Italian judge issues EU arrest warrants for 22 CIA agents [article]

Manic Moran

monument wrote:

I for one disagree with you and say there’s no place for such things. And such things should be seen as an attack on the United States. And in the current world climate I find it sicking that someone in the US could think that such attacks on the US’s sovereignty could even possibly for any reason “must exist".

I'm just looking at things from a neutral and detached point of view. If I had any particular desire for such operations to succeed, I might advocate the reduction in financing for the FBI to conduct counter-intelligence operations, but I do not. I fully endorse and expect the FBI to do whatever it can within the limits of its remit to prevent it, In exactly the same manner as I expect the CIA to do whatever is required in order to further/safeguard American interests, and expect counter-intelligence agencies of other countries to try and stop it.

Let's take an extreme hypothetical by way of example:
We'll say some group in Iran, being one of the favourite bad guys of the moment, is known to have a former soviet nuclear device, and word gets to the US through its (illegal per Iranian law) operations in Iran that they plan on using it in the US. The same intel indicates that Person X knows the location of this device.

The US has a couple of choices:
1) It goes to the Iranian embassy, in accordance with law and asks them to 'please pick up Person X, and find the nuke' in the hope/expectation that they will do so.
2) They send the CIA to go pick Person X up themselves (illegally, per Iranian law) to find out where the nuke is and deal with the issue without relying on Iran's good nature.

I would not want to be a martyr for the concept proper procedure in the face of overwhelming reality.

NTM

lazydaisy

billy the squid wrote:

you deny that you have come on here making generalisations about europeans. read the fancy red text in my last post..

Yes.

billy the squid wrote:

indeed i did in a previous post, I quote what Bill O'Reily said on his radio show

here it is again for those who just skimmed through the post

I have also put in bold a second inaccuracy of O'Reily's about how african americans ended up in the US...

Um, what? You complained that Bill O'Reilly doesnt know the history of his antecedants. African-Americans are not his antecedants.

What was the first innaccuracy? If your worried about going off topic, feel free to pm me.

Secondly, and obviously African-Americans were not shipped from Africa. That was a verbal mishap. Its pretty clear he meant their antecedants.

billy the squid wrote:

Whilst I have poked fun at the right wing in America, I have yet to see where I have posted a supposedly derogetory comment about all Americans..

Believing is seeing BTS.

billy the squid wrote:

We were not talking about La Monde though were we, we were talking about Bill O'Reily. If you want to discuss Le Monde then feel free to start a thread in the News/Media forum...

Actually, we were talking about being painted with a certain brush if you say anything which devitiates from the current Euro philiosophy on America.

billy the squid wrote:

did you? I dont think your supposed to burn the US flag whilst singing "God Bless America" I could be wrong though.

I dont have to. I didnt say that arabs dislike the US or point to a reason for it, whereas you did. What has burning the flag got to do with anything?

billy the squid wrote:

another falsehood. Unless the majority of the countries of the world are arabic, which I doubt, the UN is not "full of Arabs"

I guess you've never been to the UN.

billy the squid wrote:

The population of New York does not influence which countries are more or less represented in the General Assembly. Each country sends its delegates from their own country, they do not pick them off the streets of Manhattan."

Have you ever been introduced to the concept of a sphere of influence?

Manic Moran

Just to add the fuel to the fire, the Greeks are accusing the British intelligence agencies of kidnapping in their territory.

http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20051213-062711-8207r

Apparently the chap was interviewed on BBC News 24, and the BBC interviewer said that he didn't seem very convincing, but the ruckus is ongoing anyway.

NTM

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

In exactly the same manner as I expect the CIA to do whatever is required in order to further/safeguard American interests, and expect counter-intelligence agencies of other countries to try and stop it.

So you are saying you have no problem with kidnapping people? The CIA at one time where as bad as AQ when it came to fuking around in other peoples countries, you really want to go back to that?

Just to add the fuel to the fire, the Greeks are accusing the British intelligence agencies of kidnapping in their territory.

Doesn't add any fuel. Just because the UK did it doesn't make it right either.

Hobbes

lazydaisy wrote:

I guess you've never been to the UN.

Neither have you. Can you post the stats to show that the UN is full of arabs? I don't think you can.

Zombrex

There are roughly 18 "Arab" countries, there are 191 states in the UN.

So roughtly 8% of the UN are Arabs.

