I personally believe Osama Bin Liner is being held at the camp in Cuba - which is why there is no POW rights to the captives, and suddenly a couple of months before Bush's re-election, he will be found in a cave in Afghan.
Ask the legions of folk who are only comfortable with official versions of events, which (in their frames of reference) always represents the unquestionable truth. Automaton mode is easy. To run the "conspiracy theory" kneejerk response up the flagpole is the most easy and effective dismissal.
that's quite interesting seeing how i, the intial kneejerker, have and continue to have an utter disdain for the bush administration and the vast majority of the republican agenda. and though i did not oppose this war in iraq, i did seriously question the justification used by that same administration. hmmm, seems to me if anyone is prone to be a kneejerker, it's you, while jumping on to any contrary theory no matter how crazy or wacky it is.
I personally believe Osama Bin Liner is being held at the camp in Cuba - which is why there is no POW rights to the captives, and suddenly a couple of months before Bush's re-election, he will be found in a cave in Afghan.
Man, I could make a killing selling aluminum foil in this thread right now.... this thread is the funniest thing I've read all morning, thanks for starting my day off with a laugh you guys!
Man, I could make a killing selling aluminum foil in this thread right now.... this thread is the funniest thing I've read all morning, thanks for starting my day off with a laugh you guys!
Classic, BR. Classic. Never thought I'd approve of a comment like yours, but Bravo.
Sammi, yes, yes....we KNOW. We're mindless followers of the coporate whore media and evil untruthful Bush administration. If only we could think for ourselves.
The problem with an Administration having outright lied to us in order to go to a war is that it has erased the line of trust and Truth.
It is no longer utterly incomprehensible to imagine such a stunt on the part of this administration . . . .
However such a huge lie would never be completely concealable and it would come out in more than just a few places . . . so, despite the fact that I would love to catch this admin is such a can't-be-brushed-under-the-rug type lie in order to reveal what the other lies say about these people, I think it is not true that the Saddam capture was faked.
With that said, I would start to get suspisious if OBL happens to get captured at the Admins most opportune moment . . . .
The problem with an Administration having outright lied to us in order to go to a war is that it has erased the line of trust and Truth.
It is no longer utterly incomprehensible to imagine such a stunt on the part of this administration . . . .
However such a huge lie would never be completely concealable and it would come out in more than just a few places . . . so, despite the fact that I would love to catch this admin is such a can't-be-brushed-under-the-rug type lie in order to reveal what the other lies say about these people, I think it is not true that the Saddam capture was faked.
With that said, I would start to get suspisious if OBL happens to get captured at the Admins most opportune moment . . . .
Yeah, you know what bush says:
There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee...that says, fool me once, shame on...... (long pause) shame on you. Fool me ?(long pause) can't get fooled again
It's one thing to have a healthy skepticism about what we see on the news, especially when the media is being lazy most of the time and just passing on government press releases, and quite another to be so wound up that you're ready to yell cover-up or conspiracy the moment that you notice the slightest hint of something that can be construed as suspicious -- suspicious if you work at it.
The unripe dates can be explained by soil conditions or other effects that make the date tree unhealthy (the blogger himself said that).
LaHood's comments are easily explained by general cockiness.
The two added together? Still not a lot to go on. Maybe enough to motivate a good reporter to do a little more digging, but certainly not enough reason to raise much suspicion at all until such digging has been done and there's more to go on.
You have to ask yourself what the motivation would be. What political gain does Bush get out of waiting until now to make the claim that Saddam was captured?
It's certainly not close enough to the election to help Bush out very much. I'd be much more suspicious (and am already prepared to be) about an Osama Bin Laden capture a month or two before the election. Are we, just to show our that we've earned our merit badges in Not Being Politically Naive, supposed to simply assume that THEY have their reasons and that any timing is suspect because it might, just might, fit into some unknown scheme?
I get the impression that some people start with the reasonable assumption that we don't get the full account of things in the major media, and the reasonable assumption that government sometimes outright lies rather than merely spinning facts to its own advantage, but then somewhere along the line the conspiracy-prone wander off a precipice where they further assume that the only way to "really know what's going on" is to amplify the importance of little tidbits gleaned here and there.
There's a twisted logic to that, but it leads to the kind of thinking where imagination becomes more important than actual facts, and where simply seeing that something is possible becomes, as long as that thing seems diabolical enough, nearly the same thing as knowing that the suspected activity is true.
Is it possible that Saddam was captured months ago? Sure. Can I dream up possible scenarios where the Bush admin would want to have kept Saddam's capture secret for a while? Sure. Does any of it seem very likely at this point? Not really.
Of course, I'm sure that in the eyes of some, even with as much as I detest the Bush administration, giving that administration any benefit of the doubt whatsoever shows that I'm naive at best, if not an unwitting stooge. After all, I have no proof that tin foil hats don't help.
"The problem with an Administration having outright lied to us in order to go to a war is that it has erased the line of trust and Truth"
I guess we're starting that again. When I see evidence the President lied, he loses my vote. I have not seen any. What I have seen is unanswered questions, the media ignoring WMD related findings like the Kay report a few months ago, and frankly, a case for war that I agreed with but thought was unfocused. They should have laid out the case in simpler and more concise terms:
Like this:
1) Saddam has links to terror groups (true) and at aleast allows terrorists to operate within his borders without fear of reprisal.
2) Saddam has possessed WMD and used them. We know he is trying to aquire more and may already have them. In a post 9/11 world, we cannot take that risk.
3) Iraq mut be liberated in the fact of brutal repression by Saddam.
4) Saddam tried to assassinate a former President.
5) Iraq has fired on coatlition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone. They have provoked us.
In other words, they focused too heavily on WMD...which may be in Syria for all we know. They should have presented these five simple reasons and said "given all this, we want to invade. We feel it's required for all the above reasons".
I agree that there isn't much to go on now. There is some interesting info, but nothing really substantial.
However, these attacks on anything that questions the official story are just stupid, for a couple reasons. The first is that clearly with the Bush admin, the official story has often turned out to not be true. Second,attacking something as a 'conspiracy theory' is really just an ignorant defense that avoids responsibly examining the available evidence, and such an approach will almost always lead to unreliable beliefs, as has been demonstrated time and time again.
Isn't it amazing how addressing the criticism of the left lead to ...more criticism?
We keep hearing, hey this war was for nothing. It's a lie. We don't even have Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden.
Then they capture Saddam and it is...
Oh did you see how convenient that was to help them. I bet they are lying and already have OBL and will produce him during X time.
Oh and of course don't forget Bush is a complete moron who couldn't find his way out of a paper bag, but can fool the entire world and all the media with his IQ of 72.
"The problem with an Administration having outright lied to us in order to go to a war is that it has erased the line of trust and Truth"
I guess we're starting that again. When I see evidence the President lied, he loses my vote. I have not seen any. What I have seen is unanswered questions, the media ignoring WMD related findings like the Kay report a few months ago, and frankly, a case for war that I agreed with but thought was unfocused. They should have laid out the case in simpler and more concise terms:
Like this:
1) Saddam has links to terror groups (true) and at aleast allows terrorists to operate within his borders without fear of reprisal.
2) Saddam has possessed WMD and used them. We know he is trying to aquire more and may already have them. In a post 9/11 world, we cannot take that risk.
3) Iraq mut be liberated in the fact of brutal repression by Saddam.
4) Saddam tried to assassinate a former President.
5) Iraq has fired on coatlition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone. They have provoked us.
In other words, they focused too heavily on WMD...which may be in Syria for all we know. They should have presented these five simple reasons and said "given all this, we want to invade. We feel it's required for all the above reasons".
SDW I think the case for removing saddam is simple. Saddam funded terrorists to the tune of around 35 million.
Saddam funded suicide bombers families which only supports the "cause" of killing innocent civilians drinking coffee at a coffee house, riding a bus, going to university, or dancing in a nightclub.
I am sorry but that is enough for me to go to war in Iraq. Was Bush good at building a case the world would get behind? I think he could have done a hell of a lot better. Is the world better off now that Saddam is out of power? I would argue yes.
That's how folks reacted when informed about the truth of Jessica Lynch. That's how folks reacted when informed about the truth of Iraqi WMD. Why would it be far-fetched to think that the official story is not a factual one?
Seems to me that the number of times the official line has been false would lead you to be at least a little skeptical of any claim coming out. But that's just this thing we like to call reason. Don't let rational thought get in your way, guys.
I mean, how many times do you have to get burned before you realize that you need to be a little cautious? Hell, even a dog can learn to do that.
actually, I would say that no one has been told the actual truth or has only been told part truths on any of these issues. but I would also claim there are lots of nuts in the world, and lots run wacko papers and websites... whats next an article in a a 'paper' that has 'photos' of saddam at bushes house dated 3 months ago playing with the family dog?
Saddam funded suicide bombers families which only supports the "cause" of killing innocent civilians drinking coffee at a coffee house, riding a bus, going to university, or dancing in a nightclub.
I am sorry but that is enough for me to go to war in Iraq. Was Bush good at building a case the world would get behind? I think he could have done a hell of a lot better. Is the world better off now that Saddam is out of power? I would argue yes.
Fellowship
actually fellowship, he wasnt disagreeing with you(or you with him) he was stating as you said, lay it out better.. thats all.
Comments
Saddam was the christmas present
Osama will be the election victory.
YOU KNOW I AM RIGHT!!!
Originally posted by sammi jo
Ask the legions of folk who are only comfortable with official versions of events, which (in their frames of reference) always represents the unquestionable truth. Automaton mode is easy. To run the "conspiracy theory" kneejerk response up the flagpole is the most easy and effective dismissal.
that's quite interesting seeing how i, the intial kneejerker, have and continue to have an utter disdain for the bush administration and the vast majority of the republican agenda. and though i did not oppose this war in iraq, i did seriously question the justification used by that same administration. hmmm, seems to me if anyone is prone to be a kneejerker, it's you, while jumping on to any contrary theory no matter how crazy or wacky it is.
Originally posted by MarcUK
I personally believe Osama Bin Liner is being held at the camp in Cuba - which is why there is no POW rights to the captives, and suddenly a couple of months before Bush's re-election, he will be found in a cave in Afghan.
Saddam was the christmas present
Osama will be the election victory.
Someone I doubt it.
Originally posted by MarcUK
YOU KNOW I AM RIGHT!!!
Someone I doubt it.
Originally posted by drewprops
Man, I could make a killing selling aluminum foil in this thread right now.... this thread is the funniest thing I've read all morning, thanks for starting my day off with a laugh you guys!
Tell me about it.
Fellowship
Sammi, yes, yes....we KNOW. We're mindless followers of the coporate whore media and evil untruthful Bush administration. If only we could think for ourselves.
It is no longer utterly incomprehensible to imagine such a stunt on the part of this administration . . . .
However such a huge lie would never be completely concealable and it would come out in more than just a few places . . . so, despite the fact that I would love to catch this admin is such a can't-be-brushed-under-the-rug type lie in order to reveal what the other lies say about these people, I think it is not true that the Saddam capture was faked.
With that said, I would start to get suspisious if OBL happens to get captured at the Admins most opportune moment . . . .
The problem with an Administration having outright lied to us in order to go to a war is that it has erased the line of trust and Truth.
It is no longer utterly incomprehensible to imagine such a stunt on the part of this administration . . . .
However such a huge lie would never be completely concealable and it would come out in more than just a few places . . . so, despite the fact that I would love to catch this admin is such a can't-be-brushed-under-the-rug type lie in order to reveal what the other lies say about these people, I think it is not true that the Saddam capture was faked.
With that said, I would start to get suspisious if OBL happens to get captured at the Admins most opportune moment . . . .
Yeah, you know what bush says:
There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee...that says, fool me once, shame on...... (long pause) shame on you. Fool me ?(long pause) can't get fooled again
The unripe dates can be explained by soil conditions or other effects that make the date tree unhealthy (the blogger himself said that).
LaHood's comments are easily explained by general cockiness.
The two added together? Still not a lot to go on. Maybe enough to motivate a good reporter to do a little more digging, but certainly not enough reason to raise much suspicion at all until such digging has been done and there's more to go on.
You have to ask yourself what the motivation would be. What political gain does Bush get out of waiting until now to make the claim that Saddam was captured?
It's certainly not close enough to the election to help Bush out very much. I'd be much more suspicious (and am already prepared to be) about an Osama Bin Laden capture a month or two before the election. Are we, just to show our that we've earned our merit badges in Not Being Politically Naive, supposed to simply assume that THEY have their reasons and that any timing is suspect because it might, just might, fit into some unknown scheme?
I get the impression that some people start with the reasonable assumption that we don't get the full account of things in the major media, and the reasonable assumption that government sometimes outright lies rather than merely spinning facts to its own advantage, but then somewhere along the line the conspiracy-prone wander off a precipice where they further assume that the only way to "really know what's going on" is to amplify the importance of little tidbits gleaned here and there.
There's a twisted logic to that, but it leads to the kind of thinking where imagination becomes more important than actual facts, and where simply seeing that something is possible becomes, as long as that thing seems diabolical enough, nearly the same thing as knowing that the suspected activity is true.
Is it possible that Saddam was captured months ago? Sure. Can I dream up possible scenarios where the Bush admin would want to have kept Saddam's capture secret for a while? Sure. Does any of it seem very likely at this point? Not really.
Of course, I'm sure that in the eyes of some, even with as much as I detest the Bush administration, giving that administration any benefit of the doubt whatsoever shows that I'm naive at best, if not an unwitting stooge. After all, I have no proof that tin foil hats don't help.
I guess we're starting that again. When I see evidence the President lied, he loses my vote. I have not seen any. What I have seen is unanswered questions, the media ignoring WMD related findings like the Kay report a few months ago, and frankly, a case for war that I agreed with but thought was unfocused. They should have laid out the case in simpler and more concise terms:
Like this:
1) Saddam has links to terror groups (true) and at aleast allows terrorists to operate within his borders without fear of reprisal.
2) Saddam has possessed WMD and used them. We know he is trying to aquire more and may already have them. In a post 9/11 world, we cannot take that risk.
3) Iraq mut be liberated in the fact of brutal repression by Saddam.
4) Saddam tried to assassinate a former President.
5) Iraq has fired on coatlition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone. They have provoked us.
In other words, they focused too heavily on WMD...which may be in Syria for all we know. They should have presented these five simple reasons and said "given all this, we want to invade. We feel it's required for all the above reasons".
However, these attacks on anything that questions the official story are just stupid, for a couple reasons. The first is that clearly with the Bush admin, the official story has often turned out to not be true. Second,attacking something as a 'conspiracy theory' is really just an ignorant defense that avoids responsibly examining the available evidence, and such an approach will almost always lead to unreliable beliefs, as has been demonstrated time and time again.
Originally posted by SDW2001
4) Saddam tried to assassinate a former President.
http://newyorker.com/archive/content...30fr_archive02
I just found the inclusion of your #4 sort of amusing.
We keep hearing, hey this war was for nothing. It's a lie. We don't even have Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden.
Then they capture Saddam and it is...
Oh did you see how convenient that was to help them. I bet they are lying and already have OBL and will produce him during X time.
Oh and of course don't forget Bush is a complete moron who couldn't find his way out of a paper bag, but can fool the entire world and all the media with his IQ of 72.
Keep chasing those tails.
Nick
Originally posted by SDW2001
"The problem with an Administration having outright lied to us in order to go to a war is that it has erased the line of trust and Truth"
I guess we're starting that again. When I see evidence the President lied, he loses my vote. I have not seen any. What I have seen is unanswered questions, the media ignoring WMD related findings like the Kay report a few months ago, and frankly, a case for war that I agreed with but thought was unfocused. They should have laid out the case in simpler and more concise terms:
Like this:
1) Saddam has links to terror groups (true) and at aleast allows terrorists to operate within his borders without fear of reprisal.
2) Saddam has possessed WMD and used them. We know he is trying to aquire more and may already have them. In a post 9/11 world, we cannot take that risk.
3) Iraq mut be liberated in the fact of brutal repression by Saddam.
4) Saddam tried to assassinate a former President.
5) Iraq has fired on coatlition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone. They have provoked us.
In other words, they focused too heavily on WMD...which may be in Syria for all we know. They should have presented these five simple reasons and said "given all this, we want to invade. We feel it's required for all the above reasons".
SDW I think the case for removing saddam is simple. Saddam funded terrorists to the tune of around 35 million.
Link
Saddam funded suicide bombers families which only supports the "cause" of killing innocent civilians drinking coffee at a coffee house, riding a bus, going to university, or dancing in a nightclub.
I am sorry but that is enough for me to go to war in Iraq. Was Bush good at building a case the world would get behind? I think he could have done a hell of a lot better. Is the world better off now that Saddam is out of power? I would argue yes.
Fellowship
Originally posted by segovius
More doubts are surfacing about the Saddam capture.
Albright has said that she believes OBL is already captured or at least will be produced before the election. But then she is mad.
Who is this Bin Liner ?
interesting about Saddam.
where'd you read about OBL? albright who?
Originally posted by giant
That's how folks reacted when informed about the truth of Jessica Lynch. That's how folks reacted when informed about the truth of Iraqi WMD. Why would it be far-fetched to think that the official story is not a factual one?
Seems to me that the number of times the official line has been false would lead you to be at least a little skeptical of any claim coming out. But that's just this thing we like to call reason. Don't let rational thought get in your way, guys.
I mean, how many times do you have to get burned before you realize that you need to be a little cautious? Hell, even a dog can learn to do that.
actually, I would say that no one has been told the actual truth or has only been told part truths on any of these issues. but I would also claim there are lots of nuts in the world, and lots run wacko papers and websites... whats next an article in a a 'paper' that has 'photos' of saddam at bushes house dated 3 months ago playing with the family dog?
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
SDW I think the case for removing saddam is simple. Saddam funded terrorists to the tune of around 35 million.
Link
Saddam funded suicide bombers families which only supports the "cause" of killing innocent civilians drinking coffee at a coffee house, riding a bus, going to university, or dancing in a nightclub.
I am sorry but that is enough for me to go to war in Iraq. Was Bush good at building a case the world would get behind? I think he could have done a hell of a lot better. Is the world better off now that Saddam is out of power? I would argue yes.
Fellowship
actually fellowship, he wasnt disagreeing with you(or you with him) he was stating as you said, lay it out better.. thats all.