A Conversation for The Iraq Conflict Discussion Forum
Nobel Peace Prize my a**...
starbirth Posted Jun 4, 2003
Let me see if I get this right. You respond to my posts by pointing out typo's in a taunting manner. I respond to your baiting in a humerous fashion and your response is I have betrayed my priciples.
Nobel Peace Prize my a**...
starbirth Posted Jun 4, 2003
Empty, even better. The below diatribe that is no more than a barrage of partisan assertions that towards it's conclusion embarks into the realm of conspiracy theorys. This is the 'sensible discusion' I 'sacraficed' for Humor.
Such a lost chance for sensible discussion
<. I believe that George W Bush is the single most evil President that America has ever had, his corruption makes Nixon look like a boy scout.
Bush is not above making a mockery of the democratic system and stealing his way into the White House. Bush is not above invading sovereign nations for the purpose of vile American empire building and to plunder those nations' resources. Bush is not above lying to the population in order to frighten them into gifting him the impunity he needs and it may be a long time before we discover quite what else Bush is capable of doing, including possibly engineering terrorist attacks (such as September 11th) against his own people as a method of getting the ball rolling.
I, too, pray that Bush will be recognised for the evil he is, before it's too late. But history and American apathy are against it.>
Nobel Peace Prize my a**...
Lentilla (Keeper of Non-Sequiturs) Posted Jun 4, 2003
Hee... if we didn't have conspiracy theories, we couldn't rub our hands together gleefully.
You gotta have humor. If nothing else, I can laugh at myself.
And Santa and Satan share the same letters. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Nobel Peace Prize my a**...
Empty Sky (Remember me fondly.) Posted Jun 5, 2003
"Such a lost chance for sensible discussion"
What's your problem, Starbirth? Those things are all facts, except the suggestion about 9/11 which isn't proven but a reasonable assumption (I did say possibly).
The term "conspiracy theory" has becpme a catch-all insult which allows you to dismiss assertions that you feel uncomfortable with.
There's nothing quite as comfortable as denial, is there?
Nobel Peace Prize my a**...
Empty Sky (Remember me fondly.) Posted Jun 5, 2003
"Let me see if I get this right. You respond to my posts by pointing out typo's in a taunting manner. I respond to your baiting in a humerous fashion and your response is I have betrayed my priciples."
Quite right. Except for one small point, your baiting was "humourous" only in your opinion.
(I'll resist the temptation to point out to you that "humerous" isn't actually a word and "humerus" is a bone in the arm).
So what's your point???
Actually Starbirth, I'm just taunting you. Don't worry about it.
Nobel Peace Prize my a**...
Lentilla (Keeper of Non-Sequiturs) Posted Jun 5, 2003
Truth? Not exactly... Some of these statements are true, some half-true, and some a collection of circumstantial evidence - which when put together, looks pretty damning - but won't hold up in court!
> Bush is not above making a mockery of the democratic system and stealing his way into the White House.
This is one of those half-truths. Bush did not win the popular election, but he did win through the electoral college (which exists because our beloved Andrew Jackson was afraid of putting the power into the hands of the 'common man.') There's plenty of speculation about Florida's election count, and there's also the weird delayed vote count from those military men at sea who couldn't vote on time with the rest of the Americans. (What, did they not have radios on those battle cruisers?) I don't think Bush has the smarts to steal his way into the White House. I think if there's any shenanigans going on, it's the Republican party behind the scenes. But it's one of those things that I choose not to think about, because it'll make me even more nervous and paranoid.
> Bush is not above invading sovereign nations for the purpose of vile American empire building and to plunder those nations' resources.
There's no doubt that the invasion of Iraq was because of the influence of the PNAC (which exists to promote a bizarre revival of 'manifest destiny.' ) And the *new* stated reason for the invasion of Iraq was because we wanted to move our troops out of Saudi Arabia and give them a military base in Iraq. Vile American empire building? I'm not so sure. It remains to be seen whether we're there for the oil or whether we're going to invade every country around Iraq and make it all one giant McDonald's.
> Bush is not above lying to the population in order to frighten them into gifting him the impunity he needs
Very true.
> and it may be a long time before we discover quite what else Bush is capable of doing, including possibly engineering terrorist attacks (such as September 11th) against his own people as a method of getting the ball rolling.
I don't think this is true. I think there's a possibility that the people around Bush Jr. engineered this event, but I think it's more likely that it's exactly as it appears - a large and dangerous faction of Middle Eastern individuals have banded together to promote terrorist activities in the Middle East and abroad to protest the medding of Europeans and Americans in their affairs. That Osama bin Laden, a member of the wealthy bin Laden family, is the spokesperson for Al-Queda is just wonderful irony. There's a good reason why he hates the U.S. so much - his own family, who he's rebelling against, has been taking money from the U.S. for years.
