Wheres the tape?

JustHalf

Dahamasta, I think I gave a PERFECTLY good reason for believing the authenticity of the tape. Go back and read it, please; I'd rather people didn't make up facts.

Typedef

Originally posted by Gargoyle
Yes, yes, I know Doubleplusgood, whatever that means.

http://www.geocities.com/outerflea/George_Orwell_1984.txt

dahamsta

Dahamasta, I think I gave a PERFECTLY good reason for believing the authenticity of the tape. Go back and read it, please;

I did JustHalf. Now, please go back and read my postings, and point out exactly where I claimed the translations of the tape were not authentic. Also, if you are so suggesting, please explain to the audience how the accuracy of the translations proves the irrefutability of the tape. Hook, Line & Sinker?

I'd rather people didn't make up facts.

Please point to the facts you allege "people" are "making up". I think I made it quite clear in my previous posting that I don't have any evidence, nor do I have any technical explanation for the validity or non-validity of the tape. It would appear that the cheerleaders of the tape are in the same position, and given that situation, and taking into consideration my absolute distrust of the current U.S. Government, I am unwilling to accept the validity of the tape.

adam

DadaKopf

And now there's this:

[...]

And though US security officials said there was 'no confirmation' that the tape was made by an 'intelligence source', a Pentagon official confirmed to The Observer that 'curious circumstances' surrounded al-Ghamdi, who appeared to be aware of the taping.

Whatever its provenance, the video has polarised opinion in the Arab world. 'The vast proportion of people always believed he did it and condemned him for it. They have not altered their view,' said Abdul Wahab Badrakhan, the deputy editor of al-Hayat newspaper. 'Only those with a fanatical mindset would deny what they can now see.'

One such man is Syed, a 38-year-old man who fought alongside bin Laden in Afghanistan during the Eighties. 'There is no way Osama would have done something like this,' he said. 'He was a quiet man with great reverence for human life. The Osama I see happily describing people dying is not the Osama I knew and loved.'

Images of the 44-year-old Saudi-born dissident, who studied civil engineering as a young man, laughing as he talks of how he used his specialist knowledge to calculate how much damage the planes would do, have been difficult for supporters to explain.

General Hamid Gul, a hardline former head of Pakistan's ISI spy agency, suggested that the figure in the video might be a lookalike. Others have queried the translation of the poor-quality Arabic soundtrack and the way that certain key elements - such as the location where the film was made - are inaudible.

[...]

The Observer - http://www.observer.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1501,619524,00.html

Sharkey

Originally posted by dahamsta

Your post is a blatant troll, because you know I don't have the answers. Read my post again, this time noting the word "think" in my post. I'm expressing an opinion, which I believe is still permitted under my Constitution.

Well, usually reasonable people have some basis for their beliefs. So far, your entire rant seems to be based on nothing and amount to gratituitous assertions, i.e., they are meaningless.

My post isn't a "blatant troll" -- it was an attempt to get you to think. It failed.

I, personally, do not trust, and have never trusted, the current U.S. President or his Government. ...

Whatever! The real hoot is that you obviously seem to trust the al Qaeda more.

. .. Just like I will not prevent you from expressing yours if you wish to.

I don't seek to stop you from voicing your beliefs -- I merely sek to expose them for the rubbish that they are.

Maybe you should express your opinion. I don't see your opinion on the authenticity of the tape in this thread. Do you have any doubts about the authenticity of this tape? Do you accept it as evidence?

Actually, I am a lawyer so evidence has a very specific meaning to me. Regardless, after having viewed the tape -- I could discern no evidence of tampering -- I've heard no credible witness say that the person on the tape wasn't bin Laden. -- I've heard no credible witness say that the voice attributable to bin Laden wasn't bin Laden.

So yes -- I tend to believe the tape is authentic. It looks "real" to me. I have not heard anyone say that the substance of the translations is wrong. I've seen no real evidence to discredit the tape -- nothing but gratituitous assertions by people such as yourself.



adam [/B][/QUOTE]

dahamsta

Well, usually reasonable people have some basis for their beliefs.

