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

For once I agree with you

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.



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!

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.



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...

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?

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.

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.

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...

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.
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;
Or bothered to contact fellow Southern Baptists rushing to volunteer
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;

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]

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.


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.

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]