I assume Lazydaisy meant Muslims rather than Arabs, otherwise I am failing to see the argument here.

lazydaisy

WK- Thats not what Im saying. That's what you're imagining Im saying. When you agree to stop putting words in my mouth, I will be happy to clarify.

Hobbes- I've never been to the UN. Ha ha ha. Do you think the stats are going to reflect the secretaries, cleaning staff, administrative, catering, and security staff?

Manic Moran

Hobbes wrote:

So you are saying you have no problem with kidnapping people?

Categorise it as a necessary evil, if you will. Unpleasant, distasteful, and it should be sparingly done, but a tool in the inventory none-the-less. Sometimes there is no acceptable alternative. Welcome to the real world.

NTM

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

Categorise it as a necessary evil, if you will. Unpleasant, distasteful, and it should be sparingly done, but a tool in the inventory none-the-less. Sometimes there is no acceptable alternative. Welcome to the real world.

NTM

So where do you draw the line then? Assination? Overthrowing a country and installing a dictator to keep your country stable?

I am well aware it goes on by various countries, however it does not mean it is right or a justified means to the end.

Or to quote a bad movie (swordfish) why stop with other countries. If it meant killing ooh about 1 or 10 or 2000 people (not military) to keep the US safe would you be happy with that?

Hobbes

lazydaisy wrote:

Do you think the stats are going to reflect the secretaries, cleaning staff, administrative, catering, and security staff?

Ok I will bite, hows about you tell us then. You seem to know. (your making the accusation so as per charter back it up).

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

That's what you're imagining Im saying.

lazydaisy wrote:

The French govt and media has always hated the US..
...
when I said that this Euro disdain was pre-Iraq and pre-911...

Yes my, er, imagination must be working over time...

Manic Moran

Hobbes wrote:

So where do you draw the line then? Assination? Overthrowing a country and installing a dictator to keep your country stable?

I don't draw it at assassination. In certain cases, it might well be the path of least damage. I would draw it at overthrowing another country to simply prop up your own domestically unpopular government. I don't see how that would be of any good to your own people.

I am well aware it goes on by various countries, however it does not mean it is right or a justified means to the end.

Ultimately, what is a greater end than the survival of your own people and way of life? Does the end justify the means? In this rare case, I would say 'yes', since the achieval of that end may be a pre-requisite to having any other ends at all.

Or to quote a bad movie (swordfish) why stop with other countries. If it meant killing ooh about 1 or 10 or 2000 people (not military) to keep the US safe would you be happy with that?

Don't believe I've seen it. Is there any realistically reasonable alternative to the killing of X many people in your rather vague example?

Let me guess, you don't approve of Hiroshima either? That killed a lot of non-military to achieve a greater good.

NTM

GuanYin

lazydaisy wrote:

WK- Thats not what Im saying. That's what you're imagining Im saying. When you agree to stop putting words in my mouth, I will be happy to clarify.

It reads like that to me.

All he did was post what you had previously written.

Could you please clarify for the understanding of the rest of us?

Hobbes- I've never been to the UN. Ha ha ha. Do you think the stats are going to reflect the secretaries, cleaning staff, administrative, catering, and security staff?

That is the lamest argument I have ever come across in the history of boards. I suppose that the Irish government is really run by poland and china given the amount of services staff from those nations...... :rolleyes:

To be honest, taking one of the very few intelligent posts in this thread, TC pretty much summed up the reasons for public perception perfectly.

The US credibility has been irreparably damaged by the actions of the US administration and military in its general approach to foreign policy. While this doesn't automatically make every accusation against the US true, it does at least justify the heavy skepticism displayed towards the US by just about every country in the world with respect to US administration's protestations of innocense regarding any of the many international violations they are being accused of..


...that said, as I have said before, and its echoed by A Dub in Glasgow in one of his/her posts, there is a general concept in the international justice system of "innocent until proven guilty" and like the torture claims being levied against the US in other situations, while the indications are that the accusations are most likely true, its a very different thing to constructing an argument (as many here have done) on the assumption that the US is guilty.

On the flip side, some of the arguments and retorts in posts here defending the US have given a new definition to the term "idiotic".

lazydaisy

Hobbes, With what, pictures? Are you asking me to go down to the UN and pull out a camera and start taking pictures and then post them on the web. Um, no. That is a security breach. Al Q have enough people working for them without me helping them out. Please change the term "accusation". It is not a crime to be an Arab.

