|
Whats more, they had, and used during the war (by firing at Kuwait), long range missiles which they were not even supposed to have. They kicked weapons inspectors out for God's sake! Why would you do that if you aren't doing something illegitimate?
listen:
scott ridder
blackjack, i know that there were reports of the tapes being found, saying that it connected bin ladin to 9-11. it was played on tv repeateldy when it came out. but, the reports say the government has translated... plus, it does not say that he took direct responsibilty for the atacks. only praising them. i know the road u are going down, and once again u misjudge the points im trying to make. i would not argue that osama had nothing to do with 9-11. i think he did. i think that the relationship between us/isreal, us/osama, us/saudi, osama/saudi, is most likely responsible for this.
|
The report from the Iraqwatch.org site is June 2000. Even then it was said that there is no direct evidence, but good possibilites that WMD are being sought after. Direct evidence would be visual confirmation. Hence that is not a contradiction.
"For example, Baghdad seized from UNSCOM inspectors an Air Force document discovered by UNSCOM that indicated that Iraq had not consumed as many CW munitions during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s as had been declared by Baghdad. This discrepancy indicates that Iraq may have hidden an additional 6,000 CW munitions."
once again, i will remind u of the fact that nothing has been found. at this point i dont think anything would be found, like i said, hindsight is a bitch. if it was, i would be highly skeptical of its origin.
|
Are you aware of how large a country Iraq is? Its the size of California. They had MONTHS to begin hiding things from the time they were named an "Axis of Evil". What about the Chemical/Biological suits?
Regarding Scott Ritter:
His entire spiel is based on adhering to princple for the sake of adherence, not for the sake of being right. Further, he contradicts himself:
From Time.com
Questioned about Ritter's assertion that the White House has no basis for its warnings about Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell politely pointed out that Ritter had been out of the intelligence chain for quite some time. What Powell didn't say, though, was that four years ago, when Ritter was on the ground, he appeared to be saying something a lot closer to what the Bush administration claims today: "I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program," he told PBS's Newshour in August 1998, shortly after his expulsion. He went on to argue that the only effective way to ensure Iraqi compliance with inspections was to threaten military action.
Full Article
He also says, in the above link, that "absolutely nothing was found to evidence hidden chemical weapons" - nevermind that document discovered by UNSCOM in one of your other links?
Regarding VX: (From the CDC)
"VX is the least volatile of the nerve agents, which means that it is the slowest to evaporate from a liquid into a vapor. Therefore, VX is very persistent in the environment. Under average weather conditions, VX can last for days on objects that it has come in contact with. Under very cold conditions, VX can last for months."
The 1-8 days thing is only according to one method of production.
|
On September 03 2003 18:42 TeCh)PsylO wrote: Show nested quote +Yes that is right. The officials said it, they also said that they were talking about the possibility of a hijacking. You only want to believe half of everything they say? Only the bad? I like to believe both instead of calling them liars on no proof whatsoever.
Show me where Bush said he had no knowledge of anything coming.
good point. i already said right after 9-11 i beleived the official story. but the problem is that there are serious faults and conflicts of interest involved. once u look at these, it is hard to believe only the good. considering the good and bad are obviously contradicory, it is not logical to beleive both, but to find a middle ground. i know it sounds like im failry extreme, but a actually have found(am finding) a middle ground on the issue. most of which i havnt really discussed much yet, becuase i have been busy defending resources.... i would also like to make clear that i dont think that i have the answers to any of these issues, but only possable conclusions. the very fact that there are possible conclusions beyond the offical story, and that this has not been looked into by the main stream media, or effectivly by the government, leads me to beleive that there is a cover up, at some level. his exact words, in an interview with brokaw "It's hard to envision a plot so devious as the one that they pulled off on 9/11. Never did we realize that the enemy was so well-organized" interpret how u wish. i tend to beleive that this is on the same line of thinking that this can never have been predicted. i have already shown that 4 airplanes were hijacked by arabs in the past(not to mention airlines being hijacked is not a new idea). and lets not forget the 1989 hijacking when a french airliner was BLOWN UP in africa. obviously showing planes could be used as weapons.
It's funny how whenever you bring up an arguement, I quote it and respond to it and whenever I bring up an arguement you just say "good point but there are serious faults and conflicts and issuses that we must examine etc. than you come back with a really long post that says the exact same stuff that I commented on. So then I comment on it again and it is one endless circle.
