h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"If all you can say about Starbirth's post is that it's filled with typos, what's your point?"

Lentilla, I am not the one who mentioned Starbirth's typos. I have pointed out the odd misspelt word in a joking manner but it was Adele who suggested that Starbirth check his typos. (post 6982).

However many of Starbirth's writings go well beyond mere typos and descend into nonsense, an example would be:

"As far as Enqiure back pay I believe you were hired mostlt
for filer.
rhe NATIONAL"

Do you really think that that kind of thing is helping the cause of someone who claims to be intelligent? I'm not knocking his affliction, as Starbirth back-tracked on his claim that his disability was the cause of his errors.

L - "pparition, I'm not birth's protector, any more than I am your protector."

L - " although you occasionally have your immature moments."

Oh yeah, you're balanced. Never have you chastised starbirth, could it be his nationality? We doth know your double standard stemming from another thread. Your denial only deludes yourself.

*******************

"> how does that relate to the *fact* that capitol punishment is un-christian.

It depends upon which definition of Christianity you use. "

No it doesn't. Because someone uses an ideology as an excuse for his/her actions does not taint the ideology with those actions.

"What in the hell are are you talking about? Engendering sympathy?"

Starbirth, of course you were attempting to engender sympathy. Why else would you mention your pain and medication?

I have no idea who any of the people here are and neither do you. Any one of them (us) could be severley disabled, barely able to move. None would think it appropriate to mention that if they wish to continue to be equal to others here.

Why did you mention it? You have said that it DOESN'T explain your mistakes, so why even mention it?

"Of all the conclusions to draw from the available facts, that one makes the least sense.""

Lentilla, the only "statement" I made on that particular subject is that Bush is "capable" of engineering Sept 11th, not that he DID.

It's an important difference. Please try to understand it before one of us dies!

"It depends upon which definition of Christianity you use."

No it doesn't! The bible is quite clear on the subject, that capital punishment is wrong! The crusades were an example of people who claimed to be christian subverting their religion to suit themselves. In much the same way that modern Muslim extremists do and in much the same way that fundamentalist American Christians do. It's a disease and a common one.

And while we're on the subject of Bush's capacity for evil. What about the concentration camp he runs in Cuba?

(Before you say that Bush does not personally run it, remember that he is president, he knows about it, approves of it, endorses it, the buck stops with him).

Around 650 prisoners are kept chained and shackled in cages at Guantanamo Bay. They've been there for seventeen months, so far, with no sign of release. They have NEVER BEEN CHARGED. They have never received adequate legal council. Many have never even been correctly identified. They have never been granted any kind of legal status, either as POWs or criminals. Some are minors, as young as thirteen. There are allegations that some have been beaten and tortured.

What kind of outcry would there be if an arrested person was held on remand for upwards of seventeen months WITHOUT CHARGE in mainland USA?

Stick to the point.

"However that was long ago before saddam hussien led the iraq nation in a 6 year war against Iran, and a 3 week war with most of the world."

You are wrong. The hospitals were considered world-class before the lootings. That is, just before the states turned up and allowed them to be ransacked. And as an aside, Starbirth, what makes you think the war is over? More than 40 US soldiers have been killed since the 'victory'.

"and even more billions to buy weapons and bribe his hench men"

Yeah right. are those the weapons you sold him or the ones you are having so much trouble manufacturing, sorry, finding?

"What ever anyone says about US motives surely no one can say Iraq is worse off without this man and his family."

Blah blah blah. I'll reserve judgement until I've seen the behaviour of the next lot thanks. And yes, I'd like to say that for the *average* family, what with a complete break-down of law and hospital services, what killings in the streets and gangs murdering each other openly, things are a whole lots worse than they were before. I'm not sticking up for SH, he was a shit. But let's not lie to ourselves about the current shoddy siuation, eh? Perhaps the reports of these events are being edited for domestic use.

And the point is?

If you have to lie to justify an attck, then the truth must just be too incriminating to go public with. These are lies of monsterous proportions. Perhaps that's why Bush supporters are in such deep denial. They just can't quite believe anyone would be lying to them this openly.

>Apparition, I'm not birth's protector, any more than I am your protector. What I am is an adult human being, who believes that we can have a peaceful, intelligent conversation, without resorting to picking on each other for making typos when we find we don't have anything else to argue about. I know you are, too - although you occasionally have your immature moments.<

Do not let apparitions whining bother you Lentilla. he is a bully and will soon tire os attacking you. He knows you see though him and his school yard bully rantings and this frightens him. he has found an ally in Empty to help bouy up his courage.

see rest next post

Lentilla we have disagreed in the past but you have always been polite and a most civil person. You have been here long enough to know that apparition and I have butted heads many times. I am sure you also read the many times I have tried to bury the hatchet with him. To the point of offering an apology to end the bitter feelings.
Apparition onseveral occasions took the olive branch I extended and proceeded to beat me with it.

I have rarely responded to apparition for months simply to aviod his unpleasant demeaner and the few times I have they were non confrontaional. How ever that does not stop him from personally attacking me. It really is a sad statement of the type of man he is.
I have found through my life that most bullys are scared little boys on the inside lashing out at those they fear. So do not let his attcks at you in the least bother you. Apparition fears you. If anything pity him as I do.

