Sometimes there's a post so good...
POSTED BY: Hardware
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 00:32
VIEWED: 9151
PAGE 7 of 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:
Originally posted by peacekeeper:
The Japanese conflict was YOUR problem.
Wow.
Factual inaccuracies in what you say aside - good thing for you America didn't take that attitude with Hitler.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
Very true. And for a time, America DID take exactly that attitude toward Hitler, right up until he declared war on the U.S.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I think after a rocky start Barak Obama has come to the realization that when it comes to the war on Islamist terror the Bush administration had it right for the most part. Bush fell short on persuing terorists in Pakistan while Obama has done so admirably.
Already rewriting history, I see. Bravo.
Don't forget - Bush was the one who didn't care, and Obama said, back in those "rocky start" days - that he would do exactly what just happened.
It's cute to see you rabid right wingers show your true colors.
Some how 'I told you so', just doesn't say it...
WILLIAMS: I’d like to ask you about the sourcing on the intel that ultimately led to this successful attack. Can you confirm that it was as a result of waterboarding that we learned what we needed to learn to go after Bin Laden?
PANETTA: You know, Brian, in the intelligence business you work from a lot of sources of information, and that was true here. We had a multiple series of sources that provided information with regards to this situation. Clearly, some of it came from detainees and the interrogation of detainees, but we also had information from other sources as well. So it’s a little difficult to say it was due just to one source of information that we got.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2011/05/04/open-thread-leon-pane
tta-bursts-lefts-waterboarding-bubble#ixzz1LOpZYXN0
So, in your estimation, there is no way to "interrogate" somebody that DOESN'T involve torture?
Good to know. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Hardware, the report you linked said they were unable to authenticate the tape.
Yup, it sure did. Said it right in the middle of the article, too. Here's the quote, pulled from the article:
Quote:
Although there was no way to authenticate the tape or say when it was made, it referenced the upcoming presidential election.
HW, that's not exactly a win for you.
Imagine if Bin Laden made a tape showing Obama's birth certificate. Would you believe him?
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
By the way, deputy national security advisor says waterboarding DIDN'T play a role in the finding of Bin Laden.
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/05/obama-advisor-waterboarding-
didnt-lead-to-bin-laden-kill/
Told ya so, indeed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Hardware, the report you linked said they were unable to authenticate the tape.
Yup, it sure did. Said it right in the middle of the article, too. Here's the quote, pulled from the article:Quote:
Although there was no way to authenticate the tape or say when it was made, it referenced the upcoming presidential election.
HW, that's not exactly a win for you.
Imagine if Bin Laden made a tape showing Obama's birth certificate. Would you believe him?
So, the man is on tape, admitting involvement in 9/11, but you want more proof? I only posted this, a PBS source, after Kiki insisted that Bin Laden was not involved. Are you that ambivalent about the man's death that you want to apologize for his history of terrorism?
I understand the mechanism of Stockholm syndrome, but I've never understood people that fall victim to it. It's as if their character is so weak they need to identify with a powerful evil, to become that evil in an attempt to pacify it and survive it.
In short, it's pathetic.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hardware
http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_19.htm
Defenders of the 'official story' like to point out to the skeptics of 9/11 that Osama Bin Laden was caught on video proudly confessing to the crime in front of a group of his peers. The now famous 'confession' video was released in December of 2001 by the Department of Defense under growing international pressure to provide definitive proof tying Bin Laden to 9/11. And the defenders of the government's narrative present this oft-broadcast video as tidy proof of that narrative's validity. But as with so much of the 'evidence' covered at length in this paper, this 'definitive' proof is riddled with conflicting facts, quantum leaps in judgment, and, ultimately, inadvertent support not for the official story, but for the very skepticism about 9/11 that the 'proof' was meant to quell.
First of all, Bin Laden's initial reaction to 9/11 was not to take credit for the crime at all. In fact, he continually denied any involvement in 9/11 up until the 'confession' video was mysteriously presented. Almost no one in the U.S. has read Bin Laden's first statement in response to 9/11, which so conflicts the later 'confession'. Here it is, from September 17, 2001:
"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations."
We've been asked to accept without question his other statements of 'confession'. So how do we make sense of the above statement? Or how do we make sense of his second public statement in regards to 9/11, given on October 16, 2001:
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."
These comments obviously do not prove that Bin Laden did not orchestrate 9/11. But they do raise a crucial question. Why would a man spend six weeks denying a crime, then suddenly flip-flop 180 degrees and happily start taking responsibility for the originally denied crime? Most people - including scientists, CIA analysts, FBI, and other independent investigators, etc. - who have a working familiarity with the 'confession' video, know the answer to this question. And that is that the man in the video making the 'confession' is almost certainly not Osama Bin Laden, and the tape is a fake. The man shown in the video, though bearded, Arabic, and of darkish complexion, is much heavier than all known photos and videos of the actual Bin Laden. The man in the video is seen writing something down with his right hand. Bin Laden is well-known to be left-handed. And there are scores of other reasons to question the validity of the tape.
etc
For your edification, here is the video, showing a clearly right-handed man who does not look like bin Laden.
It's long lost to the internet, but perhaps you remember back when ... after the Taliban was supposedly beaten and when the US was still in Afghanistan in force ...
