The title is a little click baity but it’s not completely untrue.
https://www.breitbart.com/immigrati...cate-bidens-plans-for-afghan-visas-migration/
https://www.breitbart.com/immigrati...cate-bidens-plans-for-afghan-visas-migration/
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Poly coming to America?
- Thread starter The Revolting Man
- Start date
“Current U.S. government guidelines may require SIV applicants with several wives to break up their families to be eligible for admission into the United States,“
Guidelines?
What the French Toast? We cannot even get them to follow the Constitution!
Yeah, they will get Cart Blanche.
Guidelines?
What the French Toast? We cannot even get them to follow the Constitution!
Yeah, they will get Cart Blanche.
That's what happens when you fight wars, you end up with horrible messes. The real solution is to not start the war in the first place, but as time travel is not an option they're stuck with picking through the mess today. Whatever they end up doing will be wrong in many ways - but that's because there is no good option. It's an extremely difficult position to be in and I'm glad I'm not the one making the decisions.
We really didn’t pick this particular war. We might not have prosecuted it correctly but we didn’t start but.
I was recalled right after September 11 and stationed at Quantico, VA as a general reinforcement of all base security. I had reason several times to travel to the Pentagon, actually the Navy Annex nearby, and I could see the impact the plane made near the building and the skid marks where it slid over a hundred feet and slammed into it.
As a military installation the Pentagon was a legitimate military target but the people on the plane were not. Then attacks on other civilian targets (with civilians used as missiles) were also illegitimate barbarities.
September 11th demanded a response. I know that’s something of an appeal to emotion and that you were making a more general pronouncement against wars in the abstract, but in this case the war was not only justified but necessary.
I haven't spoken to someone who has actually viewed the site before. What are your thoughts on the question of whether it was a plane vs a missile or something else, given the photographs never seem to show a plane? Would it have been possible to create the damage you saw in any other way than by a plane (either in the event itself, or later for show)?
I agree with you that the whole thing was serious enough to need a response of some form. Obviously thousands of people died, and I am not disputing that. However, I am still however unconvinced about the precise nature of what happened that day (particularly given building 7), and who was responsible for it, and therefore unconvinced that the resulting war(s) were waged against the right people.
I think the USA has lost around 7000 soldiers to date in Iraq and Afghanistan in the various wars that followed 9/11. In other words, more people than even died on the day - and that's not counting the deaths of contractors, or opponents, or civilians. Or the suicides of soldiers, which are far more numerous. So the resultant wars have caused far more death than the initial act. And I can't think of any large positive outcome (no doubt there are various small positives here and there, but with all the negatives overall I am unconvinced the world is a better place). And this is not a criticism in any way of the military themselves, it is a questioning of decision-making in high places.
Did the perpetrators of 9/11 bear the brunt of the negative impact of the wars (ie, was the response accurately targetted), or has the majority of the negative impact (death, injury, property destruction and psychological damage) been borne by people who were not perpetrators of 9/11? US military personal, opposition combatants, and civilians, most of whom had nothing to do with 9/11 have all paid a terrible price - while a large portion of those actually behind the attacks are probably living comfortably in Saudi Arabia completely unaffected by it all.
It's like Covid, in a way. Covid-19 is a situation that is arguably serious enough to demand a response. But the fact that it has been serious enough to demand "a" response, does not necessarily justify the precise response that governments have taken - which is completely misguided and more harmful than the disease itself.
I agree with most of what you've written here, @FollowingHim, especially at the end related to Wuhan Flu.
I have read much on both sides of the debate about what actually happened on 9/11. My best friend thinks it was entirely fabricated to cover up something else altogether. I watched almost all of it live on television, though, so I tend to think it was planes. However, I don't know that I come close to concluding that the perpetrators are living comfortably in Saudi Arabia; it may be just as possible that they're living comfortably in the United States. One thing I have never understood is why we didn't immediately move from Iraq into Iran, when so much evidence seemed to point not only to WMD having been spirited out of Iraq into Iran before we got there but also to the fact that Iran probably funded most of the terrorism. At every turn we seem to let Iran off the hook.
