Terror Alert Moves to High, Orange. - Page 7

You are right, it was a sarcastic remark.

But if you read it i was comparing your tactics.

Umm, I didn't say WHO was drinking that lemonade....

I went round and round with him, it is like talking to a brick.

I think he is a big computer with a boatload of canned responses.

"Does not compute... GWB lied... GWB lied ... I have read intelligence reports... Unable to reason,,, much too superior to reason ... does not compute...

I'm thinking that the only reason he hangs out here is because he would be quickly and expertly vaporized by the real masters of this hypothesized "political know-it-all" forum located in some secluded patch of the web. He simply could not "hang" there with any sense of credibility (for his esteemed knowledge and experience amounts to something paltry amongst that forum's regulars), hence there is little joy to be had for him. So he comes here to browbeat on some meager Apple forum goers, who's expertise lie among things "Apple", not politics. Not surprisingly, this results in him promptly bringing up issues such as "insecurity", which he is quite likely projecting from himself. So he can't hang with the big boys at the uber politics forum, but he can't get his point across at an Apple Outsider forum, either (beyond a notion of verbal chest thumping accompanied by chants of, "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right!" Pity.

I question his almighty expertise, altogether.

He is a first class pontificating, self appointed expert, boob. IMO.

True, the simpler explanation is that he really doesn't know all that much more than the rest of us, and most of it is just empty posturing to suggest an image of unchallengable credibility.

I forgot to mention that jimmac is kinda like his sidekick.

I gotta come up with some clever name for them....hmmm

Yup! End of story........NO WOMD FOUND!

You know Giant's right. When you bring up something he doesn't want to admit it's like you're speaking a different language. I call that denial.

Sorry NaplesX, but giant quotes his sources. Research something if you believe he's wrong. Don't ask him to prove himself wrong. That's juvenile.

Listen folks, you shouldn't take giant's word for it when he gives it. You should assume he's wrong and prove he's wrong, but back it up with something. If you can't it's because he's right, not because he's 'elitist' or some crap like that.

NaplesX, if you're serious about your challenge, I recommend you look up an old thread about Bush lying. Giant started the thread and it was locked, then a new one started and probably locked again. It's got all the info you need and don't want to see.

I have one last thing for you to consider:

You have watched CSI, Right?

You know how in an investigation of any given crime, it often comes down to very miniscule peaces of evidence. Look at the current peterson trial.

Evidence of said crime is not always the "smoking gun" but sometimes just the smoke. Maybe it is a partial fingerprint or a fiber from a jacket or duct tape residue that places the criminal at the scene and convicts him.

If, as you say, only a huge pile of rockets and a boatload of VX or some WMD, convinces you war was justified, you are going against the whole justice system that has served us well in this country.

I have presented you evidence, even pictures of viles of bio/chem materials ceased from an Iraqi scientist working under SH. I have referred you to the kay report that states they found missiles clearly out of the mandated range. It also states they found plans and parts for centrifuges used for nuclear material production.

This is all evidence. It seems you don't except it until the quantity is at a certain level, bucking the way our justice system works.

I did not say he didn't. I also quote sources however I also make it clear when I am stating opinion.

Just because someone quotes something does not make it the end of the discussion. That is exactly what happens when arguing with these two. They will not except a rebuttal.

Giant and jimmac declare opinion as truth. It is very difficult to argue with that tactic being used. Not impossible but difficult. They eventually appear rigid and silly.

I think I was involved in at least one of those closed threads.

As far as my challenge. It stands. I want a complete list from the master. This way I can then debate him on his terms. and there will be no more deflecting. He thinks I am a mental midget, let him step up and prove it. Or he can continue to pontificate from his self made throne. There will always be that doubt because he wouldn't step up. i know what he is and most here that are reading do now also.

Let me explain something to you about Iraqi WMD:

Chemical: The only thing that it was physically possible for Iraq to have at the beginning of the war was mustard gas. Everything else degrades and there were no production facilities. This we knew before the war and at this point there is no question. All chemical weapons have been accounted for. If you look at the actual admin claims, they refer to one document, which was believed false at the time and, since military folks came forward in post-war Iraq, has found to have been a BS document in the first place.

Nuclear: The nuclear components found under the rosebush were FAR, FAR, FAR from a facility of any sort. Not only that, but the engineering documents were INCORRECT. Hell, I'm pretty sure that fact was even on slashdot. A nuclear facility is HUGE and Saddam was nowhere near doing anything nuclear. Here's where you can start on the reading list: Go to un.org and read the inspection reports. You will see that saddam's nuclear capabilities were destroyed long ago.

Combine this with the fact that we've got all sorts of foreign Iraq officials (including ones like General Amir al-Saadi who struggled to work with the US so they could get back to normal lives) talking about the whole situation and revealing that everything was destroyed shows that it's just not there. Sure, there may be small remnants, like a few barrels of viable mustard gas or a fridge somewhere with a couple vials of reference anthrax strains, but that doesn't equal massive weapons programs and all it does is reinforce the position of most intelligent people before the war: that saddam's WMD were dead and useless to him.

What the Kay report showed was intent to possibly restart a chemical program at some point. Well, no shit. But that certainly doesn't mean saddam had a big enough program for it to be a threat to the US or even Israel. And it is a HUGE stretch to just assume that saddam (well, really it would have been qusay) would have attacked or had the ability or, most importantly, had the INTENTION OR DESIRE to attack the US in 10, 20 or 30 years.

So you can spout off about whatever you want. I've been attacked for giving too much information. I've been attacked for being to hung up on facts. Well, go on and attack, because it doesn't change the fact that what I am posting is the reality of the situation.

If you want to read more, start my reading every one of the UN reports. I've done it, but I guess it somehow makes me elitist to be interesting in a topic enough to actually research it.

Please do not spout made up facts at me. As a matter of fact i have no desire to be baited by you anymore. My challenge to you still stands. Otherwise, don't bother throwing your arguments my way. We have all figured out your tactics

Thank you.

Classic.

Yes except one vital clue. If they're so hard to find it stretches crediablity to believe that he could have gotten rid of large stock piles so efficiently. Certainly not enough to pose a threat to us. Once again the inference was a threat to the US. Enough to warrent war.


And then there's the deployment issue........

I'm sorry but it just doesn't add up.

Even on your show they would say : " There's just not enough evidence ".

You see in the matter of going to war and this being a direct threat to us the quantity does matter. That's the question at hand if you'll recall.


That's why the " real " experts keep saying " no smoking gun " because in this instance that's what they need.

By the way unless those missiles ( and how come we didn't hear about that on the news ) were ICBMs it wouldn't matter.


This isn't a local crime you see on " Cops " or " CSI ". And certainly the same rules don't apply.

So that's where you get your superior sleuthing ability? From TV shows?

Fabulous.

Who's " we "? The conservative elite on this board?

The lables "Conservative","Liberal", "Right-Wing", "Left-Wing", "Muslim","Christian","Jew"...et al...

If we identified ourselves as Humanity we'd all look like idiots now...

My only mind expanding thought right now...

WOW!

You are like a skipping record.

I refer you to my other posts to answer those claims. Read them carefully. I took the time to word them so they were concise, therefor be polite enough to read them carefully.

And what is with the use of those annoying icons?

I agree. with that wholeheartedly. Order of importance = human > family > country > personal affiliations.

if we referred to ourselves that way we WOULD have to look at things differently.

Naples, here's why you are a) not equipt to understand the Kay report and b) not really doing the research


Let me direct your attention to this:


http://www.concordmonitor.com/storie...ian_2003.shtml

How about you actually bother to understand what it is you are posting before you post it?

Are you equipped with the ability to understand english in plain text?

I don't want to debate any points with you. You have made yourself the expert and you will not allow rebuttals because you are the expert. You will not allow any one to question your expertise.

If you do not see that as a problem, then I really don't want to talk to you.

I will debate you on the terms you have pointed out time and time again is the only way anyone can debate you.

The ball is in your court.

Nope I think it's you who are the skipping record. Do you know what a blind spot is? Because you've clearly got one.

I like the annoying icons.

You missed the joke entirely. WOW! reffered to his mind expanding thought.

It's something people used to say back in the 60's and 70's when drug use was more socially acceptable.

Have a good new year, naples.

i don't worry too much about terrorists, as i am not a likely target, nor do i live in a location likely to be attacked. not that i don't care if someone is attacked, i'm just being realistic. i'm not concerned, but people like politicians, business people, ect. or people living in areas of interest to these supposed terrorists (the capitol, financial districts, refinerys, ect.) have reason to be concerned.

Regarding the Sudan/bin laden 'offer.'


From franken's book.

I need not even reply to this one. I seriously hope you do not expect to win any arguments based on Al's book. That thing is so far left that, even liberals are blushing.

That was the big post you told me about?

Look, once again, If you want to debate me get me some kind of list that you think will bring me up to speed with you and we can debate. otherwise don't bother with the Al Fanken quotes.

If you have a bone to pick, it's with berger and benjamin, not franken.

Just trying to keep it simple for you

It's funny how conservatives can't accept anything Franken writes... even though it's all factually correct.

But they can listen to Coulter, O'Reilly and Hannity for hours and not have a problem with anything they say. Even after they've been proven liars.

Even spinsanity that didn't like Franken's book couldn't come up with anything. Other than they didn't like the tone.

I am not a "conservative". So labeling me that does nothing.

I can accept facts, I am sure there are other sources for those things. Picking him as a source is like some republican quoting from Rush Limbaugh. It just highlights your bias IMO.

His book was heavily researched despite what you think of his politics,
while he was a fellow at Harvard, by Harvard students.

Just sayin'.

It's just odd that giant speaks all high and mighty of his exclusively comprehensive background, yet the best source he can come up with to hit a point home is an Al Franken book?!? Odd. Maybe giant is Al Franken testing the waters at some unassuming Mac user forum?...

Look, I really don't care about Al's politics. No-one can deny his vitriolic bias. He could be right. he may be wrong. Monsoor Ijaz from what I can read is a highly respected individual that has some special insights, and is sought after by many governments and entities, despite these accusations. Maybe he made some mistakes, who doesn't. But to say he is not credible because of his alleged mistake, would render no-one credible by that standard.

Now that would fit perfectly.

Quoting Giant:

"If you have a bone to pick, it's with berger and benjamin, not franken."

That's Franken's sources... try looking into that.

See Gellman's article in the Oct.3, 2001 Washington Post.

Also see the Berger article on July 13, 2002.

And finally the book The Age of Sacred Terror by Benjamin and Simon.

Thanks, already found them though. I can scour the net with the best of 'em.