I agree, overt war does not become any Third World nation going up against a Security Council member. It is also interesting the well known fact that Saddam has never felt the effects of U.S. hostility towards Iraq... (i.e. sanctions and bombardment). If there is a war observe Red Cross and U.N. casualty figures to confirm or deny this implication.
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[quote]Originally posted by Faylorn:
[b]
a month before 911 Whitehouse reps met with Bin Laden at the Whitehouse
I already stated that I cannot find that article without searching through some 50+ articles or [url="http://www.themikereport.com"]www.themikereport.com[/url] which is down. I do not know whether the statement was true or not nor did I mean to decieve. Again, I apologize and ask its omittion until I can find a source.[/b][/quote]
Why would you post something that you are not sure is true or not to begin with? No, I will not ignore it till you can find the source. It’s there and you said it. It is clearly your stream of logic. To ignore it would go against one of zmags respectable credos: to not ignore the past and what has been done.
Surely if it is true it must be posted in some other paper or on some other page.
I have no proof but my feeling is it was a lie, you were caught, and you are doing damage control. I don't know of anyone credible who would post something like that unless it was first hand information or there was information from one credible source with confirmation from another.
The more you say "the above is sencere" the more it comes off as insincere.
In the past I have doubted some of what you have said. You are clearly biased towards everything or most being the fault or a fault of the US.
Your logic and sources have always been weak. For instance in response to your comment that "Therefore, the U.S. leadership is not the U.S. voter nor even the elected politician, it is the financiers." It is true that money buys ads, but it doesn’t buy votes. Candidates often win with less money than the opponent. Bill Clinton for example, did it twice. Tell me how the United States financiers organized the attack. What did they gain from the attack? Where is your proof?
Allow me to quote what you said one more time:
In the article's assessment of connections to the U.S. it does not mention that a month before 911 Whitehouse reps met with Bin Laden at the Whitehouse. This was obviously after he had been indicted for the embassy bombings. There is a strong notion in the Middle East, and IMO not misplaced, that the U.S. massacred its own people.
You, and not the article, made a clear accusation that the political leaders of this nation (along with their financiers) either released bin laden at a minimum indirectly killing people by letting him go or at most helped to plan to fly four (perhaps more) planes into places of importance killing thousands. You even said the article left this little fact out. It was you that made the point. You said there is a strong notion, that you agree with, that the US massacres it’s own people.
Where’s your evidence to back it up!?! Surely a single meeting with bin laden (that you have no proof of) would not be enough to lead you down this road of reasoning. Right?
You have lost my ear, Sir. You will not get it back until you show me the sources. To post an accusation like that and not be able to back it up is galling to me. You with your questionable to bad sources and misinformation put a bad face on the people who are trying to effect US policy for the better. Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you.
[This message has been edited by Konrad (edited 09-11-2002).]
[Konrad]Why would you post something that you are not sure is true or not to begin with? No, I will not ignore it till you can find the source. It’s there and you said it. It is clearly your stream of logic. To ignore it would go against one of zmags respectable credos: to not ignore the past and what has been done.[/Konrad]
I'm not asking you to "ignore the past" but to refrain from mentioning the appointment until I can join that part of the debate again, understand? I'm pursuing this info. Furthermore, I already admitted it was wrong of me to post something I could not find.
[Konrad]Surely if it is true it must be posted in some other paper or on some other page.
I have no proof but my feeling is it was a lie, you were caught, and you are doing damage control. I don't know of anyone credible who would post something like that unless it was first hand information or there was information from one credible source with confirmation from another.[/Konrad]
I was reporting what I had read. As I have otherwise stated, if I have told a lie I have not done it intentionally.
[Konrad]The more you say "the above is sencere" the more it comes off as insincere.[/Konrad]
Yeah, I guess I can see that but I also have no reason to screw up my own credibility and you know it. Everyone knows I'm not a troll -- at least I don't try to be.
[Konrad]In the past I have doubted some of what you have said. You are clearly biased towards everything or most being the fault or a fault of the US.[/Konrad]
That is false. If this was the seventeenth to nineteenth century I would be talking about European colonialism. Furthermore, I am sure to assign blame where I think it is due. I have been explicit in this manner and don't blame the entire U.S., as you suggest, but small powerful segments that do not hold anyone's interests but their own.
[Konrad]Your logic and sources have always been weak. For instance in response to your comment that "Therefore, the U.S. leadership is not the U.S. voter nor even the elected politician, it is the financiers." It is true that money buys ads, but it doesn’t buy votes. Candidates often win with less money than the opponent. Bill Clinton for example, did it twice. Tell me how the United States financiers organized the attack. What did they gain from the attack? Where is your proof?[/Konrad
That is one example and hardly justifies the antagonism that my "logic and sources have always been weak". It would be dignified to withdraw such an exaggeration before you are dragged into proving it. However, to refute your refutation, campaign financing gets the candidates media coverage. This is akin to getting one's foot in the door. You can't get votes if people don't know you exist or hear what you have to say. Compare this to non-Democrat/Republican candidates. How many of them have ever been elected president?