'Conspiracy theory' always says to me: Here's a collection of facts and circumstantial evidence which hasn't been substantiated, but if all the facts are true, and if all the evidence can be linked to the offenders, then this theory would be true. Some of the facts are true, others we're not quite so sure of. I'm waiting until all the facts are proven - then we can start litigation and get things back to a semblance of normalcy.
Nobel Peace Prize my a**...
Empty Sky (Remember me fondly.) Posted Jun 5, 2003
Hi ya Lentilla. what you say is extremely interesting and its good to hear things from an American's perspective. Just a couple of tiny points (which, I stress, are only my opinion).
"Bush did not win the popular election, but he did win through the electoral college"
As far as I know endorsement from the electoral college came as a result of Bush winning a narrow majority of states and winning a narrow majority of states was only sewn up because Bush eventually won Florida and Bush eventually won Florida only through attrition, questionable vote counting and finally a supreme court decision. Now, that sounds to me like the republican party machine employing every dirty tactic in the book.
The fact remains that Gore won the popular vote by more than half a million. So more than half of the voting public don't want Bush in the White House. That fact alone should tell Bush that his presidency does not have the tacit approval of the majority of the public. In fact, considering the legendarily low voter turnout in the US, Bush recieved the vote of less than fifty percent of fifty percent of eligable voters. Yet he had no conscience about assuming office. The election should've been void.
"I think there's a possibility that the people around Bush Jr. engineered this event, but I think it's more likely that it's exactly as it appears - a large and dangerous faction of Middle Eastern individuals have banded together to promote terrorist activities in the Middle East and abroad to protest the medding of Europeans and Americans in their affairs."
You're probably right but many suspicious facts have come to light since September 11th. Take a look at this:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html
The conclusion that they come to is that Bush's behaviour on September 11th was curious to say the least. There's a strong suggestion that Bush knew exactly what was going to happen on that day, if we believe that, we must ask ourselves WHY Bush knew exactly what was going to happen on that day. Here's a clue - why do McDonalds staff know exactly what is in their burgers?
Certainly the incentives for Americans doing Sept 11th to themselves are strong. All that is required is a disregard for human life and Bush has since proven that he posesses that.
Doublespeak
Adele the Divided (h2g2 will be your undoing) Posted Jun 5, 2003
>>Slick 50 president. You pour him in the engine, it sounds great, and six months later, you've got to get a whole new engine.<<
I couldn't have put it better myself, Lentilla (in fact, I didn't.) Brilliant!
Nobel Peace Prize my a**...
starbirth Posted Jun 9, 2003
All facts? Then list your facts. Where are the facts that Bush is 'evil'. That america is engaged in vile empire building or plundering resourses. Look more like assertions.
Assertions should be dismissed as 'conspiracy theory' or any other term that fits a declaration submited as fact without supporting evidence. An assertion without confirming evidence or facts is nothing more than hearsay.
There's nothing quite as comfortable as denial, is there?>
You would know.
Nobel Peace Prize my a**...
Mister Matty Posted Jun 9, 2003
"Certainly the incentives for Americans doing Sept 11th to themselves are strong. All that is required is a disregard for human life and Bush has since proven that he posesses that."
If they had done it to themselves:
They would have crashed the planes into a New York suburb, not the WTC which was full of exactly the kind of people ultra-leftists tell us run the US government.
They would not have hit the WTC on a day when the stock market was in dire straits.
They would not have pointlessly attacked the Pentagon when America was already outraged by a terrorist attack in New York.
They would have tampered with the fire-escapes/lifts in the WTC thus ensuring maximum loss of life and outrage. As it happened, most people were able to escape and the death toll was 1/10 of what was initially estimated.
The third plane brought down over Pennsylvania and the mysterious "fourth plane" would never have been necessary.
The "Did it to themselves" theory is endlessly banded around and collapses under the weight of logic. My personal take on it is that anti-US opinion has so convinced itself that the US controls each and every thing that happens in the world that it cannot concieve that the US could be attacked unexpectedly and with devestating effects. Nor is it willing to deal with the idea that a philosophy more reactionary and "right wing" than that in a Republic White House could be responsible.
Nobel Peace Prize my a**...
Mister Matty Posted Jun 9, 2003
"You're probably right but many suspicious facts have come to light since September 11th. Take a look at this:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/...ine/main/essayaninterestingday.html
The conclusion that they come to is that Bush's behaviour on September 11th was curious to say the least. There's a strong suggestion that Bush knew exactly what was going to happen on that day, if we believe that, we must ask ourselves WHY Bush knew exactly what was going to happen on that day. Here's a clue - why do McDonalds staff know exactly what is in their burgers?"
Sky, have you even read the article? It doesn't accuse Bush of being complicit in the terrorist attacks, it accuses him of being slow and incompetent and of his Press Office "spinning" the idea of him being firm and in charge on a day of national crisis. Not only have you posted a nonsensical conspiracy theory, but you've linked to an article that not only disagrees with it but effectively rebukes it.
Not that anyone here seems to care about stuff like that, though.
Nobel Peace Prize my a**...
starbirth Posted Jun 9, 2003
Starbirth:
Empty:
<<Quite right. Except for one small point, your baiting was "humourous" only in your opinion.
Starbirth:
>
That you lack one.
Actually Starbirth, I'm just taunting you. Don't worry about it.
May I ?
Nobel Peace Prize my a**...
DA ; Simply Vicky: Don't get pithy with me! Posted Jun 9, 2003
>>They would have tampered with the fire-escapes/lifts in the WTC thus ensuring maximum loss of life and outrage. As it happened, most people were able to escape and the death toll was 1/10 of what was initially estimated.<<
No, Zagreb, that's *exactly* what they would not have done! I assume that if they *did* 'do' 911 to themselves (and it is possible) they would justify it to themselves on the basis of ends justifying means... So, they would want to *minimise* loss of life, in order to calm their consciences!
Nobel Peace Prize my a**...
Dogster Posted Jun 9, 2003
">>They would have tampered with the fire-escapes/lifts in the WTC thus ensuring maximum loss of life and outrage. As it happened, most people were able to escape and the death toll was 1/10 of what was initially estimated.<<
No, Zagreb, that's *exactly* what they would not have done! I assume that if they *did* 'do' 911 to themselves (and it is possible) they would justify it to themselves on the basis of ends justifying means... So, they would want to *minimise* loss of life, in order to calm their consciences!"
Well, all this talk of what might or might not have gone through the minds of the conspirators is very interesting - but the real question is: How many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin?
Nobel Peace Prize my a**...
Lentilla (Keeper of Non-Sequiturs) Posted Jun 10, 2003
I'm with Zagreb - what the article said to me is that Bush is incompetent. Which I knew already!
I don't think that Bush engineered 9/11. I don't think he has the brains to tie his shoes. As for the people around him - they were too busy taking Enron down. I believe that if the Pentagon had been paying attention to the intelligence reports that it had been receiving for more than a month before 9/11, then this would never have happened. The U.S. was just too complacent. I should say 'is,' because we're now relaxing after the invasion of Iraq. We shouldn't be relaxing. Nothing has changed. Osama bin Laden is still out there, and Al-Queda has more reason than ever to drum its people into a frenzy.
I was pleased to hear that the news media's talking about the 'exaggeration' of WMD in Iraq. The CIA is supposed to be investigating it, as well as a Senate judiciary committee. Here I thought it was just me... I'm glad to know I'm not the only one that thinks something's rotten in the state of Denmark.
Key: Complain about this post
Doublespeak
- 6921: Empty Sky (Remember me fondly.) (Jun 4, 2003)
- 6922: starbirth (Jun 4, 2003)
- 6923: starbirth (Jun 4, 2003)
- 6924: Lentilla (Keeper of Non-Sequiturs) (Jun 4, 2003)
- 6925: Empty Sky (Remember me fondly.) (Jun 5, 2003)
- 6926: Empty Sky (Remember me fondly.) (Jun 5, 2003)
- 6927: starbirth (Jun 5, 2003)
- 6928: Lentilla (Keeper of Non-Sequiturs) (Jun 5, 2003)
- 6929: Lentilla (Keeper of Non-Sequiturs) (Jun 5, 2003)
- 6930: Empty Sky (Remember me fondly.) (Jun 5, 2003)
- 6931: Adele the Divided (h2g2 will be your undoing) (Jun 5, 2003)
- 6932: T´mershi Duween (Jun 6, 2003)
- 6933: DA ; Simply Vicky: Don't get pithy with me! (Jun 8, 2003)
- 6934: starbirth (Jun 9, 2003)
- 6935: Mister Matty (Jun 9, 2003)
- 6936: Mister Matty (Jun 9, 2003)
- 6937: starbirth (Jun 9, 2003)
- 6938: DA ; Simply Vicky: Don't get pithy with me! (Jun 9, 2003)
- 6939: Dogster (Jun 9, 2003)
- 6940: Lentilla (Keeper of Non-Sequiturs) (Jun 10, 2003)
More Conversations for The Iraq Conflict Discussion Forum
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."