Like God, is it?

So far, your entire rant

Who's ranting? I'm just expressing my opinion, and I believe I've been very calm about it. You might want to look "rant" up in the dictionary.

seems to be based on nothing and amount to gratituitous assertions, i.e., they are meaningless.

My primary assertion is my dislike and distrust of George Bush and the U.S. Government, and everything else revolves around that. I don't like or trust George Bush, I think he stands for all that is wrong in America. I don't like or trust his Government, I believe they are abusing their power and trampling the rights of the people they are supposed to represent. To me, that is neither gratuitous or meaningless, it has been proved to me time and time again.

My post isn't a "blatant troll" -- it was an attempt to get you to think. It failed.

I have thought. Calling my opinion into doubt without providing any solid reason to change it remains a troll IMHO.

Whatever! The real hoot is that you obviously seem to trust the al Qaeda more.

My turn: Please point to evidence of this claim.

I don't seek to stop you from voicing your beliefs -- I merely sek to expose them for the rubbish that they are.

But you can't, can you? There is no evidence of the validity of the tape either. Proving that the translations are accurate proves absolutely nothing.

Actually, I am a lawyer so evidence has a very specific meaning to me. Regardless, after having viewed the tape -- I could discern no evidence of tampering

As a lawyer, you should know better than most that you are not qualified to testify on this matter.

I've heard no credible witness say that the person on the tape wasn't bin Laden.

I didn't say is wasn't Bin Laden.

I've heard no credible witness say that the voice attributable to bin Laden wasn't bin Laden.

I didn't say it wasn't Bin Laden's voice.

So yes -- I tend to believe the tape is authentic.

Good for you. I don't. It seems we are at an impasse, n'est ce pas?

It looks "real" to me.

Oh well, in that case, if it looks real to you, we'll all change our opinions, shall we?

I have not heard anyone say that the substance of the translations is wrong.

I didn't say the translations were false.

I've seen no real evidence to discredit the tape

And I've seen no creditable evidence to contrary.

nothing but gratituitous assertions by people such as yourself.

Ditto.

adam

JustHalf

Questions, Dahamasta:

Do you believe the translation is accurate? (English transcript matches what is being said)
If you do not believe the translation is genuine, you a therefore implying that the translation services of the United States government, George Michael (translator, Diplomatic Language Services) and Dr. Kassem M. Wahba (Arabic language program coordinator, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University) are all liars. Nice.

Do you believe that the person in the tape is Osama bin Laden?
If not, what reason do you have to doubt it? Same with the question over who's voice is being used.

If the person in the tape is Osama bin Laden, it is his voice and the translation is accurate, and you still doubt it, what reason do you have for this?
You should be able to back up your opinion, which you have failed to do. And before you start asking questions like: "Why do people believe in God?", remember this -- this is not a matter of faith. This is a matter of you doubting expert testimony for no good reason.

And the point about making up facts is this: don't make-up facts to support your opinion in the abscence of real facts.

bonkey

Originally posted by JustHalf
[BIf the person in the tape is Osama bin Laden, it is his voice and the translation is accurate, and you still doubt it, what reason do you have for this?

I find it interesting, that you ask some questions :

1) Is it bin Laden in the tape
2) Is the translation accurate

but then for your last question you sneak in the "it is his voice" comment, which is where the most probable case against the authenticity of the tape lies.

Have a look at the article here. American legal experts have said that proving the authenticity of the tape in a court of law would be difficult. Special effects experts have said that without the actual tape to study, it is impossible to say whether or not it has been doctored, and that even then there are a number of effects people who could doctor the tape well enough that it would be undetectable.

Once you doctor the physical appearance of the tape, you then need to doctor the sound. The sound quality is so poor (which in itself is very questionable - why is it so poor relative to the picture quality) that it is virutally impossible to say for definite that it is definitively someone's voice, and that it has not been doctored.

Also, from the same article, was a quote from Dubya himself on the subject where Mr Bush said it was "preposterous for anybody to think this tape was doctored".

He added: "Those who contend it's a farce or a fake are hoping for the best about an evil man. This is Bin Laden unedited."

