So what are they proud of?

:lol:

 

:lol:

 

:lol:

 

another cut & paste , so whats new? you just dont get it.

uhm....ok if you think so, and if you do, you really need to get a life quick. again one last time, in your OWN words give a reply, just once. try it you may like it.mikey did. Seriously besides " blur distract,hijack,fuck you,retard" everything else is someone elses words.

 

:lol:

 

if your gonna try to insult someone with "big" words atleast spell them right, GENIUS.

 

:lol:

 

:lol:

 

:lol:

 

higher than hell


you are wasting your time with the war apologists and war mongers

in essence they represent the end of civillisation and a return to a much more primitive and uneducated period of time. it is these people who will drag the world back a couple of thousand years.

these people promote war yet will never go to it themselves, once you have realised this you can never take any of their arguments seriously. you'll end up banging away at the key board with no result. these people are here to shout down protest to the war and any protest to stupidity.

 

I'm not concerend with him cutting and pasting - the point is he has not even bothered to give the source.
He has not bothered to look into ever accusation for himself.
He has not bothered to check if any of the accusations are in the least bit accurate.
He is not concerned if any of it is accurate.
He thinks posting long lists is making his point - when infact it just makes him look like he has no arguement himself.

''Points of discreditation''

At the end of the day this is all it is - I did say everybody uses this type of tactic.
Well not everybody - just people who have no arguement of their own.

HTH - im supporting honesty and a little bit of originality.
Yes we all do ''cut and paste'' articles to show a point - but it is to support a point.
How is copying and pasting from the outset proving anything ? - all it shows is that you can cut and paste and make no original points of your own.

This list is so old and the rebutals so long - what did you expect to achieve ?.

The message is flawed - you can't back up every point raised in the article - buy you choose to use it as a ''zinger'' to make a point.
As I said many of the points have a element of truth in them - but they are skewed towards being negative and do not show the points in context.

You insult your own inteligence by not being able to back up any of the points with your OWN research.

 

7. Vice President Cheney said that Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

This is true -

Saddam Hussein had no links with 9/11 wich is not the same as saying he had no links too terrorists or had links to terrorist organisations linked to 9/11 or as eluded to having links to terrorists with eyes on the US [and western civilisation and any country they deemed counter to their goals].

Removing Saddam ''STRUCK A BLOW"
How effective that blow was - is up for discusion - yes absolutely.

 

:lol:

 

:lol:

 

HTH you said : ''Either respond to the contents of the post or ignore it''.
I'm responding to the content of the thread - why not respond in kind ?.

 

Terrorism is a wide open definition that neither the US White House or the western world has ever defined. The US struck a blow for who???? We watched botched executions. That made some small minds happy, maybe. They can always bring up Bin Ladien and his company to cause fear in the breast of the western world. And why wasn't he smoked out? Our president promised that ....didn't he. We should accept part of the argument, but not ask for results from the later? Bush is now broadcasting Bin Laden statements again to bring on fear mongering before another election.

 

The majority of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, what has the US ever done to mitigate futher terroists actions that result from them?

 

They have - it is true many organisation slip onto then off the terms of ''terrorism'' - that does not mean that no definition is ''out there''.

I did say that was up for debate - we might need to come to a consensus of the myriad of organisations that operated within Iraq.

Yes Millions of Iraqis - do we avoid the iraqis that do not conform to our POV ?.

Those apposed to the war are the ones more inclined to turn anything into FEAR.

I have no idea -

Absolutely - but too say he is a western tool then ask for his capture is hypocritical.

So much so only those that watched the broadcasts and formed a opinion of the broadcasts - I'm sorry I can not get worked up about something I have not seen.

 

how do we really know the sun rises, it could all be a just a lie spread by the democrats?

i was looking at some white paint today but i could have been mistaken maybe it wasn't white at all, maybe it wasn't paint at all, maybe it was all just a fabrication?


an excerpt from 1984...

'Another example,' he said. 'Some years ago you had a very serious delusion indeed. You believed that three men, three onetime Party members named Jones, Aaronson, and Rutherford men who were executed for treachery and sabotage after making the fullest possible confession -- were not guilty of the crimes they were charged with. You believed that you had seen unmistakable documentary evidence proving that their confessions were false. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.'

An oblong slip of newspaper had appeared between O'Brien's fingers. For perhaps five seconds it was within the angle of Winston's vision. It was a photograph, and there was no question of its identity. It was the photograph. It was another copy of the photograph of Jones, Aaronson, and Rutherford at the party function in New York, which he had chanced upon eleven years ago and promptly destroyed. For only an instant it was before his eyes, then it was out of sight again. But he had seen it, unquestionably he had seen it! He made a desperate, agonizing effort to wrench the top half of his body free. It was impossible to move so much as a centimetre in any direction. For the moment he had even forgotten the dial. All he wanted was to hold the photograph in his fingers again, or at least to see it.

