|
On September 03 2003 21:36 TeCh)PsylO wrote: Show nested quote +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.
Thats my intent for the weekend. At present I really don't have the time for that deep a study (I shouldn't even be posting this much... being work negligent)
|
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 ^^)
The 2 airplane crashes caused the towers to collapse indirectly. Indirectly simply because the towers didn't collapse just from the sheer force and explosion. The heat the planes gave off melted the steel and the building couldn't support itself.
|
On September 03 2003 21:34 TeCh)PsylO wrote: 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 whenthis 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. unfortunelty blackjacks links dont follow either criteria
RoFL you shouldn't really diss my sources. I simply say that Bin Laden took credit for the attacks and he made tapes a long time ago blah blah blah. Than you say show me proof! So I get 4 links from the NYTimes that quote the US government AND the british government saying exactly what I sad.
Now onto your sources. You say that Bush went on the record and said that he didn't know anything about the 9/11 before it happened and I ask for proof and you give me a quote from an interview that says something to the tune of: "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" or whatever. NO WHERE DOES HE SAY THAT HE HAD NO EVIDENCE THAT 9/11 COULD HAPPEN OR WOULD HAPPEN. All it shows is that he underestimated the terrorists which is WHY they got away with it and WHY we didn't do all we could to prevent it. They were underestimated.
So if you want to talk about switching words around... If you want to talk about brain washing... and if you think the NYTimes isn't a quality source that is kind of sad.
|
On September 04 2003 00:13 BlackJack wrote: Show nested quote +On September 03 2003 21:34 TeCh)PsylO wrote: 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 whenthis 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 RoFL you shouldn't really diss my sources. I simply say that Bin Laden took credit for the attacks and he made tapes a long time ago blah blah blah. Than you say show me proof! So I get 4 links from the NYTimes that quote the US government AND the british government saying exactly what I sad. Now onto your sources. You say that Bush went on the record and said that he didn't know anything about the 9/11 before it happened and I ask for proof and you give me a quote from an interview that says something to the tune of: "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" or whatever. NO WHERE DOES HE SAY THAT HE HAD NO EVIDENCE THAT 9/11 COULD HAPPEN OR WOULD HAPPEN. All it shows is that he underestimated the terrorists which is WHY they got away with it and WHY we didn't do all we could to prevent it. They were underestimated. So if you want to talk about switching words around... If you want to talk about brain washing... and if you think the NYTimes isn't a quality source that is kind of sad.
Its funny that psylo cries about people critiquing his links, when he goes ahead and does the same to you.
Oh and badteeth, Please enlightened me on the current situation, I have no problem destroying you in this catergory again like I did in the other threads, I swear you used that same bullshit when you were caught talking out of your ass and you couldn't respond. "Oh, this is useless I won't argue with you anymore." badteeth you're just like that chirping bird.
|
Canada5062 Posts
On September 03 2003 14:13 ObsoleteLogic wrote:
Rea, (regarding one of your posts in the thread you linked) might I remind you that the Nazi's has superior tanks in WWII, but they were steamrolled by the mass produced, cheaply made tanks of the Soviets. 15 0-0 tanks will beat 5 3-3 tanks and thats all there is to it. The might of the U.S. Military is based on both technology and numbers.
On September 03 2003 14:13 ObsoleteLogic wrote:
Rea, (regarding one of your posts in the thread you linked) might I remind you that the Nazi's has superior tanks in WWII, but they were steamrolled by the mass produced, cheaply made tanks of the Soviets. 15 0-0 tanks will beat 5 3-3 tanks and thats all there is to it. The might of the U.S. Military is based on both technology and numbers.
By your logic, the US armored divisions invading Iraq should have been wiped out in both wars.
Please, don't try sermonizing to me about the US military. You sound generally reasonable, but in this case you're just being conceited and stubborn. It is clear from your writing that you have neither the information nor the background to make a proper assessment of force capabilities arrayed on the Korean Peninsula. It is also quite clear you do not have credible knowledge with respect to the geopolitcal nuances which govern the use and deployment of military forces in Korea. On the other hand, I've lived and breathed the stuff for years and it should be apparent to anyone with any genuine knowledge of the situation that I know what I'm talking about.
Take the time to learn instead of wasting energy arguing. Peace.
|
where were u when they built the ladder to heaven?
|
Canada5062 Posts
On September 03 2003 17:18 BlackJack wrote:N. Korea announed that they are going to test an A-Bomb soon and I think they know better than to make a comment like that unless they are very confident that it will work, because if it doesn't work, they become a joke t.t as you can read in this link http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/29/international/asia/29KORE.html
I'm not sure what your point is. Even assuming the N. Koreans are all of a sudden speaking the truth (highly doubtful - as so many of you here are so keen to point out), if you don't know the difference between an offensive-capable, explodable nuclear device and a TEST BOMB, I dunno what else to say.
|
mensrea--my point in the korean post was exactly what you iterated in the link you gave. someone (god knows where in this thread) indicated that if we thought north korea had nukes, we would bomb them like israel did iran. this is unwise--as bombing korea could start the mutual destruction of the peninsula and nobody wins.
the fear is not that korea will suddenly magically find a way to make ICBMs, but instead that they will sell nukes on the open market--probably for large sums of middle eastern cash. they already base a fairly significant portion of their economy on illicit weapon sales (http://www.msnbc.com/news/958619.asp scroll down a bit).
while i certainly understand their actions from a cornered rat's point of view, i don't think they're doing much to help themselves by ending negotiations. I find it particularly strange that they openly dissed china by allowing the chinese to print that there would be further talks, hailing the last ones as very successful, and then later cancelling future talks. if face is so important in asia, isn't that a poor position to take with china?
ultimately, the US will probably give them a nonagression pact + aid and they'll let the inspectors back in and start a new nuke program in some god forsaken hole that we'll never find. repeat cycle. ultimately, nobody shakes the status quo.
oh, and my final, irrefutable source that nk wants a war:
http://www.theonion.com/onion3905/north_korea.html
|
On September 04 2003 01:57 mensrea wrote: Show nested quote +On September 03 2003 14:13 ObsoleteLogic wrote:
Rea, (regarding one of your posts in the thread you linked) might I remind you that the Nazi's has superior tanks in WWII, but they were steamrolled by the mass produced, cheaply made tanks of the Soviets. 15 0-0 tanks will beat 5 3-3 tanks and thats all there is to it. The might of the U.S. Military is based on both technology and numbers.
Show nested quote +On September 03 2003 14:13 ObsoleteLogic wrote:
Rea, (regarding one of your posts in the thread you linked) might I remind you that the Nazi's has superior tanks in WWII, but they were steamrolled by the mass produced, cheaply made tanks of the Soviets. 15 0-0 tanks will beat 5 3-3 tanks and thats all there is to it. The might of the U.S. Military is based on both technology and numbers.
By your logic, the US armored divisions invading Iraq should have been wiped out in both wars. Please, don't try sermonizing to me about the US military. You sound generally reasonable, but in this case you're just being conceited and stubborn. It is clear from your writing that you have neither the information nor the background to make a proper assessment of force capabilities arrayed on the Korean Peninsula. It is also quite clear you do not have credible knowledge with respect to the geopolitcal nuances which govern the use and deployment of military forces in Korea. On the other hand, I've lived and breathed the stuff for years and it should be apparent to anyone with any genuine knowledge of the situation that I know what I'm talking about. Take the time to learn instead of wasting energy arguing. Peace.
Touche`
As for your first sentence, the reason the US tank divisions won was because of superior tactics. As for the rest of it, I've tried to educate myself as best I can, and at times, yes, I do let myself become conceited. I can't know everything, though I would like to - and I will, at some time in the future, make a sincere attempt to educate myself on the matter. I apologize for my ignorance and any offense I may have given.
|
Canada5062 Posts
On September 04 2003 03:30 ObsoleteLogic wrote:
As for the rest of it, I've tried to educate myself as best I can, and at times, yes, I do let myself become conceited. I can't know everything, though I would like to - and I will, at some time in the future, make a sincere attempt to educate myself on the matter. I apologize for my ignorance and any offense I may have given.
No offense taken.
Now my turn to apologize for being snarky. A bit uncalled for - especially since you're one of the known users on the forum. Sorry. No disrespect intended.
|
Canada5062 Posts
On September 04 2003 03:04 SerotoninsGone wrote: mensrea--my point in the korean post was exactly what you iterated in the link you gave. someone (god knows where in this thread) indicated that if we thought north korea had nukes, we would bomb them like israel did iran. this is unwise--as bombing korea could start the mutual destruction of the peninsula and nobody wins. the fear is not that korea will suddenly magically find a way to make ICBMs, but instead that they will sell nukes on the open market--probably for large sums of middle eastern cash. they already base a fairly significant portion of their economy on illicit weapon sales (http://www.msnbc.com/news/958619.asp scroll down a bit). while i certainly understand their actions from a cornered rat's point of view, i don't think they're doing much to help themselves by ending negotiations. I find it particularly strange that they openly dissed china by allowing the chinese to print that there would be further talks, hailing the last ones as very successful, and then later cancelling future talks. if face is so important in asia, isn't that a poor position to take with china? ultimately, the US will probably give them a nonagression pact + aid and they'll let the inspectors back in and start a new nuke program in some god forsaken hole that we'll never find. repeat cycle. ultimately, nobody shakes the status quo. oh, and my final, irrefutable source that nk wants a war: http://www.theonion.com/onion3905/north_korea.html
Excellent points.
My only reservation is the last bit about N. Korea "wanting war." There's a difference between "wanting war" and being cornered into one.
N. Korea needs to be dealt with. Who doesn't know this? But, the problem cannot be solved by approaching the situation like another Hollywood-inspired crusade to rid the world of evil.
I could write a detailed explanation, but I won't. I've written enough elsewhere and don't feel like repeating myself. Try the search function if you're really interested.
|
Its all good.. and rea, I kinda get the feeling that the last piece Serotonins added was sarcastic. That is the nature of theOnion.
|
Russian Federation772 Posts
all of your egos are so bloated its disgusting , take a reality check please
|
the wanting war bit was entirely a joke.
|
On September 01 2003 03:51 HovZ wrote:
this article rasies valid points, to dismiss them is to choose ignorance
ti doeos rasises valdi voicpts, bkdad dot osu touisi tou ouiqiesoiinj your oigjown why obhte rputting hswread in the hesand prappare boototoy
|
MURICA15980 Posts
On September 03 2003 10:26 DV8 wrote:
or you are a trusting fool whose worse than those who buy the bush administration's propaganda word for word.
that's impossible. A guy who does research on a matter to seek the truth is far better than anybody who just sits there and listens to propaganda.
|
Russian Federation772 Posts
On September 04 2003 06:12 Klogon wrote: Show nested quote +On September 03 2003 10:26 DV8 wrote:
or you are a trusting fool whose worse than those who buy the bush administration's propaganda word for word.
that's impossible. A guy who does research on a matter to seek the truth is far better than anybody who just sits there and listens to propaganda.
see, thats the initial and CRITICAL fault of most of you, you discard everything as propoganda, until you can concisely narrow discrete portions of an administrations policy as "propoganda", you cannot judge in general that all of it is or isnt bs, and at the very least cannot not argue distinct aspects of it. You can only form the most fundamental of opinions, and it just so happens thats just what the mass media allows you to. I would even go as far as to say that only a select group of people in this entire COUNTRY , maybe 500 or some marginal figure like that, can argue policy to any extent, because in order to argue something you must first be properly and thorougly informed of all aspects, and no i dont mean bullshit links and flawed information that someone dug up out of the hollows of their ass.
You are not a politician, you wont be anytime soon.
You have no grounds for your arguement.
PS: in reading through a good portion of psylos posts, while he does have a great deal of 'information' be it valid or not, his is by far the most biased and obstinate case i've seen in a while for a person who is trying to make a point, or rather, argue it! 
|
so basically unless your one of those select 500 few you should just accept anything the 500 special people tell you related to politics and make no attempt to understand it yourself. now that sounds like a terrific idea!
|
Russian Federation772 Posts
On September 04 2003 06:33 SoLsiTO wrote:
so basically unless your one of those select 500 few you should just accept anything the 500 special people tell you related to politics and make no attempt to understand it yourself. now that sounds like a terrific idea!
hello i said you can form a fundamental opinion, but no intricate conspiracy theories. understand?
|
blackjack,i wasnt "dissing" your sources. they are good sources, but here is the problem. the information is informatino relayed from the governments. u point out in your post, that these governments are the US and Britian. these also happen to be the 2 countries that are proven to forge evidence, and then use it. which is extremely ironic considering that u are using there word to say that the tapes werent faked. who do u think they were faked by? i have said before, that most people dont relize that the goverment gives press conferances. this info is then released into the media, often times without background checks, etc.. therefor the media is often just the middle man for government propaganda. this is glarringly obvious, when it comes to the forged documents. they were initially found to be forged(then proved by a microsoft format issue) becuase of a google search. a GOOGLE SEARCH. they found that the nigerian official that supposedly signed the document, was not even in office at the time. how long does a google search take? .02 secs?
DV8, i was not attacking his sources, i was attacking the information in them. people have attacked my sources simply becuase they do not recognize them. i would like to point out, that a majority of my sources outside the controlled collapse issue, which i have decided to take out of the discussion, have been from major news outlets. cnn, msnbc, wallstreet journal, etc...
i was the guy that mentioned bombing n.korea. i should make it clear that i was only saying that the US most likly will not engage in a nuclear war. for example, when we attack a country, this year it was iraq, we have the tendacy to give a warning and an altimatum. atleast attempt to show diplomacy. if the US thuoght there was a serious threat of war, they would attack before bush even got on TV and gave his propaganda speach about how it was apart of the "war on terrorism". i was not trying to imply anything else about korea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