Now, this strikes me as a circular argument from him. bin Laden is guilty, and this tape proves it. People who are questioning this tape are wrong, because bin Laden is guilty". Maybe he's just nopt so good with words, and this came from a question-time where he didnt have a prepared statement, but it boils down to Dubya saying : believe us that the tape is genuine, because we tell you that it is.

I also find it interesting that Dubya implies that the people who quesation the tape are those who want bin Laden to be found innocent. I dont. I question the tape because I want to be convinvced that the US is playing by the rules. To date, I am not convinced.

dahamsta

Do you believe the translation is accurate? (English transcript matches what is being said)

Actually, yes, I think it probably is, however that still doesn't prove the authenticity of the tape to me, and to be honest I find it mysterious that anybody would believe otherwise. I've asked this before: Do you honestly believe, assuming the translation is actually genuine, that it proves beyond all doubt that the tape is genuine? Do you not see just how illogical that is?

Also, to be honest I find your extended "implication" of my suggested belief otherwise to be a weak debating tactic. Check my posts - I have never suggested that the transcripts were false or falsified; in fact, in my previous post, I denied the suggested assertion categorically.

Do you believe that the person in the tape is Osama bin Laden?

I do not have a belief on the matter one way or the other. If the person on the tape is in fact Osama Bin Laden, I would suggest that it is possible the tape has been alterered or dubbed. However the possibility remains that it is not in fact Osama Bin Laden. I am not qualified to decide one way or the other. I would ask that if you are, you please present your credentials.

If not, what reason do you have to doubt it?

Please read my posts, I have stated several times my reason for doubting the authenticity of the tape.

Same with the question over who's voice is being used.

That is a silly question. How would I know?

If the person in the tape is Osama bin Laden, it is his voice and the translation is accurate, and you still doubt it, what reason do you have for this?

Asked and answered.

You should be able to back up your opinion, which you have failed to do.

Legally, I don't need to back up my opinion. "Innocent until proven quilty." It is up to the prosectution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. In this particular case, at this point in time, all that would appear to have been proven is the authenticity of the translations, which does not prove the authenticity of the tape. Also, in this situation, since neither of are prosecuting or defending, and neither of us can provide hard evidence to prove or disprove the authenticity of the tape, we are at an impasse, it is just one persons opinion against anothers.

And before you start asking questions like: "Why do people believe in God?", remember this -- this is not a matter of faith.

If you are going to quote me, please do so accurately. What I actually said was "Like God, is it?", to prove the point that reasonable people do not always need to have hard evidence for their beliefs. If you want to be pedantic, call it a "hunch" or a "gut feeling", based on my distrust of the U.S. Government. Then feel free to go out and tell all of your religious friends that they are acting on hunches, and should provide evidence for their beliefs.

Also, I would beg to differ on the faith issue - neither of us have hard evidence to confirm or deny the authenticity of the tape, therefore it is simply a difference of opinion, nothing else. We have to have faith in the testimony of leaders, elected officials and experts, and this is exactly why I have doubts about the authenticity of the tape. Anyone who doubts a natural bias towards America by Americans in this time is naive in the extreme.

I don't blame Americans for that, in fact I am genuinely sympathetic towards them in this time, however the fact remains. On top of that, political advantage-taking is rife at the moment. Is it any wonder people outside America have doubts?

This is a matter of you doubting expert testimony for no good reason.

The only expert testimony provided to date - at least as far as I am aware - is on the authenticity of the translation. Please point to the post where I stated my doubt of this.

And the point about making up facts is this: don't make-up facts to support your opinion in the abscence of real facts.

Please point to the post where I made up facts.

adam

dahamsta

I also find it interesting that Dubya implies that the people who quesation the tape are those who want bin Laden to be found innocent. I dont. I question the tape because I want to be convinvced that the US is playing by the rules. To date, I am not convinced.