""It's hard to envision a plot so devious as the one that they pulled off on 9/11. Never did we realize that the enemy was so well-organized""
and that doesn't imply that he lies about not knowing anything. The way I see it is that he knew it was possible but that it was so cruel and far-fetched that he didn't think it could happen (also why he didn't take action)
|
Sweden33723 Posts
Blackjack, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF YOUR POSTS HAVE HAD ANY LINKS OR BACK UP SOURCES -_- It's a pretty useless way of arguing when you dont supply any links :{
|
On September 03 2003 20:23 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Blackjack, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF YOUR POSTS HAVE HAD ANY LINKS OR BACK UP SOURCES -_- It's a pretty useless way of arguing when you dont supply any links :{
Lol... I don't supply links because I don't need links. Everything I say is common knowledge. I provide links when people ask for links, for example.. You should be well aware by now that not a single magor news source thinks that 9/11 was a conspiracy, so I could go along the line, posting every single newspaper in the world but that would be a waste of time.
FrozenAribter, it is a pointless way to comment when you don't read all of the posts.
|
Sweden33723 Posts
Ya, one post with links :/ Great
|
Quality over quantity, Arby.
|
On September 03 2003 14:13 ObsoleteLogic wrote:
One more thing:
A credible source of information is simply one that is worth investigating; as even credible sources can be telling lies. That is the point I was trying to make about the book, earlier, written by Cromwell. He had a real publisher, the book was widely publicized, but it was still a lie. The simple fact is that people in this world have agendas, and some will go to despicable lengths to acheive them; I think that is, in effect, the point Psylo is trying to make. The difficulty, then, is trying to distinguish between fact and fiction, which is very difficult indeed. In this day and age, its hard to trust pretty much any source completely. You Europeans say our news channels are inefficient and incomplete; I say yours are biased and present a skewed view of American life, and Americans in general.
But there is a common goal somewhere in the underlying scheme of things; we're all trying to do what we think is best. So lets take that and build upon it, find the truth, and stop arguing with one another. Particularly the pointless flaming.
This is exactly my point, people flame psylo's sources, then don't use sources or ask him to use "real news sources," which are often just as biased as psylo's sources. There is no objective source, however, you say that a credible source is one worth investigating, then does that not make psylo's sources credible, whether biased or not? Indeed our news sources are innefecient, incomplete and biased. Perhaps the same can be said for european news, but i really dont know, but i garuntee you it isnt objective. I take what I can from any news source, but I do not let just one source provide me with the truth, not matter how 'credible' i think it is.
"Q: How do you see the media coverage of this event? Is there a parallel to the Gulf War in Manufacturing Consent?"
"Chomsky: Media Coverage is not quite as uniform as Europeans seem to believe, perhaps because they are keeping to the New York Times, National Public Radio, TV, and so on. Even the New York Times conceded, this morning, that attitudes in New York are quite unlike those they have been conveying. It's a good story, also hinting at the fact that the mainstream media have not been reporting this, which is not entirely true, though it has been true, pretty much, of the New York Times.
(Skipping a paragraph) "But it is entirely typical for the major media, and the intellectual classes generally, to line up in support of power at a time of crisis and try to mobilize the population for the same cause. That was true, with almost hysterical intensity at the time of the bombing of Serbia. The Gulf War was not at all unusual." (9-11 2001, 29-30)
"Q: Bin Laden, the devil: is this an enemy or rather a brand, a sort of logo which identifies and personalizes the evil?"
"Chomsky: Bin Laden may or may not be directly implicated in these acts, but it is likely that the network in which he was a prime figure is-that is, the forces established by the United States and its allies for their own purposes and supported as long as they served those purposes. It is much easier to personalize the enemy, identified as the symbol of ultimate evil, than to seek to understand what lies behind major atrocities. And there are, naturally, very strong temptations to ignore one's own role-which in this case, is not difficult to unearth, and indeed is familiar to everyone who has any knowledge of the region and its recent history." (2001, 37)
|
On September 01 2003 23:23 DV8 wrote: Show nested quote +On September 01 2003 21:32 badteeth wrote: On September 01 2003 18:53 BlackJack wrote: On September 01 2003 18:52 Kobayashi wrote: On September 01 2003 18:49 ObsoleteLogic wrote:
As for Iraq, it was a horrible regime of oppression, hated, and violence, which had sought WMD in the past, had used them (gassing of the Kurds), and has possible ties to terrorism. and oil, you forgot that point, iraq has lots of oil  we aren't stealing their oil. We are using they money made from it to rebuild their country. You are using their oil to break the opec(wich means cheap oil for america) and restore the dollar to its dominant position. And when thinking in terms of profit, dont narrow your view to americas economy. LOL " restore the dollar to its dominant position. " LOL I just can't get enough of this line , oh no its too much, really it is. You know its far easier to remove money from your economy to increase the value of your currency than it is to create some psycho super plot to kill alot of people , have a brush fire war, have a second war than milk the country from the second war for not much more than we were already were importing from it.
