Rebuttal to "I just got back from a FEMA Detainment Camp

Originally posted by Nygdan
resulted in an impromptu response by the government, and we're hear squandering it.

For once I agree with you

Its sad but if he doesnt come back I can not blame him......

Originally posted by edsinger


Well I thought that once cleared from medical hazards they would be. What do you think? You think that they will be interned like at Gitmo? Can you be serious? Can you take your conspiracy hat off for a minute and not think the worse of your nations representatives?

EXCUSE ME??? I'm one of the people on this board that has repetitively talked back to the "conspiracy theorists" of the board. I have no tin foil hat ed. Put up your flag-waving gesture for a minute and step back from the thread.

The ENTIRE concern of my original thread - the reason I called it a DETAINMENT camp - is because we were told that the people could not leave the camp and then return. They could leave for good - to go live with friends or relatives - but they couldn't even leave for an hour or so to go to church.

THAT HAS NOT BEEN ANSWERED.

Originally posted by Valhall

EXCUSE ME??? I'm one of the people on this board that has repetitively talked back to the "conspiracy theorists" of the board. I have no tin foil hat ed.

The ENTIRE concern of my original thread - the reason I called it a DETAINMENT camp - is because we were told that the people could not leave the camp and then return. They could leave for good - to go live with friends or relatives - but they couldn't even leave for an hour or so to go to church.

I am sorry then, as I find it hard to keep track anymore. (As a side note, I like the tin-foil remark), it explains a lot, again my apologies.

So your concern is that they will not be allowed to go to town on a Saturday and then return that night? Or is it that when some of them leave to go live with family somewhere that they will then be taken of the books and not allowed back? I am confused.

[edit on 11-9-2005 by edsinger]

Originally posted by edsinger


I am sorry then, as I find it hard to keep track anymore. ( As a side note, I like the tin-foil remark, it explains a lot, again my apologies.

So your concern is that they will not be allowed to go to town on a Saturday and then return that night? Or is it that when some of them leave to go live with family somewhere that they will then be taken of the books and not allowed back? I am confused.

If they sign out to go live some where else, I don't have any problem with them not being able to get back - I suppose. I don't really care one way or the other as long as children get taken care of.

No, my concern was that we were told that they could not leave - for any reason - than to leave for good. Mr. Ed confirmed that was true during the "health check period", but he tied that to the statement "prior to leaving the camp". Well, that doesn't answer the question. We know they can leave the camp for good. Can they leave the camp on a "day pass" and come back. THAT's the question.

[edit on 9-11-2005 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Valhall
The ENTIRE concern of my original thread - the reason I called it a DETAINMENT camp - is because we were told that the people could not leave the camp and then return. They could leave for good - to go live with friends or relatives - but they couldn't even leave for an hour or so to go to church.

It seems obvious to me now what the real problem was...

If someone from the shelter/camp/whatever made their way to town and committed some crime, the government/organizers did not want to find themselves in a position of having to defend a local and very public backlash accusing them of failing to sufficiently screen evacuees for criminal backgrounds, and therefore, negligently housing criminals.

This is already starting to be asserted elsewhere.

My bet is the show of force was just that....intended as a deterrent to any potential criminal element among the evacuees. The 'no leave' policy was more about avoiding the potential problems described above.

I'm not saying that I agree with this. What I am saying is that I now see a less sinister reason, however unjustified, for their approach.

It's all very sad, really.... These poeple have already suffered so much and are paying for the crimes of a few.

[edit on 11-9-2005 by loam]

[edit on 11-9-2005 by loam]

Originally posted by Relentless
.....that is not what was said at the time. There is the problem. There is a big difference between obvious food contamination problems and someone saying it would be a problem because everyone wouldn't have one.

Two bureaucrats with different stories is hardly a big surprise. But I get where you are coming from. What concerns me is that they had no concrete procedures, what with stories and policies changing with the direction of the wind. Where were all your tax-dollars going? Were FEMA just sitting in their offices playing Solitaire on their PCs?

I think the issue of access to religious services is a non-starter. I seem to remember reading that preachers and the like had easy access to the camp, so I don't imagine there will be any problems. I am sure it was high on G.W.'s list of priorities.......