I feel it necessary to echo this. I need to make it quite clear that I believe Al Queda is a terrorist organisation; that Osama Bin Laden is a member of that organisation; and therefore Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist. Because Osama Bin Laden would appear to be the leader of this organisation, I believe that he is more culpable than ordinary members. I believe Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda are probably responsible for the previous bombings he has been accused of, and that it is possible that he is responsible for the atrocity on the 11th of September. I believe Osama Bin Laden should be captured and tried for these offenses by an international court, because I don't believe he will get a fair trial in the U.S.

I wanted to make all of this clear because my posts appear to be read by some as anti-American or overly liberal. I am liberal, but I don't believe I am overly so, and I am certainly /not/ anti-American.

adam

Meh

"Technology not yet good enough to fake bin Laden tape"
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2001/12/15/laden_tape/index.html
Experts quoted include Chi-Lin Shih, a language modeling scientist at Lucent Technologies' Bell Labs, Kenneth Stevens, head of the speech research lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lynn Shepherd, a vice president of Fonix Corp., a speech synthesis software company in Salt Lake City and Bill DeStefanis, who heads speech technology for ScanSoft Inc. of Peabody, Mass.

Not that I imagine this will make any difference to the people who just don't want to believe the tape is real...

ReefBreak

However the possibility remains that it is not in fact Osama Bin Laden.

Actually, I don't think there is ANY possiblilty that it isn't Bin Laden. Look at the guy on the video - It IS Osama Bin Laden. One of the most recognisable faces in the world. It's him, get over it.

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
"Technology not yet good enough to fake bin Laden tape"
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2001/12/15/laden_tape/index.html

<snip>

Not that I imagine this will make any difference to the people who just don't want to believe the tape is real...

From the article you link to :

Even with all the current digital wizardry, faking the videotape in which Osama bin Laden appears to take credit for the Sept. 11 attacks would be extremely difficult, experts said

I find it interesting that the headline implies impossible, and the article starts by saying "very difficult", which implies that it is possible. Also, the article assumes certain approaches, such as the notion that the voice is definitely bin Laden's, or a computer-generated copy of same.

The fact that some experts in the field say its possible and others say that it isnt leaves us only able to say that it *may* be possible to doctor the tape.

Also, I would point out that the salon article basically says that the techniques they discuss would often leave problems with lip synching. Long before any of these articles were posted, I had already mentioned that to me the lip-synching seemed off in places. Its even on these boards somewhere, if I could be bothered to look.

At the end of the day, the resolution is simple. The US wanted us to believe bin Laden was guilty without releasing proof. Now, they say "here is the proof" and the inevitable cries arise that the tape is doctored. The solution? Release the original tape to an independant party of scrutineers, make digital copies available to any others who want it. Allow the public to verify the veracity of the tape, rather than speculate about it. There can be no down-side to this if the tape is genuine. On the other hand, if the veracity of the tape cannot be proven in this way, then it cannot be considered incontrovertable proof.

As to ReefBreak's comment - go watch The Crow. Several scenes featuring Eric Draven were assembled after Brandon Lee died - including some using a body double and digital imagery to "paste" Lee's face into the right place. Identify those shots without resorting to a list where someone else has done that work for you, and your comment that it *is* bin Laden will carry a modicum of weight.

jc

JustHalf

Originally posted by dahamsta
Also, to be honest I find your extended "implication" of my suggested belief otherwise to be a weak debating tactic. Check my posts - I have never suggested that the transcripts were false or falsified; in fact, in my previous post, I denied the suggested assertion categorically.

I'm simply showing you what claiming otherwise would mean.

Originally posted by dahamsta
I do not have a belief on the matter one way or the other. If the person on the tape is in fact Osama Bin Laden, I would suggest that it is possible the tape has been alterered or dubbed. However the possibility remains that it is not in fact Osama Bin Laden. I am not qualified to decide one way or the other. I would ask that if you are, you please present your credentials.

I don't have to present my credentials. However, those people I mentioned, and mentioned in the Salon article mentioned by Meh. But they contradict your opinion, so can be ignored, I suppose.

Originally posted by dahamsta
Please read my posts, I have stated several times my reason for doubting the authenticity of the tape.

Which is this: "I hate the US".