Been out for a while, TT. You obviously know nothing about the current economic situation if you dont get what i'm aiming at here.
I read your other posts to, and i have decided that you want to believe what is easiest and its really futile to continue debating this with the likes of you,
|
On September 03 2003 21:01 SoLsiTO wrote: Show nested quote +On September 03 2003 14:13 ObsoleteLogic wrote:
One more thing:
A credible source of information is simply one that is worth investigating; as even credible sources can be telling lies. That is the point I was trying to make about the book, earlier, written by Cromwell. He had a real publisher, the book was widely publicized, but it was still a lie. The simple fact is that people in this world have agendas, and some will go to despicable lengths to acheive them; I think that is, in effect, the point Psylo is trying to make. The difficulty, then, is trying to distinguish between fact and fiction, which is very difficult indeed. In this day and age, its hard to trust pretty much any source completely. You Europeans say our news channels are inefficient and incomplete; I say yours are biased and present a skewed view of American life, and Americans in general.
But there is a common goal somewhere in the underlying scheme of things; we're all trying to do what we think is best. So lets take that and build upon it, find the truth, and stop arguing with one another. Particularly the pointless flaming. This is exactly my point, people flame psylo's sources, then don't use sources or ask him to use "real news sources," which are often just as biased as psylo's sources. There is no objective source, however, you say that a credible source is one worth investigating, then does that not make psylo's sources credible, whether biased or not? Indeed our news sources are innefecient, incomplete and biased. Perhaps the same can be said for european news, but i really dont know, but i garuntee you it isnt objective. I take what I can from any news source, but I do not let just one source provide me with the truth, not matter how 'credible' i think it is.
Ok, a bit more clarification as to what a credible source is: one that is established in the world as having present reasonably accurate information, having direct contact to the sources, and thus their information is worth investigating for oneself. Omission is a key factor in a lot of this; for instance, the Scott Ritter thing. Nothing Psylo, or some other sites I checked out, mentioned his contradictory statements, or his inconsistency. But when I found the article on Time.com, check it out on PBS, and found that Ritter himself has not denied it... well, lets just say I saw things in a brighter light.
This criteria is similar to that which is used in determining if something is a reliable historical document.
|
theres no quality... if we cant access it (you said we have to pay, ya that does us a great amount)
|
btw just for the record blackjack/obsoletelogic, do you guys honestly believe that the towers fell down in the manner that they did SIMPLY because the 2 planes crashed into them?
not looking for an argument, just asking if you believe they fell down that way only because of the planes crashing into them?
a yes or no will do (with a quote so i know its in reference to this post pls ^^)
|
On September 03 2003 21:19 intotherei wrote:
btw just for the record blackjack/obsoletelogic, do you guys honestly believe that the towers fell down in the manner that they did SIMPLY because the 2 planes crashed into them?
not looking for an argument, just asking if you believe they fell down that way only because of the planes crashing into them?
a yes or no will do (with a quote so i know its in reference to this post pls ^^)
I can't answer in just a yes or no. I have to give it a maybe. I don't know too much in regards to the physical arguments (though I intend to make that a part of my research this weekend), and I'm not ruling out the possibility of some kind of foul play or extra terrorist activity. What I am trying to say is there is no logical justification for the Bush Administration deliberately setting this up.
|
Russian Federation1233 Posts
On September 03 2003 15:57 ObsoleteLogic wrote:
"Although not equal to the German Panther and Tiger tanks, the huge numbers of T-34s more than compensated for their technological shortcomings."
O_O
Say what? (:
"The design overcame the technological superiority of German forces during the Great Patriotic War. Built in Ukraine in the Kharkov Steam-Engine Factory (KhPZ), the German general von Runstedt called the T-34 the "best tank in the world" and von Kleist said it was the "finest in the world." The T-34 had a more powerful cannon than German tanks, a higher top speed (32 MPH versus 25 MPH), and superior sloped armor and superior welded construction"
and just so you know, T-34, PzKpfw VI Tiger and PzKpfw V Panther are in different weight categories and thus T-34 could not match them, but in it's own class (medium tank) t-34 outperformed all the german tanks almost in any characteristic
here's another link
"When the Germans engaged them they noticed that all their tanks had suddenly become obsolete and undergunned, for they were not a match to the T-34 either in speed, hitting power or protection."
|
On September 03 2003 21:22 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Show nested quote +On September 03 2003 21:19 intotherei wrote:
btw just for the record blackjack/obsoletelogic, do you guys honestly believe that the towers fell down in the manner that they did SIMPLY because the 2 planes crashed into them?
not looking for an argument, just asking if you believe they fell down that way only because of the planes crashing into them?
a yes or no will do (with a quote so i know its in reference to this post pls ^^) I can't answer in just a yes or no. I have to give it a maybe. I don't know too much in regards to the physical arguments (though I intend to make that a part of my research this weekend), and I'm not ruling out the possibility of some kind of foul play or extra terrorist activity. What I am trying to say is there is no logical justification for the Bush Administration deliberately setting this up.
ok thus you and myself are in agreement that there is somewhat of a chance that the towers fell that way due to something "Extra" (not necessarily bush, but some other foul play)
correct? t.t
|
Yes. It could be governmental, something terrorist related, or who knows? Thats why I intend to do research this weekend and get some solid answers.
|
nice research men best debating i have had on this forum.
obsolete, i dont think that ritter in fact contradicted himself. what he said about iraq becoming a threat, was under the circumstances that iraq was not cooperating with the inspections. but, he said that they were cooperating, and the inspections had been interupted on multiple occasions by the clinton administration. in the audio clip that i provided, it is clear that ritter is not trying to back the saddam regime, or support either the clinton or bush administration, but rather comply by the law.
"Ritter maintains he's been consistent all along, simply demanding strict adherence to the facts and the law, whether that be in demanding that Iraq submit to inspections or in challenging the case being made by the Bush administration for "regime change."
i do not see any contradiction in this idea. but, i would not like to get back to the iraq debate, atleast not yet. my point abuot posting the link abuot the cia report, was to further suggest that bush decieved the people. i understand your argument, that "direct" evidence does not mean no evidence, but i think it is clear that nothing was known for certain. that is not consistant with what bush addresses to the public and the media. here is a list of quotes(i note it is a liberal cite, but the quotes are accurate):
who said what when
this to me is a clear effort to decieve the people.
we seem to be getting stuck in all the details of the issue, but without looking at the big picture. when the big picture is clear, i think the details begin to make more sense. i have had 3 hours of sleep the past 2 nights, so i will attempt to further explain my reasoning tommorow.
Quality over quantity, Arby.
unfortunelty blackjacks links dont follow either criteria
|
On September 03 2003 21:30 ObsoleteLogic wrote:
Yes. It could be governmental, something terrorist related, or who knows? Thats why I intend to do research this weekend and get some solid answers.
i suggest that u take some time on the links i provided earlier, just to help u point yourself in the right direction in finding more information. more specifically, try to find records of buildings collapsing becuase of melted steal. read up on controlled demolition, and if possible find videos of buildings that were brought down by controlled demolition, and compare them to the wtc, not just the towers, the WTC 7 also.
|
"No one is making the case that Iraq is not culpable in violating the law"
"We monitored the totality of Iraq's industrial infrastructure, and never once did we detect any evidence of either retained capability... or reconstituted prohibited capability."
"So in 2002, 2003, with the Bush Administration saying that Iraq, potentially, could have 25,000 liters of anthrax, thats garbage."
-Anthrax does not take that sophisticated of a lab to produce in deadly quantities. Not to mention the last inspectors were there in 1998. That leaves them years to reestablish an anthrax production facility.
Further, what he says in regards to the necessity of a VX lab - Baghdad has one of the largest and most complex series of underground tunnels in the world. Whats to say they can't have one underground in the middle of the desert? Not to mention that Hans Blix and the inspectors this time around were prevented on at least one occasion from entering a non-military, non-security related room, this one in a hospital. They sealed the door off (though I am not sure how), and left the room completely unsupervised, other than that, until 3 days later. You could take apart the fricken walls and put them back together without a seam in 3 days.
As pertains to the potential deception of the people, that is a matter of interpretation. Is a lot of what Bush/Powell said worst-case scenario? Sure. But don't you think its best to prepare for that worst-case scenario? You blame the Bush Administration of under-preparedness for the WTC attacks, and over-preparedness for the War with Iraq. Can't some people ever be pleased, and just stop pointing fingers?
Blackjack's sources may be quality, but I don't have the cash to find out ):
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