The far more interesting angle here is the fact that Mr. Ed more or less admitted to the existence of disease issues with the "guests". What is floating around down there, especially from those flooded CDC's is more important than Pop-Tarts. Their nutrional and spiritual needs would take a backseat to that particular problem.

Originally posted by edsinger
I do not know how familiar you are with these boards but there are a bunch that hate America no matter what it does even some citizens. Some that believe that Bush actually caused 911, they see conspiracies in everything sometimes to the point of laughter on my part. I have been here a little over a year and have seen it time and time again.

Here is one example,

Originally posted by WyrdeOneor was he simply engaged in a drive by propagandizing on behalf of the subterranean FEMA overlords? Only time will tell.

FEMA overloards?

Wyrde was obviously being witty. Unlike when you say an organized conspiracy of metaphysical demons, scientists, college professors and marxists are coming to take your guns, ban the bible and turn you gay. You mean it with all your heart and would burn freedom to the ground before letting people with differing opinions have any themselves. I give you that much. Not a snarky bone in your head.

I am definitely one of the minority in here, so far to the right that I get hammered a lot.

No that's everywhere Ed. But the other Ed has been welcomed repeatedly so that goes without saying, and playing this enormous and diverse international community off as irrelevant or one-sided or a bunch of non-critical thinkers that merely "hate America" is unequivocally a horrible misrepresentation of the facts and contrary to the seemingly insurmountable pure heart and soul of abovetopsecret.com members worldwide.

Well, another problem with permitting people to leave and come back is preventing abuse of the system. I am sure that that is what they are thinking of. They don't want the regular poor and destitute to 'siphon off' the support of the camp. They've taken people direct from teh disaster, brought them into other locations, adn can't keep track of them well enough to permit them to come and go as they please. Seems a pretty minor concern to me anyway, and considering that they arre refusing to accept clothing and food that volunteers are donating, also pretty bone-headed. But, what can we except, the feds failed, utterly and completely, on this matter. Hell, the system itself failed, it couldn't prevent hacks from being given governmental posts as rewards!

Originally posted by RANTWyrde was obviously being witty. Unlike when you say an organized conspiracy of metaphysical demons, scientists, college professors and marxists are coming to take your guns, ban the bible and turn you gay.

Thats what I like about you RANT, you can bring humor into things in a second, its a gift you have I guess And yes I knew Wyrde was being whitty but it was in bad taste with the guest imho.

Originally posted by RANT
No that's everywhere Ed. But the other Ed has been welcomed repeatedly so that goes without saying, and playing this enormous and diverse international community off as irrelevant or one-sided or a bunch of non-critical thinkers that merely "hate America" is unequivocally a horrible misrepresentation of the facts and contrary to the seemingly insurmountable pure heart and soul of abovetopsecret.com members worldwide.

On this one I would disagree, the MAJORITY in ATS are to the left of center no matter how you think of it. I would guess that 60% or more believe that 911 was an inside job. It the nature of the site......The Bush haters by FAR outnumber those who like him, they have even been blaming him for the response to Katrina. Although I would point out that only 13% of Americans feel that way supposedly.

Smart people in here? You bet, Free thinkers? You bet! Fruitloops, you can bank on it....

There is NO WAY that the most powerful government in the world might, just might, orchestrate a peverse and unjust act (I mean, it's NEVER happened before...), but we should all feel warm and happy about the fact that there is an invisible man sitting in the sky, diverting F4 Tornados from obliterating 800 people in a small rural town...

Originally posted by cargo fact that there is an invisible man sitting in the sky, diverting F4 Tornados from obliterating 800 people in a small rural town...

He didnt divert it at all, it hit and it hit hard.

Not one person died.


I was there 2 days after and the destruction was the most I have ever seen with my 2 eyes.


The fact that not one death occured was a miracle........

What was he doing 4 years ago today? Could have done with a bit of miracle that day. No?

Originally posted by cargo
What was he doing 4 years ago today? Could have done with a bit of miracle that day. No?

Very good point indeed. What is one of the hardest things to understand is the why He allowed it to happen, but as a Christian all I can say is that He is in control and it was according to His plan for Humankind. I can not answer that one because some things we have to take on faith, and that is the point.