Originally posted by dahamsta
That is a silly question. How would I know?

That's the thing. You don't know, yet claim it's false.

Originally posted by dahamsta
Legally, I don't need to back up my opinion.

No, but you also aren't allowed to commit slander.

Originally posted by dahamsta
"Innocent until proven quilty." It is up to the prosectution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. In this particular case, at this point in time, all that would appear to have been proven is the authenticity of the translations, which does not prove the authenticity of the tape.

What do you want? Osama bin Laden to knock on your house, and claim that it is real? Or will that be not enough (surely, he was forced into it by the US!)

Originally posted by dahamsta
Also, in this situation, since neither of are prosecuting or defending, and neither of us can provide hard evidence to prove or disprove the authenticity of the tape, we are at an impasse, it is just one persons opinion against anothers.

And those people mentioned in the Salon article posted by Meh. But it's only just "opinions", even if they are experts.

Originally posted by dahamsta
If you are going to quote me, please do so accurately. What I actually said was "Like God, is it?", to prove the point that reasonable people do not always need to have hard evidence for their beliefs.

I wasn't quoting you, I was trying to make sure you wouldn't walk down that route of argument by blowing holes in it right then and there.

Originally posted by dahamsta
If you want to be pedantic, call it a "hunch" or a "gut feeling", based on my distrust of the U.S. Government. Then feel free to go out and tell all of your religious friends that they are acting on hunches, and should provide evidence for their beliefs.

This is fundamentally different matter than a faith issue, for the authenticity of this tape is a fact that can be proven or disproven - unlike the existence of God.

Originally posted by dahamsta
The only expert testimony provided to date - at least as far as I am aware - is on the authenticity of the translation. Please point to the post where I stated my doubt of this.

I suppose that the testimony from the US military with regards to obtaining the tape is not regarded of as 'expert'.

Originally posted by dahamsta
Please point to the post where I made up facts.

You didn't. Once again, I was trying desperately to shoot down a line of argument before you tried to air it.

Honestly, I know I'm showing my true colours an' all, but I think this whole thing is complete and utter poo. I think the U.S. didn't release the tape up until now because it didn't exist, and it took a while to patch it together without the help of the major Hollywood studios. My own dear ma, who is by no means a radical, thinks the exact same. It's donkey droppings.

Your opinion here is not based in fact, nor backed up by fact. This is why I am attacking your opinion. And this is why I brought up the facts issue. Don't make up facts to back up your opinion. A lot of people have made up "facts" with regards to Afghanistan to "prove" their opinion.

bonkey

Originally posted by JustHalf
This is fundamentally different matter than a faith issue, for the authenticity of this tape is a fact that can be proven or disproven

Actually, it may not be possible to prove its authenticity beyond reasonably doubt (see the link I supplied earlier) and it definitely wont be possible to do so unless the US actually release the original tape for external scrutiny.

Therefore, we have a tape whos authenticity has been called into question. We have a situation where experts are divided about the possibility of being able to fake such a tape. We have most experts agreeing that the flaws would show up under scrutiny. I can also say that I have seen no statement from any expert saying that they could authenticate the material without having access to the original unedited tape.

Therefore, all any of us have is a "gut feeling" or an "instinct" about its authenticity. Or, if you prefer, we choose whether we wish to blindly believe the US government, or remain skeptical.

JustHalf and Dahamsta can continue throwing the same arguments back and forward, but at the end of the day, until the tape is released to external scrutineers (and verifiably independant scrutineers at that), neither of them have a shred of proof to offer about the tapes authenticity (or lack thereof).

jc

Sand

Originally posted by bonkey
The fact that some experts in the field say its possible and others say that it isnt leaves us only able to say that it *may* be possible to doctor the tape.

It may be possible, much as it may be possible Elvis is still alive. However, econometrics, which contains elements of hypothesis testing allows for a signifcance level(some given percentage). Should the possibility of a hypothesis being false (the tape is true for example, and you belive that hypothesis to be false) is below this significance level then we fail to reject the hypothesis- i.e we have no reason to believe the tape is false so we act as if it were true.