I'm also befuddled in regard to how we justified focusing on Afghanistan when it's difficult to know if they even realized what Osama bin Laden was even up to. Some of what occurred with Afghanistan being dominated by the Taliban can be traced back to the fact that we abandoned the Mujahideen after my former Congressman Charlie Wilson had successfully arranged for us to provide them with what they needed to fight off the Soviets. It goes beyond any comprehension that we are still there 20 years later.
But, on the other hand, one cannot create a logical equivalence by simply comparing the number of people lost during an attack and the number of people lost responding to that attack. What one can't count but can be certain is the case is that far more people would have been lost if we had just rolled over and acted like our enemies could strike us with impunity.
And the number who perished on 9/11 isn't the total amount from the entirety of this conflict before, and after, nor does it account for the number of lives prevented from demise by proactive measures.
I don't feel like rehashing the whole 9/11 debate. I will state that I believe radical, Muslim foreign nationals were responsible for the attacks, and that military action to root out Bin Laden and other bad actors was wholly justified.
However, with the reporting by Glenn Greenwald and others, we can't know for certain just how much our intelligence community knew, who they knew, and what they knew. We now know that the intelligence community was actively involved in infiltrating "domestic terrorists" and were present in significant numbers in the Jan 6 protests. They've been implicated in entrapment of and radicalization of vulnerable domestic Muslim populations too. Proud Boys was infiltrated, as well as other groups...yet operatives never once tried to prevent, only help to foment.
How much our intelligence community infiltrated and fomented radicalization of radical foreign Muslim groups prior to 9/11 may never be known.
I think there were planes at the twin towers, there was video footage very quickly showing that. But they had to be supplemented by demolition charges to take down 3 buildings so cleanly with 2 planes. I was asking @The Revolting Man about the Pentagon, as whether that was a plane is a lot more disputed, since early imagery never showed any aeroplane parts or damage from wings, and for various other reasons.
But I don't want to rehash the debate of what happened that day either. I'm just genuinely interested in his assessment of the site given he actually visited it, and I did not.
Obviously there was an attack of some form, that caused the death of thousands. The method of the attack is important detail that casts light on who may have perpetrated it, but doesn't change the fact that there was an attack.
My real point is that it is somewhat debatable whether the US invasion of Afghanistan was an appropriate response to the attack. The US mightn't have started the war, but they chose to take the fight there, and the mess they now have with immigration is a result of that decision. They didn't need to make that specific decision, as a bloody war was inevitable given the Soviet experience. They could have responded to the attack in other ways that caused less conflict there. So the fallout of the conflict such as this polygamous immigration issue is legitimately the fault of the USA and is their moral responsibility to resolve.
I don't believe the strategic placement of incendiary devices is a reasonable explanation. Too much advance planning necessary (way beyond teaching people to take off but not land jumbo jets), and way too much access to at least four different buildings to place those explosive devices in the right place to cause the pancaking of the buildings that we witnessed.
The most plausible theory to me is that the terrorists brought nuclear devices with them into the planes and that what occurred was that those were either detonated upon impact or detonated after impact, either by someone conscious long enough to do it or through some remote-control device; the nuclear devices were positioned so as to create a downward reaction, which created a firestorm headed downward, gutting out the internals of each of the Twin Towers such that the building imploded from the bottom up, because the nuclear blast hit a termination point not far beneath the ground and then reversed course against itself, meeting no resistance on the way up. The amount of dust, debris, smoke, etc. being given off by the Towers was sufficient to camouflage that relatively-short-lived infernos were temporarily raging within the buildings, leaving such an empty space on the lower floors that the weight of the upper floors took the gravity route downward. It's also an explanation for why the debris at the building crash sites remained ignited for so many weeks afterward, not to mention the clusters of extraordinary disease diagnoses for survivors of the scene.
But don't bother asking me: I have no proof, just a friend who's been convinced since it occurred that Dick Cheney was behind it. He's been forwarding me stuff for 2 decades now, and that's the only one that adds up other than to just take it at face value: Islamic terrorism in the form of hijacked planes, period.
