Who Supports the War(s)

[slang]

Originally posted by jaguar
Wolf: I prefer people to post content, not articles. When people write their arguements in the own words its far more useful. If i wanted to read a collection of news articles i'd read a newspaper.

Content like you post? Mr. Jaguar, I have absolutely no doubt you are an extremely intelligent young man. I also have no doubt you are miles ahead of me. What I do doubt is your ability to make a valid point without it being just your opinion. What makes you support a specific idea? We rarely know, or at least I rarely know. You assume that everyone is from a similar background as you and has read the exact same information. On top of that you seem to "get feelings" and pass judgement very quickly on issues that you are both unfarmiliar with and disagree with in general principle. This makes both of us look like asses when either of us do this. And, it's your option to access the supporting information that is posted, but it's not required.

Participate in the coversation or not, I don't care. Your responses are weak in comparison to Hermit's. He seems to be interested more in understanding a given postion and debating it. He and I disagree on many issues but I can respect his ability to present the argument with something other than opinion. After reading his posts I can at the very least follow why he supports an idea. You Jag, on the other hand, try to prove to everyone that you are very intelligent with your responses. I doubt anyone would disagree, but you fail to make a rational argument to those of us that are not of exactly the same political background as you.

You could very easily change the opposition's opinion of you from "someone that needs to be bitch-slapped silly from one end of the room to the other" to "someone I disagree with but also respect". I personally hope you raise the bar. You have a lot to contribute, but your arguments thus far are unconvincing.

Slang: Yea i know you'd prefer i didn't, pull bullshit, like DPRK reactors and comunist clinton links or whatever, people are going to call bullshit round here myself included. I"m really interested to see what you're on about with the UN, should be entertaining.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say in the first sentence. That I'm full of bullshit I guess. The communist links to Clinton that I have researched show no conclusive evidence that WJC is a communist sympathizer. And , in these examples, I look like an ass. That isnt to say that other events couldn't lead one to believe that he's a little too cozy with the communists. They would only be an opinion though and I'm looking to avoid opinion without supporting evidence. When and if I have time to make a case that WJC is crooked or red, I will do so. There are many other issues to deal with at the moment.

I'm not providing my "other side of the UN" post for you Jag. When I make a case, you spike it immediately and discredit it by either saying the writing to support the arguement is bad or that you "get feelings" that it's false or invalid. You also totally ignore the fact that tens of millions of people also have opinion as I do and that there must be something that led us to a given conclusion. I don't post for you. That's an exercise in futility.

I still don't buy the Iraqi/OKC thing, its still a very long way from making sense. On the other hand its interesting nad i wouldn't be too shocked if there was something in it.

I say most respectfully Jaguar, it doesnt make sense to you. This is a very complcated case and there are many details that are relevant. I cant say that I buy the case either. What draws me to this controversy is the is the degree that the FBI and the DOJ have attempted to hide supporting evidence and have outright lied to the Government Reform Committee. If you arent following the case, the possibility of middle eastern accomplices seems weak. If you look at the the findings of the committee and the surrounding circumstancial evidence that could easily be proven false, it seems incredible that there isn't something to all this.

At this points, I dont think anything will come of this. Time is running out and the committee must conclude their inqury soon, without key supporting evidence that Ashcroft wont release, for whatever reason. After following this as closely as I have though, I will always be suspect of the FBI, the DOJ, and my government in general.


I also have some offline things I have to do that will hold up the completion my anti-UN explaination. After I finish that, I also have a LOT of other things that will limit my time to reply to questions but I'll do my best.

[slang]

<h3>See, someone else thinks WJC is a Communist too!</h3>
"This administration must be in bed with the Chinese, because right now, our tax money is propping up a Communist dictatorship that has missiles pointed at us as I speak." - James Traficant November 16, 1999

[jaguar]

And thus he demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the nuances of diplomacy, or at least is trying to rabble rouse, one of the two, I'm leaning towards the latter. Its teh difference between diplomatic niceities, America follows the One China Policy for example and realpolitik on the other, America sells advanced weapons systems to Taiwan and keeps a fleet in the reigon.

If you disagree with a specific comment I've made, feel free to ask for sources. I provide them when I think they’re necessary, such as the analysis about the reactors being offered to the DPRK. I assume your comment about snap judgments is based on my opinion of the supporting article you posted about the Iraq/OKC link. That was made after skimming most sections of the site it came from, and reading 3 other articles on the site, as well as reading the main articles on the reporters page and skimming the other information on there and some of the links on the site as well.
I wouldn't call it a snap judgment but either way his writing style was decidedly unprofessional, I'm suspicious of any published material that is because it suggests the source of not particularly credible. Other articles on the site too were of a very amaturish nature, which suggested a writer who had little or no professional training or experience.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say in the first sentence. That I'm full of bullshit I guess. The communist links to Clinton that I have researched show no conclusive evidence that WJC is a communist sympathizer. And , in these examples, I look like an ass. That isn’t to say that other events couldn't lead one to believe that he's a little too cozy with the communists.

