No but it does == good journalism. Imagine the possibilities.
Wow. That's an interesting rule. Two sources = good journalism? Cool. A friend and I will tell the same lie to a journalist! Excellent! It will then be reliable! YAY!
No, I think it's clear a group of people at the US embassy knew this was going to happen. The exact same thing happened on the morning of 9/11.
...What's extremely naive is this belief some of you have that there is no contact between different groups of people, that the political victims of these attacks are totally caught off guard.
I think we're closer to agreement than you might realize. I'm just throwing out one possibility, not precluding that anything more dire could be true [added:] though I think that those chances are more remote. Also, I haven't said that groups don't communicate, notr that the embassy didn't know, but that word might not have gotten around, or the threat might have been taken seriously by some and not others, who knows? I'm just keeping the possibilities open, not trying to draw any conclusions or eliminate other scenarios.
What's wrong with you people that you take any chance to attack me?
You take a lot of assumptions as undeniable fact rather than consulting all real possibilities due to your political fantasies, and you;re dogmatic on top of it? You're not alone of course.
For whatever reason, so-called "liberals" bother me in this respect mmore than so-called "conservatives," probably because I would otherwise consider myself liberal (in the true sense of the word, of course ) if it weren't for the loony-tunes caricatures we have floating around here.
You take a lot of assumptions as undeniable fact rather than consulting all real possibilities due to your political fantasies, and you;re dogmatic on top of it? You're not alone of course.
For whatever reason, so-called "liberals" bother me in this respect mmore than so-called "conservatives," probably because I would otherwise consider myself liberal (in the true sense of the word, of course ) if it weren't for the loony-tunes caricatures we have floating around here.
you must be ****ing kidding. This is the kind of stuff so many of you have said, yet everything I've posted has turned out the be factually correct, the most prominent of which were the lies of the bush admin leading up to the Iraq war.. Now, you people are so unwilling to take responsibility for making false beliefs that you just continue to attack me hoping that no one will notice. It's so sad how you spew such unsubstantiated garbage about Iraq and then turn around and accuse others in an effort to deflect attention.
Allow me to throw this on the fire. I was worried less about Iraq being stupid enough to use any WMDs than about Iraq making and selling WMDs to the highest bidder. If they can't find the weapons, and they can't find the means of maiking the weapons (though the trucks seem to be fairly credible if circumstantial evidence), could they at least find the paper work or find intelligence anywhere else to suggest they uloaded any of this stuff.
Hell, this is so off in so many ways I don't even need to say anything.
It actually rather amusing how you say such garbage as the above and then try to act like I'm the one that's dogmatic. Classic.
Why not spend less time attacking me and instead actually reasearch one of these subjects? After a few years you might actually start forming realistic beliefs
Look, towel gives us a great example of the game you people play on AO
Quote:
Originally posted by Towel
I can't argue against a unnamed old post. Dredge up a link if you want to debate my credibility.
First, avoids responsibility for his own views
Quote:
Anyway, what, exactly, are you proposing, giant? Do you think this suggests that the Bush Administration is sponsoring these attacks? Or that they have accurate intelligence about them and choose not to stop them? In either case, why risk blowing the "op" over a few hotel reservations? All they had to do was nothing.
then argues against assertions that I haven't made
Quote:
The only reasonable explanation is that this was part of a (probably broad) pattern of precautionary moves by US personnel in Indonesia
Then the presentation of the 'only reasonable explanation' that inevitably becomes discredited by the facts, as this one apparently has.
The next step consists of personal attacks to avoid responsibility and/or try to discredit me without providing an argument.
You take a lot of assumptions as undeniable fact rather than consulting all real possibilities due to your political fantasies, and you;re dogmatic on top of it? You're not alone of course.
here i just thought it was because he's an asshole.
Look, towel gives us a great example of the game you people play on AO
Oh, absolutely, it happens on both sides of the political spectrum in here. Like I said, for some reason it annoys me more when it's one side doing it. That's arbitrary and unfair, but it's just a gut reaction. Take it for what it's worth (i.e., very little). I just ignore the stuff that's ultra-"conservative" more easily, I don't really care about that stuff I guess.
Which is why Giant and anyone else not towing the 'party-line' gets slagged off
and this is an extremely important point you make here, segovius. What is this this rediculous assumption that anyone that criticizes the Bush admin is a 'liberal.' Or is it just assumed that all 'conservatives' are blind lemmings who are completely incapable of seeing through the Bush admin's propaganda, no matter how out in the open it is? I have to admit that the polls seem to support this assumption.
'Liberal' is just a perjorative - they don't mean the dictionary definition, they are just labelling something thing they feel threatened by with a label that to them would be a very bad insult.
A bit like when homophobes call people 'queer' because they're incapable of imagining that someone who's gay might be proud of it. Come to think of it, it's usually right-wingers who do that too....
I suppose it all just boils down to good old fashioned intolerance really...
IMO, both liberalism and conservatism are necessary parts of a society. They don't have is coexist within one person but it is imperative that they coexist in the sharing of power. Why? Liberalism allows the society to explore new avenues to accomplish its needs, conservatism allows a return to traditions that have worked in the past when that liberal experiment goes awry. If you think about it many of the ideals held as conservative these days were once many many years ago held as liberal.
I use liberal for lack of a better term. I don't think the term is really appropriate any more than conservative. That's why I keep talking about "so-called" liberals and such. My point was just that you're afraid of considering possibilities other than the sinister motives of the US government. Door swings both ways.
I use liberal for lack of a better term. I don't think the term is really appropriate any more than conservative. That's why I keep talking about "so-called" liberals and such. My point was just that you're afraid of considering possibilities other than the sinister motives of the US government. Door swings both ways.
Really, where did I say that? Last I checked it was other posters that accused me of saying that even though I didn't.
Do you really want to know what I think (though I don't claim to know): I think they have someone in the group that planned it feeding info, the embassy got the info, cancelled the rooms and notified people associated not to go there. I don't know who notified the hotel staff or if they just inferred it from the actions of the embassy (there was probably more detail), but it seems clear that it was not a surprise.
HOWEVER, here we have a US news source quoting officials saying that there was no specific warning, when clearly there was. This is the same thing that happened with 9/11. Just as with 9.11, the smart thing to do is deny knowledge, since anything said can come back and bite.
That's what I think, and it deals with the facts.
You people, on the other hand, have been lying all day about what my posts say.
As for you 'so-called' cop-out, if I called someone here a 'so-called asshole' it would not be viewed as benign. You said what you said, now take responsibility for it.
The agenda that the US is not only responsible for what happened, but somehow some more sinister intention was there. People here make implications, then run and hide when they're pressed about their biases. Are you going to run and hide too? Call out the "strawman," when anyone with a brain can read between the lines here? This isn't some "conservative" calling out the real point of the thread, I just wish people were more frank and open-minded.
Back to the beginning. I can read between the lines. As far as the cop-out, I've always said that about the conservative/liberal labels, take it for what that's worth (i.e., very little).
Comments
Originally posted by BR
Two sources = fact?
Imagine the possibilities...
No but it does == good journalism. Imagine the possibilities.
Originally posted by Scott
No but it does == good journalism. Imagine the possibilities.
Wow. That's an interesting rule. Two sources = good journalism? Cool. A friend and I will tell the same lie to a journalist! Excellent! It will then be reliable! YAY!
Originally posted by giant
No, I think it's clear a group of people at the US embassy knew this was going to happen. The exact same thing happened on the morning of 9/11.
...What's extremely naive is this belief some of you have that there is no contact between different groups of people, that the political victims of these attacks are totally caught off guard.
I think we're closer to agreement than you might realize. I'm just throwing out one possibility, not precluding that anything more dire could be true [added:] though I think that those chances are more remote. Also, I haven't said that groups don't communicate, notr that the embassy didn't know, but that word might not have gotten around, or the threat might have been taken seriously by some and not others, who knows? I'm just keeping the possibilities open, not trying to draw any conclusions or eliminate other scenarios.
Hotel bosses said staff and guests had been evacuated before the blast, which happened during the busy lunch hour.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...099289,00.html
What's wrong with you people that you take any chance to attack me?
Originally posted by segovius
Welcome to the strange, twilight world we call The New American Century.....
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...y_indonesia_dc
Originally posted by giant
What's wrong with you people that you take any chance to attack me?
You take a lot of assumptions as undeniable fact rather than consulting all real possibilities due to your political fantasies, and you;re dogmatic on top of it? You're not alone of course.
For whatever reason, so-called "liberals" bother me in this respect mmore than so-called "conservatives," probably because I would otherwise consider myself liberal (in the true sense of the word, of course
Originally posted by BuonRotto
You take a lot of assumptions as undeniable fact rather than consulting all real possibilities due to your political fantasies, and you;re dogmatic on top of it? You're not alone of course.
For whatever reason, so-called "liberals" bother me in this respect mmore than so-called "conservatives," probably because I would otherwise consider myself liberal (in the true sense of the word, of course
you must be ****ing kidding. This is the kind of stuff so many of you have said, yet everything I've posted has turned out the be factually correct, the most prominent of which were the lies of the bush admin leading up to the Iraq war.. Now, you people are so unwilling to take responsibility for making false beliefs that you just continue to attack me hoping that no one will notice. It's so sad how you spew such unsubstantiated garbage about Iraq and then turn around and accuse others in an effort to deflect attention.
Here's the first page of a search on you: http://forums.appleinsider.com/searc...der=descending
you want me to go point by point?
How about I start with this?