'It exists!' he cried.

'No,' said O'Brien.

He stepped across the room. There was a memory hole in the opposite wall. O'Brien lifted the grating. Unseen, the frail slip of paper was whirling away on the current of warm air; it was vanishing in a flash of flame. O'Brien turned away from the wall.

'Ashes,' he said. 'Not even identifiable ashes. Dust. It does not exist. It never existed.'

'But it did exist! It does exist! It exists in memory. I remember it. You remember it.'

'I do not remember it,' said O'Brien.

Winston's heart sank. That was doublethink. He had a feeling of deadly helplessness. If he could have been certain that O'Brien was lying, it would not have seemed to matter. But it was perfectly possible that O'Brien had really forgotten the photograph. And if so, then already he would have forgotten his denial of remembering it, and forgotten the act of forgetting. How could one be sure that it was simple trickery? Perhaps that lunatic dislocation in the mind could really happen: that was the thought that defeated him.

O'Brien was looking down at him speculatively. More than ever he had the air of a teacher taking pains with a wayward but promising child.

'There is a Party slogan dealing with the control of the past,' he said. 'Repeat it, if you please.'

'"Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past,"' repeated Winston obediently.

'"Who controls the present controls the past,"' said O'Brien, nodding his head with slow approval. 'Is it your opinion, Winston, that the past has real existence?'

Again the feeling of helplessness descended upon Winston. His eyes flitted towards the dial. He not only did not know whether 'yes' or 'no' was the answer that would save him from pain; he did not even know which answer he believed to be the true one.

O'Brien smiled faintly. 'You are no metaphysician, Winston,' he said. 'Until this moment you had never considered what is meant by existence. I will put it more precisely. Does the past exist concretely, in space? Is there somewhere or other a place, a world of solid objects, where the past is still happening?'

'No.'

'Then where does the past exist, if at all?'

'In records. It is written down.'

'In records. And --?'

'In the mind. In human memories.'

'In memory. Very well, then. We, the Party, control all records, and we control all memories. Then we control the past, do we not?'

'But how can you stop people remembering things?' cried Winston again momentarily forgetting the dial. 'It is involuntary. It is outside oneself. How can you control memory? You have not controlled mine!'

O'Brien's manner grew stern again. He laid his hand on the dial.

'On the contrary,' he said, 'you have not controlled it. That is what has brought you here. You are here because you have failed in humility, in self-discipline. You would not make the act of submission which is the price of sanity. You preferred to be a lunatic, a minority of one. Only the disciplined mind can see reality, Winston. You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn, Winston. It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane.'

He paused for a few moments, as though to allow what he had been saying to sink in.

'Do you remember,' he went on, 'writing in your diary, "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four"?'

'Yes,' said Winston.

O'Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.

'How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?'

'Four.'

'And if the party says that it is not four but five -- then how many?'

'Four.'

The word ended in a gasp of pain. The needle of the dial had shot up to fifty-five. The sweat had sprung out all over Winston's body. The air tore into his lungs and issued again in deep groans which even by clenching his teeth he could not stop. O'Brien watched him, the four fingers still extended. He drew back the lever. This time the pain was only slightly eased. "




if you wish to know where this kind of reasoning by the war monger ends
go here http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/index.html

 

So basically this is an argument about the validity of this information, right? Unless you're a journalist on the inside or a CIA operative or something, it's hard to know the truth, but when I hear so many accounts about corruption, it's hard for me to defend the Bush administration on any level. Of course we only hear what they want us to hear, since they control the media, but you can only sugar coat it for so long. Bush is a disgrace to the office, and it'll take ages to undo the damage that's been done. The Bush/Cheney agenda is simple: Line the bank accounts of the corporate elite powers that be, and you're free to do whatever you want. What better way to support Bush's no millionaire left behind policy than start a war, and use the public's fear of terrorism to justify it? Of course, no one benefits from the war but Bush's cronies the contractors, who are bilking the American tax payers for billions. Meanwhile the administration is shafting the troops who are doing the dirty work. And whatever happened to Osama? Now they try to force an incapacitated Ashcroft to authorize an extension of illegal wire tapping, which even Ashcroft was opposed to (sometimes good conscience trumps greed after all). When is it gonna end, and what's it gonna take to impeach the bastards?