So what you are actually saying amongst that wonderful load of circumlocution is that you hold an opinion without any factual basis whatsoever, and thus don't feel safe about expressing your bias on here because you cannot support it.

Glad we cleared that up.

As for the Iraq/OKC thing, as I posted earlier, the Bush admin is desperate for anything to link Iraq to terrorism against America, while Occam’s razor would put that down to incompetence, i find it hard to believe there is not a better reason. There is quite possibly something in it, but it's not the most likely not the obvious answer.

I'm not providing my "other side of the UN" post for you Jag. When I make a case, you spike it immediately and discredit it by either saying the writing to support the argument is bad or that you "get feelings" that it's false or invalid. You also totally ignore the fact that tens of millions of people also have opinion as I do and that there must be something that led us to a given conclusion. I don't post for you. That's an exercise in futility.

I covered why i thought that article was unreliable at best, either way it was second teir information, more of a footnote than anything else. The case is interesting, but I'm going to attack any flaw I find, I intend to go into journalism, I’m naturally cynical of *everything*, often not entirely equally, but we all have our biases. I supported why I felt the article was dodgy, and received no reply, for you to then argue i based my attack on emotional denial is therefore an incompetent fallacy at best and a deliberate attempt to discredit though misrepresentation of the truth. by the way using the bold tag doth not make your points any more valid.

[slang]

And thus he demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of humor

This is a joke. Traficant is currently in prison and has said some of the weirdest things I've ever heard from a member of Congress. That's what makes it funny. I was attempting to be funny by quoting Traficant to support my previously disproven statement of WJC. Sorry you didnt get it.

<a href="http://www.thememoryhole.org/traficant/one-minute-1999.htm">I yield back all the flatulence in China paid for by the EPA.</p>

[jaguar]

I've stated previously, i'm not that familiar with US politics, though that name should have rung a bell, read something about him recently, sounded like quite a decent fellow really. Least you know what the openly corrupt ones are doing, far more trustworthy. It fitted your 'if lots of people think the same thing it somehow becomes valid' theory quite neatly, so i naturally assumed the worst.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by slang
See, someone else thinks WJC is a Communist too!
"This administration must be in bed with the Chinese, because right now, our tax money is propping up a Communist dictatorship that has missiles pointed at us as I speak." - James Traficant November 16, 1999

Yeah, Traficant's real credible when it comes to calling out sneakiness.

[Cairo]

Please excuse me for interjecting, but the Title of this thread should be more accurately called, Who supports ending the Gulf War?....
I contend that war is ongoing with Iraq and did not end. The minute Saddam broke the terms of surrender, he effectively un-surrendered erasing that ending. For the last 11 years, the only one who realized the war was still ongoing was Saddam!
To this day, he wages war....it's time to end the Gulf War!

Jaguar, when the OKC bombing happened in 1995, many eyewitnesses stated there was a middle eastern looking man fleeing the scene. Don't even try to hang this on President Bush wanting Iraq, because in 1995 Bush was Governor of Texas, not Oklahoma...
and I doubt he reads tea leaves to predict a need for this scrap of information in the future.
Talk about conspiracy theories! Sheesh!
Our prisons convert anybody who wants to convert to terrorism. Even gullible white boys like McVeigh, even PuertoRicans like Padilla....did you know that Padilla is married to McVeigh's sister? True. I believe it was Padilla running from the scene in OKC, but no one seems to want to know for sure.

Sycamore, The Chinese do have missles pointed at us this very moment, as did the Soviets back in the day. We don't have missles pointed, but we do have a protocal of attack planned out to follow.

[slang]

did you know that Padilla is married to McVeigh's sister?

Wow...I forgot about that and I'm pretty "up" on what's going on with the whole case. That's just coincidence though

[jaguar]

Jaguar, when the OKC bombing happened in 1995, many eyewitnesses stated there was a middle eastern looking man fleeing the scene. Don't even try to hang this on President Bush wanting Iraq, because in 1995 Bush was Governor of Texas, not Oklahoma...

huh? What's 'this' ? A new war? Please, try again and next time try and articulate your point more clearly.

[Nic Name]

Cairo & slang

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Cairo

did you know that Padilla is married to McVeigh's sister? True.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Responded Slang

Wow...I forgot about that and I'm pretty "up" on what's going on with the whole case. That's just coincidence though

The plot thickens ... Lana Padilla is the name of Terry Nichols ex-wife. What do you make of that?

http://www.cnn.com/US/OKC/facts/Inve...ctDeadline8-4/

http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/1997/N...s/6457168.html

It is noted here that Lana Padilla told the Wall Street Journal that she was not aware of having any relation to Jose Padilla.

