[quote]Typical? Since when have I failed to come back. If you want to speed me on my was proved a link to a book in english.<hr></blockquote>
Why? Are books in french not relevant? Are you so brain-washed that not only do you want the references, the author being clearly competent, the books listed being featured in arguably France's most respectable newspaper, but you also want to be able to pretend that you read it?
I think I've prooved my points enough. Clearly, I'm well versed in American culture, something you can't even begin to pretend to be. Now I'm waiting for your come-back, because it's been a while since I've heard something substancial from you. Perhaps you've understood, by realizing that this (interesting) debate is going pretty well with other Americans here, even though I disagree with them, and that your constant trash-talking has no effect whatsoever outside a basketball court and in the real world when faced with people over 13.
Bring it on. I appreciate the patriotism of groverat or outsider, because it personifies what pride in one's nation should be. Yours on the other hand is just blind zealotry. 2M3R1C4 R0XX!!! FR4NC3 SuX0Rz!!
<strong>It pains me to see, as in one of teh posts above, that Americans just think that the French hate them and that they spit on us...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think the French hate us but clearly SYN does. He says things that aren't true and expects us to "buy into" his poorly researched fantasies. It's more than a little contemptible.
[quote] Well, yes you are shitting us. Why would a book written by an ex CIA agent and an aid to a US Senator be written in French and not in English?<hr></blockquote>
Perhaps because those people were not competent enough to write a book of this scope and they needed a journalist with the righting skills, and were fearing prosecution in the US?
Perhaps because those people were not competent enough to write a book of this scope and they needed a journalist with the righting skills, and were fearing prosecution in the US?
Your point is ridiculous.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Prosecution in the US? For a book? Who is being ridiculous?
[quote] I don't think the French hate us but clearly SYN does. He says things that aren't true and expects us to "buy into" his poorly researched fantasies. It's more than a little contemptible.<hr></blockquote>
I don't hate any nation, I'm not that short sighted. I've said it before, and I'd say it again, I admire the US. I don't think a corporation like Apple could have existed outside the US.
Calling my facts poorly researched fantasies, or repeating "Proof! PROOF! ****ING PROOF" does not make the false.
You on the other hand, insisting that the USSR came down because of a Reagan speech, have indeed made a fool out of yourself.
Of course, only you would assume an aid to a senator is obviously american... [quote] Prosecution in the US? For a book? Who is being ridiculous?<hr></blockquote>
And I'm no lawyer, but wouldn't divulging state secrets be a crime in the US????
There is an interesting article in todays Times which really says what I think: in it, there are South Koreans responding to the Bush Rhetoric: they know that something is correct about what he says, but, they KNOW that the way he said it was wrong, and do not like the fact that there was no talk with them before he 'shouted' his phrase.
THey feel that it jeopardizes the 'Sunshine' policy which is the one thing that the head of SKorea is most proud of having accomplished.
They know that NKorea is sevirely 'Evil', but that calling names and threatening will only do two things: one, it will warn them not to mess (which is the good side) and two; it will close off what gains have been made as far as exchange of information and openness and dialogue. and. further increase their (NK's) sense of isolation and need for defensiveness . . . this isn't just mamby pamby psychologisms here, this is the reality of delicate foreign policy...a subtle thinking is needed not 'drunken shouts'...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Complaining about Bush's rhetoric you describe it as "drunken shouts". In another post you described him as a demagogue. Physician, heal thyself.
[quote]Like all the books having for source the secret service, this one swarms with new indications, very precise, but impossible to check. What is awkward, on the other hand, they are glaring errors, as that which consists in saying that prince Turki Al Fayçal is the son of king Saoud, whereas, as its name indicates it, it is that of king Fayçal. In the same way, it is a nonsense of saying that Turki belongs to the clan of Soudayri. A beautiful blow of edition, but the rigour is not with go.<hr></blockquote>
I think, unfortunately that the point has been sidetracked by what I have to agree are unproductive allegations about some sort of US responcibility for 911 . . . .
I think that 911 IS more complex than simply they did it, we are completely copletely innocent . . . but we are not to blame
The point was: the rhetoric is inapropriate and it may mirror an inapropriate course of action on the part of the US . . . in many people's eyes.