Originally posted by edsinger
The Bush haters by FAR outnumber those who like him, they have even been blaming him for the response to Katrina.

Gosh, imagine that, he appointed these people to run fema, and didn't get invovled as the cheif executive, and people hold him somewhat responsible. Hurm. How strange. ALso notice that in your view on this, the only peopel that are critical of the president are bush-haters. Surely one can generally support the president and still criticize him on particular issues. Hell, surely one can completely disagree with the president and still not hate him. Lots of people, in fact, seem to do just this. You are classing them all as these 'bush bashers', who surely exist, but its blind to say that all criticism comes from knee jerk bush bashing. Brown was a complete screw up, and apparently lots of directors in fema, appointed by bush, were also, and they just happened to be supporters of him.

Its called political patronage, bush isn't immune from going along with it. He appointed them, he's the cheif executive, and they are failures and hacks. He screwed up, and the screw up rests on him. Its not his fault that the peopel of Louisiania and New Orleans in particular were silly enough to let the levees that protected their city from the gulf of mexico's waters, which they were under be substandard, and its not bushes fault that the peopel of new orleans sat in their homes when their own mayor ordered an evacuation, and its not even bushes fault that fema wasn't there on day one after the hurricane. But if you delegate your authority and responsibility to someone, and they screw up, its your fault.

You bet! Fruitloops, you can bank on it

Just remember, trix are for kids.

In that respect I would agree with you.

Bush was not the only one at fault and If I remember right the governor refused to let the feds take over on the Tuesday after.

I criticize Bush at times also, but most on this site see him as some kind of NWO Hitler that wants be a dictator, most of which is driven by 911 and the Iraq war.

I stand by my statement that the majority on this site are Bush haters...

Originally posted by Valhall
No, my concern was that we were told that they could not leave - for any reason - than to leave for good. Mr. Ed confirmed that was true during the "health check period", but he tied that to the statement "prior to leaving the camp". Well, that doesn't answer the question. We know they can leave the camp for good. Can they leave the camp on a "day pass" and come back. THAT's the question.

And is my major concern also. After reading loam's thread concerning the bio agents at Tulane and LSU, my concern is maybe these are folks who need to be confined (quarantined). If this is case, I have no problem with it. I just want the man to be straight up and say yes or no about the leaving question.

Just so that everyone is aware of our efforts at providing balance...

Because of the overwhelmning traffic, non-members are automatically redirected to this page:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
When linking to the first page of this thread.

We but this into place early Friday as inbound hits on this thread became a problem (it's a static HTML page that won't stress the database). This is the page that is currently being delivered at a rate of about 1.3 times every second.

Earlier today, I place a link to the rebuttal thread at the top of the page.

In the mayhem... many of our members didn't notice what happened... a representative of the government registered to address our concerns... think about that... keep thinking... despite your opinion of his response, we should make an effort to be more welcoming to ensure this is not the only time.

I read the ‘detainment’ thread by Valhall earlier to page one before I closed it, now I read this, and skim through to page two and have no doubt that a conspiracy to be spawn one need only create a one-sided point of view.

It did not take me long to learn that Falls creek has its own member well ensconced within the compound, which means that the Southern Baptist Church by attrition, must be in bed with FEMA to make this a detention centre.

September 4, 2005- Executive leadership from the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma met with government officials on Sunday to coordinate the logistics for welcoming an estimated 3,000 hurricane disaster survivors to the campus of Falls Creek Baptist Conference Center near Davis, Oklahoma. Survivors of Hurricane Katrina are expected to arrive at Falls Creek throughout the day on Monday…

Sam Porter, disaster relief coordinator for Oklahoma Baptist Disaster Relief, flew to Oklahoma from the Hurricane stricken area in time to be at the Sunday meeting. Porter will lead Baptist relief efforts at Falls Creek…. www.bgco.org...[57F338A6-2B68-47B7-9AD0-3583FE4931D5]&sc=-1&ni=518&fr=news

I doubt this piece was intended to expose the SBC as complicit in detaining Americans in the manner portrayed, or said member of the SBC would not be opening herself up by association to such despicable acts, yet said member was anxious to report a conspiracy without first having done any research;

A church camp in southern Oklahoma was expecting as many as 3,000 evacuees from the storm-battered Gulf Coast region, but none had arrived there by early Tuesday…

Falls Creek will be the second evacuation center in the state for victims of Hurricane Katrina. About 1,500 evacuees arrived late Saturday and early Sunday at Camp Gruber, a National Guard training camp in northeastern Oklahoma 18 miles southeast of Muskogee.