WK- When Le Monde consistently publishes articles about how racist and uneducated Americans are, one has to get suspicious. They are not referring to Bush, and neo-cons, they are saying AMERICANS. WK- If the criticism were aimed just at US policy makers then you may have a point, but the criticism [ranging from mild to vitriolic and stemming not only from the euro media] is often directed at Americans themselves. Though you may not have these feelings yourself, they do exist.

And incidentally, I did not bring this up. What I said was that if you say anthing which deviates from the current Euro philosophy of Americans/America [hard to tell sometimes, when people use the terms so interchangably- if people mean the US govt then they should say it-but they often use the terms yanks or americans] then your branded as a right wing bastard. And lo and behold, I got painted with the Bill O'Reilly brush just for making that comment, which was a case in point. But it served to reinforce my initial point, that once you deviate, your branded or its brushed aside with claims of "thats just republican brainwashing." Just so you know, many liberals, as well as pre and post clinton democrats share this perspective, so its not all down to the republicans.

psi- Your analogy is off I didnt say that the UN was run by arab countries. I said that the UN was full of arabs in a city that has the 2nd largest jewish settlement next to Isreal. Im glad your back to ambiguously label posts idiotic and specify which one is intelligent [TCs]. Its helpful to have these demarcations around.

monument

Manic Moran wrote:

Categorise it as a necessary evil, if you will. Unpleasant, distasteful, and it should be sparingly done, but a tool in the inventory none-the-less. Sometimes there is no acceptable alternative. Welcome to the real world.

Welcome to this real world where you are advocating things like....

- breaking the laws of the United States
- brushing a side the sovereignty of the United States
- breaking the founding ideas United States

Twist and turn it all you like but this is what you are advocating.

GuanYin

lazydaisy wrote:

psi- Your analogy is off I didnt say that the UN was run by arab countries. I said that the UN was full of arabs in a city that has the 2nd largest jewish settlement next to Isreal. Im glad your back to ambiguously label posts idiotic and specify which one is intelligent [TCs]. Its helpful to have these demarcations around.

Ok, if thats the case (and I'm not doubting you) - whats your point?

As for labelling posts, well some of them are idiotic. Its up to any poster in a debate to construct an intelligent argument and defend their point of view. Many posters on this thread (who just happen to share a viewpoint) have thusfar shown an inability to do so. You (plural) are quite quick to resort to name calling and personal insults though, well done on that.

Manic Moran

monument wrote:

Welcome to this real world where you are advocating things like....

- breaking the laws of the United States
- brushing a side the sovereignty of the United States
- breaking the founding ideas United States

Twist and turn it all you like but this is what you are advocating.

Not advocating. Merely not condemning on moral principle. At least, the first two. Subtle difference. I'm not sure I get the founding ideas reference.

NTM

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

Ultimately, what is a greater end than the survival of your own people and way of life? Does the end justify the means? In this rare case, I would say 'yes', since the achieval of that end may be a pre-requisite to having any other ends at all.

If your own people advocate tourture on people who "are not our own" then its prehaps better they don't carry on. I mean I don't want to pull a Godwin here but there was a certain ruler a long time ago who thought that way.

Don't believe I've seen it. Is there any realistically reasonable alternative to the killing of X many people in your rather vague example?

The premise in the movie was that in order to fight terrorism, sometimes people on your side had to die. Which is why

the CIA guy had 30 or US citizens with bombs strapped to thier chests as hostages so he could steal money to pay for funding his war on terrorism.

(spoilered for anyone who plans renting it). Although the CIA have had instances of real world instances of such similar senarios.

Let me guess, you don't approve of Hiroshima either? That killed a lot of non-military to achieve a greater good.

during a war where the people nuked were not only the aggressors but were not likely to surrender anytime soon. It is not the same thing. Now if you asked if I approved that the US nuke a country because they may do something bad in the future (but not definate) then you might be closer to the mark.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

It is not a crime to be an Arab.

No, but it is a bit ridiculous to claim that the vast majority of cleaning and support staff in the UN are Arab (which isn't true) and therefore the Arab nations in the Unitied Nations are some how influenced into being anti-US government by local cleaning staff having to live side by side with Jewish New Yorkers (since Arabs don't like Jews, or vice versa, I would imagine is your point)

lazydaisy wrote:

WK- When Le Monde consistently publishes articles about how racist and uneducated Americans are, one has to get suspicious.