To get to the point (At last you say ) I belive the possibility implied by the article (impossible to very difficult) is most likely below any sane significance level you might mention. Unless new evidence comes to light, the tape is true.

JustHalf

I believe the tape is authentic. I cannot be entirely certain, but it is reasonable to believe it is so. I have seen no reason given that casts doubt on this belief, and have given several to support it.

Dahamasta believes it is a forgery, and has yet to back up that assertion. This is why I attack his "argument". He even has claimed that his right to have an opinion is protected by the constitution, implying that we have no right to rubbish his opinion -- an opinion not backed by any expert. To my knowledge, no expert has said "This is a forgery"; and certainly none has been cited here by Dahamasta.

dahamsta

JustHalf, as I said two posts ago, you have your opinion and I have mine. Our arguments are circular and are achieving nothing. Further to that, you are resorting to implications and suggestions such as "we have no right to rubbish (my) opinion", which are entirely of your own creation. You steadfastly pick and choose comments from my posts to reply to, instead of replying to the whole post. I see this as weak debating, however that still proves nothing.

I believe at this point in time that the tape is a fake. I am unable to prove that, and it is my belief that unless the tape is released to experts outside of America, with no possibility of bias - which is almost impossible at this time - that it is impossible for America to prove otherwise. I do not, however, see that as a reason for accepting the tape as authentic - quite the opposite, I would prefer to err on the side of caution. Those are my beliefs. Until you provide evidence to the contrary, they will remain my beliefs. If you don't like that, well, tough.

I see no logical reason for continuing to argue the point. I am not going to change my mind based on what I see as your blind faith. (And probably what you see as mine.)

adam

Sharkey

Originally posted by dahamsta
Well, usually reasonable people have some basis for their beliefs.

Like God, is it?

So who mentioned God here?

So far, your entire rant

Who's ranting? I'm just expressing my opinion, and I believe I've been very calm about it. You might want to look "rant" up in the dictionary.

Really, your post didn't come off calm. Had you applied the smallest amount of reasoned argument, instead of your "just because" argument, I might differ.


rant \Rant\, n. High-sounding language, without importance or dignity of thought; boisterous, empty declamation; bombast; as, the rant of fanatics.

I think that given you provided zero support for your argument, the term "rant" is applicable.

My primary assertion is my dislike and distrust of George Bush and the U.S. Government, and everything else revolves around that. I don't like or trust George Bush, I think he stands for all

You're ranting again

My post isn't a "blatant troll" -- it was an attempt to get you to think. It failed.

I have thought. Calling my opinion into doubt without providing any solid reason to change it remains a troll IMHO.

First -- as you made the assertion as to the validity of the tape -- you have the burden of proof. So far you have provided ZERO evidence to support your assertion -- hence it is totally gratitutous.

I don't even need to counter a gratitutous assertion -- merely deny it.

Actually, I am a lawyer so evidence has a very specific meaning to me. Regardless, after having viewed the tape -- I could discern no evidence of tampering

As a lawyer, you should know better than most that you are not qualified to testify on this matter.

Actually, one of my specialties is evidence -- that's why I didn't want to discuss it from a legal standpoint. However, we are not in a court of law and so the legal rules evidence don't apply as there are too many issues and not enough facts to resolve the issue here. However, I am still allowed to provide my opinion as is any layman on the "look and feel" of the tape.

I've heard no credible witness say that the person on the tape wasn't bin Laden.

I didn't say is wasn't Bin Laden.

I didn't say it wasn't Bin Laden's voice.

I didn't say the translations were false.

Okay, so you don't deny that it is bin Laden and bin Laden's voice. Yet you still insist that the tape is a fake. Again -- pony up some evidence or observation that leads you to your conclusion.

Sharkey

Originally posted by dahamsta

I believe at this point in time that the tape is a fake. I am unable to prove that, and it is my belief that unless the tape is released to experts outside of America, with no possibility of bias - which is almost impossible at this time - that it is impossible for America to prove otherwise. ...

Actually, the tape, or at least copies thereof, are now released to EVERYONE -- biased for and against the U.S.