[Konrad]Allow me to quote what you said one more time:
In the article's assessment of connections to the U.S. it does not mention that a month before 911 Whitehouse reps met with Bin Laden at the Whitehouse. This was obviously after he had been indicted for the embassy bombings. There is a strong notion in the Middle East, and IMO not misplaced, that the U.S. massacred its own people.
You, and not the article, made a clear accusation that the political leaders of this nation (along with their financiers) either released bin laden at a minimum indirectly killing people by letting him go or at most helped to plan to fly four (perhaps more) planes into places of importance killing thousands. You even said the article left this little fact out. It was you that made the point. You said there is a strong notion, that you agree with, that the US massacres it’s own people.[/Konrad]
That is not correct. I made a clear accusation that a few conspirators within the leadership took part in the WTC massacre. The ObL appointment was a supporting claim from a source I'm trying to confirm -- possibly Zmag.org or themikereport.com . I have already said it is not a fact and have apologized several times. You are being abusive. My reasoning does not hinge on the appointment and this is what I stand by until I'm convinced otherwise -- and I can be with enough evidence.
[Konrad]Where’s your evidence to back it up!?! Surely a single meeting with bin laden (that you have no proof of) would not be enough to lead you down this road of reasoning. Right?[/Konrad]
You are correct, it is NOT that one meeting which lead me down this road of reasoning. It is mostly those articles I have provided under the appropriate headings. And, as I have stated a kajillion times, wait until I have found the source.
[Konrad]You have lost my ear, Sir. You will not get it back until you show me the sources. To post an accusation like that and not be able to back it up is galling to me. You with your questionable to bad sources and misinformation put a bad face on the people who are trying to effect US policy for the better. Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you.[/Konrad]
My "questionable to bad sources" on topics I have covered are CNN, CBC, New York Times, Reuters, the Guardian, Foreign Affairs, U.N., Le Monde, Boston Globe, New Statesman, blah blah blah. Most of these are quoted in Chomsky's books. This is the second time you have accused me of something and then done it yourself -- don't. I mean, in accord with your slanderous remarks you are the one that's more credible, doesn't lie, and tells it the way it is, correct? Then you should act like it.
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-11-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-11-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-11-2002).]
After 5+ hours of searching for the article I have given up. For all I know it was on the themikereport.com (which is now at copvcia BTW) 911 timeline which has been revised and sometimes uses sources that aren't credible. I have been duped and should have confirmed the source before printing it so save your heckles. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img]
If I get one more reply that glosses over and derives unintended meaning out of my post I will announce withdrawal from the debate. I'm fed up with opponent's sloppy reading of my posts causing me to rephrase what I say over and over and over.
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-11-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-11-2002).]
Comments
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[b]
a month before 911 Whitehouse reps met with Bin Laden at the Whitehouse
I already stated that I cannot find that article without searching through some 50+ articles or [url="http://www.themikereport.com"]www.themikereport.com[/url] which is down. I do not know whether the statement was true or not nor did I mean to decieve. Again, I apologize and ask its omittion until I can find a source.[/b][/quote]
Why would you post something that you are not sure is true or not to begin with? No, I will not ignore it till you can find the source. It’s there and you said it. It is clearly your stream of logic. To ignore it would go against one of zmags respectable credos: to not ignore the past and what has been done.
Surely if it is true it must be posted in some other paper or on some other page.
I have no proof but my feeling is it was a lie, you were caught, and you are doing damage control. I don't know of anyone credible who would post something like that unless it was first hand information or there was information from one credible source with confirmation from another.
The more you say "the above is sencere" the more it comes off as insincere.
In the past I have doubted some of what you have said. You are clearly biased towards everything or most being the fault or a fault of the US.
Your logic and sources have always been weak. For instance in response to your comment that "Therefore, the U.S. leadership is not the U.S. voter nor even the elected politician, it is the financiers." It is true that money buys ads, but it doesn’t buy votes. Candidates often win with less money than the opponent. Bill Clinton for example, did it twice. Tell me how the United States financiers organized the attack. What did they gain from the attack? Where is your proof?
Allow me to quote what you said one more time:
In the article's assessment of connections to the U.S. it does not mention that a month before 911 Whitehouse reps met with Bin Laden at the Whitehouse. This was obviously after he had been indicted for the embassy bombings. There is a strong notion in the Middle East, and IMO not misplaced, that the U.S. massacred its own people.
You, and not the article, made a clear accusation that the political leaders of this nation (along with their financiers) either released bin laden at a minimum indirectly killing people by letting him go or at most helped to plan to fly four (perhaps more) planes into places of importance killing thousands. You even said the article left this little fact out. It was you that made the point. You said there is a strong notion, that you agree with, that the US massacres it’s own people.
Where’s your evidence to back it up!?! Surely a single meeting with bin laden (that you have no proof of) would not be enough to lead you down this road of reasoning. Right?