Which article in Le Monde said Americans were racist and uneducated? I assume you mean an actual attack rather than simply reporting on the state of racism in Amercian (on the rise seemingly http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/generalfiction/story/0,6000,1307576,00.html), and the worrying state of US education standards

lazydaisy wrote:

They are not referring to Bush, and neo-cons, they are saying AMERICANS.

Well without the actual articles you are referring too I can't really comment on what they are commenting on ...

lazydaisy wrote:

but the criticism [ranging from mild to vitriolic and stemming not only from the euro media] is often directed at Americans themselves.

What criticism?? Criticism of the CIA kidnapping Egyptions? Criticism of the Iraq war? Criticism of American foriegn policy? Criticism of American education standards?

Lazydaisy you seem to be saying that Europeans are just mean to Americans in general. Some Europeans might be, some Europeans are xenophobic racist morons. I am sure a lot of Americans get upset by stereotypes of Americans, just like a lot of French people are pissed off by the New York Post running a front cover title "Axis of Weasle: How the Germans and French wiped out of Iraq"

I fail to see what this has to do with the current issues, except you seem to be dismissing genuine criticism of US policy by trying to tag all criticism as just being mean and unfounded.

lazydaisy wrote:

What I said was that if you say anthing which deviates from the current Euro philosophy of Americans/America then your branded as a right wing bastard.

No, if you say something that is right wing you are labelled as a right wing bastard. Welcome to Boards.ie

lazydaisy wrote:

And lo and behold, I got painted with the Bill O'Reilly brush just for making that comment, which was a case in point.

You got labeled a Bill O'Reilly because you were attempting to deflect criticism of US policy by saying those who critises are doing so because they have an underlying distain for America in general, rather than having any genuine point. Which is exactly what Bill O'Reilly does.

lazydaisy wrote:

But it served to reinforce my initial point, that once you deviate, your branded or its brushed aside with claims of "thats just republican brainwashing."

Nox was saying he thinks it is more likely the Italians were lying about not knowing about the CIA than the CIA lying about having permission. This is around the time he started calling people "Euros", talking about Italian "Commie" journalists and claiming we are all "buying" Sadam being tortured :rolleyes:

If you are surprised that people didn't just accept this idea because Nox believes it and if you believe that people argued this idea because of an underlying distane for America in general, I suggest you read up on your CIA history, and the circumstances of the current case being discussed.

And I don't remember anyone saying Nox was brain washed by Republicans. All of his saber rattling seemed to stem from the fact that TC had pretty much ripped apart his argument and he had no where else to go than to start personal attacks and baseless dismissals of criticism.

lazydaisy wrote:

Just so you know, many liberals, as well as pre and post clinton democrats share this perspective, so its not all down to the republicans.

Its not, but the Clinton adminstration did not use the tactic the way the Republicans and Bush do (Clinton had his own bag of tricks). This was probably because Clinton didn't have to defend a massive war effort, and because the tactic of "patriotism attack" wouldn't really work as well against Republicans as it does against "liberals".

Hobbes

lazydaisy wrote:

Hobbes, With what, pictures? Are you asking me to go down to the UN and pull out a camera and start taking pictures and then post them on the web. Um, no.

You made the accusation that the UN is full of Arabs. It is up to you per the charter to back that up with where you got those facts or retract it.

Certainly something like demographics on employees would be freely available (I assume that is how you know).

The term accusation was directed at you, not Arab people.

When Le Monde consistently publishes articles about how racist and uneducated Americans are, one has to get suspicious.

Kindly link some. I find it hard to believe you even read Le Monde.

The Corinthian

Manic Moran wrote:

Not advocating. Merely not condemning on moral principle. At least, the first two. Subtle difference.

Roffle. That's right up there with an arms dealer arguing that "guns don't kill people - people kill people"

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

Not advocating. Merely not condemning on moral principle. At least, the first two. Subtle difference. I'm not sure I get the founding ideas reference.

NTM

To turn it on its head, you would agree with the CIA tourturing POW to determine something to protect "own people". Would you expect to be treated as a POW under the geneva convention by the other side if you were captured?

Zombrex

Manic Moran wrote:

Let me guess, you don't approve of Hiroshima either? That killed a lot of non-military to achieve a greater good.