The most plausible theory to me is that the terrorists brought nuclear devices with them into the planes and that what occurred was that those were either detonated upon impact or detonated after impact, either by someone conscious long enough to do it or through some remote-control device; the nuclear devices were positioned so as to create a downward reaction, which created a firestorm headed downward, gutting out the internals of each of the Twin Towers such that the building imploded from the bottom up, because the nuclear blast hit a termination point not far beneath the ground and then reversed course against itself, meeting no resistance on the way up. The amount of dust, debris, smoke, etc. being given off by the Towers was sufficient to camouflage that relatively-short-lived infernos were temporarily raging within the buildings, leaving such an empty space on the lower floors that the weight of the upper floors took the gravity route downward. It's also an explanation for why the debris at the building crash sites remained ignited for so many weeks afterward, not to mention the clusters of extraordinary disease diagnoses for survivors of the scene.
But don't bother asking me: I have no proof, just a friend who's been convinced since it occurred that Dick Cheney was behind it. He's been forwarding me stuff for 2 decades now, and that's the only one that adds up other than to just take it at face value: Islamic terrorism in the form of hijacked planes, period.
All I really know is that two planes can't cause a third building to fall down that they didn't hit. That third building had to be dropped by demolition charges, it's the only explanation that makes sense - there's even an article in a European engineering journal demonstrating that very clearly. So at a bare minimum there was something else going on in addition to the planes. Don't know what though, or who did it - because it was never properly investigated. We'll likely never know what actually happened, we'll just continue for the rest of our lives with a strong feeling there's something dodgy about it all.
I can only speak to what I saw at the Pentagon and what was relayed to me by eyewitnesses. There are two things to keep in mind here: the first is that my job in the Marines was MOS code 0352, anti-tank guided missile crewman. I’ve shot actual missiles, albeit relatively small ones, and guided them to target. I have some familiarity with missiles basically. The second was that the attack on the Pentagon hit the Marines Corps section of the building which thankfully was lightly manned do to renovations. I have however talked to junior Marines NCOs who were on site within possibly hours. My memories of some details are sketchy and it could have been days.
The eyewitnesses I talked to all said there was a plane. I heard Marines say they saw it hit and I talked to a number who saw it during the clean up.
I saw the site in November. The plane was gone as was the majority of the debris (remember I may have some of these details wrong, it could have been December for instance). What is seared in to my mind was the black mark where the plane hit some several hundred feet (?) from the building and the massive slide mark, also black.
I can say with great confidence that something large came in at a relatively shallow angle, did not make a crater and retained enough energy to slide a long ways across pavement and into the building where most of the damage seemed to be from fire.
This stands in marked difference to how a missile works. Missiles tend to be light, packed with high explosives and fly directly to their target. They then deliver a directed blast straight into the surface they’ve impacted in order to breach it and destroy what’s inside.
Had a missile impacted that parking lot I would not have expected it to retain enough mass and energy to slide a long way and inflict most damage to the building. I would have expected to see a crater at the impact site and heavy blast damage around the immediate vicinity.
I’m not sure how to describe it but when yo see blast damage it looks nothing like damage caused by burning. This site had nothing I would describe as blast damage.
Instead it looked to me like a plane came in low, hit the ground too early slid into the building while burning. Everything I saw personally and heard from regular Marines (mostly lower ranked infantrymen like myself) was that the official narrative is what happened.
I could still smell smoke when I was there. I wasn’t talking to only officers, although I did talk to some of them, but mostly rank and file Marines. At least a portion of them infantry like I said and they would be familiar with missile and bomb strikes. I am confident that a plane impacted a the Pentagon. I have no insight in to who was responsible or why but I saw nothing to lead me to question the official version of events.
I hope that helps.
That's very helpful @The Revolting Man. It's extremely hard to believe anything you hear on all this stuff, and so much better when you can speak to someone who saw it with their own eyes.
The slide mark is particularly interesting. It's something you could plausibly fake - but not practically, because too many people would notice. So that I find the most convincing point in your entire account. Burning damage could be caused by an incendiary munition instead of a blast munition, but you can't fake a giant black skid mark without people seeing it being painted on!
I'm comfortable with first-hand eyewitness (see it yourself) and second-hand eyewitness (someone you know before you asked about this event and already trust says they saw something). I've become skeptical of third-hand eyewitness accounts though, such as where you say you talked to someone who saw something, and I have to put the sightings of plane pieces into that category and not consider them conclusive. I've become skeptical of third-hand information because I know much wartime propaganda falls into that category - everything is an account that someone talked to someone who saw something. It becomes distant enough that it can have altered in the telling or be impossible to trace to the source. This was particularly highlighted to me when I realised that some of the accounts of Saddam's mistreatment of women repeated as fact in "Ballad for Baghdad", but that the author had heard through the grapevine rather than seen personally, were almost word-for-word identical to World War 1 allied propaganda about horrifying German treatment of Belgian nurses, which was ultimately found to have been entirely fabricated. Third-hand just becomes more likely to be a story that's been seeded into the discussion.
But the slide mark you saw yourself, I'm comfortable with that, and it's really helpful for my understanding of the situation.
The slide mark is particularly interesting. It's something you could plausibly fake - but not practically, because too many people would notice. So that I find the most convincing point in your entire account. Burning damage could be caused by an incendiary munition instead of a blast munition, but you can't fake a giant black skid mark without people seeing it being painted on!
I'm comfortable with first-hand eyewitness (see it yourself) and second-hand eyewitness (someone you know before you asked about this event and already trust says they saw something). I've become skeptical of third-hand eyewitness accounts though, such as where you say you talked to someone who saw something, and I have to put the sightings of plane pieces into that category and not consider them conclusive. I've become skeptical of third-hand information because I know much wartime propaganda falls into that category - everything is an account that someone talked to someone who saw something. It becomes distant enough that it can have altered in the telling or be impossible to trace to the source. This was particularly highlighted to me when I realised that some of the accounts of Saddam's mistreatment of women repeated as fact in "Ballad for Baghdad", but that the author had heard through the grapevine rather than seen personally, were almost word-for-word identical to World War 1 allied propaganda about horrifying German treatment of Belgian nurses, which was ultimately found to have been entirely fabricated. Third-hand just becomes more likely to be a story that's been seeded into the discussion.
But the slide mark you saw yourself, I'm comfortable with that, and it's really helpful for my understanding of the situation.
Some of this discussion -- even when it occurs in engineering journals (reminds me of medical journals) -- is simply ridiculous caca. Collateral buildings come down all the time due to shockwaves created by the falling of nearby buildings. I heard 'expert' engineers testify on TV on 9/11 that it was impossible for the World Trade Center buildings to come down because they were built to withstand such impact. Experts can say the dumbest things. Building down; impossible for building to come down. Nonsense, on its face.
And I suppose we're supposed to conclude that all the footage we saw on 9/11 of a plane half sticking out of the Pentagon was all Photoshopped and portrayed by all the networks as real despite being Photoshopped.
We saw it.
I discussed with several people in advance of the twin towers coming down that they would be pancaking. It was predictable.
Sometimes one can search too hard to find a conspiracy.
And I suppose we're supposed to conclude that all the footage we saw on 9/11 of a plane half sticking out of the Pentagon was all Photoshopped and portrayed by all the networks as real despite being Photoshopped.
We saw it.
I discussed with several people in advance of the twin towers coming down that they would be pancaking. It was predictable.
Sometimes one can search too hard to find a conspiracy.
this is what i see at that link:
President Joe Biden’s deputies are fast-tracking exit visas for many thousands of Afghan men ahead of the looming U.S. military withdrawal — but they face a legal hurdle if they also want to give visas to all the wives of applicants in polygamous Islamic marriages.
Polygamy may complicate Biden’s efforts to admit into the U.S. the families of Afghans eligible for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), available to people who face threats because of work they did for the American government and military, many times risking their lives in combat zones.
President Joe Biden’s deputies are fast-tracking exit visas for many thousands of Afghan men ahead of the looming U.S. military withdrawal — but they face a legal hurdle if they also want to give visas to all the wives of applicants in polygamous Islamic marriages.
Polygamy may complicate Biden’s efforts to admit into the U.S. the families of Afghans eligible for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), available to people who face threats because of work they did for the American government and military, many times risking their lives in combat zones.
Seriously, who would challenge this administration on such a detail?
I have a feeling that the writer is just getting a story out of the situation, but it really is a non-issue.
I am not picking on you, @ginger2.
Just my opinion.
The site is picky about smiley faces, you can only choose one from their menu.
You will find them in the tools that appear above the post that you are writing. That’s where they are on the phone, maybe a different place when using a computer?
It's nothing to do with collateral damage from shockwaves - building 7 came down a full seven hours after the collapse of the primary buildings, not while being rocked by shockwaves from them. I've never heard anyone claim that one before, the accepted narrative is that it came down due to a fire which weakened the structure.
There has been some very detailed mathematical modelling of building 7 that showed that the fall it made was completely consistent with a controlled demolition with the centre supports taken out momentarily before the outside supports exactly as per a textbook methodology to keep the collapse neatly vertical and avoid damage to adjacent buildings, and inconsistent with any other scenario they could simulate.
It's not "ridiculous caca", it's careful scientific analysis. That sort of dismissive attitude just reminds me of a news anchor labelling the Wuhan lab leak a "conspiracy theory" so they can ignore it...
I don't recall any photos of a plane half sticking out of the Pentagon, and I just checked some old news footage to confirm. After impact, the plane (and I am running with the assumption it was a plane following the above discussion) had disintegrated so much and been embedded so far in the building none of it was sticking out. That is why the doubts have existed right from the day it occurred - because the news footage of the Pentagon on the day did NOT show a plane (at least not obviously). I'm not sure you're remembering that correctly - you may of course have seen imagery that I have not seen, but it would be images of the same building.
In this case, I'm not disputing with you on the fact - we can agree it was almost certainly a plane. I am however disputing your assertion that there was loads of footage that made it clear on the day.
Last edited:
There is just about nothing that is done in the realm of "modeling" that I put credence in. Garbage in, garbage out. Modeling predicted in 1970 that mass starvation would overwhelm the planet due to overpopulation by 1980, and we're still eating. Modeling in 2005 predicted that the sea levels were going to rise by 24 feet by now due to global warming, and half of New Zealand isn't under water yet. Modeling in 2020 predicted 2.2 million U.S. deaths from Wuhan Flu, and, well, you know how that turned out. Who ever convinced you that shockwaves only have immediate effects? They can burst one gas pipe, leading to fires, leading to softening of metals, leading to structural collapse. Talk with a firefighter who has had to enter large buildings. That's the problem with modeling; it always involves tunnel vision on the input side of the model -- usually in the form of seeking a possible pathway to confirm the desired outcome. Only certain portions of the overall realm of possibilities are considered -- and others entirely ignored. I've watched a very long 'documentary' about how the plane couldn't have had the flight path shown on Pentagon security video, which then 'concludes' that the plane wasn't coming from that direction and that it was a cruise missile instead caught on security footage. Why then isn't there any video evidence of when the plane separately struck but plenty of photographic evidence and eyewitness reporting about debris from the plane? One has to be stuck on it being a cruise missile to ignore the video silence of the plane's impact if what we have is supposedly a cruise missile. On that we apparently agree. And you're right, saying "loads of footage" was hyperbole on my part, but way too much of the speculation involves ignoring important facts to 'prove' hypotheses. Too much of what happened on that day was anomalous to be able to make assertions about how it supposedly couldn't have happened that way -- to what are we comparing it?
Just the grand scale of what it would have taken to coordinate planes, cruise missiles and targeted demolition taking place all at precise times, in combination with thousands of eyewitness accounts (as compared to the handful who 'saw' something contrary) stretches credulity way beyond its breaking point. No amount of theorizing is going to convince me that that many Pentagon employees, NYC residents, every news network, the family members of the people on the flight that hit the Pentagon, could cooperate in such a scheme without even one leak to prove otherwise.
My television was on the very first moment that the first tower being hit was announced, and I remained glued to the programming on Fox News Channel from that moment forward until Kristin came home from work.
Just the grand scale of what it would have taken to coordinate planes, cruise missiles and targeted demolition taking place all at precise times, in combination with thousands of eyewitness accounts (as compared to the handful who 'saw' something contrary) stretches credulity way beyond its breaking point. No amount of theorizing is going to convince me that that many Pentagon employees, NYC residents, every news network, the family members of the people on the flight that hit the Pentagon, could cooperate in such a scheme without even one leak to prove otherwise.
My television was on the very first moment that the first tower being hit was announced, and I remained glued to the programming on Fox News Channel from that moment forward until Kristin came home from work.