US troops were tasked with finding proof of bin Laden's involvement. They looked high and low, eventually at one point it was reported that they had translated and searched over 19 boxcars full of papers alone - and found nothing. No plans, no cell phone calls, no names, nothing. Not even a whiff of a hint. To this day, no *** verifiable *** evidence has been found to connect bin Laden with 9/11.
Even the FBI wanted poster doesn't list 9/11, though they were given multiple opportunities to revise the posting, including after the 'confession' tape.
Compare this scenario with Mohamed Atta, who left a wide trail of
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Hardware, the report you linked said they were unable to authenticate the tape.
Yup, it sure did. Said it right in the middle of the article, too. Here's the quote, pulled from the article:Quote:
Although there was no way to authenticate the tape or say when it was made, it referenced the upcoming presidential election.
HW, that's not exactly a win for you.
Imagine if Bin Laden made a tape showing Obama's birth certificate. Would you believe him?
So, the man is on tape, admitting involvement in 9/11, but you want more proof? I only posted this, a PBS source, after Kiki insisted that Bin Laden was not involved. Are you that ambivalent about the man's death that you want to apologize for his history of terrorism?
Not sure where you get that I'm "ambivalent" about OBL's death. Clearly not from anything I've said. I'm not sorry the guy's dead; I pointed out that you presented faulty "evidence" to support your point.
You presented your "evidence" as a clear proof of "FAIL" on Kiki's part, and your own "evidence" says outright that your "evidence" cannot be authenticated. That seems to me like a major "FAIL" on your part.
You say *THE* man is on tape; others say that *A* man is on tape, claiming involvement. Kiki pointed out that there was what courts would call "reasonable doubt", but fortunately for the U.S. (and by a remarkable set of circumstances), OBL will never see the inside of a courtroom. I'd have preferred a trial, but it seems others feared things that might be revealed by such an undertaking, so it was never even under consideration.
Quote:
I understand the mechanism of Stockholm syndrome, but I've never understood people that fall victim to it. It's as if their character is so weak they need to identify with a powerful evil, to become that evil in an attempt to pacify it and survive it.
Congratulations. You've just perfectly described Boot Camp and the U.S. military. I could never understand it, either. Weak character sums it up pretty well.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So, in your estimation, there is no way to "interrogate" somebody that DOESN'T involve torture?
Good to know. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
It wasn't torture. We just asked, really, really enhanced like.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually, no. It's because I require better vetting from my journalism sources before they are in fact credible.
Posts have been made and even produced about an Israeli confirmation of Osama death in 2001, but the form of THOSE reports means I can't vet them either. I remain unconvinced on all sides.
Osama is a jerk, and possibly delusional, because he has to know that actions he approved HAVE hurt women and children (and I don't exactly think of men as an expendable gender either, even in "war"), or have incited violence against such. I'm sure he is dead, and I've said that I think that's a good thing, though we need to watch out for retaliation. What I don't know is when he died, but that's ultimately unimportant. What is important, as I and others have said repeatedly, is how the current report of his death is used.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Hardware, the report you linked said they were unable to authenticate the tape.
Yup, it sure did. Said it right in the middle of the article, too. Here's the quote, pulled from the article:Quote:
Although there was no way to authenticate the tape or say when it was made, it referenced the upcoming presidential election.
HW, that's not exactly a win for you.
Imagine if Bin Laden made a tape showing Obama's birth certificate. Would you believe him?
So, the man is on tape, admitting involvement in 9/11, but you want more proof? I only posted this, a PBS source, after Kiki insisted that Bin Laden was not involved. Are you that ambivalent about the man's death that you want to apologize for his history of terrorism?
Not sure where you get that I'm "ambivalent" about OBL's death. Clearly not from anything I've said. I'm not sorry the guy's dead; I pointed out that you presented faulty "evidence" to support your point.
You presented your "evidence" as a clear proof of "FAIL" on Kiki's part, and your own "evidence" says outright that your "evidence" cannot be authenticated. That seems to me like a major "FAIL" on your part.
You say *THE* man is on tape; others say that *A* man is on tape, claiming involvement. Kiki pointed out that there was what courts would call "reasonable doubt", but fortunately for the U.S. (and by a remarkable set of circumstances), OBL will never see the inside of a courtroom. I'd have preferred a trial, but it seems others feared things that might be revealed by such an undertaking, so it was never even under consideration.Quote:
I understand the mechanism of Stockholm syndrome, but I've never understood people that fall victim to it. It's as if their character is so weak they need to identify with a powerful evil, to become that evil in an attempt to pacify it and survive it.
Congratulations. You've just perfectly described Boot Camp and the U.S. military. I could never understand it, either. Weak character sums it up pretty well.
Okay, one more time. I'll type this slow so you can keep up.
Kiki said;
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Oh, just to chime in and then I'm outa' here: there is as much evidence of bin Laden's guilt for 9/11 as there is for Hussein's WMDs. In other words - nada. And, I'm detecting a Bush administration patten here which goes: start a war and look for reasons later. And, uh, fail to find any evidence. Geeeeze. What a dunce.
And I presented some evidence. Which makes, and continues to make, Kiki's statement a FAIL.
Whether or not that evidence is credible. It is certainly, by it's mere existence, evidence. Which means the statement that there is no evidence incontrovertibly wrong.
Still want to keep arguing this single point or are you going to come up with another convoluted argument that tries to dodge the point?
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME