'US overstated Iran nuclear threat'

FYI

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

That source is heavily edited I would like to see the full transcript because it seems that he is not denying it but the article has edited out the rest. Also this article could have been before the latest developments, despite the editing he still seems to have suspicions.

Post the full transcript and I'll discuss it

No offense but if you're going to go round regurgitating propaganda straight from Washington it's up to you to be sure of the veracity of it. We are talking about selling war after all.

It seems as if this is the closest you'll ever come to a 'denial' from a politician, he's certainly very careful not to overstate it. Which is funny because the American's have been saying for about 2 years now that they have 'solid' evidence of Iranian complicity.

But here you go...see if you can find a loop hole out of it...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b9b5b078-2d57-11dc-939b-0000779fd2ac.html

As Seymour Hersh said in his recent lecture in Trinity, if Iran really wanted to cause trouble in Iraq, they'd have RPGs, SAMSITEs, landmines etc etc flooding the country - taking out the US's air dominance and moving them further into the 'green zone'.

The reality is, Iran certainly does have interests in Iraq, but they didn't invade the place.

kaiser sauze

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Well if somethings unproven it cannot be said with conviction. You are in the wrong here you've already admitted your claims to be utterly unfounded absent of any concrete evidence. Deal with it

I never admitted anything. Stop putting words in my mouth.

You have disparaged so many facts in this thread that I find this remark insulting to the truth.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Or maybe it shows they have learned from their mistakes and having seen the destruction Sadaam did with them do not want any other unstable leaders having them.

Are you saying that they have stopped selling weapons and equipment to Saudi Arabia and Israel? I would not call either of those two countries entirely stable.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Beg and you shall receive

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-135164006.html

This brings us to another aspect of history that now very belatedly has entered the controversy. Several American historians led by Robert Newman have insisted vigorously that any assessment of the end of the Pacific war must include the horrifying consequences of each continued day of the war for the Asian populations trapped within Japan's conquests. Newman calculates that between a quarter million and 400,000 Asians, overwhelmingly noncombatants, were dying each month the war continued. Newman et al. challenge whether an assessment of Truman's decision can highlight only the deaths of noncombatant civilians in the aggressor nation while ignoring much larger death tolls among noncombatant civilians in the victim nations.

There are a good many more points that now extend our understanding beyond the debates of 1995. But it is clear that all three of the critics' central premises are wrong. The Japanese did not see their situation as catastrophically hopeless. They were not seeking to surrender, but pursuing a negotiated end to the war that preserved the old order in Japan, not just a figurehead emperor. Finally, thanks to radio intelligence, American leaders, far from knowing that peace was at hand, understood--as one analytical piece in the "Magic" Far East Summary stated in July 1945, after a review of both the military and diplomatic intercepts--that "until the Japanese leaders realize that an invasion can not be repelled, there is little likelihood that they will accept any peace terms satisfactory to the Allies." This cannot be improved upon as a succinct and accurate summary of the military and diplomatic realities of the summer of 1945.

Did you even read this link? [/I]What was said earlier in this thread, in relation to Japan negotiating an end, was repeated in it, despite you saying that the poster was incorrect.

I am wondering how eating ones words feels?

You also said "millions" of deaths. The largest figure in that link was 400,000. Sorry to get pedantic, but you mis-stated. Again.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

The accusations of torture are completely over exaggerated. The 3 Britons that went to Guantanamo Bay told their story. They were kept awake a bit and were put in rooms blaring loud music in order to get them to talk. Hardly evil. And besides I don't care what people say you don't get thrown into Guantanamo Bay for nothing. [Those Britons claimed they did not know they were traveling around with insurgents :rolleyes:]

The US has admitted to waterboarding, which is torture under international rules. Another myth debunked. Keep them coming.

The US supreme court has ordered the shutdown of GITMO, an order that Bush 'n' Co. are ignoring. Why are they doing that is the question that is begged?

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Your misreading of my posts is getting tiresome, unfortunately the monies America gives to NGOs, governments etc. is not factored in, if it was America would be miles ahead.

Link? Backup? Argument? Anything?

Otherwise, I call bullsh1t.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Indeed. Trying to be smart but you are wrong....again. (link and text edited out)

Nope, you are wrong. You completely missed my sarcasm. I never disputed that the US does provide free healthcare to poor people abroad. They do, and they do it well as your link shows.

My point was, why can't they do that for their own citizens?

You've just mis-read me, again. Can't say that it surprises me that it flew over your head.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

What are you on about that was just one soldier...

I was calling you out on your abysmal grammar. Sarcasm missed, again.

There is quite a difference between soldiers' & "soldier's".

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Maybe try read all the links instead of looking at one and then jumping to your ill informed wrong conclusion.

Can I hear a "practice what you preach"?

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

And on Basra there is just as much insurgent activity for its population as anywhere else in Iraq

Link me please, a good one, one that isn't biased or open to interpretation?

moe_sizlak

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

SpAcEd OuT, just out of interest, are you an american? Ive never come across anyone who is Irish and an American neo-con.

have you never heard of eoghan harris or dr mark dooley

kaiser sauze

FYI wrote: »

Shall we refer to someone that's 'fairly' uncontroversial:

"David Miliband, the British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, had this to say to the Financial Times on the subject of Iranian complicity in Iraq’s violence:

FT: What do you think of Iran’s complicity in attacks on British soldiers in Basra?

DM: Well, I think that any evidence of Iranian engagement there is to be deplored. I think that we need regional players to be supporting stability, not fomenting discord, never mind death. And as I said at the beginning, Iran has a complete right, and we support the idea that Iran should be a wealthy and respected part of the future. But it does not have the right to be a force of instability.

FT: Just to be clear, there is evidence?

DM: Well no, I chose my words carefully…

FT: I know, but I’m now asking you.

DM: Well as you know, we are very careful about what we say about these things."

http://www.mediabite.org/article_Tipping-the-balance-west_959696573.html

No concrete evidence of Iranian involvement? Hmm, the Brits saying this is news to me. However, it reflects what Senators over in the US are also saying. GOP and Dem alike, before you try and use party lines to disparage this.

kaiser sauze

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Also I am not appreciating how people are only quoting very select parts of my posts to address. just one example is when Kaizer scoffed at my notion that America provided free healthcare to struggling nations, I provided a link and it was completely ignored in his responding post, not looking at Kaizer in particular but but that is just one example. I try address every point made against me may I suggest instead of chosing to address points that suit your cause you address all of them.

Anyways I won't be on this till Monday good luck to you all I expect to read some interesting responses.

Even this is inaccurate and I'm, frankly, mystified why another false accusation is made. You do realise that truth is spelled "T-R-U-T-H"?

I had work to do between posts. I did not realise that posting was a race?

I don't know how I am supposed to have ignored something when I hadn't even gotten round to the post in question. Are we in a corsality loop?

Kev_ps3

moe_sizlak wrote: »

have you never heard of eoghan harris or dr mark dooley

Yes I have.

I am disappointed that this thread has been hijacked by some american neo-con who wants to supports every american militery adventure. I for one, cannot understand why. If he is American then fine, that is understandable. But if he is Irish, I cannot really understand it. Why would you give such such biased support to a foreign counrty?
American neo-cons have one interest - themselves. They dont even care about their own citizens, they treat their poor like dirt. They have no links with this counrty. They lie, they kill and they aquire as much money as they can. Defending them is like defending the nazis.

kaiser sauze

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

But you see its not a rag-tag bunch of people if they are being trained by Elite Iranian Army units and being armed by the Iranian government. Bad planning, intelligence etc. can be blamed for an insurgency but it cannot be blamed for the effectiveness of the current insurgency which thanks to Iranian support is killing thousands people

Interesting. So what about the 40% who come from Saudi Arabia? Are they taking the scenic route to Iraq via Iran?

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

They knew it was slightly harmful if inhaled regularly but they didn't know it was in anyway lethal

Yes, they knew it was "slightly harmful". When you commit murder, you know what you are doing.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Yes when the US knew that N.Korea were very close to developing the bomb and were now powerless to stop the inevitable.