More than 100 of them left after contacting family or friends. www.kotv.com...

Or bothered to contact fellow Southern Baptists rushing to volunteer

09/06/2005 8:24:53 AM PDT
I don't know what is going on. The Baptist General Convention here in OK put out a call for volunteers to come to Falls Creek to help prepare it for evacuees and we all showed up. Heh! I mean it seemed like we all showed up to help! I'm talking bumper-to-bumper Baptists. My church drove 4 hours to get there. Thousands of Baptists showed up and when we all got there, apparently FEMA asked the BGC to restrict it to 500 volunteers. They literally turned away thousands of volunteers.

Last I heard the evacuees were held up in Texas.
… Apparently, Falls Creek (where I went yesterday) is all ready...beds made up with fresh linens, the kitchen is stocked and volunteers are lined up to deliver meals to the cabins.

Still no evacuees.

The rumor is that no one is willing to leave the Astrodome to come here. It's just a rumor, but it sure is strange. They were supposed to arrive yesterday

www.freerepublic.com...

For a detention centre meant to hold American citizens in some conspiratorial manner, I note that ordinary citizens were allowed past the gates and that some unnamed volunteer was quoted as though his/her understanding of events was gospel.

Mere hours after said post on the internet, one might conclude that said post shot to someone’s top priority list in order to manage the impending damage as a result of same;

Wednesday, September 07, 2005
This weekend, around 15,000 volunteers poured into Falls Creek, but now the evacuation site has been put on hold and fewer than 100 volunteers remain.

Tuesday, these cribs were ready for toddlers, a stuffed animal placed in each one. But today, they?re empty, the sheets and toys are bagged up and the cribs are abandoned.

Since Sunday, hundreds of volunteers have been making beds, preparing food and sorting thousands of donations, but now there is a chance the estimated 3,000 evacuees will not come.

Well, there’s a lot of reasons for that and we don’t know all of those reasons,? said Sam Porter, Oklahoma Baptist Disaster Relief Director. ?Some evacuees are at the Astrodome and they are still hoping against hope to go back home and maybe go back to their jobs, but truthfully, many of their homes and jobs are not there.? www.kten.com...

There was no thought of lessee/lessor obligations such as liability and property insurance, no thought that the presence of the ambulance and various policing is and should be a requirement when a makeshift town is made; no thought that policing should be a necessity, and no thought that in order to install the latter two in a place where no facilities are already established, vehicular presence would be expected on the roads at that since no housing for same is present at this youth camp; no thought that fellow Southern Baptists would have their reputations impugned by one of its own, such that they as volunteers are being made complicit in the forcible detainment of fellow Americans.

And worse, Ed, a government employee, decides to compound the alarmist report by dignifying same with a response.


[edit on 9/11/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

Originally posted by Gools
The only reasons you give are bad nomenclature, the need for "security", and to "protect" them from.... what? Getting sick? (Has anybody sneezed in your vicinity today?)

Gools, have you not been reading about the health issues that are cropping up? Any time you toss a bunch of folks into close contact for a week or more at a time, you run the risk of all sorts of things happening, including diarrhea and pneumonia and so forth.

... the ability by faith-based groups to allow these folks the ability to put their lives back to normal, ...

Which "faith based" people?

That would be the Faith Based Organizations that Bush approved to handle these sort of things. There's a list of them. Remember, Bush wants the government to get out of the business of being charitable and hand that over to certain religous groups.

Those are the ones that were approved by the government.

Originally posted by Byrd


Those are the ones that were approved by the government.

Now you have done it...........That one will blow up here I bet.


Seriously, I would bet they are NOT limited to Christian groups right?
That is a good thing.

[edit on 11-9-2005 by edsinger]