people in the WT center,and destroying that building,had done so years prior to the plane hit. So it is not that hard to allow for the possibility that this time,the took steps to assure that the WT building came down,by planting explosive chemicals within it in addition to ramming an aircraft into it.
The engineer on the show said that it was not possible for terrorist to have possession of such chemicals as they found at the WT sight? Is he kidding? There are middle Eastern terrorists all throughout the U.S. some likely in positions of U.S authority, so therefore whatever access to chemicals that we Americans have, have middle eastern terrorists have as well,as they don't even need to be made by them.
Ok, now that we have established that the idea that the burning plane taking down the building is false, it comes down to whether or not terrorists could have planted the bombs. I don't think so. I have been inside office buildings in manhattan myself, while it is true what you say that security is relatively lax, terrorists still could not have the means to orchestrate all of this. First of all, the coordination to orchestrate this would be too much for terrorists, in that it was multiple bombs throuought the building that generated the collapse, not one. Nobody, no matter how sophisticated a terrorist was could have planted these bombs unnoticed, since security people are ambient throuoghout the building and they would have noticed it, along with the fact there are multiple cameras everywhere which would have seen it, hence, the architect in the video was correct in saying it would have to be an insider, not a terrorist.
P.S, security in these places is basically the same since 9/11, the fact that they took no measures to modify security tells you they know there was no terrorist threa, if terrorists orchestrated it, there would have been more attacks like in other buildings post 9/11

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Black women are getting better educated 2 min BLACK BOYS R BUMS 16
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min nomoredemocrats 1,564,954
Can Blacks Be Impartial And Trusted Enough To ... 11 min Y do whites wrink... 73
Good night black man. Whitey has to get up tomo... 12 min KingMusa 10
Enjoy White Languages while You Can. Because Th... 29 min White Power NOT T... 1
Women: What is more important to you? 33 min Sister Marquis 19
Indian People with Albinism Look Exact the same... (Mar '09) 34 min Persianimpostersand 151
News Anti-racist author Tim Wise: White America desp... 54 min KIP 818
Why Are White People So Obsessed with O.J. Simp... 2 hr KIP 122
Dan Snow: OJ is still so handsome. 2 hr Jax 41
More from around the web