Depends on how you define "greater good" ..

It is possible that a quick end to the war was necessary (though both D. Eisenhower and MacArthur rejected the idea that the bombing was necessary to win the war), but it is doubtful that America would have lost 250,000 more soldiers if Little Boy and Fat Mad had been dropped off the coast of Japan or at least not on a city, or if they were not used at all and Japan was taken by traditional assault.

So if you define greater good as "not a single US soldier had to die taking Japan", then yes the bombs achieved that. If you define "greater good" as no more people died that had to die, then sorry but Hiroshima was not for the greater good.

Zombrex

Manic Moran wrote:

Ultimately, what is a greater end than the survival of your own people and way of life? Does the end justify the means? In this rare case, I would say 'yes', since the achieval of that end may be a pre-requisite to having any other ends at all.

It is doubtful that this man, or Al Queda in general could ever threaten wide scale distruction of America or the American way of life.

I mean, as horrible as 9/11 was, it was actually one of the smallest scale military assaults in recent history. The most dramatic, and costly in terms of loss of life, event was the twin towers collapsing, and that was more bad luck and lack of proper structural fire protection than Al Queda effective planning.

It sounds like a cliche, but in reality the greater threats to the American founding principles of freedom and liberty come from the government, judical and military responses to terrorist actions (such as the Patriot act) than from terrorist actions themselves.

lazydaisy

Wicknight wrote:

It is a classic (and unfortunately very successful) Republican tactic (used by everyone from Bush to O'Reily) to deflect from serious issues by saying that the people pointing out that something is wrong are just doing it to attack "America" .. so when the French government say "Hold on, I think it is rather stupid to start a war with Iraq right now when other options are still clearly available", the Bush government, through supportive media outlets such as Fox News and New York Post, drums a quite successful campaign about how the French liberals (an insulting term in the US seemingly) "hate" America simply because the French government doesn't agree with a particular campaign of the Bush administration that in hind sight turned out to be one of the stupidest campaigns in recent political and military history (the campaign being the Iraq war). And when "liberals" such as actors in Hollywood, documentary makes such as Michael Moore, or professors in the Universities try to drum up debate about the current government, they also are American bashing because they hate america to (there is actually a documentary called "Why Michael Moore Hates America", which is on par with saying "Why George Washington Hates America" ... Moore has is faults, but not liking the US is not one of them, and is the exact opposite of how he clearly feels about his country that he believes is being destroyed by big business and politics)

And now you are, rather less successfully, trying to deflect from the rather serious issue that the CIA is kidnapping people in EU countries and shipping them off to prisions that have a history of torture by saying that the people pointing out that this is happening are doing so simply to be American bashing.

To be honest this arrogence, that people could only possibly critise the American government and military because they hate America in general is part of the reason so many people distrust the current American government, its tactics and Americans who are supporters of this government.

Stick on the issues please ...

Yes, the hating america was your phrase, and I later referred to it. You brought it up, elaborated on it, and then asked me to stick to the issues. You extracted from me saying that deviation gets you labelled to claimining I said that criticising the US goverment is the same as hating america[ns].

Then you said:
No, but it is a bit ridiculous to claim that the vast majority of cleaning and support staff in the UN are Arab (which isn't true) and therefore the Arab nations in the Unitied Nations are some how influenced into being anti-US government by local cleaning staff having to live side by side with Jewish New Yorkers (since Arabs don't like Jews, or vice versa, I would imagine is your point)

This is your own interpretation of what I said. Yes, you keep imagining.

Then you said:
You got labeled a Bill O'Reilly because you were attempting to deflect criticism of US policy by saying those who critises are doing so because they have an underlying distain for America in general, rather than having any genuine point. Which is exactly what Bill O'Reilly does.

No. First of all, I didnt say that. What I said is, if you have a deviating opinion you get labelled. I did not try to justify or explain the opinions of others. Please stop making things up about what I say. I wasnt attempting to deflect anything. I later tried to explain the dialogue about France AFTER you made the comment quoted at the top.

Hobbes- Yes. By applying the term accusation to what I said, you are spinning it. I didnt make an accusation. An accusation assumes a crime is being committed. Why do you find it hard to believe I read La Monde?

psi- My point is once again Im being misread. I fail to see where I resorted to name calling or personal insults, despite being on the receiving end of them.