You have lost my ear, Sir. You will not get it back until you show me the sources. To post an accusation like that and not be able to back it up is galling to me. You with your questionable to bad sources and misinformation put a bad face on the people who are trying to effect US policy for the better. Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you.
[This message has been edited by Konrad (edited 09-11-2002).]
[Konrad]Why would you post something that you are not sure is true or not to begin with? No, I will not ignore it till you can find the source. It’s there and you said it. It is clearly your stream of logic. To ignore it would go against one of zmags respectable credos: to not ignore the past and what has been done.[/Konrad]
I'm not asking you to "ignore the past" but to refrain from mentioning the appointment until I can join that part of the debate again, understand? I'm pursuing this info. Furthermore, I already admitted it was wrong of me to post something I could not find.
[Konrad]Surely if it is true it must be posted in some other paper or on some other page.
I have no proof but my feeling is it was a lie, you were caught, and you are doing damage control. I don't know of anyone credible who would post something like that unless it was first hand information or there was information from one credible source with confirmation from another.[/Konrad]
I was reporting what I had read. As I have otherwise stated, if I have told a lie I have not done it intentionally.
[Konrad]The more you say "the above is sencere" the more it comes off as insincere.[/Konrad]
Yeah, I guess I can see that but I also have no reason to screw up my own credibility and you know it. Everyone knows I'm not a troll -- at least I don't try to be.
[Konrad]In the past I have doubted some of what you have said. You are clearly biased towards everything or most being the fault or a fault of the US.[/Konrad]
That is false. If this was the seventeenth to nineteenth century I would be talking about European colonialism. Furthermore, I am sure to assign blame where I think it is due. I have been explicit in this manner and don't blame the entire U.S., as you suggest, but small powerful segments that do not hold anyone's interests but their own.
[Konrad]Your logic and sources have always been weak. For instance in response to your comment that "Therefore, the U.S. leadership is not the U.S. voter nor even the elected politician, it is the financiers." It is true that money buys ads, but it doesn’t buy votes. Candidates often win with less money than the opponent. Bill Clinton for example, did it twice. Tell me how the United States financiers organized the attack. What did they gain from the attack? Where is your proof?[/Konrad
That is one example and hardly justifies the antagonism that my "logic and sources have always been weak". It would be dignified to withdraw such an exaggeration before you are dragged into proving it. However, to refute your refutation, campaign financing gets the candidates media coverage. This is akin to getting one's foot in the door. You can't get votes if people don't know you exist or hear what you have to say. Compare this to non-Democrat/Republican candidates. How many of them have ever been elected president?
[Konrad]Allow me to quote what you said one more time:
In the article's assessment of connections to the U.S. it does not mention that a month before 911 Whitehouse reps met with Bin Laden at the Whitehouse. This was obviously after he had been indicted for the embassy bombings. There is a strong notion in the Middle East, and IMO not misplaced, that the U.S. massacred its own people.
You, and not the article, made a clear accusation that the political leaders of this nation (along with their financiers) either released bin laden at a minimum indirectly killing people by letting him go or at most helped to plan to fly four (perhaps more) planes into places of importance killing thousands. You even said the article left this little fact out. It was you that made the point. You said there is a strong notion, that you agree with, that the US massacres it’s own people.[/Konrad]
That is not correct. I made a clear accusation that a few conspirators within the leadership took part in the WTC massacre. The ObL appointment was a supporting claim from a source I'm trying to confirm -- possibly Zmag.org or themikereport.com . I have already said it is not a fact and have apologized several times. You are being abusive. My reasoning does not hinge on the appointment and this is what I stand by until I'm convinced otherwise -- and I can be with enough evidence.
[Konrad]Where’s your evidence to back it up!?! Surely a single meeting with bin laden (that you have no proof of) would not be enough to lead you down this road of reasoning. Right?[/Konrad]
You are correct, it is NOT that one meeting which lead me down this road of reasoning. It is mostly those articles I have provided under the appropriate headings. And, as I have stated a kajillion times, wait until I have found the source.
[Konrad]You have lost my ear, Sir. You will not get it back until you show me the sources. To post an accusation like that and not be able to back it up is galling to me. You with your questionable to bad sources and misinformation put a bad face on the people who are trying to effect US policy for the better. Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you.[/Konrad]
My "questionable to bad sources" on topics I have covered are CNN, CBC, New York Times, Reuters, the Guardian, Foreign Affairs, U.N., Le Monde, Boston Globe, New Statesman, blah blah blah. Most of these are quoted in Chomsky's books. This is the second time you have accused me of something and then done it yourself -- don't. I mean, in accord with your slanderous remarks you are the one that's more credible, doesn't lie, and tells it the way it is, correct? Then you should act like it.
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-11-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-11-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-11-2002).]
If I get one more reply that glosses over and derives unintended meaning out of my post I will announce withdrawal from the debate. I'm fed up with opponent's sloppy reading of my posts causing me to rephrase what I say over and over and over.
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-11-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-11-2002).]