"I have rarely responded to apparition for months simply to aviod his unpleasant demeaner and the few times I have they were non confrontaional. How ever that does not stop him from personally attacking me. It really is a sad statement of the type of man he is."

To quote Dilbert. I respectfully decline the invitation to join your hallucination.



On topic

"Perhaps that's why Bush supporters are in such deep denial. They just can't quite believe anyone would be lying to them this openly."

I see what you mean. Bush supporters or D.O.B. (deciples of bush) go quiet or leave the thread when the hollywood "rescue" of the private from the Iraqi hospital.

Huh? There is no double standard. I think you're a little confused, Empty.

First of all, you totally misunderstood my earlier point. What I was trying to point out was that your first post - the first of two - was summed up with two simple sentences. 1) The Americans and the world were lied to about the war. 2) Many Americans don't have a problem with being lied to about the war. And I agree with these two sentences. I don't know what you thought I was getting at - that's all I was trying to say. Your comprehension skills seem a little faulty.

Second, you did question birth's right to post on this thread. What starbirth was trying to say was that the pain medication made him a little less alert to typos. You replied with 'if you can't make a coherent argument, why do you bother contributing to this thread?' Which had nothing to do with what starbirth was trying to say. Starbirth did not become paranoid - Adele asked him what his medical status was, and starbirth replied. "I asure you my pain/medication has no bearing on my sometimes incoherent discourse. That is a natural ability I possess." That's a tongue-in-cheek sort of comment, and I took it to be exactly that. What he was trying to say was that he was just as coherent with the medication as without.

> Oh yeah, you're balanced. Never have you chastised starbirth, could it be his nationality? We doth know your double standard stemming from another thread. Your denial only deludes yourself.

Read the backlog. I only chastise people when I feel they've been acting immaturely. If Starbirth acts immaturely, then I would feel justified in saying something about it. I have in the past!

For the record, I don't completely agree with Starbirth. Neither do I completely agree with Zagreb, or Fairly Strange, or any of the other Americans that might be on this thread. I am an individual, and have my own ideas. Sometimes I agree with you. Sometimes I agree with Zagreb. Sometimes Starbirth... although that's less often than most. But there is no conspiracy of Americans against the rest of the world. We all have opinions, and they're all different. And it's all okay.

But all this aside, this is not the place for this discussion. If you can't talk about the facts at hand, but insist upon devolving into petty little moments, there are plenty of other places where that's perfectly acceptable.

Obviously you're prejudiced against Americans. I know the usual reasons for that behavior, but can you try and keep it subdued on this thread? This is one of the few chances we have to discuss international events as a community, and you're bollixing up the works.

> Bush supporters or D.O.B. (disciples of bush) go quiet or leave the thread when the hollywood "rescue" of the private from the Iraqi hospital.

I think this article is actually from Times Online.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=708

"Your comprehension skills seem a little faulty."

Lentilla, I'm afraid it's YOUR comprehension skills that seemed a litle faulty. The way you've put those two conclusions, NOW, makes them look perfectly reasonable. But previously you added quite erroneous sentences to them. Ie, "The war wouldn't have happened without 9/11" and "All Americans are happy about being lied to by Bush". I never said either of those things and you had no right to infer them.

"Second, you did question Starbirth's right to post on this thread."

Lentilla, once again (obviously it's necessary to repeat things here many times before they're understood) I did not question Starbirth's right to post on this thread.

I merely wondered why he did, considering (apparently) something is preventing him being shown in his best light. (He claims to be more intelligent, more capable, then he appears).

Americans, in general, have thrown away a great deal of credibility and goodwill lately. Surely the last thing they need is to show themselves in a bad light in places such as this.

"Obviously you're prejudiced against Americans."

Hmmm the mindless fallback of the lazy, There'd be a number of americans I converse with that would dissagree. Perhaps your ego is the reason for that statement.

As for "I have in the past!" ooo "!"'s temper temper. I'll belive it when I see it.

As you would see in my last post I tried to continue back on toppic but it seems you lack the nessary maturity. Possibly a 'last word' mentality?

Nope. That's what we would call a simulpost. You had posted your back-on-topic post while I was replying to Empty. And my accusation that Empty was prejudiced against Americans was directed against Empty, not against you, Apparition. I haven't noticed any particular leanings one way or the other in your case.

> But previously you added quite erroneous sentences to them. Ie, "The war wouldn't have happened without 9/11" and "All Americans are happy about being lied to by Bush". I never said either of those things and you had no right to infer them.

Empty, here is the first post (again.)

"• The war on Iraq was based upon lies, exaggerations, and half-truths, and would never have happened if 9/11 hadn't happened.
• The supporters of Bush and the war aren't upset that they've been lied to, because they believe that the end justifies the means.

I agree that all that is true.

I don't agree that Bush caused 9/11 so that he could attack Iraq. There's no evidence to support it. And it won't make it any more true to keep saying it, either!"