Why didn't they just bomb them back to the stone-age, in that case? I thought that the US military were all powerful?

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

the phrase calling a spade a spade means not calling it what it is deemed but calling it what it really is.

The UN mission was an American operation, Run by America, supplied by America, Done by America with minimal help.

The spade being a UN operation. I don't know how you have such difficulty with the truth.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Nope just didn't want anyone thinking I had replied knowing you were banned and knowing that you could not reply to defend your points. No need to be cynical.. that goes for your take on America as well.

I'm not being cynical, I'm countering your empty rhetoric with competent argument that I can back up.

SpAcEd OuT

O.K I'll respond one more time until Monday.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

I never admitted anything. Stop putting words in my mouth.

You have disparaged so many facts in this thread that I find this remark insulting to the truth.

You have admitted it not to have been proven. If something is not proven it cannot be deemed true.

Are you saying that they have stopped selling weapons and equipment to Saudi Arabia and Israel? I would not call either of those two countries entirely stable.

I would call them stable in the sense they are unlikely to use them on civilian populations.

[/I]Did you even read this link? [/I]What was said earlier in this thread, in relation to Japan negotiating an end, was repeated in it, despite you saying that the poster was incorrect.

I am wondering how eating ones words feels?

Eh it says the opposite if you read the whole thing and how does eating ones words feel?
I don't know you tell me.....[see below]

You also said "millions" of deaths. The largest figure in that link was 400,000. Sorry to get pedantic, but you mis-stated. Again.

Oh this is too funny.... he actually says 400,000 people PER MONTH.

You have mis-stated. Again

The US has admitted to waterboarding, which is torture under international rules. Another myth debunked. Keep them coming.

waterboarding isn't that dripping water on someones forehead

Link? Backup? Argument? Anything?

Otherwise, I call bullsh1t.

I'll get one Monday don't have time right now.

Nope, you are wrong. You completely missed my sarcasm. I never disputed that the US does provide free healthcare to poor people abroad. They do, and they do it well as your link shows.

My point was, why can't they do that for their own citizens?

You've just mis-read me, again. Can't say that it surprises me that it flew over your head.

:rolleyes: Come off it you know you weren't being sarcastic at all. your last comment ''Wait till the Americans realize this golden nugget'' was trying to imply that it wasn't happening and that if it was there would be uproar. Pull the other one.

I was calling you out on your abysmal grammar. Sarcasm missed, again.

There is quite a difference between soldiers' & "soldier's".

Back to petty personal abuse I see. It's quite pathetic that instead of attacking my points you prefer to take jibes at my grammar.

Link me please, a good one, one that isn't biased or open to interpretation?

No problem

Ever hear of the Basra Crisis

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=xQ1&q=basra+crisis&btnG=Search&meta=

Heres a page of results for you

bobbyjoe

Waterboarding is when someones face is covered and water poured on it until they think they are about to drown. It is torture.

sovtek

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Or maybe it shows they have learned from their mistakes and having seen the destruction Sadaam did with them do not want any other unstable leaders having them.

I guess that's why Bush fairly recently signed a nuclear agreement with India...who just happens to be in a low level war with Pakistan for the past decade or more.

The accusations of torture are completely over exaggerated. The 3 Britons that went to Guantanamo Bay told their story. They were kept awake a bit and were put in rooms blaring loud music in order to get them to talk. Hardly evil. And besides I don't care what people say you don't get thrown into Guantanamo Bay for nothing. [Those Britons claimed they did not know they were traveling around with insurgents :rolleyes:]

Actually you do get thrown in gitmo for nothing. Not a single person released from there has been held by their home country because the US never supplied one iota of evidence of their guilt for not only being terrorist...but anything criminal.

all of them used the us military or government as a source and not one of them tested the veracity of the us governments accusations. They merely repeated them. The BBC article actually admits as much.
Incidentally what other sources are the weapons are they using? There are millions of Kalishnikovs in Iraq. Does that mean China and Russia are involved? Actually what would it matter if Iran were supplying arms to Iraqis. Do you think Canadians might start helping Americans out if Iraq took it over?
Incidentally America and the UK sell weapons to harsh dictators the world over (and I'm speaking present tense). Would that justify an invasion or bombing of America?
As well did you know that America is promising citizenship to foreignors if they join the US military to fight in Iraq? Does that also mean that Iraqis are justified in attacking strategic targets in places like Mexico or El Salvador?

sovtek

bobbyjoe wrote: »

Waterboarding is when someones face is covered and water poured on it until they think they are about to drown. It is torture.