A final note: Much has been made of the fact that Terry Nichols was married at one point to a woman named Lana Padilla. Lana Padilla acquired that surname — a common name — through a subsequent marriage. There is no known relation between Lana Padilla (who gained the surname by marriage) and Jose Padilla, according to Lana Padilla, quoted in the Wall Street Journal on June 17, 2002.

If Padilla is married to McVeigh's sister, as well, you might want to post that here.

[hermit22]

Originally posted by Cairo
Please excuse me for interjecting, but the Title of this thread should be more accurately called, Who supports ending the Gulf War?....
I contend that war is ongoing with Iraq and did not end. The minute Saddam broke the terms of surrender, he effectively un-surrendered erasing that ending. For the last 11 years, the only one who realized the war was still ongoing was Saddam!
To this day, he wages war....it's time to end the Gulf War!

It's not just Saddam. We've (along with the British) been running a full-on bombing campaign since 1998.

Jaguar, when the OKC bombing happened in 1995, many eyewitnesses stated there was a middle eastern looking man fleeing the scene. Don't even try to hang this on President Bush wanting Iraq, because in 1995 Bush was Governor of Texas, not Oklahoma...
and I doubt he reads tea leaves to predict a need for this scrap of information in the future.
Talk about conspiracy theories! Sheesh!
Our prisons convert anybody who wants to convert to terrorism. Even gullible white boys like McVeigh, even PuertoRicans like Padilla....did you know that Padilla is married to McVeigh's sister? True. I believe it was Padilla running from the scene in OKC, but no one seems to want to know for sure.

First, why does a man of Middle Eastern descent have to be somehow involved? Couldn't they be just running from a big explosion? I know I sure as hell would want to get my white ass out of there.

Second, McVeigh (as far as I know) was never in prison. There have been no connections between him and any extremist groups, just a specific ideology (Christian Identity). Most of his inspiration came from reading The Turner Diaries - in fact, the OKC bombing was almost a line by line reading of that book. I actually just started reading it for school (the seminar about Christian Identity is next week so no, I'm not reading it to become an anti-Semitic racist pro-gunner); for anyone who's interested, it's available here.

[Cairo]

Hi Hermit22,
Nice to hear from you. You say, "It's not just Saddam, We've been running a full on bombing campaign since 1998." Let's see, how can I put this in the nicest way possible....
It never is the rapist, is it? It's always," Her skirt was too high, her blouse was too low." and "What was she doing out at that hour, she was just asking for it." Pathetic! Like blaming a woman for being raped, or blaming the VanDamm's lifestyle for their daughter's murder...blaming US is totally appalling. It is just Saddam, and everything we have done is reactionary to what he did first.

It doesn't ~have~ to be a middle eastern man, but that's what the witnesses and evidence shows. Witnesses saw the two(McVeigh and JD#2) in the rental truck driving around the day before the bombing as well as fleeing from the scene.
I think Nichols was the one who had the terrorist connection, not McVeigh.

[elSicomoro]

In my travels, I've noticed how some Latinos look almost Asian...it could be the Native American ancestry. Some of them I've seen also look Middle Eastern. Some folks say I look Latino or Arab, though most of my ancestry is Native American and German.

Hmmm...eyewitnesses say a middle eastern-looking man fled the scene right after an incredibly traumatic event. Eyewitness testimony can be incredibly flawed...hmmm.

I'm not betting with those kind of odds.

[jaguar]

So what exaclty has Saddam done this time? As far as we have proof, not much i can think of.

[slang]

Originally posted by sycamore
Hmmm...eyewitnesses say a middle eastern-looking man fled the scene right after an incredibly traumatic event. Eyewitness testimony can be incredibly flawed...hmmm.

I'm not betting with those kind of odds.

Great point. Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable. That's why we need to have the Feds release the surveillance tapes from the surrounding buildings security systems. These have been confirmed to be under seal. You know, the ones that arent supposed to exist but yet have been verified to exist by a Federal judge looking into the FOIA suit. These tapes may very well show nothing. I would bet that there isn't anything convincing on them. The way they are playing with the evidence is suspicious though.

<a href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/billoreilly/bo20021102.shtml"> As O'Reilly points out in a recent </a> article, it doesnt look like we'll be getting any answers on any topic in the near future.

<a href="http://www.indystar.com/print/articles/9/001153-8709-021.html">Here's the article that </a> says the tapes do exist.

<a href="http://www.fair.org/extra/0207/mcveigh.html">I also found this while looking for any credible evidence.</a> So the above article may be wrong. Who the hell knows? If Ashcroft would release the tapes maybe I could move on to another possible conspiracy. Like maybe the Malvo sniper case....misguided young sniper, or CIA operative?

My hard drive crashed and all my background info on the UN is gone. I'll get the original arguments posted when I can