Why did I summarize your first post in that fashion? Statements like 'There's no doubt that Bush used his 'War On Terror' as convenient vindication for the invasion of Iraq.' Okay... that sounds to me like you're saying the invasion of Iraq wouldn't have happened if it hadn't been for 9/11. If that's not what you mean, you need to improve your use of the English language.

I did not infer that all Americans were happy about being lied to by Bush. Neither did you. You said they were in denial: "The people who support the Iraqi war are in denial and unable to wake up to the very obvious fact that they've been deceived." I say that they know, and many of them don't care. (I do, but that's a different topic.) So I suspect you're writing from what you remember of what I said; which is why I say that your comprehension is faulty. You obviously didn't get it. You're still not getting it.

What you don't seem to get is that *I'm agreeing with you!* The first post (6967), even though it's filled with inflammatory rhetoric, is all stuff I agree with. The second post I do not agree with.

> "Americans, in general, have thrown away a great deal of credibility and goodwill lately. Surely the last thing they need is to show themselves in a bad light in places such as this."

I think I've done well not to blow my top at you. Your behavior is the equivalent of walking into a crowded movie theater and shouting 'Fire!' If you want reasonable debate with your peers, then debate on their level. Don't descend to undermining your fellows by questioning their aptitude when they don't agree with your ideas.

Speaking of which...

> "I merely wondered why he did, considering (apparently) something is preventing him being shown in his best light."

This is a much milder version of the message you've been trying to get across for the last few days. I find it hard to believe that you're that insensitive. Starbirth himself has said that the typos are a result of the pain medication - not the thought processes to which you object. If you have a problem with the thought processes, stop attacking the medication use and start attacking the thought processes.

, I'm not bothered by Empty or Apparition. They're both intelligent and have some great things to say. It just bothers me to see two people acting so childishly.

Okay, so here's a question for everybody. Would the invasion of Iraq have happened if there had been no 9/11?

Lentilla, I've been rather worried. I've also been frantically checking. But now I'm confident that I NEVER said either of those things that you attribute to me and checking back over weeks of this conversation, I can't see where ANYBODY said them.

You say I said: "The war on Iraq was based upon lies, exaggerations, and half-truths, and would never have happened if 9/11 hadn't happened."

What I, in fact, said was: "The invasion of Iraq was founded on a litany of lies, misinformation and scaremongering. Excuses that fell like dominoes once the truth was known, leaving the removal of the Saddam regime as the only pretext left." (post 6967)

No mention of the war not happening if not for 9/11. (I don't believe that).

You say I said: "The supporters of Bush and the war aren't upset that they've been lied to, because they believe that the end justifies the means."

What I, in fact, said was: "It also sent the message that apologists for Bush are happy to accept what ever lies emanate from the administration, fall for what ever chicanery Bush decides to use to get permission to act, and then actually defend Bush's right to lie to them because a strange warped logic tells them that the end justifies the means." (post 6882)

"Supporters of Bush and the war" - and - "apologists for Bush" are not the same thing (a subtle difference, I know, but important).

I'm frankly disappointed that you could misrepresent the facts so badly.

However, I did say: "Americans, in general, have thrown away a great deal of credibility and goodwill lately. Surely the last thing they need is to show themselves in a bad light in places such as this."

That's absolutely true and I make no apology for it.

"Would the invasion of Iraq have happened if there had been no 9/11?"

Frankly, yes. I believe it would have. The events of September 11th and the invasion of Iraq have absolutely no relationship, nothing to do with each other whatsoever. However the Bush administration has been happy to subtly link the two in order to add justification to the current American empire building.

Bush, Powell and Blair blatantly lied to the public, creating a ficticious connection between the Iraqi government and international terrorist organisations, such as Alqaeda, and creating ficticious terrorist training camps in Iraq. A significant number of Americans actually confused Osama binLaden with Saddam Hussein, believing them to be the same person, creating a sort of generic villian. And an opinion poll before the war revealed that a significant percentage of Americans actually believed that the majority of 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. Had Bush been itching to invade, say, Switzerland - the majority of 9/11 hijackers would've magically become Swiss nationals. Truth is relative.

If the Bush administration didn't create this absurd confusion, they certainly encouraged it and were happy for it to reign. But going into Iraq under the guise of a 'War On Terror' certainly indicates that they may have had a hand in creating it.

Having said that, though, the seeds of US empire building were sown long before 9/11. Although 911 - with an all too easy twist of the truth - was used to add vindication to American war-mongering, it was by no means essential. The will to annex Afghanistan and Iraq has been so strong that it would've happened anyway and it doesn't stop there.

9/11 was not an essential prerequisite of the war, but it certainly oiled the wheels. A good reason to believe in the POSSIBILITY of Bush being behind 9/11. (I did say "possibility")

>9/11 was not an essential prerequisite of the war, but it certainly oiled the wheels. A good reason to believe in the POSSIBILITY of Bush being behind 9/11. (I did say "possibility")<

Have you taken time to look at the logistics of such an operation?

This is the most popular one I have heard to date but it is npt the only. There are several versions of it and there are a few totally differant. I have even heard one that ties aliens and planet X in with 911. Anyone have a favorite?