...I would prefer to err on the side of caution.

Hmmmm! most people could declare "seeing is believing" or "I'll withhold my opinion" -- and that would be cautious.

You on the other hand simply called the tape a fake with ZERO supporting evidence. That is NOT caution

JustHalf

_snip________

Originally posted by dahamsta
Well, usually reasonable people have some basis for their beliefs.
Like God, is it?

So who mentioned God here?

---

Thanks, Sharkey.

dahamsta

Ditto my last post.

adam

JustHalf

Originally posted by dahamsta
You steadfastly pick and choose comments from my posts to reply to, instead of replying to the whole post. I see this as weak debating, however that still proves nothing.

I took your post apart piece by piece, and addressed it point by point (excepting obvious terminators). There is nothing wrong with this form of debate.

By the way, I'm choosing to not reply to this:

Originally posted by dahamsta
I believe at this point in time that the tape is a fake. I am unable to prove that, and it is my belief that unless the tape is released to experts outside of America, with no possibility of bias - which is almost impossible at this time - that it is impossible for America to prove otherwise. I do not, however, see that as a reason for accepting the tape as authentic - quite the opposite, I would prefer to err on the side of caution. Those are my beliefs. Until you provide evidence to the contrary, they will remain my beliefs. If you don't like that, well, tough.

if that makes you feel better.

Originally posted by dahamsta
I see no logical reason for continuing to argue the point. I am not going to change my mind based on what I see as your blind faith. (And probably what you see as mine.)

You do realise that by claiming this tape a fake, it's as good as calling the current US administration a pack of liars -- and I see no good reason to believe that.

Gargoyle

Originally posted by dahamsta


I wanted to make all of this clear because my posts appear to be read by some as anti-American or overly liberal. I am liberal, but I don't believe I am overly so, and I am certainly /not/ anti-American.

adam

Certainly not anti-American? You've got to be shhitting me?

Originally posted by dahamsta

The United States believe they are a law unto themselves, a bunch of guntoting cowboys for the most part (and that's nothing to be proud of, no matter how butch Hollywood makes out the Wild West)

bonkey

Originally posted by Sharkey
Actually, the tape, or at least copies thereof, are now released to EVERYONE -- biased for and against the U.S.

Is this the original tape, or the already-edited-with-english-subtitles version?

jc

dahamsta

Certainly not anti-American? You've got to be shhitting me?

If you think I'm anti-American, then you're "shhitting" yourself my friend. The desire to be offended is not my concern.

adam

Gargoyle

Originally posted by dahamsta
Certainly not anti-American? You've got to be shhitting me?

If you think I'm anti-American, then you're "shhitting" yourself my friend. The desire to be offended is not my concern.

adam

I thought the quote I posted completely invalidated your claim that you are not anti-american.

Let me post it again, in case you missed it the first time:

Originally posted by dahamsta

The United States believe they are a law unto themselves, a bunch of guntoting cowboys for the most part (and that's nothing to be proud of, no matter how butch Hollywood makes out the Wild West)

Your quote clearly says what you think about most Americans. Now to claim you are not anti-American when you make statements like this is pretty ridiculous.

This is to say nothing of the fact that you are factually wrong. Do you even know the percentage of Americans households that own a gun? Perhaps you should look it up before you post this bunk.

What you have done, adam, is define the word prejudice (you might want to look that one up too ).

Sharkey

Originally posted by bonkey


Is this the original tape, or the already-edited-with-english-subtitles version?

jc

I'm sure copies of both are available at your nearest Blockbuster Video Store -- why?

bonkey

Originally posted by Sharkey

I'm sure copies of both are available at your nearest Blockbuster Video Store -- why?

LOL.

Cause one is useless as a source of validation, but is the more likely one to have been released.

I'll leave it to your imagination to decide which one

jc

Hobbes

Originally posted by Gargoyle


Your quote clearly says what you think about most Americans. Now to claim you are not anti-American when you make statements like this is pretty ridiculous.

Yea he's such a taliban lover having an opinion that doesn't agree with America. :rolleyes: