Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   9-11 Conspiracy
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 136 of 148 (511573)
06-10-2009 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by onifre
06-10-2009 1:13 PM


Re: deductive reasoning
I'll assume that you conceded on the Iran point. And that the Iraq invasion was for strategic, geographical positioning to control Iran. If you are conceding, then in the spirit of honest debate, please state it.
Virtually ALL the "evidence" for the Iraq invasion was supplied by ONE person - "Curveball", an Iranian spy.
Iran was at war with Iraq for YEARS. Iran is largely Shiite, Iraq was controlled by Sunies.
We took the "evidence" handed to us by an Iranian spy and used it to justify a war against Iran's enemy, took out the Suny run government and allowed the repressed Shiites to gain ground.
That's NOT positioning to attack Iran. That's Iran PLAYING us like a fiddle.
If we REALLY were after Iran, we wouldn't have pulled troops out of Afghanistan and we wouldn't be working on the Pakistan border. We'd be setting up for an invasion on the Iranian border.
Is that happening? No.
Are we massing troops in Iraq on the other Iranian border? No.
Is there money to invade Iran? No.
Do we have extra rested and ready to go troops with which to invade Iran? No.
Do we have public consent to go to war with Iran? No.
Time to take off the tinfoil hat, the CIA isn't beaming commands into your head from their space base on the moon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by onifre, posted 06-10-2009 1:13 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by onifre, posted 06-10-2009 2:17 PM Nuggin has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 137 of 148 (511581)
06-10-2009 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Nuggin
06-10-2009 1:27 PM


Re: deductive reasoning
Were you even IN America during the run up to the war?
No. I was in American during the run up to the invasion.
Does the phrase "doubt it will last six months" sound familiar?
Yes. It sounds like a complete lie used to fool the American public into thinking it would last 6 months. Which apparently, you fell for.
Sez the conspiracy theorist who's claiming that the government willfully allowed 9/11 to happen.
A twist to my position, but not my actual position. They ignored threats, which is a fact reported extensively, and unanimously agreed upon.
Now you want evidence that troop levels are low? How about the fact that recruitment standards have been consistantly lowered over the years.
The troops are currently enlisted. However, this originated from your claim that:
Nuggin writes:
We literally CAN'T attack Iran now. We have NO MONEY, NO TROOPS and NO WILL to go after them.
There IS money, there ARE troops (in Iraq who will be placed in Afgahn) and the will IS there (if Iran gets nuclear weapons) and our current geographical position in the Middle East was the strategy.
Are you deliberately trying to be dense?
No.
This was you idiodic comment:
Nuggin writes:
The Red State Politic is based on the mantra "Dem cowledge boys think them so smurt jus cuz dem reeds buks".
When "red-state politics" is not based on that matra. That's your opinion based on your interpretation and willful acceptance of left-wing media driven propaganda.
I'm saying that Rush Limbaugh/FoxNews controls these people.
And I'm saying that you're wrong.
First, who are "these people", exactly? - Anyone in the south/middle states? Thats' a bigoted assumtion, first of all. These "people" have as much sense as you do to filter out garbage. You believe that EVERYONE in the south is a stupid, pro-christian right, lunatic that believes every word that comes from FoxNews and Limbaugh, this assesment of yours is wrong. However...
Nuggin writes:
You are claiming that that's the media making it appear that way.
Yes. The liberal side of the media makes it seem this way. And people with no knowledge of these places accept that it's true. Both side play to their loyal supporters. You follow liberal media propaganda, and others follow conservative media propaganda. And the funny thing is that each side feels they are smarter than the other, when in actuality, both sides are being played against each other like fools.
Are there idots in the south that follow Limbaugh and Fox, sure. But apperantly there are also idiots in the west coast that feel that ALL southerners are dumb rednecks who follow a set pattern.
Guess what, there are idiots every where that buy into media lead propaganda.
Obviously it's the media. It's the media telling these people what to say. That's my whole point! They can't think for themselves.
Yet you start the debate by saying dumb shit you heard on the news, then claim others can't think for themselves.
Many are lead by right-wing propaganda, many (like you) are lead by left-wing propaganda, and the point I'm making is that NEITHER of you is thinking for yourselves.
Again, this was your idiodic comment:
Nuggin writes:
Remember, the entire middle of the country is controlled 100% by mega churchs, Rush Limbaugh and FoxNews. If 2/3 of them say "Iraq is planning on stealing the moon", we're at war.
How the fuck do you know what 100% of the middle of the country is thinking? You said "the entire middle of the country", as if you actually know that...You don't!
All you did was repeat dumb shit you heard on the liberal news sources. You don't know any of that, much less accuse 100% of the people in the south/middle states of having one set opinion. It's stupid, it's ignorant, it's bigoted, and you're an asshole for feeling that way.
Think for yourselfs. Go to the south/middle states. Go to the universities where I perform at, talk to the students, talk to the actual people, and don't be lead like a blind sheep by liberal, divisive propaganda, then claim to be better than others. You're acting in the very same way that you claim others are acting, but have somehow convinced yourself that you are right and they are wrong.
- Oni

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Nuggin, posted 06-10-2009 1:27 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Nuggin, posted 06-10-2009 2:29 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 138 of 148 (511583)
06-10-2009 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Nuggin
06-10-2009 1:35 PM


Re: deductive reasoning
That's NOT positioning to attack Iran. That's Iran PLAYING us like a fiddle.
By facilitating the US to gain access to both of their surrounding boarders? Wtf?
If we REALLY were after Iran, we wouldn't have pulled troops out of Afghanistan and we wouldn't be working on the Pakistan border.
There are still troops in Afgahn and it is increasing. In fact, Michamus, one of the posters on this site, is currently there.
There are also troops in Iraq. And we are allied with the Suadi's. Iran is surrounded. They didn't want that, that is why they currently want to threaten with uranium enrichment. But the US, in the article I linked for you, has a Plan B to control and punish Iran if the get nuclear weapons.
Those are the facts.
Is that happening? No.
Are we massing troops in Iraq on the other Iranian border? No.
Troops are in Iraq. In Afgahn. And we are allied with the Saudi's. Plus, we have Israel and a somewhat good relationship with Pakistan...for now. Iran is surrounded and they feel the threat of the US.
Do we have public consent to go to war with Iran? No.
If they get nuclear weapons they will. Or they could just send a fighter jet to get bombed, right? Like you proposed was good enough to invade Iraq.
Time to take off the tinfoil hat, the CIA isn't beaming commands into your head from their space base on the moon.
No, apperantly they're sending some idiot into a forum to talk shit about what they think they know.
I'm not falling for it CIA!
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Nuggin, posted 06-10-2009 1:35 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Nuggin, posted 06-10-2009 2:31 PM onifre has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 139 of 148 (511588)
06-10-2009 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by onifre
06-10-2009 2:05 PM


Re: deductive reasoning
Yes. It sounds like a complete lie used to fool the American public into thinking it would last 6 months. Which apparently, you fell for.
So, you demand evidence from me for quotes that you've actually heard, but then claim that the people saying these things were deliberately lying.
Evidence? None.
I didn't "fall for" anything. I was against going into Iraq the first time and nothing has changed. I'm an isolationist.
That doesn't change the fact that these idiots (the ones without war experience) were making plans based on how they THOUGHT the war would go, not how the generals were TELLING THEM the war would go.
...willful acceptance of left-wing media driven propaganda.
Ah, I get it now. You drink the kool-aid. No sense trying to convince you that your overlords are wrong.
First, who are "these people", exactly? - Anyone in the south/middle states? Thats' a bigoted assumtion
Yup, it's an assumption about a group of bigots.
These "people" have as much sense as you do to filter out garbage
They just don't use it.
Think for yourselfs. Go to the south/middle states. Go to the universities where I perform at, talk to the students
You just can't help yourself, can you.
Now you're telling me that if I go talk to the liberal elites in colleges I'll find out that they aren't the stupid mouth breathers who hate the liberal elites college boys.
Well DUH. They are IN COLLEGE.
The whole point is that the red state BASE is ANTI-Education. They look down their noses on people who've bothered to learn because somehow learning is "gay" or "elitist" or as you put it "liberal".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by onifre, posted 06-10-2009 2:05 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by onifre, posted 06-10-2009 3:12 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 140 of 148 (511590)
06-10-2009 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by onifre
06-10-2009 2:17 PM


Re: deductive reasoning
Do we have public consent to go to war with Iran? No.
If they get nuclear weapons they will.
Evidence? None. Are we at war with North Korea? They are in the "Axis of Evil". They've had Nukes for nearly a decade.
Oh, wait, that's right - you don't have to provide evidence for your outrageous claims because you aren't a member of the "educated elite". I forgot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by onifre, posted 06-10-2009 2:17 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by onifre, posted 06-10-2009 3:24 PM Nuggin has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 141 of 148 (511599)
06-10-2009 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Nuggin
06-10-2009 2:29 PM


Re: deductive reasoning
I'm an isolationist.
I can tell.
Yup, it's an assumption about a group of bigots.
Made by a bigot, in true bigot fashion, that is, having no evidence to support it other than crap spewed from the liberal media.
They just don't use it.
How do you know that?
Now you're telling me that if I go talk to the liberal elites in colleges I'll find out that they aren't the stupid mouth breathers who hate the liberal elites college boys.
...and talk to the people in the community. Judge it for yourself.
At any rate, it's not 100% of the south/middle states so you were wrong.
The whole point is that the red state BASE is ANTI-Education.
Except for the shit load of educated ones.
They look down their noses on people who've bothered to learn because somehow learning is "gay" or "elitist" or as you put it "liberal".
You're a gay elitist.
- Oni

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Nuggin, posted 06-10-2009 2:29 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 142 of 148 (511600)
06-10-2009 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Nuggin
06-10-2009 2:31 PM


Re: deductive reasoning
Oni writes:
If they get nuclear weapons they will.
Nuggin writes:
Evidence?
Are you cursed with short term memory loss?
I provided you an entire article dedicated to addressing this issue.
Here, I'll provide it for you again. Daddy's even gonna highlight the important parts for you so you don't have to struggle reading much.
Source
quote:
Obama's Iran strategy contains a Plan B
By Doyle McManus, Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service
Published: February 24, 2009, 23:04
Tehran: President Barack Obama is working against time to untangle 30 years of enmity and prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb, but even his own advisers know the chance of success is slim.
So they also have been working on Plan B: What do we do if Iran gets the bomb?
Today, the Obama administration is debating its Iran policy behind closed doors. Last year, however, four of its key appointees wrote about the issue as private citizens, and their writings suggest they are planning for how to handle a nuclear Iran.
Dennis Ross, the former Middle East peace negotiator, was recently appointed as adviser for Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Gulf states, as the administration seeks to strengthen ties.
"Maybe, even if we engage the Iranians, we will find that however we do so and whatever we try, the engagement simply does not work," Ross wrote in a September report published by the Centre for a New American Security, a think tank that has supplied several appointees to the new administration.
"We will need to hedge bets and set the stage for alternative policies either designed to prevent Iran from going nuclear or to blunt the impact if they do."
If diplomacy fails, another Obama adviser wrote in the same report, the alternative "is a strategy of containment and punishment". That was the conclusion of Ashton B. Carter, Obama's reported choice as an undersecretary of Defence, who also warned: "The challenge of containing Iranian ambitions and hubris would be as large as containing its nuclear arsenal".
Most (and maybe all) of Obama's advisers see the costs of attacking Iran as outweighing the benefits. If Iran gets closer to acquiring nuclear weapons, they have warned, military action will not look any more appetising than it did under George W. Bush.
But that does not mean the United States would do nothing. Instead, Obama aides suggested in their writings, the US should pursue an Arabian Gulf version of the containment strategy used against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. What would that mean? For starters, a nuclear-capable Iran would face continued, serious pressure from the United States and its allies to dismantle whatever it had built. Obama might declare that a nuclear attack on Israel would be treated as an attack on the US homeland. And the US military would act to bolster Iraq, Saudi Arabia and other Arabian Gulf states against conventional-warfare threats from an emboldened Iranian regime.
At that point Iran will have WMD's, you said that was enough to go into Iraq without 911. Now you're claiming that an armed Iran won't be enough to go into Iran, but you seemed to accept that argument for Iraq...?
You're making no sense.
- Oni

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Nuggin, posted 06-10-2009 2:31 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Nuggin, posted 06-10-2009 3:41 PM onifre has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 143 of 148 (511602)
06-10-2009 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by onifre
06-10-2009 3:24 PM


Re: deductive reasoning
At that point Iran will have WMD's, you said that was enough to go into Iraq without 911. Now you're claiming that an armed Iran won't be enough to go into Iran, but you seemed to accept that argument for Iraq...?
Nice dodge, but I'm not falling for it.
ONE of the axis of evil countries has Nukes. That's North Korea. They've had them for nearly a decade.
Have we invaded? No.
If Iran gets nukes, what EVIDENCE do you have that'll we'll invade them?
None. You have speculation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by onifre, posted 06-10-2009 3:24 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by onifre, posted 06-10-2009 4:41 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 144 of 148 (511613)
06-10-2009 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Nuggin
06-10-2009 3:41 PM


Re: deductive reasoning
ONE of the axis of evil countries has Nukes. That's North Korea. They've had them for nearly a decade.
Exactly the point. There is no oil, there is no reason to invade N. Korea. There was reason to invade Iraq, Afgahn, and eventually Iran...why? Control of the oil market.
Also, the euphamism,"the Axis of Evil", is a bullshit term used to scare the US public. The only reason N. Korea was also included was to not make our current war a "Muslim" based war. Had the axis of evil been only Muslim states then the US would have looked as if the were staging an anti-muslim war. So someone else was needed to divert that opinion, thus N. Korea gets shoved into the mix.
Also, N. Korea was a memeber of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but they withdrew in 2003, claiming that the failure of the United States to fulfill its end of the Agreed Framework was the reason. Iran does not fit this bill. It's a completely different animal all together and requires a different approach.
If Iran gets nukes, what EVIDENCE do you have that'll we'll invade them?
Again, I direct you to the article I provided and it's explanation as to how the process will go if Iran gets nuclear capabilities and fails to meet the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. These aren't my words, they are the words of our government.
- Oni

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Nuggin, posted 06-10-2009 3:41 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 145 of 148 (511647)
06-10-2009 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by onifre
06-10-2009 1:00 PM


Hey, you presented this particular persons story as the basis for your position and for the correction of the timelines.
No.
I believe it's cool for me to analize what the person is claiming and give my opinion, as you have with my evidence, on the claim, right?
Sure, it's cool. But might it not be equally cool for me to analyze your analysis?
And I have held to the position that NORAD's timelines were right because those were the timelines they gave.
That seems to be reasoning in a very small circle.
As has been pointed out to you, NORAD's timeline can't be right, because this would involve the FAA telling them about flight 175 the moment it was hijacked.
Also, NORAD's own tapes which they released prove that they were wrong about this detail.
Someone got the timelines wrong, you say NORAD did, and I'll agree with you, if you can give me something more substantial than one persons personal account of what happened on that cluster fuck of a day.
I have given you actual audiotapes of what the people at NORAD were saying.
Sheesh.
No I am not. "Take down" as in a computer that records all incoming phone calls and accurately records the times.
But that wouldn't help us know what was said when.
The issue is: when was NORAD told that flight 175 had been hijacked? This can only be verified by actually listening to the tapes and understanding their content, something that a computer can't do.
If the issue is in the dialog then cool, but that persons testimony came with a lot of "I don't recall's" and "I doon't remember's" ...
Not about the issue in question.
However, I actually have no idea how they do it...do you? Because to simply say that a persons testimony trumps the official NORAD timelines ...
No, look, the NORAD tapes trump the NORAD timeline: that's how we know that they did get it wrong. I gave you the notes of the Miller testimony because you asked how they got it wrong.
... requires us to believe that NORAD has a really shiity way of recording the times. As in "someone writting it down on a notepad."
Not even that.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by onifre, posted 06-10-2009 1:00 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-12-2009 2:11 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 148 (511895)
06-12-2009 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Dr Adequate
06-10-2009 11:47 PM


Inept of nefarious?
No, look, the NORAD tapes trump the NORAD timeline: that's how we know that they did get it wrong. I gave you the notes of the Miller testimony because you asked how they got it wrong.
Do you have access to these tapes so that I can examine it and understand your objections?
There is still another possibility that you may have overlooked. It may be ineptitude on the part of America's defenses, not scheming and conniving malice.

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2009 11:47 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by onifre, posted 06-12-2009 2:46 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 147 of 148 (511901)
06-12-2009 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Hyroglyphx
06-12-2009 2:11 PM


Re: Inept of nefarious?
Hi again Hydro,
The good Dr. provided those tapes and more in this message: Message 77
I didn't go over them myself since there are a shit load of them. If you do listen to all of them and find something curious, if you don't mind, let me know since the Dr. is kicking my ass in this debate .
I don't feel that the tapes will saying anything more than what Dr. A has stated they said, that's why I didn't really bother listening to them.
- Oni

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-12-2009 2:11 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-12-2009 11:00 PM onifre has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 148 (511938)
06-12-2009 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by onifre
06-12-2009 2:46 PM


Re: Inept of nefarious?
I didn't go over them myself since there are a shit load of them.
Ya think! Yeah, there's like no way I'm gonna go through all that. Thanks though!

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by onifre, posted 06-12-2009 2:46 PM onifre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024