FOX, are they real???

[Dr Maturin]

I have an answer for everything. All of the countries you mentioned where we acted "unilaterally" (read: without Daddy UN approval) would take a book to explain. All I have to say is look what Jimmy Carter did with some of those countries. If a government is oppressive, it doesn't mean you help to install communism.

Speaking of communism...we armed the Taliban to fight Soviet communism. The same with Grenada. But guess what? We disarmed the Taliban. The country that they scourged is now free. We armed Saddam. But guess what? He is locked up. So you are against Saddam being armed and against disarming him, too? The thing is, we didn't arm Saddam AFTER UN sanctions were put in place. Which countries' companies did? Oh yeah...the ones who were supposedly pro-UN and voted against taking action in 2003. The French flat out deny they knew the companies were doing it. Germany's intell agencies helped us crack down on the rogue businessmen, probably to save face.

As for Israel...another book. Let's just saw I see no moral equivalent in what the Israelis do compared to what the Palestinians do. The only way for peace in the Middle East is to let Israel defend itself and crack down on Palestinian militants.

[Radhil]

Ignoring the fact that we are now of course devolving into our normal round-and-round brawl by involving too many topics...

We armed Saddam. But guess what? He is locked up. So you are against Saddam being armed and against disarming him, too?

My god. This statement ignores so many ramifications of both actions that it boggles my mind. Like the events involved in both are cardboard cutouts to be placed wherever, chess pieces to be moved. Like this is nothing more than an immature "gotcha" on a message board.

Well, congrats - you now have proven that someone is inconsistent when you use everything out of context. A true political career for you cannot be far behind.

The thing is, we didn't arm Saddam AFTER UN sanctions were put in place.

I love your use of legal distinctions to completely avoid the moral distinctions of arming any power-hungry dictator. Karl Rove would be proud.

And you have the gall to argue that all the spin is from what we're listening to, when you're pretty good at generating your own.

[Dr Maturin]

<<I love your use of legal distinctions to completely avoid the moral distinctions of arming any power-hungry dictator. Karl Rove would be proud.>>

My point was that for people who tout the greatness of the UN when they "block" the US from taking action, they sure don't speak out when UN sanctions are being broken by other countries, who were part of the block.

Back to the subject: CBS is withholding a tape of a terror threat "greater than 9/11."

Also...US troops searched Al-Qaqaa several occasions, once in April and a few times in May. The weapons weren't reported missing until late May. Unless the searchers are all lying, then the weapons were gone already.

[Radhil]

My point was that for people who tout the greatness of the UN when they "block" the US from taking action, they sure don't speak out when UN sanctions are being broken by other countries, who were part of the block.

Ah. I see.

Except no one brought up the greatness of the UN here, or how they blocked the US. You brought up the oil for food program in relation to the explosives, I said I'd discuss it when I knew more about it (it's certainly not covered as much as it should be), and that's as close as anyone got.

If you want to be defensive, you ought to at least defend the same turf that's being attacked.

Back to the subject: CBS is withholding a tape of a terror threat "greater than 9/11."

Uhhh... where did you get this from? If it's not commonly reported yet, it helps if you tell us, so we're not further convinced you're just pulling things out your ass.

EDIT - Ah, nevermind, found word of it - and it's ABC, not "See BS" as you put it - and officials are saying the tape was turned in to the CIA early Monday. Sounds like withholding to me, except without the withholding.

EDIT#2 - And the eventual source of all this hubbub is... Matt Drudge. Hypester and spinmaster extraordinaire. Included in his report is the assertion that ABC News "denies not broadcasting the tape for political reasons." Right. I don't remember news stations running terrorist tapes as a regular policy, but that must be what you mean by withholding, right? That a threat tape came along and it wasn't put on the air immediately? That a report wasn't issued, despite that it's in government hands? I actually call this a sign of restraint - that the CIA is checking the tape instead of immediately raising the fake terror alert.

[Dr Maturin]

<<You brought up the oil for food program in relation to the explosives>>

Oil for food and the companies arming Saddam are two different things, just to be clear cut.

[Towelmaster]

I profusely apologize to the moderators of this forum and I promise them to try really hard not to put postings like this one in the future.

Responses like the one(s) from mr. Zhd can get me mad at times. Is this just plain stupid ignorance or are you trying to bait people on purpose?


- You are so out of context I don't know where to begin. If one could rape a posting/thread that would be the word for this.

- You have no feeling for looking at a bigger picture whatsoever.

- You respond to things that I/other people have not said/posted thus implying we did.

- You answer all kind of questions except for the ones that are asked. And when you do answer a question(Israel for instance) your response is standard American right-wing conservative "let's keep those Palestinians down because they are the only reason for the problems there'. Straight out of the conservative rightwing political suburbs where they indeed read Matt Drudge and consider it the gospel.

- You pick out one remark out of a long posting and then try to turn the discussion around by focussing on that particular remark and so obscure the bigger picture.

- You point to the UN all the time and blame them for almost every inaction/action although you apparently have no idea about the history of the UN's harrasment by the security council and the difficult circumstances the UN always had to work under(thanks to the major players). I dare you to tell me in your own words what you think the mandate of the UN is, what independent power they can wield. Don't look it up through google, just write it down.

- I don't usually swear, at least not on forums. But you have the f*cking gall to state that 'You armed the Taliban but HEY!!! We Disarmed Them Later On, Ain't we the good guys!". Tell me; What Planet Are You From??? Yeah, after thousands of innocent people died, the country's national heritage had been blown up, women had lived under inhumane circumstances that you would not wish upon your dog, and then still; Only Because They Harboured Osama Bin Laden!
This is downright offensive and you should really be ashamed of yourself. Using an argument as crooked as that is beyond inconsiderate, it is f*cking insulting and it shows an incredible level of ignorance on your part.

And at the same time you blame other governments because some industries in those countries sold weapons to Iraq and caused American deaths? Please don't give me that kind of crap. In war people die, they will always get their hands on weapons. American, French, Japanese or Narn for all I care. Where were you when the Russkies were complaining about you arming the Taliban? Whas that any different? No it wasn't. As a matter of fact that was done not just for financial gain but also for political purposes. How bloody cynical can you get?

- You seem to get all your 'inside-information' from places like Fox and the DrudgeReport.com. Which makes it pretty obvious what your bias is. You seem to accept their word as gospel although you fiercely deny this. You do not post source-links when you claim something is true.


There is opinionated and there is biased. And there is a big difference. You are biased to say the least.

If you feel offended by this posting then I really don't care. You have just offended millions and millions of people. Millions of people who will never even have the opportunity to argue with you as they have no choice but to live in a freakin' whole in the ground with a bit of tarpauling over it.

[cruiser]

This thread was 3 pages long when I first viewed it.

Towelmaster, all I can say is that you are peeking behind the curtain. Just a glimspe.

Ignore the man behind the curtain.

*humming "Follow the Yellow Brick Road"*

[I love Lyta]

"Let's just say I see no moral equivalent in what the Israelis do compared to what the Palestinians do. "

No, neither do I.

The palestinians do not annex israeli land.
They don't build settlements on israeli land.
They do not force the israelis to put badges on their cars that identifies them as israelis.
They are not killing refugees who are already stripped of everything but there lives.
They are not using gas bombs on israelis and refuse to tell the red cross what kind of it so they could possibly help the people suffering from the poisoning.
They are not threatening to probably cause WW3 by nuking some country because it builds a nuclear power plant for the sole purpose of providing electricity to it's households.

...

[Towelmaster]

Originally posted by cruiser
This thread was 3 pages long when I first viewed it.

Towelmaster, all I can say is that you are peeking behind the curtain. Just a glimspe.

Ignore the man behind the curtain.

*humming "Follow the Yellow Brick Road"*

Oh I've taken my pills now... I'm so cool now you could keep a side of meat in me for a month...

[Dr Maturin]

<<That a threat tape came along and it wasn't put on the air immediately? That a report wasn't issued, despite that it's in government hands? I actually call this a sign of restraint - that the CIA is checking the tape instead of immediately raising the fake terror alert.>>

You have to ask questions when restraint is taken in one circumstance and in others, not. NY Times, front page story, essentially "Bush Shows Idiocy Again: Weapons Missing" before they even knew what was going on.

[Radhil]

Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
You have to ask questions when restraint is taken in one circumstance and in others, not. NY Times, front page story, essentially "Bush Shows Idiocy Again: Weapons Missing" before they even knew what was going on.

The Iraqi disclosure to the IAEA was on October 10th. That's two weeks before the NYT article. You can chop a few days off that while sources relayed information, but that means a week and a half at minimum went by. Sitting there.

Sounds to me like restraint was taken, and time for fact-checking was made. But let us assume it wasn't for the moment, and accept your arguement that this is not showing restraint.

ABCNews obtains the threat tape on this past Sunday, according to Drudge, officials get it Monday morning, Drudge scoops it in his usual manner on Wednesday. This means 3 to 4 days they sat on the tape. Half a week.

A week and a half is not showing any restraint. Half a week is showing too much.

Try your arguement again when you know what's going on.

(the actual headline used was Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq, I believe. My my my, look at that spin go....)

[Dr Maturin]

<<A week and a half is not showing any restraint. Half a week is showing too much.>>

I'd have to research the Al-Qaaqa deal, but you have to look at motive. What other motive is there in coming out with a front page story that is essentially a nonstory? To make Bush look bad a week before the election.

When ABC gets a tape about a threat to America, we want to know about it. Since Bush is seen as the candidate who Americans feel safer under, this threat could benefit him.

[I love Lyta]

I bet sometime during the weekend the gov will tell everyone that the tape is genuine and that there is a real threat, raise sec level to red to get Bush re-elected.

[iamsheridan]

Originally posted by I love Lyta
I bet sometime during the weekend the gov will tell everyone that the tape is genuine and that there is a real threat, raise sec level to red to get Bush re-elected.

You're on!
Shall we say 5Ç?

/IamS

[I love Lyta]

Hehe, I don't bet for money. I have the tendency to lose if I do.
Tho in this case I'd be happy to lose.