Yup! I think some one may have mentioned that Japanese were executed for doing this to American soldiers during WW2.

sovtek

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Interesting. So what about the 40% who come from Saudi Arabia? Are they taking the scenic route to Iraq via Iran?

You know I'm not that convinced there are that many "foreignors" in Iraq fighting the occupiers. I've read quotes from US military officers that they've seen very few "foreign" fighters. Even if they kill someone thats not from Iraq. Iraq has immigration like any other country. How many Latin Americans are now fighting in the US armed forces? How many Mexicans would an occupier of America be fighting?
Even if there are...so what? America invaded Iraq. That means all bets are off and anyone has the right to come to their (Iraqis) aid. In fact the UN should probably be following it's own rules and declaring the invasion of Iraq a war crime and putting together an international force to expel America.

Manic Moran

sovtek wrote: »

You mean the situation "you" are largely responsible for? Seems "you" leaving it would go a long way towards resolving the problem.

I'm not sure that would work today.

I would view it as a simple case of responsibility. If I knock over a guy's pint glass in the pub and it shatters, I can (a ) walk away, or (b ) pick up the pieces, and buy another one for him. This is before you look at the human side. The current situation indicates that the American presence is not a problem in itself: Even the most vocal opponents of the troop surge such as Murtha have admitted that it seems to be working. The problem is the lack of reconciliation between the Iraqi factions, which needs to be done by Iraqis with American support. As long as the Coalition presence can reduce casualties to Iraqis while the Iraqis sort themselves out, I don't see how it can be morally acceptable to leave.

On the subject of polls, from the most excelled "Yes, Prime Minister"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo

The US, as a percentage of GDP, are far from the largest contributors to charity. Michael Moore stated in his film, Bowling for Columbine, that Saudi Arabia were. I don't imagine that this has changed much. I'd also imagine that the Scandinavian countries and the Dutch are bigger contributors.

To help with some of the figures, this report measures by GDP.
http://www.cafonline.org/pdf/International%20%20Giving%20highlights.pdf
http://www.cafonline.org/pdf/International%20Comparisons%20of%20Charitable%20Giving.pdf (Ireland is listed in this one)

This report rates the US % GDP broken down by source as even higher.
http://usinfo.state.gov/scv/Archive/2005/May/10-192837.html

These are direct financial transactions. Then there's some natural disaster in Asia and the US Navy sends a battle group and flies all sorts of helicopter and aircraft missions around, it comes out of the defense budget, not under 'charitable donations.'

Oh, and the US did not stabilise the Balkan region, the UN did.

I don't think I could really give full credit to the UN for that either, frankly.

The Balkans, being the Balkans, were really quite complicated, but cannot be seen to be a UN success in itself.

When the whole thing kicked off, the first external attempts at settling the situation were by the EC, with ECMM, later EUMM.

This failed miserably, so the UN had a crack, with UNPROFOR. We all know how successful that was. Then we had Deliberate Force, which was, if not UN Sanctioned, at least UN Appreciated. IFOR/SFOR were created as a result of the Dayton Accords, more than UN sanction, and the UN were more than happy to bless it. (And dump the problem in someone else's lap!)

Things get much shakier with Allied Force, which was a NATO operation pushed by the US without the benefit of any UN approval at all. (And is pointed to as an obvious precedent for the US starting unilateral military action without UN Security Council approval). Once it was a fait accomplit, the UN gave post-facto backing for KFOR in the same manner that Iraq is now a UN operation.

NTM

GuanYin

Do you honestly believe that there will be a point where the American forces can leave without the fractions approaching civil war?

I honestly can't see that happening.

Manic Moran

Can't see why not.

They seem to have worked the worst of it out of their system. I don't think everyone's going to be holding hands and singing Kum-ba-ya, but an outright Yugoslavia should be avoidable, I think.

NTM

Memnoch

psi wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that there will be a point where the American forces can leave without the fractions approaching civil war?

I honestly can't see that happening.

the factions are already at civil war, thanks to the americans.

RedPlanet

Does anybody think that after the report about the US overstating Iran's nuclear intentions, the US will scale back it's sanctions and it's bullying other EU countries into applying sanctions?
I doubt it, one thing is for sure; when the US is wrong they never ever admit it. It's part of that childish mindset they have going on.
In other news Iran is now conducting all it's oil transactions in other currencies, they've dropped the dollar.

Major crude producer Iran has completely stopped carrying out its oil transactions in dollars, Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari said on Saturday, labelling the greenback an "unreliable" currency.

"At the moment, selling oil in dollars has been completely halted, in line with the policy of selling crude in non-dollar currencies," Nozari was quoted as saying by the ISNA news agency.

"The dollar is an unreliable currency, considering its devaluation and the oil exporters' losses," he added.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jGC7KSKjsKYUTGAF1oR04-yOpBgg

I hope other countries do the same.
Fair play to Iran, it's like they are shouldering the burden of standing up to the playground bully all by themselves.

Kev_ps3

RedPlanet wrote: »

Does anybody think that after the report about the US overstating Iran's nuclear intentions, the US will scale back it's sanctions and it's bullying other EU countries into applying sanctions?
I doubt it, one thing is for sure; when the US is wrong they never ever admit it. It's part of that childish mindset they have going on.
In other news Iran is now conducting all it's oil transactions in other currencies, they've dropped the dollar.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jGC7KSKjsKYUTGAF1oR04-yOpBgg

I hope other countries do the same.
Fair play to Iran, it's like they are shouldering the burden of standing up to the playground bully all by themselves.

This is one of the main reasons why the US is targeting Iran in the first place. The whole thing about 'buliding a nuclear bomb' is a sideshow.
BTW, did anyone here see Bush's press confrence recently when he was asked about Iran?! He has lowered the bar now from 'seeking to build nuclear weapons' to 'gaining the knowledge to build nuclear weapons'! I mean what a joke. You can get that info on the net! Next it will be 'Iran is thinking about nuclear weapons'. The whole thing is a huge comedy. I cannot understand how intelligent people dont just laugh about it.

kaiser sauze

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

You have admitted it not to have been proven. If something is not proven it cannot be deemed true.

If something is not even tested, it cannot be said that it is untrue.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

I would call them stable in the sense they are unlikely to use them on civilian populations.

In relation to this, and talking specifically about Israel, I think you've been made eat your words here, again. As many others have shown you in this thread, Israel is one of the past masters at killing civilians. Defending ones' country is a right, but it is not freely available at the expense of the innocent.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Eh it says the opposite if you read the whole thing and how does eating ones words feel?
I don't know you tell me.....[see below]
Oh this is too funny.... he actually says 400,000 people PER MONTH.

You have mis-stated. Again

*cough*

And I never said anything apart from the figure, 400,000. "The largest figure being 400,000". (Mis-quoting again I see :rolleyes:) So these people entered into a trans-reality portal and changed history in that reality so that they could accurately predict what would happen if Japan didn't capitulate? Please.

Figures like these are nothing but an opinion. Never can they be used, as you have, as fact.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

waterboarding isn't that dripping water on someones forehead

Yes, it is, with a towel on your head so it feels like you are drowning. In other words, torture. Another Bush lie.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

:rolleyes: Come off it you know you weren't being sarcastic at all. your last comment ''Wait till the Americans realize this golden nugget'' was trying to imply that it wasn't happening and that if it was there would be uproar. Pull the other one.

I wasn't implying that at all, I was poking fun at your neo-con cohorts who are anti-public funded healthcare. Instead they want to leave it in the hands of private companies who keep prices artificially high so that they can bump up their profits.

It's a bit of a problem dealing with a person who can't comprehend a sarcastic comment.

The comment you refer to is that citizens of the US will be a bit miffed that people in other jurisdictions are getting free healthcare, at their expense, while they are being rode by private companies on their own soil, who have no particular incentive to see people treated properly as and when they can get away with it.

:cool:

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Back to petty personal abuse I see. It's quite pathetic that instead of attacking my points you prefer to take jibes at my grammar.

Remember that thing about a pair of round objects? Have they dropped?

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

No problem

Ever hear of the Basra Crisis

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=xQ1&q=basra+crisis&btnG=Search&meta=

Heres a page of results for you

Sorry, not acceptable. Don't have time to read through, and verify, all that.

Indirect links are quite the lazy way out of the corner you have put yourself into.

AngryHippie

I see that a particular turtle has retracted his head.
Now for the outlandish statements :rolleyes:

SpAcEd OuT

kaiser sauze wrote: »

If something is not even tested, it cannot be said that it is untrue.

We are dealing with facts here.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

In relation to this, and talking specifically about Israel, I think you've been made eat your words here, again. As many others have shown you in this thread, Israel is one of the past masters at killing civilians. Defending ones' country is a right, but it is not freely available at the expense of the innocent.

Sure civilians have been killed in crossfire, it's collateral damage. But Israel has never ever deliberately targetted non aggressive civilians.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

*cough*

And I never said anything apart from the figure, 400,000. "The largest figure being 400,000". (Mis-quoting again I see :rolleyes:) So these people entered into a trans-reality portal and changed history in that reality so that they could accurately predict what would happen if Japan didn't capitulate? Please.

Kaizer stop acting up. You were stating that I was wrong to say that a war with Japan would have cost millions of lives as the figure quoted in the link was at most 400,000. You were trying to prove that I was lying about the possible death toll. What you didn't see was that it was 400,000 per month and as such I was right to say millions. Whether you agree or disagree with the prediction you had mis-stated and not vice versa, you constant attempts to cover this up is getting both pathetic and tiresome. It's plain to everyone that you have been caught out.

Yes, it is, with a towel on your head so it feels like you are drowning. In other words, torture. Another Bush lie.

Wait a minute, so they put a towel on your head and drip water. At no point are you in any danger of drowning, at no point are you actually drowning. Just out of interest would you say that telling someone they are going to go to prison for a long time if they dont talk even if the statement is completely untrue to be torture after all its mental torture just like the above

I wasn't implying that at all, I was poking fun at your neo-con cohorts who are anti-public funded healthcare. Instead they want to leave it in the hands of private companies who keep prices artificially high so that they can bump up their profits.

It's a bit of a problem dealing with a person who can't comprehend a sarcastic comment.

LOL no you weren't. And private funded healthcare has nothing to do with neo-con.

Oh and sarcasm doesn't come off well on the internet but despite this usually I can comprehend it fine when its genuinely used unlike this case

Remember that thing about a pair of round objects? Have they dropped?

I am quite surprised Oscar Bravo is letting you away with your constant personal abuse at me.

Sorry, not acceptable. Don't have time to read through, and verify, all that.

Indirect links are quite the lazy way out of the corner you have put yourself into.

HAHAHA now that my friend is pure ignorance. You complain about me putting my head in the sand and not listening yet here you are, links in front of you to prove you wrong yet you refuse to even look at them for some stupid, petty reason. You can click on any one of those links on that page.
Why are you so scared of being proven wrong, is your internet credibility the only thing that has meaning in your life or what

SpAcEd OuT

AngryHippie wrote: »

I see that particular turtle (

Spacedout

)has retracted his head.
Now for the outlandish statements :rolleyes:

Says the person who instead of replying to my points arguing against his decided to write what amounted to a hissy fit post crying that there was someone on the forum who disagreed with him.

Zulu

Zulu - read the charter rules on making such posts. -Psi

Apologies to SpacedOut - Zulu

kaiser sauze

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

We are dealing with facts here.

No, you are dealing with perceived truths.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Sure civilians have been killed in crossfire, it's collateral damage. But Israel has never ever deliberately targetted non aggressive civilians.

Absolute bull, and you know it. The way you can callously call civilians "collateral damage" is proof enough of your ambivalence to human rights.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Kaizer stop acting up. You were stating that I was wrong to say that a war with Japan would have cost millions of lives as the figure quoted in the link was at most 400,000. You were trying to prove that I was lying about the possible death toll. What you didn't see was that it was 400,000 per month and as such I was right to say millions. Whether you agree or disagree with the prediction you had mis-stated and not vice versa, you constant attempts to cover this up is getting both pathetic and tiresome. It's plain to everyone that you have been caught out.

No, you cannot comprehend language that is clearly written before you. Really, it's not my problem. I would get help though. That's friendly advice.

You tried to peddle these figures as facts. They are merely an opinion, and a very subjective one at that.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Wait a minute, so they put a towel on your head and drip water. At no point are you in any danger of drowning, at no point are you actually drowning. Just out of interest would you say that telling someone they are going to go to prison for a long time if they dont talk even if the statement is completely untrue to be torture after all its mental torture just like the above

It is torture by international standards, and they are the only ones I care for. Yours are irrelevant.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

LOL no you weren't. And private funded healthcare has nothing to do with neo-con.

Oh and sarcasm doesn't come off well on the internet but despite this usually I can comprehend it fine when its genuinely used unlike this case

The fact that you cannot comprehend my sarcasm, and the written word (as shown earlier in this post), is quite a problem. You might need to see two different people about these problems. I would really recommend it, some very genuine advice.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

HAHAHA now that my friend is pure ignorance. You complain about me putting my head in the sand and not listening yet here you are, links in front of you to prove you wrong yet you refuse to even look at them for some stupid, petty reason. You can click on any one of those links on that page.
Why are you so scared of being proven wrong, is your internet credibility the only thing that has meaning in your life or what

As I know others in this thread agree, head in the sand is a perfect description for you.

The question about being proved wrong is immaterial, because you have yet to prove yourself right.

I could go back through this thread and list the lies that you have tried to ascribe as truth, where you have been proven wrong. Unfortunately, that would be a very long list and I think that few would have time to put it together. Not only that, if any of us were so inclined we could probably pick out other garbage that you have posted in other threads.

Don't tempt me.

kaiser sauze

@psi - I would like to know what is wrong with saying to someone that they are lying, when they know they are? Specifically, I am asking why was Zulu's comment edited by you.

I could not find something specific in the rule of this forum, but they do run into 10ish pages and I don't have that much time.

oscarBravo

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

I am quite surprised Oscar Bravo is letting you away with your constant personal abuse at me.

I'm not. Leave the moderating to me. If you have a problem with a post, report it using the button.

AngryHippie

Not only do they not learn, They don't even realize that they have already lost any achievable goal in the middle east. Maybe thats why they haven't learned. They just keep missing the point/target/wmd

Moriarty

I've split all off-topic discussion of Israel into this new thread. Keep all further debate surrounding Israel in that thread please.

AngryHippie

The fcuks are capable of anything

+

---

+
| US Government Caught Manipulating Wikipedia |
| from the your-tax-dollars-at-work dept. |
| posted by CmdrTaco on Wednesday December 12, @11:37 |
| http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/12/1551201 |
+

---

+

surfi writes "As The Inquirer points out, [0]someone with a House of
Representatives IP address has been [1]feeding propaganda into the
'invasion of Iraq' article on Wikipedia." Well at least they are in good
company with trustworthy institutions like [2]the CIA and the Vatican.


Links:
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/12/11/bush-censors-wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=20867043
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/aug/21/yehey/techtimes/20070821tech1.html

AngryHippie

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Says the person who instead of replying to my points arguing against his decided to write what amounted to a hissy fit post crying that there was someone on the forum who disagreed with him.

Erm, not really. I have no problem replying to your posts, despite the repeated inaccuracies, mistruths, half truths and speculation. If you can give me credible reasons for supporting your views then I'll be more than happy to discuss them, But all I've gotten so far is naive statements about how evil deeds with good intentions are okay. Do you take peoples word on their motives, or examine the available evidence, and judge it on its merits ?

This post is not too abusive is it ? If it is PM me and I'll delete it whenever dial up permits.