Osama: Dead Or Alive

[corplinx]

The centerpiece of the democrat strategy to corrode Bush on the Iraq strategy is a delinking Iraq from the war on terror and furthermore implying the president has taken the heat off of Bin Laden by moving troops from Afghanistan.

I think Kerry was acting on this initiative when in the presidential debate he made the psychic claim that Osama was currently in Afghanistan.

Now, I have a few problems this.

A. Many knowledgeable people think Osama is dead. I think their reasoning is sound and that him being dead is a definite possibility. No presidential candidate wants to go near this because if Osama turns up alive it makes them look retarded.

B. Osama if alive is most likely in Pakistan according to other scholarly opinions. In the krag of uncivilized western Pakistan Bin Laden would be extremely safe since America _can not go there_. Also, the Pakistani government can't effectively comb these regions. I think its the utmost of intellectual dishonesty when people claim removing troops from Afghanistan makes it harder for us to get Bin Laden from Pakistan.


So what do we wind up with? To keep from making this same faulty arguement, Kerry has to stand there with a straight face and say Osama is in Afghanistan. Personally, I think this looks worse since most people are so dumb that the arguement used in point B seems perfectly reasonable. Joe Sixpack will believe it without question.


So, what should Kerry say on Iraq and the Hunt for Osama? How about something refreshing.

On Osama: "If he isn't dead, we will find him, it's only a matter of time and my administration will hunt twice as hard until he is found."

On Iraq: "Whether or not we should have gone to Iraq, we are there and we will leave Iraq a shining example of American justice and freedom."


I think he should abandon the whole alliances thing and go with big picture statements like Bush does. He should bring the eloquence he has to those statements and blow Bush out of the water. I think the alliances thing is getting staler than Foghat by the day.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by corplinx
The centerpiece of the democrat strategy to corrode Bush on the Iraq strategy is a delinking Iraq from the war on terror and furthermore implying the president has taken the heat off of Bin Laden by moving troops from Afghanistan.

I think Kerry was acting on this initiative when in the presidential debate he made the psychic claim that Osama was currently in Afghanistan.

Now, I have a few problems this.

A. Many knowledgeable people think Osama is dead. I think their reasoning is sound and that him being dead is a definite possibility. No presidential candidate wants to go near this because if Osama turns up alive it makes them look retarded.

B. Osama if alive is most likely in Pakistan according to other scholarly opinions. In the krag of uncivilized western Pakistan Bin Laden would be extremely safe since America _can not go there_. Also, the Pakistani government can't effectively comb these regions. I think its the utmost of intellectual dishonesty when people claim removing troops from Afghanistan makes it harder for us to get Bin Laden from Pakistan.



Before we go any further, how about some citations for A. and B. so we can seee how 'knowledgeable', 'sound' and 'scholarly' these opinions really are.

[shuize]

I agree, Corplinx.

Kerry can sound presidential, as evident in the last debate. But what's he saying that's of any substance? That he can do a better job bring allies into Iraq? You know, the "Wrong War at the Wrong Time in the Wrong Place." The war that, "knowing everything [he] knows today, [he'd] still vote FOR."

But having voted FOR what he now calls a "major distraction," Kerry claims he can better bring allies on board -- Not the current group of "coerced" allies and "puppets" fighting along side of us, mind you. Those allies are apparently hardly worth having. Kerry means "real" allies like France and Germany. The allies that can help us pass his unpassable "global test."

Kerry should show the American people he's serious about fighting the war on terror and not trying to score "style" points in a debate. The problem is, I just don't think he has it in him.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by shuize
I agree, Corplinx.

Kerry can sound presidential, as evident in the last debate. But what's he saying that's of any substance? That he can do a better job bring allies into Iraq? You know, the "Wrong War at the Wrong Time in the Wrong Place." The war that, "knowing everything [he] knows today, [he'd] still vote FOR."


I think addressing whether or not we should have gone to Iraq in the first place is a dead issue. People who think that it was wrong are already voting for him.

Instead of giving two messages, he should give a unity message. If he performs well in the next two debates and switches to a unity message I think he can very well pull a 55 percent in the popular vote.

[Dorian Gray]

Your A and B is the same argument as your WMDs. You are arguing for two mutually exclusive things. Either he's dead or he's in Pakistan. Either WMDs are still in Iraq or they've been moved. In each case, you dismiss another possibility for a transparently biased reason. Why couldn't Osama be in Afghanistan? Were you unable to find any experts who would back this possibility? Why couldn't the WMDs have been destroyed - or not built?

I think its the utmost of intellectual dishonesty when people claim removing troops from Afghanistan makes it harder for us to get Bin Laden from Pakistan. You are banned from ever using the phrase "intellectual dishonesty" until you learn to use it correctly. Let's say Osama is in Pakistan. If we pull troops off the border, then if Pakistanis close in on Osama - yeah, because Pakistanis are hunting him, not Americans - then he can simply flee back to Afghanistan. If our troops are there, he gets pinned at the border. So you could be wrong.

Shuize: The war that, "knowing everything [he] knows today, [he'd] still vote FOR." This is a mischaracterization. The vote before the Senate wasn't "Do you think we should go to war with Iraq?" alone. It was more like "Do you give the president the authority to use force against Iraq as a last resort, after all other possibilities have been exhausted?" See how much of a difference that makes? The president is responsible for deciding that all possibilities had been exhausted and deciding to go to war. Kerry's argument is that it wasn't a last resort when Bush decided to go to war. Wrong war: the war in Iraq wasn't the war on terror. Wrong place: The war in Afghanistan against al-Qaida should have been finished with the capture of Bin Laden. Wrong time: Bush was jumping the gun on the 'last resort' decision. These are my explanations, not Kerry's.

BTW, I see you can't help but repeat the catchphrase over and over. It's hard not to - Bush did it 8 times in the debate.

[Mr Manifesto]

I notice Corplinx has completely failed to cite his sources. I imagine that if this behaviour was exhibited in a poster who didn't share his views, he'd be using the phrase 'woo-woo' faster than you could say 'crickets chirping'.

[Lothian]

Osama : Dead or alive. Interesting but I suppose now Pete Burns has gone mad they need a replacement front man, but has anyone heard him sing ?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Your A and B is the same argument as your WMDs. You are arguing for two mutually exclusive things. \

I know you are sore for being outed as a conspiracy woo-woo, but you need not invent things to criticize over.

How is "Bin Laden is possibly dead or likely in Pakistan if alive" mutually exclusive? It isn't. Don't make me put you on ignore like Manifesto and JJ.

Dorian, you have really good posting skills. You can write prolificly and make your points well. I think that if you let go of the conspiracy and argueing for argueing's sake you could be regarded as a sage instead of a troll.

Good day to you sir.

[Dorian Gray]

How is "Bin Laden is possibly dead or likely in Pakistan if alive" mutually exclusive? It isn't. Don't make me put you on ignore like Manifesto and JJ. Okay, fine. (I am already on your ignore list, apparently, because you keep ignoring the mounds of evidence I offer.)

"Dead" and "alive in Pakistan" are mutually exclusive. Osama bin Laden cannot be both dead and alive in Pakistan, or both dead and alive anywhere. That's how they are mutually exclusive.

I can't help but notice that you are speculating about what happened to Osama, but are for some reason hellbent on avoiding any mention of the possibility that he might be in Afghanistan. Why? There is no reason to do this other than biased partisan ones. It's just as likely he may be in the mountains of Afghanistan as Pakistan.

As far as your woo-woo accusation, there are sources that say we trained Osama bin Laden, and sources that say we didn't. I elected to let it drop. You haven't "outed" anyone except your lack of a credible argument. So read these, and reconsider getting one - it's called a 'source'.

CIA trained/aided bin Laden:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0%2C1361%2C584444%2C00.html
Two months before September 11 Osama bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent, according to the French newspaper Le Figaro.

http://www.geocities.com/spdster2003/timeline1.html
1984: Bin Laden moves to Peshawar, a Pakistani town bordering Afghanistan, and is running a front organization for the mujaheddin known as Maktab al-Khidamar (MAK), funneling money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war. [New Yorker, 1/24/00] "MAK was nurtured by Pakistan's state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA's primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow's occupation." [MSNBC, 8/24/98] He became closely tied to the warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and greatly strengthened Hekmatyar's opium smuggling operations. [Le Monde, 9/14/01] Its interesting that Hekmatyar has ties with bin Laden, the CIA and drug running, since he's also been called "an ISI stooge and creation" by the Wall Street Journal. [Asia Times, 11/15/01]

http://www.balkanpeace.org/our/our09.shtml
Furthermore, we must note with tragic irony that the United States trained and financed Islamicist “freedom fighters� during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, to the tune of $10 billion (September 13, 2001, Washington Times). Osama Bin Laden was part and parcel of that military “aid� program.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1
As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow’s invasion in 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar - the MAK - which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war.
What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan’s state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA’s primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow’s occupation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm
SPRINGMAN:
What I was protesting was, in reality, an effort to bring recruits, rounded up by Osama Bin Laden, to the US for terrorist training by the CIA. They would then be returned to Afghanistan to fight against the then-Soviets.

TRENTO:
If you recruited somebody who is a member of a terrorist organisation, who happens to make his way here to the US, and even though you're not in touch with that person anymore but you have used him in the past, it would be unseemly if he were arrested by the FBI and word got back that he'd once been on the payroll of the CIA. What we're talking about is blow-back. What we're talking about is embarrassing, career-destroying blow-back for intelligence officials.

CIA is reluctant to reveal any sort of connection because GW Bush once held a company with Salem bin Laden, the Bushes are friends with the Saudis, and GHW Bush was once head of the CIA. Any delving into that would reveal more about the connections. PALAST:
Does the Bush family also have to worry about political blow-back? The younger Bush made his first million 20 years ago with an oil company partly funded by Salem Bin Laden's chief US representative. Young George also received fees as director of a subsidiary of Carlyle Corporation, a little known private company which has, in just a few years of its founding, become one of Americas biggest defence contractors. His father, Bush Senior, is also a paid advisor. And what became embarrassing was the revelation that the Bin Ladens held a stake in Carlyle, sold just after September 11.

ELSNER:
You have a key relationship between the Saudis and the former President of the US who happens to be the father of the current President of the US. And you have all sorts of questions about where does policy begin and where does good business and good profits for the company, Carlyle, end?

PALAST:
I received a phone call from a high-placed member of a US intelligence agency. He tells me that while there's always been constraints on investigating Saudis, under George Bush it's gotten much worse. After the elections, the agencies were told to "back off" investigating the Bin Ladens and Saudi royals, and that angered agents. I'm told that since September 11th the policy has been reversed. FBI headquarters told us they could not comment on our findings. A spokesman said: "There are lots of things that only the intelligence community knows and that no-one else ought to know.

http://www.janes.com/regional_news/americas/news/jdw/jdw010914_1_n.shtml
Osama bin Laden was one of many US beneficiaries in its war against Moscow. He spent years in the mid-1980s travelling widely to raise funds and recruit thousands of Muslim youths to fight the Soviets.

In 1988, with US knowledge, Bin Laden created Al Qaeda (The Base)

CIA had nothing to do with him: This is where you come in. Present the other side. I know it is there (hint: FOX News). Instead of just calling me a woo-woo, why not make sure that I am making it all up.


I notice Corplinx has completely failed to cite his sources. I imagine that if this behaviour was exhibited in a poster who didn't share his views, he'd be using the phrase 'woo-woo' faster than you could say 'crickets chirping'. Yes, I know, Manifesto. I cite sources and he does not, but I am the woo woo. He has more than one standard. He is above all this 'research' and 'source' crap.

[merphie]

Originally posted by corplinx
I think addressing whether or not we should have gone to Iraq in the first place is a dead issue. People who think that it was wrong are already voting for him.

Instead of giving two messages, he should give a unity message. If he performs well in the next two debates and switches to a unity message I think he can very well pull a 55 percent in the popular vote.

Don't forget Kerry said he probably would have gone to war with Iraq by now.

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by merphie
Don't forget Kerry said he probably would have gone to war with Iraq by now. source?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Okay, fine. (I am already on your ignore list, apparently, because you keep ignoring the mounds of evidence I offer.)

"Dead" and "alive in Pakistan" are mutually exclusive. Osama bin Laden cannot be both dead and alive in Pakistan, or both dead and alive anywhere. That's how they are mutually exclusive.

Yes, I know, Manifesto. I cite sources and he does not, but I am the woo woo. He has more than one standard. He is above all this 'research' and 'source' crap.

First and foremost, you spinning the possibly dead or if alive, living in pakistan is sad and pathetic. If you are going to keep doing this I _will_ put you on ignore along with Manifesto who is apparently whining about me not responding to his posts from the latter statement I quoted.

Personally, I think you are smarter and more eloquent than simple trolls like him and JJ. I don't think you need to invent a bone of contention like this mutually exclusive thing you are hung up on.

As for your "evidence" that the CIA trained Bin Laden, NONE of your snippets proves this point. You seem to think the lack of evidence proves your point:

CIA is reluctant to reveal any sort of connection because GW Bush once held a company with Salem bin Laden, the Bushes are friends with the Saudis, and GHW Bush was once head of the CIA. Any delving into that would reveal more about the connections.

Ergo, the only reason we don't know for sure that the CIA trained Bin Laden is because it would out the whole Bush/BinLaden conspiracy.

Really, this is the height of critical thinking you have reached here. The pinnacle. You even managed to include the old widely discredited MSNBC blowback piece.

If you want to know who says that Bin Laden is probably dead, you merely need to do a simple google search. Hint: it isnt local french newspapers or speculative MSNBC articles. The president of pakistan thinks he is dead based on his intelligence. The FBI counter-intelligence staff thinks so too. And the list goes on. The fact that you and Manifesto would like to throw up your hands and say "look no evidence" while you stand right in front of the pile is to me funny. This stuff is all in the record.

Dorian, you are a smart enough guy to piece together these conspiracies. If you are that smart then spend a few minutes trying to debunk them also before going along with them.

[merphie]

Originally posted by DavidJames
source?

Source Article (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/aug2004/kerr-a12.shtml)

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by merphie
Source Article (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/aug2004/kerr-a12.shtml) Thanks and now show me the Kerry quote in the article where:

"Kerry said he probably would have gone to war with Iraq by now."

[merphie]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Thanks and now show me the Kerry quote in the article where:

"Kerry said he probably would have gone to war with Iraq by now."

Why don't you read the article? The quotes are not needed since I did not provide an exact quote from the article.

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by merphie
Why don't you read the article? The quotes are not needed since I did not provide an exact quote from the article. I read the article. I will repeat.

You said:
"Kerry said he probably would have gone to war with Iraq by now.

You then linked the source.

Where in the article did Kerry say he would have gone to war with Iraq by now?

What in the article led you to your comment?

Be specific please.

[jj]

Originally posted by shuize
I agree, Corplinx.

Kerry can sound presidential, as evident in the last debate.

Then you agree, he's got at least one step up on 'W'. Thank you. You'll be voting for Kerry, then?

[merphie]

Originally posted by DavidJames
I read the article. I will repeat.

You said:
"Kerry said he probably would have gone to war with Iraq by now.

You then linked the source.

Where in the article did Kerry say he would have gone to war with Iraq by now?

What in the article led you to your comment?

Be specific please.

Any doubts on this score were cleared up by James Rubin, Kerry’s chief national security adviser and State Department press spokesman during the Clinton administration. For years, Rubin defended economic sanctions that have been blamed for the deaths of half a million Iraqi children, and justified repeated air strikes on the devastated county. Last Saturday, he told the Washington Post that had Kerry been president, “in all probability� he would have ordered an invasion of Iraq by now.

Kerry didn't say it directly. The guy who said it speaks for Kerry.
(Emphisis mine.)

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by merphie
Kerry didn't say it directly. The guy who said it speaks for Kerry.
(Emphisis mine.) It's nice to see you finally read the article and your attempt at covering your biased a$$ is noted ;)

Call me skeptical, but when I see

in all probability
in quotes and

he would have ordered an invasion of Iraq by now
not in quotes

It makes me say hmmm and wonder what's missing and/or what Rubin really said.

[merphie]

Originally posted by DavidJames
It's nice to see you finally read the article and your attempt at covering your biased a$$ is noted ;)

Call me skeptical, but when I see

in all probability
in quotes and

he would have ordered an invasion of Iraq by now
not in quotes

It makes me say hmmm and wonder what's missing and/or what Rubin really said.

So you are saying that he didn't mean they more than likely would have invaded by now? He didn't really mean it?

I am not covering anything. He said in All probablilty. He might as well they would have ordered an invasion by now. It's not far fetched.

[Dorian Gray]

First and foremost, you spinning the possibly dead or if alive, living in pakistan is sad and pathetic. Um, if I recall correctly - and remember, your words are permanent - YOU are the one who brought this up: Many knowledgeable people think Osama is dead. I think their reasoning is sound and that him being dead is a definite possibility. (You argue that it's very possible that Osama is dead)
I think its the utmost of intellectual dishonesty when people claim removing troops from Afghanistan makes it harder for us to get Bin Laden from Pakistan. (makes the assumption that bin Laden is in Pakistan) Where's the mention of Afghanistan?
But anyway, you argue that it's sound reasoning to say that Osama is dead, AND you argue that bin Laden is in Pakistan. That's not spin, Corplinx. That's what you said.

As for your "evidence" that the CIA trained Bin Laden, NONE of your snippets proves this point. You seem to think the lack of evidence proves your point: There's a whole bunch of evidence I provided there, Corp. You should try reading it.

I notice that you continually make claims that are not backed up by any source whatsoever - in fact, you haven't cited a single source in this entire thread, even for your premise. You also haven't acknowledged that at this particular moment, it would be expedient for people connected to the Bush admin to say Osama is dead to deflect from the fact that BUSH NEVER CAUGHT HIM, despite promising he would, despite promising to get him 'dead or alive'. Not to say that they are.

"A. Many knowledgeable people think Osama is dead." Cite your source - name these mystery people.
"B. Osama if alive is most likely in Pakistan according to other scholarly opinions." Cite your source - link to those opinions and the people providing them.
" I think its the utmost of intellectual dishonesty when people claim removing troops from Afghanistan makes it harder for us to get Bin Laden from Pakistan." Cite your source that definitively says Osama is not in Afghanistan, and cite that source's evidence for the claim.
" You even managed to include the old widely discredited MSNBC blowback piece." Cite your sources that "widely" discredit this article.
"f you want to know who says that Bin Laden is probably dead, you merely need to do a simple google search." If you want anyone to take you seriously, you have to cite your OWN sources and do your OWN work.
" The president of pakistan thinks he is dead based on his intelligence. The FBI counter-intelligence staff thinks so too." Cite the source for each of these two claims, and cite each source's evidence for the claim.

That's SEVEN unsubstantiated claims you have made, Corplinx. " And the list goes on." - the list of unsubstantiated claims, that is. " The fact that you and Manifesto would like to throw up your hands and say "look no evidence" while you stand right in front of the pile is to me funny." I think what you meant to say is that you spend more time making ironic statements than you do backing up your claims.

Merphie: Speaking in Arizona on Monday, Kerry declared that “even knowing what we now know,� he would still have cast his vote in the Senate to authorize the Bush administration to invade Iraq. “I would have voted for the authority,� said Kerry. “I believe it was the right authority for the president to have.� Voting for AUTHORITY is not necessarily voting for WAR. In comparison, Bush taking America to war is unequivocal.

I do, however, want to point out that this is a very very very very left-wing site :The standpoint of this web site is one of revolutionary opposition to the capitalist market system. Its aim is the establishment of world socialism. Jesus, it says this right on the page: "The International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) is the leadership of the world socialist movement, the Fourth International founded by Leon Trotsky in 1938." Well, at least they're not communist.

But in all fairness, Merphie, you did say "Kerry said he probably would have gone to war with Iraq by now.", not "This site said that Rubin told the Washington Post that Kerry said "in all probability" he would have gone to war with Iraq by now, but the part about him going to war is not in quotes and I am not sure if it's the Washington Post's words or the site's words." That's what you would have to do if you wanted to be honest about your source. I think you are, indeed, "covering your ass".

And I expect Corplinx to criticize you (merphie) mightily for your "spin", as well as threaten you with ignorance. I mean, being ignored. Because Corplinx isn't biased or partisan at all........

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
But anyway, you argue that it's sound reasoning to say that Osama is dead, AND you argue that bin Laden is in Pakistan.

Here is what I said, snipped so you can reread it:
A. Many knowledgeable people think Osama is dead.
B. Osama if alive is most likely in Pakistan according to other scholarly opinions

This is the third time you have tried to claim that these statements are mutually exclusive. At this point, its pretty obvious you are just trolling.

Before I put you on the ignore list (right after submitting this post) let me give you some advice. You are posting on the election subforum of the politics and current events forum. Much like coming to First Grade, you should already know your ABCs (of politics that is) before you try to engage myself and other in discussion. If Kerry said Bin Laden was in Afghanistan in the debate, I'm not going to post a link when you should have already either watched or read transcript of this debate. I expect you to come to class prepared. I'm not going to stop and prove this Isaac Newton person existed because you challenge me on it.

You are playing the typical "woo-woo in skeptic's clothing" game. You stop on everything and demand evidence. Even things found with a simple web search on the very topic you are trying to sound like an expert on. If I ignore your requests for easily found information THAT YOU SHOULD ALREADY KNOW you claim I'm not a skeptic.

You are the nutjob who thinks the CIA trained Bin Laden without a shred of evidence other than uncorroborated information that doesn't even prove it, a _speculation_ article posted on MSNBC, and the lack of evidence as proof. I won't dignify your petty games or your nutjob theories.

Now, let me give you a lesson in skepticism. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I haven't made any claim in this thread that's extraordinary. The notions that Bin Laden is possibly dead or possibly in Pakistan have already passed the zeitgeist. Neither of those claims requires extraordinary evidence.

If I said "Bin Laden is definitely dead" then I should either provide extraordinary evidence unless I'm willing to admit or cede that its just speculation and therefore fallible.

I didn't really want to have to turn you off Dorian. I see an intelligent person in you but your faith in conspiracies is tiresome and your flat out lie that I made a mutually exclusive claim leave me no choice. I've probably already spent 500 more words than I should have on you. I guess I just see more capability for free thought and intelligence in you rather than trolls like JJ and Manifesto.

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by corplinx
Here is what I said, snipped so you can reread it:
A. Many knowledgeable people think Osama is dead.
B. Osama if alive is most likely in Pakistan according to other scholarly opinions

This is the third time you have tried to claim that these statements are mutually exclusive. At this point, its pretty obvious you are just trolling.

Before I put you on the ignore list (right after submitting this post) let me give you some advice. You are posting on the election subforum of the politics and current events forum. Much like coming to First Grade, you should already know your ABCs (of politics that is) before you try to engage myself and other in discussion. If Kerry said Bin Laden was in Afghanistan in the debate, I'm not going to post a link when you should have already either watched or read transcript of this debate. I expect you to come to class prepared. I'm not going to stop and prove this Isaac Newton person existed because you challenge me on it.

You are playing the typical "woo-woo in skeptic's clothing" game. You stop on everything and demand evidence. Even things found with a simple web search on the very topic you are trying to sound like an expert on. If I ignore your requests for easily found information THAT YOU SHOULD ALREADY KNOW you claim I'm not a skeptic.

You are the nutjob who thinks the CIA trained Bin Laden without a shred of evidence other than uncorroborated information that doesn't even prove it, a _speculation_ article posted on MSNBC, and the lack of evidence as proof. I won't dignify your petty games or your nutjob theories.

Now, let me give you a lesson in skepticism. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I haven't made any claim in this thread that's extraordinary. The notions that Bin Laden is possibly dead or possibly in Pakistan have already passed the zeitgeist. Neither of those claims requires extraordinary evidence.

If I said "Bin Laden is definitely dead" then I should either provide extraordinary evidence unless I'm willing to admit or cede that its just speculation and therefore fallible.

I didn't really want to have to turn you off Dorian. I see an intelligent person in you but your faith in conspiracies is tiresome and your flat out lie that I made a mutually exclusive claim leave me no choice. I've probably already spent 500 more words than I should have on you. I guess I just see more capability for free thought and intelligence in you rather than trolls like JJ and Manifesto. Amazing. When challenged to provide evidence for your claims you have the audacity to lecture Dorian that he is not being skeptical. I agree with Dorian, you constantly throw out straw man and unsubstantiated claims and then turn around and pass out tin foil hats, call people woo-woos and say they are not be skeptical when you are challenged.

I would be honored to be included on your ignore list.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Amazing. When challenged to provide evidence for your claims you have the audacity to lecture Dorian that he is not being skeptical. I agree with Dorian, you constantly throw out straw man and unsubstantiated claims and then turn around and pass out tin foil hats, call people woo-woos and say they are not be skeptical when you are challenged.

I would be honored to be included on your ignore list.

It seems that to qualify to be on Corplinx's ignore list, you merely have to disagree with him, so you're well on your way. He must have a loooooooooooooooooong ignore list.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Amazing. When challenged to provide evidence for your claims you have the audacity to lecture Dorian that he is not being skeptical. I agree with Dorian, you constantly throw out straw man and unsubstantiated claims and then turn around and pass out tin foil hats, call people woo-woos and say they are not be skeptical when you are challenged.

I would be honored to be included on your ignore list.


DavidJames, there are many people I frequently disagree with who I enjoy reading their posts. Some of them are even trollish in nature. AUP for instance can be quite eloquent and other times cut right to the bone with a cheapshot. He recently challenged me to post a link to a word overlay of the infamous Rathergate memos.

Mind you, in a matter of hours after the story broke, I had already seen two overlays and one of them was on the big tech news site slashdot. This was days later when he was challenging me for this info and there were even more overlays floating around.

I am not a nice person. I don't spoonfeed others. I don't get paid to post on this forum and provide endnotes to my posts.

And frankly, I _expect_ people not to be oblivious to easily obtained information. I have a low tolerance for people who spend more time complaining about not being spoon-fed info rather than doing a simple search.

As a technical worker, I can't count how many times I've had to tell people f*ckinggoogleit. I don't come to this forum to have to chastise people.

Yesterday I was at lunch with a friend and he brought along one of his co-workers. She was prattling on about how a plane couldn't have crashed into the pentagon on 9-11 and how she had just watched this flash video that put it all together.

I wanted to enjoy my broccoli and cheese soup and instead of engaging the arguements the video made, I said "use google, this crap has already been debunked thoroughly".

Sure enough later in the day my friend send me an instant message that she was still fired up about tha video, I hit google and found a nice summary on snopes in less than a minute and sent him the link.

I find myself telling people "look it up on snopes" way too much also now that I think about it.

Just remember this, corplinx is not a nice person. Corplinx doesn't come here to be challenged on his claim that a man named George Washington was president. Sometimes he will expect you to know what was said on primetime TV on all three major networks in a debate or at least have the intelligence to look it up if you disagree.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I live in a very mundane world. When I do _speculate_ on things, its usually very obvious. For instance, the Kerry draft thread was just political speculation yet Dorian tried to commit me to the literal word like a bible thumper.

Am I hostile when it comes to political skepticism? You betcha. I see other atheists who are just as hostile when it comes to discussing religion.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by corplinx
DavidJames, there are many people I frequently disagree with who I enjoy reading their posts. Some of them are even trollish in nature. AUP for instance can be quite eloquent and other times cut right to the bone with a cheapshot. He recently challenged me to post a link to a word overlay of the infamous Rathergate memos.

Mind you, in a matter of hours after the story broke, I had already seen two overlays and one of them was on the big tech news site slashdot. This was days later when he was challenging me for this info and there were even more overlays floating around.

I am not a nice person. I don't spoonfeed others. I don't get paid to post on this forum and provide endnotes to my posts.

And frankly, I _expect_ people not to be oblivious to easily obtained information. I have a low tolerance for people who spend more time complaining about not being spoon-fed info rather than doing a simple search.

As a technical worker, I can't count how many times I've had to tell people f*ckinggoogleit. I don't come to this forum to have to chastise people.

Yesterday I was at lunch with a friend and he brought along one of his co-workers. She was prattling on about how a plane couldn't have crashed into the pentagon on 9-11 and how she had just watched this flash video that put it all together.

I wanted to enjoy my broccoli and cheese soup and instead of engaging the arguements the video made, I said "use google, this crap has already been debunked thoroughly".

Sure enough later in the day my friend send me an instant message that she was still fired up about tha video, I hit google and found a nice summary on snopes in less than a minute and sent him the link.

I find myself telling people "look it up on snopes" way too much also now that I think about it.

Just remember this, corplinx is not a nice person. Corplinx doesn't come here to be challenged on his claim that a man named George Washington was president. Sometimes he will expect you to know what was said on primetime TV on all three major networks in a debate or at least have the intelligence to look it up if you disagree.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I live in a very mundane world. When I do _speculate_ on things, its usually very obvious. For instance, the Kerry draft thread was just political speculation yet Dorian tried to commit me to the literal word like a bible thumper.

Am I hostile when it comes to political skepticism? You betcha. I see other atheists who are just as hostile when it comes to discussing religion.

We aren't talking about 9/11-style conspiracy theories, we're talking about two highly disputable points: That either Osama is dead, or he's alive and in Pakistan. You seem to think that simply saying that 'scholarly opinion' backs what you believe is enough. It isn't.

Google it, you say? Okay (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/847751.cms). Looks like pretty fruit-loopy reasoning to me. Or do you think Bush is holding OBL for an 'October surprise'.

Now let's watch you get cranky. "That's not what I meant', you snarl. Maybe you should tell people what you really do mean instead of making childish threats to put people on ignore lists.

I mean, ignoring people who disagree with you... Is this not a woo-woo tactic from way back? The more you post in this thread, the less difference I can see between you and a fundy.

[Dorian Gray]

Here is what I said, snipped so you can reread it:
A. Many knowledgeable people think Osama is dead.
B. Osama if alive is most likely in Pakistan according to other scholarly opinions Okay, which one is true, genius? It can't be both. Holy vomiting Allah, did I just describe the very essence of mutual exclusivity? "It can't be both". Oh my god, I did, didn't I? It can't be both, can it? Can Osama bin Laden be BOTH dead AND alive? Well, maybe, if he is a zombie! I mean, many knowledgeable people and some other people with scholarly opinions have said that Osama had ties with Haiti. Honest!

Before I put you on the ignore list (right after submitting this post) let me give you some advice. You are posting on the election subforum of the politics and current events forum. Much like coming to First Grade, you should already know your ABCs (of politics that is) before you try to engage myself and other in discussion. If Kerry said Bin Laden was in Afghanistan in the debate, I'm not going to post a link when you should have already either watched or read transcript of this debate. I expect you to come to class prepared. I'm not going to stop and prove this Isaac Newton person existed because you challenge me on it. Before I completely fail to give a s**t (right after submitting this post) let me give YOU some advice. You are posting on the James Randi Education Foundation site, home of large amounts of skeptics and highly educated people. Much like ANY FORUM ON EARTH, if youmake a claim, you have to back it up with credible sources. The word of Corplinx is NOT GOOD ENOUGH on its own.

I know Kerry said Osama was in afghanistan. 1) Can you prove Osama couldn't possibly be in Afghanistan? Of course you can't - you can't prove any claim you make. 2) Rumsfeld said that Saddam was on the run in Afghanistan. Where's your spew-filled exposition attacking THAT statement. What? He meant to say Osama? So, benefit of the doubt for your conservative heroes but no one else? That shows BIAS. Yet another reason why the word of Cor[plinx is NOT GOOD ENOUGH on its own.

Being a skeptic, if I'm not mistaken, means demanding proof to back up claims made. You NEVER back up anything you say - I'm guessing because it's too hard for you. It's much easier for you to make any claim your tiny little heart desires and then claim that I "should already know" what you say is true. That's pure unmitigated ********. You are NOT better than anyone else on this forum - you must submit proof.

You are playing the typical "woo-woo in skeptic's clothing" game. You stop on everything and demand evidence. "I" am playing this game, you a**hole? Then what is this>? ou are the nutjob who thinks the CIA trained Bin Laden without a shred of evidence other than uncorroborated information that doesn't even prove it Is it a stop? Is it a demand for evidence? Are you a trolling flaming hypocrite?

Now, let me give you a lesson in skepticism. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I haven't made any claim in this thread that's extraordinary. The notions that Bin Laden is possibly dead or possibly in Pakistan have already passed the zeitgeist. Neither of those claims requires extraordinary evidence. The claim you made or implied is that Osama bin Laden could not be in Afghanistan, as Kerry said. THAT'S the claim you made. You have not backed up that claim with any evidence - in fact, you haven't backed up ANY claim with evidence. Bin Laden COULD BE dead. Sure. Bin Laden COULD BE alive in Pakistan. Yes. Not both, of course. But bin Laden COULD BE in Afghanistan. You didn't mention that, even going so far as calling that claim "psychic". THIS is what you need to prove.

Pakistan is okay, dead is okay, but Afghanistan is an 'extraordinary claim', a 'nutjob theory', - why? You are talking out of your ass. Not to mention, you are condescending and arrogant, and believe me, COMPLETELY unjustifiably so. Not to mention, the two claims you made - dead, alive in Pakistan - are obviously uncorroborated, obviously don't prove anything, and obviously make you the largest hypocrite on this site.

You want me to prove every comment I make, while you offer nothing. That's all you have to offer - nothing. Jesus Crapping Christ, excuse the f**k out of me if I expect you to back up your claims.

But hey, add me to the list of things you ignore - Reality, Facts, Evidence, Contrary Posts, and Dorian Gray. Ignorant douche bag. How dare you draw a comparison between "a man named George Washington was president." and "Osama is either dead or alive in Pakistan, but there's no f**king way he could be alive in Afghanistan".

When confronted, you either lean on the ignore button, claim that everyone should know everything, turn into a hypocrite and act as though you are above evidence and proof, or lecture. NEVER just back it up. You can't just "speculate" without backing it up, or at least saying "this is speculation - I have no evidence". Although, that's how I treat each and every one of your posts.

You are a crybaby who won't adhere to the same rules you expect everyone else to follow. You are immature and arrogant, and as far as I'm concerned, you should stop posting here if you can't handle parity. Bye, Trollman. Good riddance. Finally, maybe we have a chance of having one standard. Go blow Patrick, and leave us alone.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Okay, which one is true, genius? It can't be both. Holy vomiting Allah, did I just describe the very essence of mutual exclusivity? "It can't be both". Oh my god, I did, didn't I? It can't be both, can it? Can Osama bin Laden be BOTH dead AND alive? Well, maybe, if he is a zombie! I mean, many knowledgeable people and some other people with scholarly opinions have said that Osama had ties with Haiti. Honest!

Um, he did say "if".

summary:
A. Many believe O is dead.
B. Many believe that IF O is not dead, then he is in Pakistan.

So A....or if not A, then B.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Um, he did say "if".

summary:
A. Many believe O is dead.
B. Many believe that IF O is not dead, then he is in Pakistan.

So A....or if not A, then B.

And if not A or B, then C...( 'Others believe that O is....') and so on...none of them 'mutually exclusive' when qualified by saying 'if'.

But, as corplinx correctly pointed out, Dorian is a WWISC:
"...playing the typical "woo-woo in skeptic's clothing" game"

Dorian is noticeably and conveniently ignoring the qualifying part of the statement (the always useful for clarity word 'if'), so he can go on bashing away at his straw construct...

The common WWISC tactics have been spelled out so many times, they probably should be part of the FAQs...

>Fabricating positions for others, ranging from deleting important parts of statements to completely forging them out of whole cloth...
>Demanding evidence, and rejecting it, up to and including insisting that certain links don't even exist (and then later quoting from the content of the same link), or claiming that references to legal code, court records, primary document, etc are 'Opinion, not evidence' while continuing to cite agit prop and debunked rumors, etc as 'proof'.
>Insisting that others should not use skeptical tools such as sarcasm, cynicism, OR the ignore funtion, etc.

>Followed by ad homs, plantation mentality, sock puppets, attempts to blackmail the mods into silencing those who are 'abusing' the WWISC by refuting their trollage, and running away,...

And you know, one way to improve the signal to noise ratio on JREF is to keep hitting the 'ignore' button untill the WWISC static fades out...

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by crimresearch
The common WWISC tactics have been spelled out so many times, they probably should be part of the FAQs...

>Fabricating positions for others, ranging from deleting important parts of statements to completely forging them out of whole cloth... Kind of like what you did when you provided unsubstantiated quotes claiming people who were criticizing Bob Dole for his comments about Kerry were in fact criticizing Doles' war record.

[crimresearch]

See??

I could have added in the minutiae, like the 'when questioned for clarity, claims the questions were assertions and demands proof' refinement of the strawman section (or the popular 'makes trolling statements, and when questioned for clarity remains silent, then later insists that his statements meant something else entirely different from what was confirmed by his tacit agreement' game), but why do that when I can let a hatemongering troll like David prove my point with a public exhibition of intellectual dishonesty?

Don't forget to come back when you want to remind us of cases where you have dissembled some more now, you hear?

Or you could just put up a copy of your Axis of Intolerance Handbook, I'll bet all the tricks for bigots are in there...

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Dorian is noticeably and conveniently ignoring the qualifying part of the statement (the always useful for clarity word 'if'), so he can go on bashing away at his straw construct...Used to work with a guy who had an uncontrollable fondness for fermented liquids.

When sober, he was okay. But a couple of times a year, he wouldn't show up at his desk on Monday. Or Tuesday. Or for two weeks or so afterwards.

Eventually, this behavior reached the attention of our section chief. This being the United States Government, he couldn't just fire the guy outright; he had to send him all kinds of Official Notices and such, warning him of the consequences of his behavior.

One day, the guy came in with a letter on agency letterhead and showed it to one of our colleagues. He was going on and on about how, "It says they're going to fire me! You see that? It says it right there, they're going to fire me!" She tried calming him down, telling him, "Look, it says, 'If your attendance does not improve', they're going to fire you. IF"

But he wasn't hearing it. "They're going to fire me!"

A few days later, he was off on another bender, and they did fire him a couple of weeks later.

Some people seem to have trouble with that word, "if".

[varwoche]

What an unbelievable nitpick in any case!

Osama is said (by many) to be alive in the tribal region of Pakistan that borders Afghanistan. It has also been said that al Qaida / Taliban members sometimes cross the border to avoid the Pakistan military (on the Pakistan side) and to avoid the US military (on the Afghan side). Apparently there are even networks of tunnels that are used to cross the border. As well, the border is supposedly poorly defined and unmarked.

So to sit here and debate that Osama is in Pakistan and not Afghanistan seems borderline inane to me.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by varwoche
What an unbelievable nitpick in any case!

Osama is said (by many) to be alive in the tribal region of Pakistan that borders Afghanistan. It has also been said that al Qaida / Taliban members sometimes cross the border to avoid the Pakistan military (on the Pakistan side) and to avoid the US military (on the Afghan side). Apparently there are even networks of tunnels that are used to cross the border. As well, the border is supposedly poorly defined and unmarked.

So to sit here and debate that Osama is in Pakistan and not Afghanistan seems borderline inane to me.

Varwoche, good observation. It does _seem_ like a slight nit.

However, the delicate balance the presi-dic (president/dictator) of Pakistan has cannot tolerate a large US deployment in his country. He is juggling too many apples right now as it is.

The India/Kashmir/RabidIslam/Assassination political situation is too much to bear already without the US showing up in his country and the ensuing riots from the fundamentalist sects.

Geographically, it is a petty nit. Politically it is a somewhat larger ordeal.

I know we all like to bash Musharaf on this forum and he does indeed deserve some criticism, he also might be the only person capable of keeping things from going totally apesh*t in that region. It gives me a migraine just thinking about it.