GuanYin

lazydaisy wrote:

psi- My point is once again Im being misread. I fail to see where I resorted to name calling or personal insults, despite being on the receiving end of them.

You seem to be spending alot of time and energy emphasising that you are being mis-represented while apparently avoiding giving any sort of indication as to what you actually meant.

Please, set the record straight for us.

Incidently, when you use a term in an insulting manner, then you are being insulting, regardless of the terminology used. In this case, your use of "Euro" as generalised name for Europeans (that you bracket into a general viewpoint which you look dimly upon). That is personal.

Yo also have personally attacked me on this forum before. So don't go pretending you are a victim.

lazydaisy

Oh you mean like, idiotic, yank, , lame, etc, or questioning someones reasoning ability.

Yo also have personally attacked me on this forum before. So don't go pretending you are a victim

I could say the same to you.

Euro is an abbreviation.

I have repeatedly reiterated what I meant.

GuanYin

lazydaisy wrote:

Oh you mean like, idiotic, yank, , lame, etc, or questioning someones reasoning ability.

yank is a poor term, that I have not used to describe anyone.

There is a marked difference between referring to a post as idiotic or lame and questioning the reasoning displayed in a post, to actually referring to the person as that.

If you can't distinguish between the two then I can understand why you'd feel agrieved, but then its purely down to your own misunderstanding.

I could say the same to you.

No you couldn't. I've never made a personal remark about you. I've commented on your posts or arguments but I've never made a remark about you.

Euro is an abbreviation.

So are many insulting terms, its not the word but how you implied it. You can argue all you want in this matter, but the only person you are deceiving is yourself, everyone else knows what you meant.

I have repeatedly reiterated what I meant.

Actually no you haven't (unless you can correct me be referring to a post). You have said what you didn't mean, but nowhere do you actually state what was the point on your issue with arabs employed in the UN and how it bares any relation to the arguments of this thread.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

This is your own interpretation of what I said. Yes, you keep imagining.

That is my interpretation of what you said based on the words, syntax and sentence structure you used. Obviously thats not what you meant at all :rolleyes:

lazydaisy wrote:

What I said is, if you have a deviating opinion you get labelled.

Thats part of what you said ... you said a lot more besides ..

"Nox - dont you know everything is America's fault?
And if you disagree, well then you're a right wing imperial bast***?"

You then mention how much European media hates America

"The French govt and media has always hated the US"

You expanded on this idea about how European media has a deep distain for all things American, and that this over shadows any real critisim of American government policies.

"If the criticism were aimed just at US policy makers then you may have a point, but the criticism [ranging from mild to vitriolic and stemming not only from the euro media] is often directed at Americans themselves"

Which is pretty much what I said you said. Are you now claiming you didn't mean any of that?

lazydaisy wrote:

I wasnt attempting to deflect anything.

Then what was the purpose of your first post?

Nox's arguments had been effectivally argued by TC. Nox had obviously given up arguing and had resorted to rather silly rant about commie journalists and some such.

You jumped in with the (rather silly) argument that anyone who disagrees with the "Euro" way of thinking has people unfairly jumping down their throat, as if TC (and others) criticisms of Nox's posts were malicious and unjustified.

That is deflection (a tactic used a lot by Bill O'Rielly, hence the comparision), instead of tackling the issues and arguments actually presented, you attempt to discredit the postion of the person doing the criticism, in this case by suggesting the have an unfounded and unjustified vendeta against the person because they are American, or don't agree with the Euro way of thinking (what ever that is). It is deflection because it avoids all the actual points being argued.

In late posts confirmed the justification for your position by your comments on European media "hating" the US. Of course it was quite clear from the off set that this was going to be your position.

lazydaisy wrote:

I later tried to explain the dialogue about France AFTER you made the comment quoted at the top.

All that did was confirm it was your position ... are you now denying any of what you posted.

You seem to be saying that even though you do believe this, I have no right to post that you believe it unless I am directly quoting you stating that you believe it because I am miss-representing you and putting words in your mouth. Which is a bit silly.

If what I claim you are arguing isn't actually your position please say that specificially, rather than simply saying I shouldn't put words in your mouth even if these words are actually your position.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

You seem to be spending alot of time and energy emphasising that you are being mis-represented while apparently avoiding giving any sort of indication as to what you actually meant.

Funny, I noticed that too