The WMD issue - Page 10

Fait_Maker · 07-06-2004, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jex

Stop stalling - and prove your point. If you can't then keep quiet.

As for tactics I don;t have any. and again please prove where this has been brought up in other threads.

I want proof - no more merry go round. If you can't provide I'll have to assume you're making it all up.

Whoa Whoa Whoa. You offered the gem that it was proven that Saddam had no links to Al-Qaeda and it's all a big fat lie. Back your claim up!

**phyllis** · 07-06-2004, 08:43 PM

*Ahem*

Guys...let's tone it down a notch...ok ?

Thanks

btw...it would be in everyone's best interest to post links backing up thier statements....

jex · 07-07-2004, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

ok here is one

you say well of they are proved liars then suspect the worst.

yet you bash people in the michael moore thread for calling him a liar and bashing his work even though they may not have seen the entire video.

that is a contradiction of theories.

if i see MR blair lie one day and then i convict him of lying all the time and supecting his every move, in this thread by your standards, its ok, but in the Michael moore thread its totally wrong and when i question it i am "babbling"

There's no contradiction here at all. Where have I said moore is telling the truth? I haven't bashed anyone in this thread I was just wondering who had seen it and was saying that perhaps a discussion on something would be better if people who were talking about it had seen the film.

jex · 07-07-2004, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fait_Maker

This wouldn't be the pipeline I've already discussed that Unocal started talking about in the 1990's under Clinton's administration, would it? The same one they backed out of in 1998? The same one that Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan decided to build? I've searched and I cannot find anything about Bush paying anyone anything. Please provide a link.

Here's mine Turkmen-Afghan-Pakistani gas pipeline accord published

If we are going to just boldly comment on things, please provide a link to back up your claim. It makes it easier for me to see where you might be coming from. Please.

Well I did a quick search on google and came up with the following. I was mistaken when I said it was Bush who was willing to pay the $100m. It was the deal trying to be stuck by the Oil barons, which are Bush's mates aren't they?

http://www.fbbn.com/cgi-bin/viewnews...&id=1056420619

http://www.moles.org/ProjectUndergro.../97102103.html

http://www.feminist.org/afghan/facts.html

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/anal...pipedreams.htm

http://www.counterpunch.org/tomenron.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html

Fait_Maker · 07-07-2004, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jex

Well I did a quick search on google and came up with the following. I was mistaken when I said it was Bush who was willing to pay the $100m. It was the deal trying to be stuck by the Oil barons, which are Bush's mates aren't they?

http://www.fbbn.com/cgi-bin/viewnews...&id=1056420619

http://www.moles.org/ProjectUndergro.../97102103.html

http://www.feminist.org/afghan/facts.html

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/anal...pipedreams.htm

http://www.counterpunch.org/tomenron.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html

So Bush is to be blamed for making a decision to take out a bad bunch of people who wouldn't hand over terrorists who killed 3000 of our people. Yet the fact that THAT decision ended up helping people, who may or may not have been friends with him <and let's not forget that he was in the business of oil at one time> is being stated as the obvious reason he made to go get the Taliban. It's almost like you <general, not you in particular> start out with the idea "Bush is out to make money" and look to see how all of his actions fit that belief. It's obvious he had/has friends in the oil business. The terrorists responsible are from oil countries and were defended by a religious group in control of an oil country. Bush didn't pick the terrorist or where he was from or where he went to or who defended him. So why automatically assume, "Oh, it's obviously because the oil" when they wouldn't hand him over. They said "NO".

In both the ongoing threads, I see a lot of things being strung together to make a point that people have already perceived about Bush. Like Moore, they, and possibly you <I'm losing track of who said what>, are taking a result and finding bits and pieces that prove your point. I use to be guilty of that as well until someone opened my eyes to it. Hopefully, I can do the same for everyone else. We all have faults and have done things that, in hindsight, may have been wrong. I'm sure Bush is guilty of that as well. However, to persecute him now for things he did then with the best intentions is wrong. How many Americans RIGHT NOW would be screaming that Bush did not react effectively had he NOT gone to Afghanistan. They did it when Clinton didn't deal with Saddam. Bush deals with him and Bush is a warmonger. There is nothing right he could have done and the Dems would be yelling about it. Give it up already.

**DudeMan** · 07-07-2004, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jex

There's no contradiction here at all. Where have I said moore is telling the truth? I haven't bashed anyone in this thread I was just wondering who had seen it and was saying that perhaps a discussion on something would be better if people who were talking about it had seen the film.

ok let me scale that point down you missed it

you say bush lies, therefore you call him a repeated liar and dispute what he says.

well common knowlege from other works says moore lies,

yet when people display theiur distaste for him you defend it and say who has watched it therefore they should not comment.

there is a clear contradiction. if you cant see it then i am sorry you need to look at it closer.