Of course, only you would assume an aid to a senator is obviously american... </strong><hr></blockquote>
I made no such assumption. You wrote: "written by an ex CIA agent along with a former aid to some american senator. " Now I confess that I am assuming that such an aid would be proficient in English. I see no reason why such an assumption would be reckless...
No. The point is that these countries for too long have skated by and gotten high marks from the corrupted world judges, France et al.. Finaly someone called them what they are. It helps a lot.
I don't think so. Why nomalize relations with terrorist states? Since the state of the union these countries have been on thier heals. They have not changed. They will not change. So why bother to place nice and why not call it like we see it? Like it is?
Is this the book that quotes Dubya as saying, "Give us the carpet of gold or we will give you a carpet of bombs." and other such Satanic-sounding things?
I remember the fervor a few months ago.
Conspiracy books, movies, thoughts, pamphlets, etc... are allowed in the U.S.
You guys ougta knock off the French bashing. I mean really, aren't there more important and obvious injustices that demand our attention?
SYN obviously does not hate America, no matter how you provoke him. He hasn't taken the bait, so why not lay off?
I was intrigued by this quote from Scott's link:
[quote]Up until 1997-1998, the US government's position on the Taliban was muddled and at times came close to tacit support. Why? Soskis cites a lack of good intelligence; deference to Pakistan, a key ally which backed the Taliban; hope for stability in the region and, possibly, a crackdown on opium production; and, finally, the possibility of building the pipeline.<hr></blockquote>
Talk about a mess...my favorite is the "crackdown on opium production." Apparently the herion supplies are now disrupted, but never under the Taliban...
The Sunshine policy was by no means normalization, in the sense of treating NKorea as just a 'normal' country . . . it had the benefit of continued vigilance but with the sideline of offering teh possibility that the NKoreans could see a little of what they are missing, and policy might therein be effected.
And it sure wasn't tis useless provocation.
as far as 'shout' goes, that was the phrase used by the Iranian . . . also hyperbolic and guilty as charged.
SYN obviously does not hate America, no matter how you provoke him. He hasn't taken the bait, so why not lay off?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not so obvious to me. He's cavalier with the facts and happy to insist upon a series of spurious charges that are against this country. As far as I'm concerned you can say anything you want that calls into question to the reputation of the US but you have to back it up. He's not even one tenth as critical of his own bogus sources as he has been of those of us who have routinely punched holes in his arguments. That's why I haven't been willing to lay off.
Comments
Why? Are books in french not relevant? Are you so brain-washed that not only do you want the references, the author being clearly competent, the books listed being featured in arguably France's most respectable newspaper, but you also want to be able to pretend that you read it?
I think I've prooved my points enough. Clearly, I'm well versed in American culture, something you can't even begin to pretend to be. Now I'm waiting for your come-back, because it's been a while since I've heard something substancial from you. Perhaps you've understood, by realizing that this (interesting) debate is going pretty well with other Americans here, even though I disagree with them, and that your constant trash-talking has no effect whatsoever outside a basketball court and in the real world when faced with people over 13.
Bring it on. I appreciate the patriotism of groverat or outsider, because it personifies what pride in one's nation should be. Yours on the other hand is just blind zealotry. 2M3R1C4 R0XX!!! FR4NC3 SuX0Rz!!
<strong>It pains me to see, as in one of teh posts above, that Americans just think that the French hate them and that they spit on us...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think the French hate us but clearly SYN does. He says things that aren't true and expects us to "buy into" his poorly researched fantasies. It's more than a little contemptible.
Perhaps because those people were not competent enough to write a book of this scope and they needed a journalist with the righting skills, and were fearing prosecution in the US?
Your point is ridiculous.
<strong>
Why? Are books in french not relevant?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. It's just that if it was written by an ex-CIA person and a US Senator's aid it doesn't make sense that there isn't an English version.
<strong>
Perhaps because those people were not competent enough to write a book of this scope and they needed a journalist with the righting skills, and were fearing prosecution in the US?
Your point is ridiculous.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Prosecution in the US? For a book? Who is being ridiculous?
I don't hate any nation, I'm not that short sighted. I've said it before, and I'd say it again, I admire the US. I don't think a corporation like Apple could have existed outside the US.
Calling my facts poorly researched fantasies, or repeating "Proof! PROOF! ****ING PROOF" does not make the false.
You on the other hand, insisting that the USSR came down because of a Reagan speech, have indeed made a fool out of yourself.
I said perhaps, I'm making asumptions.
If this book was shyte, it wouldn't have been featured in Le Monde.
I'm making the asumption he's french.
Of course, only you would assume an aid to a senator is obviously american... [quote] Prosecution in the US? For a book? Who is being ridiculous?<hr></blockquote>
And I'm no lawyer, but wouldn't divulging state secrets be a crime in the US????
[ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: SYN ]</p>
<strong>
There is an interesting article in todays Times which really says what I think: in it, there are South Koreans responding to the Bush Rhetoric: they know that something is correct about what he says, but, they KNOW that the way he said it was wrong, and do not like the fact that there was no talk with them before he 'shouted' his phrase.
THey feel that it jeopardizes the 'Sunshine' policy which is the one thing that the head of SKorea is most proud of having accomplished.
They know that NKorea is sevirely 'Evil', but that calling names and threatening will only do two things: one, it will warn them not to mess (which is the good side) and two; it will close off what gains have been made as far as exchange of information and openness and dialogue. and. further increase their (NK's) sense of isolation and need for defensiveness . . . this isn't just mamby pamby psychologisms here, this is the reality of delicate foreign policy...a subtle thinking is needed not 'drunken shouts'...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Complaining about Bush's rhetoric you describe it as "drunken shouts". In another post you described him as a demagogue. Physician, heal thyself.
[quote]Like all the books having for source the secret service, this one swarms with new indications, very precise, but impossible to check. What is awkward, on the other hand, they are glaring errors, as that which consists in saying that prince Turki Al Fayçal is the son of king Saoud, whereas, as its name indicates it, it is that of king Fayçal. In the same way, it is a nonsense of saying that Turki belongs to the clan of Soudayri. A beautiful blow of edition, but the rigour is not with go.<hr></blockquote>
I think that 911 IS more complex than simply they did it, we are completely copletely innocent . . . but we are not to blame
The point was: the rhetoric is inapropriate and it may mirror an inapropriate course of action on the part of the US . . . in many people's eyes.
<strong>
Of course, only you would assume an aid to a senator is obviously american... </strong><hr></blockquote>
I made no such assumption. You wrote: "written by an ex CIA agent along with a former aid to some american senator. " Now I confess that I am assuming that such an aid would be proficient in English. I see no reason why such an assumption would be reckless...
I remember the fervor a few months ago.
Conspiracy books, movies, thoughts, pamphlets, etc... are allowed in the U.S.
We have that "freedom of the press" thing.
SYN obviously does not hate America, no matter how you provoke him. He hasn't taken the bait, so why not lay off?
I was intrigued by this quote from Scott's link:
[quote]Up until 1997-1998, the US government's position on the Taliban was muddled and at times came close to tacit support. Why? Soskis cites a lack of good intelligence; deference to Pakistan, a key ally which backed the Taliban; hope for stability in the region and, possibly, a crackdown on opium production; and, finally, the possibility of building the pipeline.<hr></blockquote>
Talk about a mess...my favorite is the "crackdown on opium production." Apparently the herion supplies are now disrupted, but never under the Taliban...
And it sure wasn't tis useless provocation.
as far as 'shout' goes, that was the phrase used by the Iranian . . . also hyperbolic and guilty as charged.
<strong>
SYN obviously does not hate America, no matter how you provoke him. He hasn't taken the bait, so why not lay off?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not so obvious to me. He's cavalier with the facts and happy to insist upon a series of spurious charges that are against this country. As far as I'm concerned you can say anything you want that calls into question to the reputation of the US but you have to back it up. He's not even one tenth as critical of his own bogus sources as he has been of those of us who have routinely punched holes in his arguments. That's why I haven't been willing to lay off.