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Allow me to throw this on the fire. I was worried less about Iraq being stupid enough to use any WMDs than about Iraq making and selling WMDs to the highest bidder. If they can't find the weapons, and they can't find the means of maiking the weapons (though the trucks seem to be fairly credible if circumstantial evidence), could they at least find the paper work or find intelligence anywhere else to suggest they uloaded any of this stuff.
Hell, this is so off in so many ways I don't even need to say anything.
It actually rather amusing how you say such garbage as the above and then try to act like I'm the one that's dogmatic. Classic.
Why not spend less time attacking me and instead actually reasearch one of these subjects? After a few years you might actually start forming realistic beliefs
Originally posted by Scott
Actually it's one that should be corroborated.
Of course. But if you had read the first post you would have seen that giant felt the same way when he started the thread.
"I would love to see the facts checked on this, but since the article is not in english, ir probably ever won't."
I don't see how it's wrong to discuss a hypothetical situation when there is some information available to discuss.
Originally posted by Towel
I can't argue against a unnamed old post. Dredge up a link if you want to debate my credibility.
First, avoids responsibility for his own views
Anyway, what, exactly, are you proposing, giant? Do you think this suggests that the Bush Administration is sponsoring these attacks? Or that they have accurate intelligence about them and choose not to stop them? In either case, why risk blowing the "op" over a few hotel reservations? All they had to do was nothing.
then argues against assertions that I haven't made
The only reasonable explanation is that this was part of a (probably broad) pattern of precautionary moves by US personnel in Indonesia
Then the presentation of the 'only reasonable explanation' that inevitably becomes discredited by the facts, as this one apparently has.
The next step consists of personal attacks to avoid responsibility and/or try to discredit me without providing an argument.
Hey look down
Originally posted by BuonRotto
You take a lot of assumptions as undeniable fact rather than consulting all real possibilities due to your political fantasies, and you;re dogmatic on top of it? You're not alone of course.
here i just thought it was because he's an asshole.
Originally posted by giant
Look, towel gives us a great example of the game you people play on AO
Oh, absolutely, it happens on both sides of the political spectrum in here. Like I said, for some reason it annoys me more when it's one side doing it. That's arbitrary and unfair, but it's just a gut reaction. Take it for what it's worth (i.e., very little). I just ignore the stuff that's ultra-"conservative" more easily, I don't really care about that stuff I guess.
Originally posted by segovius
Which is why Giant and anyone else not towing the 'party-line' gets slagged off
and this is an extremely important point you make here, segovius. What is this this rediculous assumption that anyone that criticizes the Bush admin is a 'liberal.' Or is it just assumed that all 'conservatives' are blind lemmings who are completely incapable of seeing through the Bush admin's propaganda, no matter how out in the open it is? I have to admit that the polls seem to support this assumption.
Originally posted by segovius
'Liberal' is just a perjorative - they don't mean the dictionary definition, they are just labelling something thing they feel threatened by with a label that to them would be a very bad insult.
A bit like when homophobes call people 'queer' because they're incapable of imagining that someone who's gay might be proud of it. Come to think of it, it's usually right-wingers who do that too....
I suppose it all just boils down to good old fashioned intolerance really...
Very insightful
my 2 cents
the only constant is change
Originally posted by segovius
I suppose it all just boils down to good old fashioned intolerance really...
Exactly!
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Exactly!
What?! You were the one that started the conversation about 'liberals!'
Originally posted by BuonRotto
I use liberal for lack of a better term. I don't think the term is really appropriate any more than conservative. That's why I keep talking about "so-called" liberals and such. My point was just that you're afraid of considering possibilities other than the sinister motives of the US government. Door swings both ways.
Really, where did I say that? Last I checked it was other posters that accused me of saying that even though I didn't.
Do you really want to know what I think (though I don't claim to know): I think they have someone in the group that planned it feeding info, the embassy got the info, cancelled the rooms and notified people associated not to go there. I don't know who notified the hotel staff or if they just inferred it from the actions of the embassy (there was probably more detail), but it seems clear that it was not a surprise.
HOWEVER, here we have a US news source quoting officials saying that there was no specific warning, when clearly there was. This is the same thing that happened with 9/11. Just as with 9.11, the smart thing to do is deny knowledge, since anything said can come back and bite.
That's what I think, and it deals with the facts.
You people, on the other hand, have been lying all day about what my posts say.
As for you 'so-called' cop-out, if I called someone here a 'so-called asshole' it would not be viewed as benign. You said what you said, now take responsibility for it.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
The agenda that the US is not only responsible for what happened, but somehow some more sinister intention was there. People here make implications, then run and hide when they're pressed about their biases. Are you going to run and hide too? Call out the "strawman," when anyone with a brain can read between the lines here? This isn't some "conservative" calling out the real point of the thread, I just wish people were more frank and open-minded.
Back to the beginning. I can read between the lines.