**CingularDuality** · 07-08-2004, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

yet when people display theiur distaste for him you defend it and say who has watched it therefore they should not comment.

You're right on with this statement, Dudeman.

I agree with the fact that discussion can be had on the subject of the film without having seen the film. It's already been pointed out that few of us have actually been to Israel, but most of us have opinions based on second and third hand information of the issues involved.

This is a non-argument, IMO, Jex.

jex · 07-08-2004, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fait_Maker

So Bush is to be blamed for making a decision to take out a bad bunch of people who wouldn't hand over terrorists who killed 3000 of our people. Yet the fact that THAT decision ended up helping people, who may or may not have been friends with him <and let's not forget that he was in the business of oil at one time> is being stated as the obvious reason he made to go get the Taliban. It's almost like you <general, not you in particular> start out with the idea "Bush is out to make money" and look to see how all of his actions fit that belief. It's obvious he had/has friends in the oil business. The terrorists responsible are from oil countries and were defended by a religious group in control of an oil country. Bush didn't pick the terrorist or where he was from or where he went to or who defended him. So why automatically assume, "Oh, it's obviously because the oil" when they wouldn't hand him over. They said "NO".

In both the ongoing threads, I see a lot of things being strung together to make a point that people have already perceived about Bush. Like Moore, they, and possibly you <I'm losing track of who said what>, are taking a result and finding bits and pieces that prove your point. I use to be guilty of that as well until someone opened my eyes to it. Hopefully, I can do the same for everyone else. We all have faults and have done things that, in hindsight, may have been wrong. I'm sure Bush is guilty of that as well. However, to persecute him now for things he did then with the best intentions is wrong. How many Americans RIGHT NOW would be screaming that Bush did not react effectively had he NOT gone to Afghanistan. They did it when Clinton didn't deal with Saddam. Bush deals with him and Bush is a warmonger. There is nothing right he could have done and the Dems would be yelling about it. Give it up already.

The links were there to back up the $100M issue and that only. Whatever other info they contain I'm not even debating so why even bring it up? But I believe the Taliban said no because the US refused to hand over the evidence that it was bin laden, who is a saudi, just like all the other hijackers were (allegedly) so why don't we go bomb the crap outta them? Perhaps because Saudi owns a tenth of the US economy? I think they have a $Trillion invested into the US, so yes I do think Bush is in it for the money to a degree - Didn't he do some dodgy dealings with shares that he owned in an oil company? Didn't he mock some woman pleading for her life? Yeah like I'm ever gonna trust him. Sorry but actions speak only for me, words are for the sheep and brainwashed. So far Bush hasn't done anything that I think is that good. Same goesfor Blair and most other 'world' leaders.

As for bits and pieces I'm not sure. I keep providing sources to back up what I say and have to date provided a lot of data for people to read (which they don't since it backs up my side). I have yet to see a lot of sourced info coming back though which is a pity. I'd like to see refutations on what I've linked as a belief is simply not enough.

jex · 07-08-2004, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

ok let me scale that point down you missed it

you say bush lies, therefore you call him a repeated liar and dispute what he says.

well common knowlege from other works says moore lies,

yet when people display theiur distaste for him you defend it and say who has watched it therefore they should not comment.

there is a clear contradiction. if you cant see it then i am sorry you need to look at it closer.

Again wrong - I'm haven't defended moore, I'm defending 'factual debate'. You lot read far, far too much into posts. If you cannot be bothered to read my posts or stop inferring things that simply are not there then don't bother commenting on them. I give you all the honour of reading everyword you say before I comment on it. I read it, think about it and try to see your point. If your just speed reading my posts then I will simply ignore your replies from now on. This is not the way to debate so get off the hassle-jex bandwagon

(not entirley directed at you dude btw)

jex · 07-08-2004, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

You're right on with this statement, Dudeman.

I agree with the fact that discussion can be had on the subject of the film without having seen the film. It's already been pointed out that few of us have actually been to Israel, but most of us have opinions based on second and third hand information of the issues involved.

This is a non-argument, IMO, Jex.

No he isn't 'right on' since I'm not defending moore - do you people read at all or are my posts really that uninterpretable?

You may agree a discussion on something you've not seen before is valid, I however think that is ridiculous. But as you say it's a free world - what does logic and objectivity have to do with that eh? lol

**CingularDuality** · 07-08-2004, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jex

You may agree a discussion on something you've not seen before is valid, I however think that is ridiculous. But as you say it's a free world - what does logic and objectivity have to do with that eh? lol

Because we have received information about things we've never seen. Do you know that the earth is round? How? Have you sailed around it? Have you been to space and seen it? I doubt it, but you've seen photos and you've seen/heard/read respected people say that the Earth is round and you accept it as fact.

Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean you don't know anything about it or that you can't have an opinion on it... If you really think that this is ridiculous and you haven't seen the movie, then why even bother with this discussion? It's obvious that the rest of us either don't find this concept ridiculous, or we've seen the movie.

jex · 07-08-2004, 12:16 PM

If flown in planes to different locations around the world, I see the bend on the horizon when up high. I know the earth spins. I know that gravity attracts objects. Spinning objects that collects matter turn into sphere's don't they. The moon is round. So is the sun, venus, mars and saturn. I see the constellations move. I know if I set out along the equator and ride due east, I'll pretty much hit back where I started. I know the earth wobbles and that it's on a tilt. Which is why the equator keeps the same daylight times throughout the year and why the poles have longer and shorter days. So yes I think I have a pretty good idea the earth is round having never seen it from space

Doesn't need me to talk to anybody about that. Galilleo worked it out I think and everyone thought he was a nutter lol.

Since you are arguing a point about the film you haven't seen, the subject matter here is very confined. The thread is about the film is it not? Therefore why not see the film, check the facts and then post your findings?

**DudeMan** · 07-08-2004, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jex

Again wrong - I'm haven't defended moore, I'm defending 'factual debate'. You lot read far, far too much into posts. If you cannot be bothered to read my posts or stop inferring things that simply are not there then don't bother commenting on them. I give you all the honour of reading everyword you say before I comment on it. I read it, think about it and try to see your point. If your just speed reading my posts then I will simply ignore your replies from now on. This is not the way to debate so get off the hassle-jex bandwagon

(not entirley directed at you dude btw)

sorry jex classic case of everyone has a problem ut you. please read your own post. if people are agreeing and you get the same reply7 froim many people. are you arrogant enouh to call us all stupid or can you not for one second stand back and contemplate that you may actually be wrong.?

**DudeMan** · 07-08-2004, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jex

If flown in planes to different locations around the world, I see the bend on the horizon when up high. I know the earth spins. I know that gravity attracts objects. Spinning objects that collects matter turn into sphere's don't they. The moon is round. So is the sun, venus, mars and saturn. I see the constellations move. I know if I set out along the equator and ride due east, I'll pretty much hit back where I started. I know the earth wobbles and that it's on a tilt. Which is why the equator keeps the same daylight times throughout the year and why the poles have longer and shorter days. So yes I think I have a pretty good idea the earth is round having never seen it from space

Doesn't need me to talk to anybody about that. Galilleo worked it out I think and everyone thought he was a nutter lol.

Since you are arguing a point about the film you haven't seen, the subject matter here is very confined. The thread is about the film is it not? Therefore why not see the film, check the facts and then post your findings?

ok do you know for a damn fact bush is a liar, or have you seen reports from sources you trust that he has dodgy dealings. have you seen the actual deals that you call dodgy..

no you have not yet you infere from information enough to condemn this man for a jex bashing every chance you get.

please dont beat around the subject, the argument is a moot point

if i have not seen the whole film but i have seen other publications of his, plus shreds of the film then i have a right to comments.

if i had not seen any of the films and not seen this one but knoew from the horses mouth (himself) that it was a documentary with an opinion, then i have a right to comment.

jex · 07-08-2004, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

sorry jex classic case of everyone has a problem ut you. please read your own post. if people are agreeing and you get the same reply7 froim many people. are you arrogant enouh to call us all stupid or can you not for one second stand back and contemplate that you may actually be wrong.?

I didn't say anyone was stupid and I'm not inferring that. Just because everyone says something does not make it so. That's why I added Galilleo into my reply to make that point. Once we all thought the earth was flat didn't we?

07-06-2004, 08:43 PM	#137 (permalink)
phyllis Join Date: May 2003 Location: Dayton Ohio Age: 40 Posts: 1,502	Re: The WMD issue Ahem Guys...let's tone it down a notch...ok ? Thanks btw...it would be in everyone's best interest to post links backing up thier statements.... __________________

07-08-2004, 12:16 PM	#147 (permalink)
jex Join Date: May 2003 Location: United Kingdom Age: 37 Posts: 3,407	Re: The WMD issue If flown in planes to different locations around the world, I see the bend on the horizon when up high. I know the earth spins. I know that gravity attracts objects. Spinning objects that collects matter turn into sphere's don't they. The moon is round. So is the sun, venus, mars and saturn. I see the constellations move. I know if I set out along the equator and ride due east, I'll pretty much hit back where I started. I know the earth wobbles and that it's on a tilt. Which is why the equator keeps the same daylight times throughout the year and why the poles have longer and shorter days. So yes I think I have a pretty good idea the earth is round having never seen it from space Doesn't need me to talk to anybody about that. Galilleo worked it out I think and everyone thought he was a nutter lol. Since you are arguing a point about the film you haven't seen, the subject matter here is very confined. The thread is about the film is it not? Therefore why not see the film, check the facts and then post your findings? __________________ Jex

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links