The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[8den]

In the main reading room of the New York Public Library, a woman stood up, approached me where I was sitting, and shouted that I was responsible for the Holocaust. I did not refute her allegation. Therefore I am party to the nefarious Nazi persecution, imprisonment, torture, and murder of millions of people.

Or is your logic stupendously flawed?

Mark are you a stupid magnet?

[lapman]

The meat of your post is concerned with SF- I cannot give you "proof" that he is being hassled, other than the "evidence" that he supports th movement, since he goes to meetings, and has said so, yet that he doesnt make a big show of his remarkable and important testimony, because he is gettng hassled.
Remarkable and important!?!?!?! What a crock. His testimony is so unremarkable and irrelevant that the TM had to blow it way out of proportion to make it seem like it was important. If he is being hassled, why hasn't he gone to the authorities to make it stop? If FT is so worried about Scott's "remarkable and important" story the firing him would bring so much grief, Scott would be able to threaten the same thing to get them to stop hassling him. Besides, why would Scott continue to work for such a dishonest company? Any sane person would have quit by now instead of having to put up with harassment.

ETA- Oh God, our local Einstein has asked for "proof" that I have indeed met Scott...And yet you will provide none. Hmmm. :xrolleyes

[twinstead]

Lol, well, unless you can explain the 4 points listed in #750, which none of your ilk have even dared try, then you will see the facts about such evidence a little clearer, I daresay.

The only thing worse than being wrong, is being arrogantly wrong.

The points, as have all your points, have been addressed to my satisfaction. You'd probably be shocked at just how many lurkers feel the same way, since in your mind you not only think you are totally right, but so totally right that you can afford to be condescending and arrogant about it.

Your entire movement is exactly the same, which is only one of the many reasons why it will never go anywhere; you all sound like angry little boys.

[mjd1982]

The only thing worse than being wrong, is being arrogantly wrong.

The points, as have all your points, have been addressed to my satisfaction. You'd probably be shocked at just how many lurkers feel the same way, since in your mind you not only think you are totally right, but so totally right that you can afford to be condescending and arrogant about it.

Your entire movement is exactly the same, which is only one of the many reasons why it will never go anywhere; you all sound like angry little boys.
Excellent. Well, there is an easy way to find out whose comments are valid, mine our yours.

Go back to #750, and see how many of the 1750 posts since have addressed post #750.

I am willing to bet that you will not answer this question sensibly.

[DGM]

You implied that the reason the TM has support/impetus is due to financial gain. i am saying I support it and give it a degree of impetus for zero gain
Cut the Latin crap!
You know that my stating the "driving force" behind the truth movement as money had nothing to do with you and was a direct answer to the question. The question you asked was not about you.

[MIKILLINI]

Heres a question, and I've probably asked it before, but..
How could the Neocons ensure that a catastrophic and catalyzing event would occur before the 2001 QDR came out? Just askin'
Mjd, when I ask simple questions like these, there has to be those entrusted as to;

Either the propitiousness of the Neocon plan can guarantee hijackers take over planes or any other scenarios with a deadline determined to be prior to the 2001 QDR report....Or not.

This is the gap I keep refering to. You can have 4000 AQ warnings.......G....A....P......9/11....QDR.
Who ensured (inside job) this catastrophic and catalyzing event would take place BEFORE the 2001 QDR came out?

[jab712]

Oh good god, we have to go to post 750 now???

[MIKILLINI]

Oh good god, we have to go to post 750 now???

No, We don't have to. We'll just keep being referred to go there to "challenge it".

[funk de fino]

I'm sorry, but this is taking too much time if you cant use the quote function. Type at the end of it. Repeat

best avoidance of a post yet

the crusading truther out to avenge the world does not have time to answer questions that someone took the time to ask him because they are awkward, this is why you have nothing and never will

one at a time then

1. did the british authorities investigate the litvinenko case only in the UK?

[Belz...]

Here you get confused. The policy as a whole will take a long time to implement whatever the scenario.

Precisely, which is why your ENTIRE thread is pointless.

It'll take a long time to implement whatever the scenario. Ergo, catastrophic event or not, it'll take a long time. So, why would said event be "propitious" ?

[mjd1982]

Cut the Latin crap!
You know that my stating the "driving force" behind the truth movement as money had nothing to do with you and was a direct answer to the question. The question you asked was not about you.
Oh, excuse me. So the driving force behind the movement is money. What is your proof/basis for saying this?

[twinstead]

Excellent. Well, there is an easy way to find out whose comments are valid, mine our yours.

Go back to #750, and see how many of the 1750 posts since have addressed post #750.

I am willing to bet that you will not answer this question sensibly.

For the love of Christ it has been answered dozens of times, just not to your satisfaction! I am willing to bet that no matter who answers it, or how many times it is answered, you will simply decide it wasn't answered sensibly so you don't have to acknowledge it, and can keep claiming it wasn't answered.

I'm also willing to bet that your movement will never go any further than internet forums. Until you folks get some people behind you who aren't rabid ideologues, paranoid schizophrenics, or spoiled, arrogant, pseudo-intellectual teenage boys, I will have the last laugh.

Do yourself and your movement a favor; take your 'so obvious that anybody can see it' evidence to the nearest media outlet or law enforcement agency and GET THIS BALL ROLLING.

Forget us blind shills here. With evidence so compelling, how can any rational people resist?

[mjd1982]

Heres a question, and I've probably asked it before, but..
How could the Neocons ensure that a catastrophic and catalyzing event would occur before the 2001 QDR came out? Just askin'
Mjd, when I ask simple questions like these, there has to be those entrusted as to;

Either the propitiousness of the Neocon plan can guarantee hijackers take over planes or any other scenarios with a deadline determined to be prior to the 2001 QDR report....Or not.

This is the gap I keep refering to. You can have 4000 AQ warnings.......G....A....P......9/11....QDR.
Who ensured (inside job) this catastrophic and catalyzing event would take place BEFORE the 2001 QDR came out?
Sorry if i havent fully understood your post, but if you are wondering how they ensured the attack happened before the 2001 QDR, this can be done quite easily. You simply have a plant on the inside of AQ who ensures that things go ahead as planned. If you want to find out more about how the French went about doing this, read this: http://www.911blogger.com/node/7948

It is quite simple to do.

Also, if you have read Thompson's 911 timeline (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=warnings), you will see that the attacks were initially believed by intel to happen around June-July 01.

[Brainache]

Oh, excuse me. So the driving force behind the movement is money. What is your proof/basis for saying this?

Are you serious?

You haven't noticed all the Truthers selling DVDs, T-shirts, books and BBQ aprons?

[mjd1982]

best avoidance of a post yet

the crusading truther out to avenge the world does not have time to answer questions that someone took the time to ask him because they are awkward, this is why you have nothing and never will

one at a time then

1. did the british authorities investigate the litvinenko case only in the UK?
Buddy, I have not ducked 1 post in 2500, dont think I will yours.

The police did go to Russia to investigate the Litvinenko case, which has caused a diplomatic brouhaha. However, you cannot equate this to going to the US to implicate the US gov in killing 3000 of their own people.

[mjd1982]

Precisely, which is why your ENTIRE thread is pointless.

It'll take a long time to implement whatever the scenario. Ergo, catastrophic event or not, it'll take a long time. So, why would said event be "propitious" ?
Because it will make it happen quicker and easier. As the PNAC doc says. Please dont start arguing with that now.

[mjd1982]

Are you serious?

You haven't noticed all the Truthers selling DVDs, T-shirts, books and BBQ aprons?
So people sell DVDs and aprons. Tell me how this proves that the driving force behind the movement is selling such.

[mjd1982]

For the love of Christ it has been answered dozens of times, just not to your satisfaction! I am willing to bet that no matter who answers it, or how many times it is answered, you will simply decide it wasn't answered sensibly so you don't have to acknowledge it, and can keep claiming it wasn't answered.

I'm also willing to bet that your movement will never go any further than internet forums. Until you folks get some people behind you who aren't rabid ideologues, paranoid schizophrenics, or spoiled, arrogant, pseudo-intellectual teenage boys, I will have the last laugh.

Do yourself and your movement a favor; take your 'so obvious that anybody can see it' evidence to the nearest media outlet or law enforcement agency and GET THIS BALL ROLLING.

Forget us blind shills here. With evidence so compelling, how can any rational people resist?

So, I win my bet for the non sensible response. I will ask the question again.

Go back to #750, and see how many of the 1750 posts since have addressed post #750.

If you can't, you can either keep on squirming, or you can apologise. Its your choice.

[Brainache]

So people sell DVDs and aprons. Tell me how this proves that the driving force behind the movement is selling such.

It's a very basic level of inference.

All the major Truth sites are involved in merchandising.

All the major Truth sites routinely ban any skeptics who threaten their market share.

People like Alex Jones, David Ray Griffin, the Loose Change boys, Pilots for Truth, CIT, 911 Mysteries etc etc etc are all marketing at least one product. It is all they do. Not one of them has ever done anything to bring about a new investigation or whatever. They are too busy with all the viral marketing.

[twinstead]

People like Alex Jones, David Ray Griffin, the Loose Change boys, Pilots for Truth, CIT, 911 Mysteries etc etc etc are all marketing at least one product. It is all they do. Not one of them has ever done anything to bring about a new investigation or whatever. They are too busy with all the viral marketing.

How's this for a conspiracy: the truth movement, in general, is a burgeoning industry. The last thing they would ever want is an actual new investigation that may settle things once and for all.

As soon as those very few members who actually honestly want a new investigation and are serious about finding the truth realize this, the better off they'll be. Perhaps then we'll actually get some of this 'incontrovertible' evidence given to law enforcement agencies or major world media outlets.

[funk de fino]

Buddy, I have not ducked 1 post in 2500, dont think I will yours.

The police did go to Russia to investigate the Litvinenko case, which has caused a diplomatic brouhaha. However, you cannot equate this to going to the US to implicate the US gov in killing 3000 of their own people.

so therefore thay would have no problem going anywhere to see if they could find out that FT or the PA were involved in a cover up about the power down and are using this to harrass an employee

is implicating putin (by your standards) any less of a problem than implicating FT or PA? or god help us mr bush?

this would be less or more brouhaha? you tell me

you intimated that they would not travel abroad for an investigation like this when it is quite plain they would and have done in the past

well answered but ultimately wrong again

2. are we correct to assume that we can disregard the official record being wiped as you have no proof of this?

[Unsecured Coins]

Buddy, I have not ducked 1 post in 2500, dont think I will yours.


HA!! That's a mis-statement and a half if there ever was one

[lapman]

Buddy, I have not ducked 1 post in 2500, dont think I will yours.Well, I loved your "sensible" responses to #2487, #2488, #2491 and #2502. Of course I'm leaving out #2491 & #2494. Yeah, we now know that you're going to move the goal posts and say I have not ducked 1 sensible post in 2500I would love to read your excuse as to why the first set of posts I listed are not "sensible."

[lapman]

See #493. Oh... Ok, I will address your post anyway!Ok, UC, you win.

Lol, well, unless you can explain the 4 points listed in #750, which none of your ilk have even dared try, then you will see the facts about such evidence a little clearer, I daresay.Yet our "ilk" answering that post led to the whole argument on whether the claim that OBL was offered to us was credible or not. Of course there's posts #757, #764, etc. that also deal with post #750. So, in light of this dishonesty, we are supposed to take your word at face value because?:boggled:

[HeyLeroy]

Buddy, I have not ducked 1 post in 2500, dont think I will yours.


How strange. You've ignored several of mine.

[Belz...]

Because it will make it happen quicker and easier. As the PNAC doc says. Please dont start arguing with that now.

Oh, I will.

You've been shown AGAIN and AGAIN that "quicker" and "easier" are not synonyms, and that they do not necessarily follow one another.

And you've said your self that It'll take a long time to implement whatever the scenario., which means that it won't be really "quicker", will it ?

You're contradicting yourself.

[BillyRayValentine]

You have no understanding of what "humour" is. You apparently think that it is just belly laughs. This may well be because you are simple. I am willing to excuse this; you maybe can do little about it. I will not, however, excuse the fact that you are lazy
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0051.html
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/clockwork_orange/about.php

Yes, I understand humor in all of its many forms. What you don't seem to understand is that the common thread is always, inescapably, AMUSEMENT.

Clockwork is not (except, of course, among the ignorant, morally undeveloped teenage boy set), nor was it intended to be, amusing on any level The juxtapositions and incongruities that simpletons like yourself dismiss as dark humor are, in fact, dripping with symbolism and have serious intent. The film is a severe parable, rich in metaphors. And they're not there for the viewer's amusement, genius. They're all completely loaded.

Clockwork is a satire. That you equate this with "Clockwork is humor for a moral purpose" speaks to a dim, uneducated, juvenile mindset.

Try reading serious reviews and criticism of the film if you'd like to learn. Posting links to insipid websites like "rotten tomatoes", or one review from 35 years ago that stands in contrast to just about every other one out there, does not impress.

Educate yourself, young man. You'll be less inclined to make a horse's ass out of yourself.

P.S. Since you apparently haven't the slightest clue as to what constitutes dark humor, rent Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove". That should help.

[BillyRayValentine]

Duplicate

[BillyRayValentine]

Except they would be indicting themselves with their employers, who is not Bush.

Pretty simple, no?

Let's try this again. Of the 10,000 people affected by this supposed power-down, we can guess that in the neighborhood of 8,000 are democrats. Of these 8,000, it is a safe assumption that a significant percentage are rabid in their hatred for George Bush. They would undoubtedly go to great lengths to see his head on a platter.

Since corroborating Scott's story might potentially be a step in this direction, it is inconceivable that they would ALL choose to remain silent. Contrary to your nonsensical assertion, they would in no way be indicting themselves or their employers. This is a vacuous fantasy, contrived by a very, very simple mind in a desperate attempt to explain away the unexplainable.

[lapman]

BillyRay. Remember that mjd is not American. It's obvious that his view of Americans is that we are all so greedy and cowardly that nobody would risk losing their job, thus losing cash flow, to expose this "cover up." There was somebody named Tojo that believed that a long time ago and look what happened. In mjd's fantasy world, only a Brit has the courage to speak up about it.

[DGM]

It's a very basic level of inference.

All the major Truth sites are involved in merchandising.

All the major Truth sites routinely ban any skeptics who threaten their market share.

People like Alex Jones, David Ray Griffin, the Loose Change boys, Pilots for Truth, CIT, 911 Mysteries etc etc etc are all marketing at least one product. It is all they do. Not one of them has ever done anything to bring about a new investigation or whatever. They are too busy with all the viral marketing.
Just to add:
If the truth was all they wanted, there would be absolutely no reason to hold back evidence until the movie comes out.

[MIKILLINI]

So Mjd are you turning this evidence over to the New York Attorney General? Or just how you gonna get the investigation started? Through the United Nations? How about French intel? Meanwhile, the truther movement will be selling more dvds and shirts and who knows what else.

[aggle-rithm]

So Mjd are you turning this evidence over to the New York Attorney General? Or just how you gonna get the investigation started? Through the United Nations? How about French intel? Meanwhile, the truther movement will be selling more dvds and shirts and who knows what else.

Collectible figurines.

[MIKILLINI]

Collectible figurines.
:newlol

Of who? Alex Jones? DRG? Steven Jones? Woods? Fetzer?

[Unsecured Coins]

anatomically correct judy woods too..

*shudder*

[JimBenArm]

anatomically correct judy woods too..

*shudder*
Are you going to pay for the therapy I need to get that image out of my head?

[MIKILLINI]

Jim I need your avatar dogbert to cast out the very image UC and you mentioned. I don't believe therapy will work. Hmmm...on second thought, Hayek therapy is the answer!

http://www.thaianxiety.com/images/nesh.jpg

Belz..I'm not spamming, therapy is required.;)

[mjd1982]

It's a very basic level of inference.

All the major Truth sites are involved in merchandising.

All the major Truth sites routinely ban any skeptics who threaten their market share.

People like Alex Jones, David Ray Griffin, the Loose Change boys, Pilots for Truth, CIT, 911 Mysteries etc etc etc are all marketing at least one product. It is all they do. Not one of them has ever done anything to bring about a new investigation or whatever. They are too busy with all the viral marketing.
Oh, so inference is admissible to debate when you want it, is that right?

Aside from that hypocrisy, all you have done is show that figures in the movement are selling stuff. You have to make the connection betweem this, and your assertion that the TM is "driven by financial gain". You wont.

[mjd1982]

How's this for a conspiracy: the truth movement, in general, is a burgeoning industry. The last thing they would ever want is an actual new investigation that may settle things once and for all.

As soon as those very few members who actually honestly want a new investigation and are serious about finding the truth realize this, the better off they'll be. Perhaps then we'll actually get some of this 'incontrovertible' evidence given to law enforcement agencies or major world media outlets.

Go back to #750, and see how many of the 1750 posts since have addressed post #750.

If you can't, you can either keep on squirming, or you can apologise. Its your choice.


...

[mjd1982]

so therefore thay would have no problem going anywhere to see if they could find out that FT or the PA were involved in a cover up about the power down and are using this to harrass an employee

is implicating putin (by your standards) any less of a problem than implicating FT or PA? or god help us mr bush?

this would be less or more brouhaha? you tell me

you intimated that they would not travel abroad for an investigation like this when it is quite plain they would and have done in the past

well answered but ultimately wrong again

2. are we correct to assume that we can disregard the official record being wiped as you have no proof of this?
I never said they would not travel. Implicating Putin for killing 1 russian is a million miles away from implicatin Bush in killing 3000 US. This should be obvious.

[mjd1982]

Well, I loved your "sensible" responses to #2487, #2488, #2491 and #2502. Of course I'm leaving out #2491 & #2494. Yeah, we now know that you're going to move the goal posts and say I would love to read your excuse as to why the first set of posts I listed are not "sensible."
Understand the difference between ignoring and ducking, this will resolve your confusion.

[mjd1982]

Ok, UC, you win.
Yet our "ilk" answering that post led to the whole argument on whether the claim that OBL was offered to us was credible or not. Of course there's posts #757, #764, etc. that also deal with post #750. So, in light of this dishonesty, we are supposed to take your word at face value because?:boggled:
No, some of your "ilk" flailed at explaining 1 point in #750, failing to show how such testimony does not suffice as evidence. There were 3 other points.

This should have been very simple to understand.

[mjd1982]

Oh, I will.

You've been shown AGAIN and AGAIN that "quicker" and "easier" are not synonyms, and that they do not necessarily follow one another.

And you've said your self that It'll take a long time to implement whatever the scenario., which means that it won't be really "quicker", will it ?

You're contradicting yourself.
Read the rest of the PH para, and you will see that the reason it will take long is because of difficulties- roadblocks, upheavals, clogged inventories etc.

Hence, as I have said every time, in this context, easier=quicker

[mjd1982]

Yes, I understand humor in all of its many forms. What you don't seem to understand is that the common thread is always, inescapably, AMUSEMENT.

Clockwork is not (except, of course, among the ignorant, morally undeveloped teenage boy set), nor was it intended to be, amusing on any level The juxtapositions and incongruities that simpletons like yourself dismiss as dark humor are, in fact, dripping with symbolism and have serious intent. The film is a severe parable, rich in metaphors. And they're not there for the viewer's amusement, genius. They're all completely loaded.

Clockwork is a satire. That you equate this with "Clockwork is humor for a moral purpose" speaks to a dim, uneducated, juvenile mindset.

Try reading serious reviews and criticism of the film if you'd like to learn. Posting links to insipid websites like "rotten tomatoes", or one review from 35 years ago that stands in contrast to just about every other one out there, does not impress.

Educate yourself, young man. You'll be less inclined to make a horse's ass out of yourself.

P.S. Since you apparently haven't the slightest clue as to what constitutes dark humor, rent Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove". That should help.
Lol, suffice to say that you should preclude "symbolism" and "serious inten" from the use of humour illustrates your problem quite nicely. Oh, as does your dismissal of an article "from 35 years ago".

No more discussion on this topic is necessary i think.

[mjd1982]

Let's try this again. Of the 10,000 people affected by this supposed power-down, we can guess that in the neighborhood of 8,000 are democrats. Of these 8,000, it is a safe assumption that a significant percentage are rabid in their hatred for George Bush. They would undoubtedly go to great lengths to see his head on a platter.

Since corroborating Scott's story might potentially be a step in this direction, it is inconceivable that they would ALL choose to remain silent. Contrary to your nonsensical assertion, they would in no way be indicting themselves or their employers. This is a vacuous fantasy, contrived by a very, very simple mind in a desperate attempt to explain away the unexplainable.
Well, the 2nd para here is the only one that addresses stuff that hasnt already been addressed, but since it is completely substanceless, I dont know what you expect me to say.

[mjd1982]

Oh, just a quickie- who was the dude who said that he thought Borat was racist/Sacha Baron Cohen was a racist? Does that person also think the Simpsons is racist too?

[volatile]

Read the rest of the PH para, and you will see that the reason it will take long is because of difficulties- roadblocks, upheavals, clogged inventories etc.

Hence, as I have said every time, in this context, easier=quicker

Eh? :confused:

It's going to be slow, even given a "New Pearl Harbor", but, according to you a "new Pearl Harbor" would make it "easier", if it wasn't for all the other problems - thus the US government 'massaged' 911? Don't you see how stupid that sounds?

You are talking absolute nonsense. Your arguments are verging on dribbling, blabbling inanity. Do you even think through the sense of what you're trying to argue?!

[mjd1982]

Eh? :confused:

It's going to be slow, even given a "New Pearl Harbor", but, according to you a "new Pearl Harbor" would make it "easier", if it wasn't for all the other problems - thus the US government 'massaged' 911? Don't you see how stupid that sounds?

You are talking absolute nonsense. Your arguments are verging on dribbling, blabbling inanity. Do you even think through the sense of what you're trying to argue?!
I think the last 2 sentences are more apt for your capacities of comprehension.

A new PH would make it easier. Full stop. Nothing about the other problems. These will be circumvented by the occurence of a new PH, according to PNAC.

[volatile]

Here you get confused. The policy as a whole will take a long time to implement whatever the scenario.

A new PH would make it easier. Full stop. Nothing about the other problems. These will be circumvented by the occurence of a new PH, according to PNAC.


We've already shown you that, if anything, the wars following 9/11 made spending on military technology slow down! Also, do you think we forget when you post things such as the sentences above? You're arguing that the PNAC wanted to cause a new Pearl Harbor in order to make their military gains arrive quicker, and that it will take a long time whatever happens. You're arguing against yourself! And you honestly wonder why no-one is convinced by your arguments?

[Brainache]

Oh, so inference is admissible to debate when you want it, is that right?

I never said it wasn't. I was also having a bit of a gentle dig at your "debate" style.


Aside from that hypocrisy, all you have done is show that figures in the movement are selling stuff. You have to make the connection betweem this, and your assertion that the TM is "driven by financial gain". You wont.

Even though the original assertion came from someone else, I have shown that all the leading figures of the TM are selling stuff. There may be exceptions to this, but I haven't seen any.

Of course, not everyone in the TM is making a profit, most of the Truthers like you are being exploited by the money making con-men.

Bought any good books lately?

[Belz...]

Read the rest of the PH para, and you will see that the reason it will take long is because of difficulties- roadblocks, upheavals, clogged inventories etc.

Hence, as I have said every time, in this context, easier=quicker

Hence ? It doesn't even follow.

Will it take a long time or not ?

A new PH would make it easier. Full stop.

I see. So now you can keep claiming that it made it EASIER, but cop-out by saying that OTHER factors have slowed it down. It's the end-of-the-world prophecies all over again. You can claim it's been delayed indefinitely and still say you're right.

[funk de fino]

I never said they would not travel. Implicating Putin for killing 1 russian is a million miles away from implicatin Bush in killing 3000 US. This should be obvious.

Right. So the Met are going to go to the US and uncover the 911 plot. What planet do you live on? How could such an occurrence ever be possible?


what did this mean then?

they might go and investigate why scott is being hassled and claims there has been a cover up by FT or PA, whether this leads them to think this was in any way connected to a plot by Bush to murder 3000 citizens would be your inference not mine, i see no evidence for it so why would the MET find any?

why would they not go to the states to investigate a small matter like scotts claims?

what about where the murders took place, does this make a difference?

are you trying to say that a russian person who has just been given uk citizenship being murdered with radiation, on british soil, that could have potentially killed more innocent UK and foreign citizens

1. is a small matter compared to FT potentially covering up a power down and victimising an employee because of it?

2. is a small matter compared to a government involvment in murder?

[funk de fino]

Oh, just a quickie- who was the dude who said that he thought Borat was racist/Sacha Baron Cohen was a racist? Does that person also think the Simpsons is racist too?

oh just a quickie, that would be me who thought Borat was racist

not cohen just the character borat

i will ignore the simpsons remark as you have ignored questions of mine, not nice is it?

[mjd1982]

We've already shown you that, if anything, the wars following 9/11 made spending on military technology slow down! Also, do you think we forget when you post things such as the sentences above? You're arguing that the PNAC wanted to cause a new Pearl Harbor in order to make their military gains arrive quicker, and that it will take a long time whatever happens. You're arguing against yourself! And you honestly wonder why no-one is convinced by your arguments?
Oh boy...

Please think before you post.

The transformation will take a long time. You cannot militarise space in a day. Do you understand this?

With the aid of a new PH, and the creation of a wartime environment, extra urgency will be put on military policy, and thus extra impetus will be provided to such transformations. Thus they will happen quicker.

Understand the difference between "quicker" and "quickly" and your confusion should dissipate.

[mjd1982]

I never said it wasn't. I was also having a bit of a gentle dig at your "debate" style.



Even though the original assertion came from someone else, I have shown that all the leading figures of the TM are selling stuff. There may be exceptions to this, but I haven't seen any.

Of course, not everyone in the TM is making a profit, most of the Truthers like you are being exploited by the money making con-men.

Bought any good books lately?
I have bought 1 book on 911 Truth, and that was about 1 mth ago to support the London movement. So tell me how I am being exploited?

And yes, you are right. Many people in TM are selling stuff. That is correct. Now, tell me how this means that the TM is driven by financial gain. This will be your 4th(?) attempt?

[mjd1982]

Hence ? It doesn't even follow.

Will it take a long time or not ?



I see. So now you can keep claiming that it made it EASIER, but cop-out by saying that OTHER factors have slowed it down. It's the end-of-the-world prophecies all over again. You can claim it's been delayed indefinitely and still say you're right.
As I said to the other dude, learn the difference between "quickly" and "quicker" (vite/ plus rapide)

[volatile]

The transformation will take a long time. You cannot militarise space in a day. Do you understand this?

Yes. Do you?

With the aid of a new PH, and the creation of a wartime environment, extra urgency will be put on military policy, and thus extra impetus will be provided to such transformations. Thus they will happen quicker.

You'll note, of course, that these transformations have not happened, and indeed have been impeded - the pressure to fund a war on two fronts has trumped the pressure to "militarise space". You're utterly, utterly wrong.

Understand the difference between "quicker" and "quickly" and your confusion should dissipate.

Military spending on technology has slowed down! Your contentions are demonstrably false.

[mjd1982]

what did this mean then?

they might go and investigate why scott is being hassled and claims there has been a cover up by FT or PA, whether this leads them to think this was in any way connected to a plot by Bush to murder 3000 citizens would be your inference not mine, i see no evidence for it so why would the MET find any?

why would they not go to the states to investigate a small matter like scotts claims?

what about where the murders took place, does this make a difference?

are you trying to say that a russian person who has just been given uk citizenship being murdered with radiation, on british soil, that could have potentially killed more innocent UK and foreign citizens

1. is a small matter compared to FT potentially covering up a power down and victimising an employee because of it?

2. is a small matter compared to a government involvment in murder?
Please dont be facile. The implication in Scotts charge is clear, otherwise we wouldnt be debating it. If it were just a matter of a power down, then there would be no need to discuss it. The suggestion is that there is a cover up of shady behaviour in the TT's the w/e b4 911 which would relate to gov behaviour. If the met were to go over and investigate this, then equally this would be the implication behind their actions- they would be, by implication investigatin the "conspiracy theory" that the US gov were to some degree involved in 911, or maybe behind the collapse of the TTs. This would not do, and is incomparable to the Litvinenko case, 1 guy being poisoned.

[mjd1982]

oh just a quickie, that would be me who thought Borat was racist

not cohen just the character borat

i will ignore the simpsons remark as you have ignored questions of mine, not nice is it?
1. I did not ignore your Borat contention, I just said that if you believed that, then we would have to agree to disagree.
2. Borat is a creation of Cohen- if he is racist, then Cohen would have to be too
3. So, is the Simpsons racist? Apu, Dr Nik, Groundskeeper Willie etc?

[mjd1982]

Yes. Do you?



You'll note, of course, that these transformations have not happened, and indeed have been impeded - the pressure to fund a war on two fronts has trumped the pressure to "militarise space". You're utterly, utterly wrong.



Military spending on technology has slowed down! Your contentions are demonstrably false.
Ok good, you have understood the 1st part. You argument here was not addressed, since I have addressed it so many times on this thread that it is getting quite comic.

Learn to distinguish between design and execution

I will leave you to see whether you can work out the rest yourself (you can get some hints by going back in the thread and reading my posts)

[Brainache]

I have bought 1 book on 911 Truth, and that was about 1 mth ago to support the London movement. So tell me how I am being exploited?

By handing over money for lies.

Someone is making a profit off you, by taking advantage of your gullibility and lying to you to get your money. How is that not exploitation?


And yes, you are right. Many people in TM are selling stuff. That is correct. Now, tell me how this means that the TM is driven by financial gain. This will be your 4th(?) attempt?

Umm 2nd attempt I believe.

Because it is the people who are making the financial gains that are driving the Truth Movement. It isn't the deluded schmucks who buy the lies that are driving the "movement", it's the Alex Joneses, David Ray Griffins and Dylan Averys who are in it for the money. They set the agenda, they drive the movement (such as it is) and they make the profits .

This really shouldn't be too difficult for you to work out mjd.

[volatile]

Learn to distinguish between design and execution


All right, genius. Here's a question.

How would the situation differ between case a) PNAC executed 9/11 and b) PNAC didn't execute 9/11?

These two cases are exactly the same - military spending on technology has not increased to their liking. Thus your claim is utterly unfalsifiable, which is pretty typical of your conspiratorial thinking. (cf. "The proof of a cover up is that it's been covered up").

[Belz...]

Jim I need your avatar dogbert to cast out the very image UC and you mentioned. I don't believe therapy will work. Hmmm...on second thought, Hayek therapy is the answer!

http://www.thaianxiety.com/images/nesh.jpg

Belz..I'm not spamming, therapy is required.;)

Pffft... I'll see your Hayek and raise you an Alba.



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608046a8a93938239.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7273)

[Belz...]

As I said to the other dude, learn the difference between "quickly" and "quicker" (vite/ plus rapide)

You have no idea what you're talking about. It hasn't happened yet, so you don't even know if it'll be "quicker" (plus rapide) anyway.

The transformation will take a long time. You cannot militarise space in a day. Do you understand this?

So how do you know if it'll be "quicker" (plus rapide) ? How do you know it won't be "slower" (plus lent) ?

With the aid of a new PH, and the creation of a wartime environment, extra urgency will be put on military policy, and thus extra impetus will be provided to such transformations. Thus they will happen quicker.

Only in your fantasy world, because in reality none of this is actually happening.

Learn to distinguish between design and execution

If you're only designing, then any discussion about the execution is irrelevant.

[lapman]

No, some of your "ilk" flailed at explaining 1 point in #750, failing to show how such testimony does not suffice as evidence. There were 3 other points.

This should have been very simple to understand.Again, yes it's simple to understand and again, you are 100% wrong. You have yet to prove that his testimony has any credibility, therefore it does not qualify as evidence. Your refusal to acknowledge this does not make it wrong, but does make your contention that we failed dishonest. You have yet to prove that the not acting on the 40 threats and warnings in a way that appeases you is an unusual occurrence just like you have failed to show the that the PNAC's new PH is propitious to any policy. You failure to acknowledge this goes hand in hand with your failure to acknowledge that there is no cover up by FT about the WTC power down and your failure to acknowledge the "TM's" extremely dishonest move to convolute Scott's story into something completely different.

BTW, in your case, ignore and duck are the same thing since when any one of us ignore your posts, you accuse us of not having the courage to respond. Then again, even when we do respond, you wait until the response is many pages back and you then accuse us of failing to respond in any way. Then, when we show you that we did indeed respond, you modify your statement with your mythical "sensible" clause even though your meaning of sensible is an ever changing definition that we are supposed to somehow know from one post to another. Your continued tactics of moving goalposts, lying, bending space and time and acknowledgment that you may be wrong is extremely dishonest. Yet we are supposed to take your word at face value. Well, someday you may grow up to realize that the world does not work that way.

[nicepants]

Oh, excuse me. So the driving force behind the movement is money. What is your proof/basis for saying this?

So people sell DVDs and aprons. Tell me how this proves that the driving force behind the movement is selling such.

How much of that money has been spent on a new investigation?

Dylan Avery says that over 50,000 copies of LC have been sold. SOURCE (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/05/911_documentary_removed/)
50,000 DVDs at $17.95 apice, that's $897,500.
(This is not including sales of the soundtrack, sweatshirts, t-shirts or other merchandise, any money from advertising from their radio shows, or advertisements on their website, or any funding provided by Alex Jones et all for LCFC, or from the Virgin Airlines debacle)

[HeyLeroy]

Oh, so inference is admissible to debate when you want it, is that right?

Aside from that hypocrisy, all you have done is show that figures in the movement are selling stuff. You have to make the connection betweem this, and your assertion that the TM is "driven by financial gain". You wont.

The connection there is far more clear than your conclusions regarding the PNAC document.

Understand the difference between ignoring and ducking, this will resolve your confusion.

Okay, you've platypussed several of my posts.
http://liveu-06.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1241706L.jpg

Please dont be facile. The implication in Scotts charge is clear, otherwise we wouldnt be debating it. (snip).

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I've explained it to you so many times on the SLC forum.

If the implication were so clear-cut there would be no need for debate.

The reason there's debate on the issue is due to the ambiguity. Has that not sunk in yet, njd1982?


2. Borat is a creation of Cohen- if he is racist, then Cohen would have to be too


Using that logic, Thomas Harris, author of BLACK SUNDAY, RED DRAGON, SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, etc., is a canniballistic serial-killer.


Stephanie Seymour:

http://liveu-04.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1241704L.jpg

All-in.

[mjd1982]

By handing over money for lies.

Someone is making a profit off you, by taking advantage of your gullibility and lying to you to get your money. How is that not exploitation?



Umm 2nd attempt I believe.

Because it is the people who are making the financial gains that are driving the Truth Movement. It isn't the deluded schmucks who buy the lies that are driving the "movement", it's the Alex Joneses, David Ray Griffins and Dylan Averys who are in it for the money. They set the agenda, they drive the movement (such as it is) and they make the profits .

This really shouldn't be too difficult for you to work out mjd.
Sorry, whose agenda am I following?

You have yet to
a) Show that Avery, Jones et al are getting rich of the TM
b) Show that this illustrates that the driving force behind the TM is this financial gain.

This is pretty poor logic. I could equally say that Chomsky does what he does for financial gain, not to spread his thoughts.

Of course, you will say that all these people are lying, and NC isnt.Well, 2 problems there
1- Its what we are debating
2- You will have to prove that they are consciously lying. I think David Icke's reptilian spiel is insane, but I'm sure he believes it. So you will have to show, 3rd attempt, that this is all the case.

You can give up any time yuo want

[mjd1982]

All right, genius. Here's a question.

How would the situation differ between case a) PNAC executed 9/11 and b) PNAC didn't execute 9/11?

These two cases are exactly the same - military spending on technology has not increased to their liking. Thus your claim is utterly unfalsifiable, which is pretty typical of your conspiratorial thinking. (cf. "The proof of a cover up is that it's been covered up").
So you havent understood.

Let me give you an example of the difference, one which no one in your movement has come upon to understand, betweem design and execution.

PNAC have their plan to have a new PH, start the never ending WOT, and get a load of money for these military radicalisations. That is the design. They get the new PH. They get a load of money. They embark upon one element of the WOT, namely the occupation and control of Iraq and its oil fields. They overthrow Saddam, and then they start to do stupid things, like firing the entire Iraqi army, Abu Ghraib, and more. This creates resentment, a quagmire, and a war that ends up taking all the resources from the US, and stopping development of the other programs. This is the execution.

Further they cannot withdraw, since they would lose direct control of what they invaded for, even if this might free up more funds for other things.

Hence the difference betweem design and execution. Make sure you tell all your friends.

[mjd1982]

You have no idea what you're talking about. It hasn't happened yet, so you don't even know if it'll be "quicker" (plus rapide) anyway.



So how do you know if it'll be "quicker" (plus rapide) ? How do you know it won't be "slower" (plus lent) ?



Only in your fantasy world, because in reality none of this is actually happening.



If you're only designing, then any discussion about the execution is irrelevant.
Lente- la transformation

[mjd1982]

Again, yes it's simple to understand and again, you are 100% wrong. You have yet to prove that his testimony has any credibility, therefore it does not qualify as evidence.


good. So you believe that the testimony of the middleman in discussions between the US and the Taliban about killing OBL, is worthless in a debate about discussions between the US and the Taliban about killing OBL.

Back in the real world, this is called key testimony. You may dispute it, but it is key testimony, and would be central to any case about Bush's "failures" to stop 911


You have yet to prove that the not acting on the 40 threats and warnings in a way that appeases you is an unusual occurrence


He was warned once in every 4 days that OBL was plotting to attack the US. All 40 times he did nothing. If you are happy with that sort of behaviour from your president, then you too are a negligent member of the electorate.


just like you have failed to show the that the PNAC's new PH is propitious to any policy.


Lol, you ignoring it doesnt mean that it hasnt been shown. Btw, though you may well be closing your eyes, this is being show on this page


You failure to acknowledge this goes hand in hand with your failure to acknowledge that there is no cover up by FT about the WTC power down and your failure to acknowledge the "TM's" extremely dishonest move to convolute Scott's story into something completely different.


WTF???

Where has his story been convoluted? You were trying to say that the TM werent even aware of his story, that it was just me! ROFL Get off them pills mate!

The 1st part, well, I have asked people to explain why he hasnt been sacked for implicating his employers in a 911 cover up. No one has. Surprise surprise!


BTW, in your case, ignore and duck are the same thing since when any one of us ignore your posts, you accuse us of not having the courage to respond. Then again, even when we do respond, you wait until the response is many pages back and you then accuse us of failing to respond in any way. Then, when we show you that we did indeed respond, you modify your statement with your mythical "sensible" clause even though your meaning of sensible is an ever changing definition that we are supposed to somehow know from one post to another. Your continued tactics of moving goalposts, lying, bending space and time and acknowledgment that you may be wrong is extremely dishonest. Yet we are supposed to take your word at face value. Well, someday you may grow up to realize that the world does not work that way.

I dont mind when someone doesnt respond to me. But when I go on and on and on at people to respond, and no one does, that is ducking.

[Belz...]

Lente- la transformation

Lent- le changement.

Si tu veux m'en apprendre sur ma langue maternelle, tu ferais mieux de t'atteler.

[mjd1982]

How much of that money has been spent on a new investigation?

Dylan Avery says that over 50,000 copies of LC have been sold. SOURCE (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/05/911_documentary_removed/)
50,000 DVDs at $17.95 apice, that's $897,500.
(This is not including sales of the soundtrack, sweatshirts, t-shirts or other merchandise, any money from advertising from their radio shows, or advertisements on their website, or any funding provided by Alex Jones et all for LCFC, or from the Virgin Airlines debacle)
There has been no investigation, what is there to pay for? There can only be a new investigation with congressional approval as I have said

[mjd1982]

Lent- le changement.

Si tu veux m'en apprendre sur ma langue maternelle, tu ferais mieux de t'atteler.
Oui, mais g pas dit "changement".

[Belz...]

Pffft... I'll see your Hayek and raise you an Alba.

(nsfw)

Not safe for work ??

NOT SAFE ?????

But... But... Jessica is ALWAYS safe for work <sob>.

[Belz...]

Oui, mais g pas dit "changement".

Effectivement, puisque "changement" n'est pas un mot Anglais et que, à date, nous discuttons dans cette langue un peu simpliste pour laquelle les objets et les noms communs n'ont pas de sexe.

[twinstead]

I dont mind when someone doesnt respond to me. But when I go on and on and on at people to respond, and no one does, that is ducking.

Now see, you did exactly what he told you you were doing. You accuse others of not responding to your posts when they have, and when it's pointed out to you, you simply say "well, it's not sensible".

Then after a few pages goes by, you start again with the 'no one responds to me' spiel.

What's funny is that in response to a post that you even quoted that called you on it, you STILL DID IT.

[HeyLeroy]

Sorry, whose agenda am I following?

You have yet to
a) Show that Avery, Jones et al are getting rich of the TM
b) Show that this illustrates that the driving force behind the TM is this financial gain.

This is pretty poor logic. I could equally say that Chomsky does what he does for financial gain, not to spread his thoughts.

I have no problem with letting the wealthy keep most of their wealth myself, but Chomsky is a man who claims to be opposed to this and yet goes to great lengths to place himself in the company of those he claims to despise: we aren't talking of a liberal sitting back and enjoying tax cuts handed down by the Bush administration here, but an advocate of extreme left-wing equalitarianism who went out of his way to find tax specialists to help him take advantage of every dodge and loophole possible, indulging in the very shenanigans he himself has condemned as "greedy" and "immoral", and if that doesn't meet the textbook definition of hypocrisy, nothing does. One should either be willing to live according to the principles one preaches to others, or one should stop preaching them altogether.
Noam Chomsky is a Hypocrite (http://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2005/10/noam_chomsky_is.html)

Lent- le changement.

Si tu veux m'en apprendre sur ma langue maternelle, tu ferais mieux de t'atteler.

possédé

[Belz...]

Now see, you did exactly what he told you you were doing. You accuse others of not responding to your posts when they have, and when it's pointed out to you, you simply say "well, it's not sensible".

Then after a few pages goes by, you start again with the 'no one responds to me' spiel.

What's funny is that in response to a post that you even quoted that called you on it, you STILL DID IT.

Reminds me of a conversation with someone:

Me: That's very annoying. Why do you keep doing [something] ?
Person: Well, YOU do it too!
Me: See ? That's your standard defense to everything, you always say that.
Person: Well, so do YOU!

:rolleyes:

[Belz...]

possédé

Hein ? Quoi ?

Pourquoi "possédé" ?

[HeyLeroy]

(Owned)

[jsiv]

Not safe for work ??

NOT SAFE ?????

But... But... Jessica is ALWAYS safe for work <sob>.


I'd like to work her safe.

[lapman]

good. So you believe that the testimony of the middleman in discussions between the US and the Taliban about killing OBL, is worthless in a debate about discussions between the US and the Taliban about killing OBL.

Back in the real world, this is called key testimony. You may dispute it, but it is key testimony, and would be central to any case about Bush's "failures" to stop 911 HAHAHAHAHA. In the real world, it's only called key testimony if it's credible. We have shown repeatedly and sensibly that the credibility of the sources and the "middleman" is extremely suspect. So, in any investigation or trial, his testimony would be dismissed immediately.

He was warned once in every 4 days that OBL was plotting to attack the US. All 40 times he did nothing. If you are happy with that sort of behaviour from your president, then you too are a negligent member of the electorate.
You have been asked what should have been done. You have yet to provide any viable response to the warning. Since many of the first threats called for imminent attack that didn't happen. So how are they supposed to take any other threat seriously? You still haven't posted any comparison to show what should have been happening.


Lol, you ignoring it doesnt mean that it hasnt been shown. Btw, though you may well be closing your eyes, this is being show on this page
I'm not ignoring anything. You have yet to post anything that is based on reality. You're design vs execution argument is simply a cop out. It's only the execution that matters. Understand this and you'll understand why your whole new PH argument is completely ridiculous.
WTF???

Where has his story been convoluted? I've already posted the link, referred you back to that post and described how it's been convoluted several times. Your failure to acknowledge this shows the extreme depth of your dishonesty.You were trying to say that the TM weren't even aware of his story, that it was just me! ROFL Get off them pills mate! I said that where? Please post this.

The 1st part, well, I have asked people to explain why he hasnt been sacked for implicating his employers in a 911 cover up. No one has. Surprise surprise!
That's because he never implicated his employers in any way, shape or form. Not even the "TM" believed in the cover-up. You and ONLY you make this claim. This has been explained over and over again. So your statement is a lie.

I dont mind when someone doesnt respond to me.A lie But when I go on and on and on at people to respond, and no one does, that is ducking.Your failure to acknowledge the responses is dishonest to the extreme.

[funk de fino]

This would not do, and is incomparable to the Litvinenko case, 1 guy being poisoned.

i will ignore again the snideness

so two cases where it is suspected that the leader of a country has conspired to murder a citizen or citizens are incomparable? what would the charges be in both cases?

would the litvinenko one be worse because it was committed against someone in another country? or does that make no difference in this case?

[funk de fino]

1. I did not ignore your Borat contention, I just said that if you believed that, then we would have to agree to disagree.
2. Borat is a creation of Cohen- if he is racist, then Cohen would have to be too
3. So, is the Simpsons racist? Apu, Dr Nik, Groundskeeper Willie etc?

1, i never said you did, read more closely, it was other questions, slow down, you are making mistakes

2. no because frakenstein is a creation of mary shelly but i do not believe that makes her a murdering monster made of dead body parts

3. ignored as you have done to some of my questions

[lapman]

Since you claim that I close my eyes to posts like this, here we go, again.

PNAC have their plan to have a new PH,This is the first lie. PNAC never stated or implied that a new PH was a part of the plan. start the never ending WOT,Lie #2. The RAD was to prevent war, not start one. Show where they claim a war is needed or wanted. and get a load of money for these military radicalisations.Finally a true statement! That is the design. They get the new PH.Which is not a part of the design. They get a load of money.Which is not entirely true per the memos that have been posted. They embark upon one element of the WOT, namely the occupation and control of Iraq and its oil fields.Which is not part of the design, nor is it any way linked to the "new PH" until after WMD's were not found. They overthrow Saddam, and then they start to do stupid things, like firing the entire Iraqi army, Abu Ghraib, and more. This creates resentment, a quagmire, and a war that ends up taking all the resources from the US, and stopping development of the other programs. This is the execution.Hence your whole argument is baseless since your "execution" is not based on any design of the PNAC.

Further they cannot withdraw, since they would lose direct control of what they invaded for, even if this might free up more funds for other things.
How can they lose control of something they have no control over in the first place?

Hence the difference betweem design and execution. Make sure you tell all your friends.Hence the huge holes in your logic, now all your "ilk" will see. Hey, none of your "ilk" are here to defend you. Looks like they don't believe you either.

[BillyRayValentine]

The 1st part, well, I have asked people to explain why he hasnt been sacked for implicating his employers in a 911 cover up. No one has. Surprise surprise!

Dozens of posts have pointed out that he has implicated no one, at least not publicly, hence FT has no legal basis for firing him.

Now, if during your chat with him he did explicitly accuse his employers of participating in a 9/11 cover-up, that might change things. Would you be willing to testify under oath that he did this? A close friend of mine is an executive at Franklin Templeton, FT's parent company. If you'd be willing to play ball, I'm sure we could end his tenure at FT right quick.

Of course, if he's telling the truth as you insist, this process could end up being quite lucrative for Scott, with the added benefit of blowing the entire conspiracy wide open.

So how 'bout it? Do either you or Scott have the moral courage to actually walk the walk? Or are vague innuendos supported by faulty logic as far as you're willing to go? Remember, we're talking about the mass murder of 3,000 innocent human beings here...

[lapman]

There has been no investigation, what is there to pay for? There can only be a new investigation with congressional approval as I have said
Since there is no investigation to fund, where is the money going to?

[mjd1982]

Effectivement, puisque "changement" n'est pas un mot Anglais et que, à date, nous discuttons dans cette langue un peu simpliste pour laquelle les objets et les noms communs n'ont pas de sexe.
Il y a une difference entre "simpliste" et "simple". Je pense k je pourrais bien t'enseigner ta langue maternelle, evidemment!

Et en plus- nous discutons

[mjd1982]

Now see, you did exactly what he told you you were doing. You accuse others of not responding to your posts when they have, and when it's pointed out to you, you simply say "well, it's not sensible".

Then after a few pages goes by, you start again with the 'no one responds to me' spiel.

What's funny is that in response to a post that you even quoted that called you on it, you STILL DID IT.
Lol, couldnt be a better person to be posting that


Go back to #750, and see how many of the 1750 posts since have addressed post #750.

If you can't, you can either keep on squirming, or you can apologise. Its your choice.


3rd time i'm asking u this!

[mjd1982]

HAHAHAHAHA. In the real world, it's only called key testimony if it's credible. We have shown repeatedly and sensibly that the credibility of the sources and the "middleman" is extremely suspect. So, in any investigation or trial, his testimony would be dismissed immediately.


lets be clear here, You have disputed it based on:
1. He's 1/2 Afghan and so unavoidably mendacious in matters such as this
2. The US State dept disagrees.

The 1st would not be allowed in a courtroom; the 2nd would be the evidence to be disputed


You have been asked what should have been done. You have yet to provide any viable response to the warning. Since many of the first threats called for imminent attack that didn't happen. So how are they supposed to take any other threat seriously? You still haven't posted any comparison to show what should have been happening.


I have posted many times on what should have been done. For start, they could have done what the 911 Comm recomended
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A

I have posted this video many many many times now


I'm not ignoring anything. You have yet to post anything that is based on reality. You're design vs execution argument is simply a cop out. It's only the execution that matters. Understand this and you'll understand why your whole new PH argument is completely ridiculous.


Lol, how simple you must be. Can we have some intelligent posters on here? Are there any in your camp? Desgin is all that matters, since what the PNAC doc represents is design- the design that a new PH would be propitious to policy.

Think, if you can, before you post.

Possede!


I've already posted the link, referred you back to that post and described how it's been convoluted several times. Your failure to acknowledge this shows the extreme depth of your dishonesty. I said that where? Please post this.


Well if that is the case, which it probably isnt, i would have been ignoring you. Send me the link again,

Whats happened to you btw? On SLC you seemed remotely intelligent, you were the one who delayed by arrival here if I remember right. Has losing gone to your head?


That's because he never implicated his employers in any way, shape or form. Not even the "TM" believed in the cover-up. You and ONLY you make this claim. This has been explained over and over again. So your statement is a lie.


Pffff... Hilarious. Ok, boy, i dont even know if I want to go through this again...

He has stated that there was a power down in his offices, right? He is implying that something dodgy was happening, right? FT were having this pwer dowm, right? FT have not come out with details of this allegedly nefarious power down, not reported it to any sources, right? Thus they are involved in the cover up of of something nefarious. This is pretty damn simple.


Your failure to acknowledge the responses is dishonest to the extreme.


I'm gonna humiliate you like I amd doing to Twinstead.

The initial post to this section was #750. Show me one person who has responded to this post, in 1750 posts.

[mjd1982]

i will ignore again the snideness

so two cases where it is suspected that the leader of a country has conspired to murder a citizen or citizens are incomparable? what would the charges be in both cases?

would the litvinenko one be worse because it was committed against someone in another country? or does that make no difference in this case?
Where the hell is the snideness??!!

The diffference is 1x3000. Plus native, potential threat, versus domestic, non threatening civilians

[mjd1982]

1, i never said you did, read more closely, it was other questions, slow down, you are making mistakes

2. no because frakenstein is a creation of mary shelly but i do not believe that makes her a murdering monster made of dead body parts

3. ignored as you have done to some of my questions
1. Ok, but now I dont know what your point was

2. What?? No more is Cohen Kazakh... The point is that he is using Borat as a direct parody, to also make indirect parodies. Thus his use of Borat as a parody, would be racist, if Borat was.

3. Show me what i have ignored of you please, adnd then kindly answer my point

[mjd1982]

Since you claim that I close my eyes to posts like this, here we go, again.
This is the first lie. PNAC never stated or implied that a new PH was a part of the plan.


They stated that it would make things go quicker, due to the circumventing of roadblocks and overhauls- hence easier


Lie #2. The RAD was to prevent war, not start one. Show where they claim a war is needed or wanted.


It was to preserve US hegemony. Everything else was secondary. This would have been made easier by a new PH, was above



Which is not a part of the design.


as above


Which is not entirely true per the memos that have been posted.


ur denying the arms budget went up drastically?


Which is not part of the design, nor is it any way linked to the "new PH" until after WMD's were not found.


read the doc, I have posted you quotes amillion times I am sure, you or your herd


Hence your whole argument is baseless since your "execution" is not based on any design of the PNAC.


I dont care about execution, I aminterested in design


How can they lose control of something they have no control over in the first place?


They had enough control to sack the army, and overthrow and kill the president. That is control


Hence the huge holes in your logic, now all your "ilk" will see. Hey, none of your "ilk" are here to defend you. Looks like they don't believe you either.

This concerns me not a jot, I want to debate on my own; as you can see, I dont need any help. But for the record, I have received 2 PMs laughing at the stupidity of you and your herd, not that this means anything.

[mjd1982]

Dozens of posts have pointed out that he has implicated no one, at least not publicly, hence FT has no legal basis for firing him.

Now, if during your chat with him he did explicitly accuse his employers of participating in a 9/11 cover-up, that might change things. Would you be willing to testify under oath that he did this? A close friend of mine is an executive at Franklin Templeton, FT's parent company. If you'd be willing to play ball, I'm sure we could end his tenure at FT right quick.

Of course, if he's telling the truth as you insist, this process could end up being quite lucrative for Scott, with the added benefit of blowing the entire conspiracy wide open.

So how 'bout it? Do either you or Scott have the moral courage to actually walk the walk? Or are vague innuendos supported by faulty logic as far as you're willing to go? Remember, we're talking about the mass murder of 3,000 innocent human beings here...
What an absolutely idiotic post. Am I willing to conspire in getting someone who I met once fired just so he might go to court against 2 multi billion dollar firms and the US government??? What the hell are you taking???

As for he didnt implicate his company, he is implying that there was nefarious activities undertaken on the w/e b4 911, with the blessing of FT, on their premises, and they have not since come out and admitted to this undertaking. And you say this is not implicative. You are simple, no?

[lapman]

lets be clear here, You have disputed it based on:
1. He's 1/2 Afghan and so unavoidably mendacious in matters such as this
2. The US State dept disagrees.

The 1st would not be allowed in a courtroom; False statement. If he was a credible witness, he would be allowed. I never stated that his ethnic background had anything to do with his credibility.
the 2nd would be the evidence to be disputed
This would leave the burden of proof on him. Where are the supposed documents that provide proof?
I have posted many times on what should have been done. For start, they could have done what the 911 Comm recomended
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A

I have posted this video many many many times now
I said viable and I said yours.

Lol, how simple you must be. Can we have some intelligent posters on here? Are there any in your camp? Desgin is all that matters, since what the PNAC doc represents is design- the design that a new PH would be propitious to policy. I guess you don't know the difference between intelligent vs gullible. As already shown, the PH is in now way part of PNAC's design. An intelligent person would have figured this out by now. Someone who's gullible enough to believe the "TM's" lies would not.

Think, if you can, before you post.
Try following your own advise.

Well if that is the case, which it probably isnt, i would have been ignoring you. Send me the link again,
Why, so you can "ignore" it again. Go back in the posts and find it yourself.

Whats happened to you btw? On SLC you seemed remotely intelligent, you were the one who delayed by arrival here if I remember right. Has losing gone to your head?Nope, I'm fine. You, on the other hand, are so lost in your psychosis that you can't distinguish between reality and fantasy.

Pffff... Hilarious. Ok, boy, i dont even know if I want to go through this again...

He has stated that there was a power down in his offices, right?Right. He is implying that something dodgy was happening, right?Right. FT were having this pwer dowm, right?WRONG. PA was having the power down. FT just happen to be a lessee on some of the affected floors. FT have not come out with details of this allegedly nefarious power down, not reported it to any sources, right?WRONG. They did not order the power down so there is nothing for them to report to anybody else. Thus they are involved in the cover up of of something nefarious. This is pretty damn simple.Except that you are wrong.



I'm gonna humiliate you like I amd doing to Twinstead.
Ok, I'm waiting

The initial post to this section was #750. Show me one person who has responded to this post, in 1750 posts.Again, why? So you can move the goalposts again? Go back and find it for yourself (#757 comes to mind).

[nicepants]

There has been no investigation, what is there to pay for? There can only be a new investigation with congressional approval as I have said

If the investigation is approved by congress, it wouldn't be independent, now would it?

As far as what there is to pay for? How about money to victim's families? (Or do you think they were in on it too?)


You have yet to
a) Show that Avery, Jones et al are getting rich of the TM

Dylan Avery says that over 50,000 copies of LC have been sold. SOURCE (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/05/911_documentary_removed/)
50,000 DVDs at $17.95 apice, that's $897,500.

[funk de fino]

Where the hell is the snideness??!!

The diffference is 1x3000. Plus native, potential threat, versus domestic, non threatening civilians

possibilty of more than 1 in the litvinenko case as well though, wasnt there?

litvinenko was by now a uk citizen, so is it any different than the foreign workers killed in 911, these were not domestic? very propitous to try and imagine only american nationals were killed on 911 eh?

bush alledgedly murders uk citizens so would or could the MET not be expected to investigate any allegations? remember at this point in time, it is not an allegation against bush it is an allegation against FT or more likely PA of dodgy goings on around that date, if they find more then we need to think how far this would go at that point and only at that point

they are similar cases of state sponsored murder, if we believe your opinion on who carried out 911, carried out by these countries leaders, what charges could be brought?

i would say the putin case is worse ,in some ways, because there is some case built that it was ordered by someone in russia and it was done to a foreign national on foreign soil, the reason they will not hand him over is because they fear what the MET know and what may come out in court

whereas there is no proof in the 911 murders that would indite bush, if there was he would in the clink by now

the whole crux is that you said it was not possible to imagine the MET would investigate these claims and by looking at the litvinenko case it seems they most probably would, if not what reasons would stop them?

[funk de fino]

1. Ok, but now I dont know what your point was

2. What?? No more is Cohen Kazakh... The point is that he is using Borat as a direct parody, to also make indirect parodies. Thus his use of Borat as a parody, would be racist, if Borat was.

3. Show me what i have ignored of you please, adnd then kindly answer my point

1. err ok

2. he is a creation of cohen, he is a racist and bigotted boor, this does not mean cohen is, was warren mitchell racist?

3. i am not your PA, but in the case of groundskeeper willie, then no, the simpsons is not racist because of him

[funk de fino]

As for he didnt implicate his company, he is implying that there was nefarious activities undertaken on the w/e b4 911, with the blessing of FT, on their premises, and they have not since come out and admitted to this undertaking. And you say this is not implicative. You are simple, no?

no, he is not

FT did not give their blessing, they had no choice in the matter, they are the tenant, since when do tenants get to dictate to landlords about maintenance work that needs to be carried out?

they have not admitted the power down or denied the power down, point irrelevant

none of the other companies that have offices on those floors from 50 upwards have come out and admitted it either? they must have been in on the action too i take it? they must have given their blessing for the nefarious activities? you are the only one so far who thinks there is an implication of FT, does this not ring any alarm bells in that head of yours?

you accuse this guy of being simple and then reply in such a simpleton fashion yourself?

[lapman]

They stated that it would make things go quickerTrue, due to the circumventing of roadblocks and overhauls- hence easierfalse. It would be due to need.
It was to preserve US hegemony. Everything else was secondary. This would have been made easier by a new PH, was aboveCompletely false. A war is a potential threat to hegemony because you can lose. The PNAC would know this.
ur denying the arms budget went up drastically?Not denying it. But it did not go up per PNAC's design.
read the doc, I have posted you quotes amillion times I am sure, you or your herdAs I've stated, and proved, many times, the doc refers to the Gulf region in general, not Iraq specifically.
I dont care about execution, I aminterested in designOf course since it is easier to change your take on the design to suit your needs.
They had enough control to sack the army, and overthrow and kill the president. That is control.errr. You stated:They embark upon one element of the WOT, namely the occupation and control of Iraq and its oil fields.We do not have control over Iraq and it's oil fields.

This concerns me not a jot, I want to debate on my own; as you can see, I dont need any help. But for the record, I have received 2 PMs laughing at the stupidity of you and your herd, not that this means anything.Hey, I've gotten 2 PMs as well about you. Bully for you. But they are not posting on here. If they really supported you, they would be defending you regardless.

[BillyRayValentine]

Lol, suffice to say that you should preclude "symbolism" and "serious inten" from the use of humour illustrates your problem quite nicely.

Uh, we're talking about a specific film. Not a generality, genius.

Please stop making such a fool out of yourself.

[BillyRayValentine]

Well, the 2nd para here is the only one that addresses stuff that hasnt already been addressed, but since it is completely substanceless, I dont know what you expect me to say.

The point is (or at least should be) self-evident.

I repeat. Please stop making such a fool out of yourself.

[BillyRayValentine]

What an absolutely idiotic post. Am I willing to conspire in getting someone who I met once fired just so he might go to court against 2 multi billion dollar firms and the US government??? What the hell are you taking???

As ever, excellent comprehension skills.

You say he has already implicated them. That what he has said, thus far, is tantamount to accusing them of a cover-up.

Confirming what he has explicitly said to you, personally, should change nothing, by your logic. If he hasn't been fired yet, nor will he if you share what he's told you. It's a way to test your theory - that he hasn't and won't be fired because he's telling the truth.

If he is fired (and telling the truth), however, that much better for the both of you. He'll make millions in court, and the both of you will be heroes the world over for cracking the case.

I offered you a chance to prove your point, youngster. You'd be conspiring to prove his veracity, and thrust all this nonsense into the light of day. I'd think you'd jump at the chance. But no, you're content (as is Scott) to leave things at the innuendo stage. No point in risking one's job over a little thing like the murder of 3,000, eh?

As for he didnt implicate his company, he is implying that there was nefarious activities undertaken on the w/e b4 911, with the blessing of FT, on their premises, and they have not since come out and admitted to this undertaking. And you say this is not implicative. You are simple, no?

Astonishing. Nefarious activities on their premises? With the blessing of FT? They should admit to this undertaking?

What an absolutely retarded paragraph. Congratulations - a new personal low.

Your "thoughts" are so frighteningly dull, I can't bear witness to them anymore. Not to mention I'm starting to feel guilty - almost like I'm enabling your stupidity. Time for me to just count my blessings for having all my faculties, and move along.

Good luck to you - this moronic thread is all yours.

[nicepants]

Good luck to you - this moronic thread is all yours.

To say this thread is moronic is an insult to morons everywhere. I propose that Mjd is given an honorary Stundie for failing to present any new evidence after over 2,600 posts.

[Corsair 115]

At the time I posted this, mjd1982 had a total of 749 posts. 711 of those are in this single thread.

I just found that an interesting bit of numeric trivia...


Incidentally, this is my first post in this thread.

[mjd1982]

False statement. If he was a credible witness, he would be allowed. I never stated that his ethnic background had anything to do with his credibility.


No, you say he isnt credible because the state dept disagree with him.

Dont even go into law.


This would leave the burden of proof on him. Where are the supposed documents that provide proof?


They were supplied to CP. They exist. They would be supplied in court


I guess you don't know the difference between intelligent vs gullible. As already shown, the PH is in now way part of PNAC's design. An intelligent person would have figured this out by now. Someone who's gullible enough to believe the "TM's" lies would not.


Again, a substanceless piece of opinion, nothing I can say here



Nope, I'm fine. You, on the other hand, are so lost in your psychosis that you can't distinguish between reality and fantasy.


as above


Right.Right.WRONG. PA was having the power down. FT just happen to be a lessee on some of the affected floors.


Good. So you dont think that SF is alleging FT had a power down on the w/e b4 911. This illustrates your moronic and untenable position very well


WRONG. They did not order the power down so there is nothing for them to report to anybody else.


As above

[mjd1982]

If the investigation is approved by congress, it wouldn't be independent, now would it?

As far as what there is to pay for? How about money to victim's families? (Or do you think they were in on it too?)



Dylan Avery says that over 50,000 copies of LC have been sold. SOURCE (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/05/911_documentary_removed/)
50,000 DVDs at $17.95 apice, that's $897,500.
1. This has been discussed a million times. Go back to ~p5, read and learn

2. Thats one group. Go and show what the others have done. And move onto the othr 1/2 points

[mjd1982]

1. err ok

2. he is a creation of cohen, he is a racist and bigotted boor, this does not mean cohen is, was warren mitchell racist?

3. i am not your PA, but in the case of groundskeeper willie, then no, the simpsons is not racist because of him
Borat is a direct vehicle for Cohen's social commentary. Thus if Borat is racist, logically so is Cohen.

Similar can be applied to Wille etc. What is happening here is simply that the absurdity of pointing to "Scottishphobia" as an instance of racism is making you realise that such cannot, sensibly be true. Which goes back nicely to the point about chinese motorcycles.

[mjd1982]

no, he is not

FT did not give their blessing, they had no choice in the matter, they are the tenant, since when do tenants get to dictate to landlords about maintenance work that needs to be carried out?

they have not admitted the power down or denied the power down, point irrelevant

none of the other companies that have offices on those floors from 50 upwards have come out and admitted it either? they must have been in on the action too i take it? they must have given their blessing for the nefarious activities? you are the only one so far who thinks there is an implication of FT, does this not ring any alarm bells in that head of yours?

you accuse this guy of being simple and then reply in such a simpleton fashion yourself?
Not a good point. To say that because they havent said anything, therefore theyre not complicit in the cover up is an absurdity, since one of the characteristics of a cover up can be that no one says anything. Thus your argument has zero logical worth

[mjd1982]

possibilty of more than 1 in the litvinenko case as well though, wasnt there?

litvinenko was by now a uk citizen, so is it any different than the foreign workers killed in 911, these were not domestic? very propitous to try and imagine only american nationals were killed on 911 eh?

bush alledgedly murders uk citizens so would or could the MET not be expected to investigate any allegations? remember at this point in time, it is not an allegation against bush it is an allegation against FT or more likely PA of dodgy goings on around that date, if they find more then we need to think how far this would go at that point and only at that point

they are similar cases of state sponsored murder, if we believe your opinion on who carried out 911, carried out by these countries leaders, what charges could be brought?

i would say the putin case is worse ,in some ways, because there is some case built that it was ordered by someone in russia and it was done to a foreign national on foreign soil, the reason they will not hand him over is because they fear what the MET know and what may come out in court

whereas there is no proof in the 911 murders that would indite bush, if there was he would in the clink by now

the whole crux is that you said it was not possible to imagine the MET would investigate these claims and by looking at the litvinenko case it seems they most probably would, if not what reasons would stop them?

You believe that indicting Putin in killing 1 person is worse than indicting Bush in 911.

If you are not prepared to be sensible in debate, then what is the point in engaging in it?

[mjd1982]

True

false. It would be due to need.


Why dont you read the doc, it wil remove lits of cobwebs


Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and
industrial policy will shape the pace and
content of transformation as much as the
requirements of current missions. A
decision to suspend or terminate aircraft
carrier production, as recommended by this
report and as justified by the clear direction
of military technology, will cause great
upheaval. Likewise, systems entering
production today – the F-22 fighter, for
example – will be in service inventories for
decades to come. Wise management of this
process will consist in large measure of
figuring out the right moments to halt
production of current-paradigm weapons
and shift to radically new designs. The
expense associated with some programs can
make them roadblocks to the larger process
of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter
program, at a total of approximately $200
billion, seems an unwise investment.


These are some of the reasons for the long process. Difficulties, that would be circumvented bya new PH


Completely false. A war is a potential threat to hegemony because you can lose. The PNAC would know this.


LOL

Your dumbest comment to date. So hegemony cannot be achieved through war. Examples?


Not denying it. But it did not go up per PNAC's design.


It went exactly to their design- 3.5-3.8% of GDP


As I've stated, and proved, many times, the doc refers to the Gulf region in general, not Iraq specifically.


Iraq/Saddam is mentioned ~45 times in the docc


Of course since it is easier to change your take on the design to suit your needs.
errr. You stated:We do not have control over Iraq and it's oil fields.


No? Then what is ths oil law that is about to be passed in Iraq handing major control and profits over to forein firms that the Iraqis are protesting about?
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/17/1355251


In the Iraqi port city of Basra, hundreds of oil industry workers demonstrated on Monday to protest a draft oil law that would open up Iraq's oil reserves to foreign companies. Protest organizers accused the United States of trying to control Iraq's wealth. They issued a statement that read: "If this is endorsed by the parliament it would abolish sovereignty and hand over the wealth of this generation and the generations to come as a gift to the occupier."



Hey, I've gotten 2 PMs as well about you. Bully for you. But they are not posting on here. If they really supported you, they would be defending you regardless.

Lol, dude, the day I need "support" against the likes of you, BRV and Belz, is a day that will never come.

[mjd1982]

Uh, we're talking about a specific film. Not a generality, genius.

Please stop making such a fool out of yourself.
Well, you were the one that said the film is "dripping in symbolism... and serious intent", and thus cannot be a comedy, so your comments are more directed at yourself, I'm afraid.

I am, however, in total agreement.

[mjd1982]

As ever, excellent comprehension skills.

You say he has already implicated them. That what he has said, thus far, is tantamount to accusing them of a cover-up.

Confirming what he has explicitly said to you, personally, should change nothing, by your logic. If he hasn't been fired yet, nor will he if you share what he's told you. It's a way to test your theory - that he hasn't and won't be fired because he's telling the truth.

If he is fired (and telling the truth), however, that much better for the both of you. He'll make millions in court, and the both of you will be heroes the world over for cracking the case.

I offered you a chance to prove your point, youngster. You'd be conspiring to prove his veracity, and thrust all this nonsense into the light of day. I'd think you'd jump at the chance. But no, you're content (as is Scott) to leave things at the innuendo stage. No point in risking one's job over a little thing like the murder of 3,000, eh?



Astonishing. Nefarious activities on their premises? With the blessing of FT? They should admit to this undertaking?

What an absolutely retarded paragraph. Congratulations - a new personal low.

Your "thoughts" are so frighteningly dull, I can't bear witness to them anymore. Not to mention I'm starting to feel guilty - almost like I'm enabling your stupidity. Time for me to just count my blessings for having all my faculties, and move along.

Good luck to you - this moronic thread is all yours.
You said you were going to leave before? Make it real this time please

[mjd1982]

To say this thread is moronic is an insult to morons everywhere. I propose that Mjd is given an honorary Stundie for failing to present any new evidence after over 2,600 posts.
Then you shouldnt find any difficulty in responding to it. Why do you then?

[mjd1982]

At the time I posted this, mjd1982 had a total of 749 posts. 711 of those are in this single thread.

I just found that an interesting bit of numeric trivia...


Incidentally, this is my first post in this thread.
I'm pretty certain this isnt your first post here; nonetheless, I dont know what your point is about my posting here. What is your point?

[funk de fino]

Borat is a direct vehicle for Cohen's social commentary. Thus if Borat is racist, logically so is Cohen.

Similar can be applied to Wille etc. What is happening here is simply that the absurdity of pointing to "Scottishphobia" as an instance of racism is making you realise that such cannot, sensibly be true. Which goes back nicely to the point about chinese motorcycles.

no, you are incorrect, he uses borat to allow him to make fun of people, now answer the question i asked do not avoid again please

was warren mitchell a racist?

willie is in no way racist or can be deemed a racist character or written to be a racist character, i am scottish mate so i would know this better than you, it does not offend scots people in anyway

however if i was chinese and you made that remark i would think you racist and crass like borat

[funk de fino]

Not a good point. To say that because they havent said anything, therefore theyre not complicit in the cover up is an absurdity, since one of the characteristics of a cover up can be that no one says anything. Thus your argument has zero logical worth

911 cannot be a cover up then because PNAC, Rumsfeld and Silverstein are among the few who the truther accuse of saying things about it?

thank you for pointing this logic out to me

i am not saying they are not implicit because they say nothing, just that your point is irrelevant unless you provide proof that they know the allegations you claim that have been made by scott and that they are keeping quiet about them

do not run away from the "FT gave their blessing" statements, answer this point

and the fact other companies would have had to give their blessing for the power down scott claimed as well

[funk de fino]

You believe that indicting Putin in killing 1 person is worse than indicting Bush in 911.

If you are not prepared to be sensible in debate, then what is the point in engaging in it?

yet again you avoid the issue, i said "in some ways", you are cherry picking the parts you would like to answer again

could or could not this murder have killed more than litvinenko, considering the manner it was carried out?

was it done on foreign soil?

was it only domestic victims in 911 like you claimed?

if the MET has reason to believe there was a conspiracy to murder british nationals in the US then you think they would just ignore these allegations would they? are the MET in on the conspiracy?

again why would they not at least start an investigation into the initial claims ? you said it was inconceivable they would travel abroad for an investigation like this when in fact they have already done so with a similar case?

your avoidance of points is ignorant to say the very least, if you cant answer something then just say you can't

[funk de fino]

No? Then what is ths oil law that is about to be passed in Iraq handing major control and profits over to forein firms that the Iraqis are protesting about?
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/17/1355251


you know nothing about the oil industry, so do not even go down this road, you will only look more foolish, this is just a gentle warning to save you any more embarrassment

stick to your speculation and reading between the lines about PNAC, scott and OSL

[nicepants]

2. Thats one group. Go and show what the others have done. And move onto the othr 1/2 points

You're the one saying that they're not in it for the money, if that's the case, dylan could "sell" these dvds at cost. Or is he going to spend that $800,000 on a new investigation?

[nicepants]

Then you shouldnt find any difficulty in responding to it. Why do you then?

Why do I respond?

Or

Why do I (strawman) find difficulty responding?


I have no difficulty responding to your unsupported ideas and conjecture. You, apparently, have difficulty responding to my questions, or you would have provided proof that your buddy at FT is being harassed to keep quiet.

[lapman]

Why dont you read the doc, it wil remove lits of cobwebs



These are some of the reasons for the long process. Difficulties, that would be circumvented bya new PHAre you really that simple. The fact that the JSF was not canceled clearly shows how ridiculous your claims are. It may have been PNAC's design, but it was never part of the defense design for the future.

LOL

Your dumbest comment to date. So hegemony cannot be achieved through war. Examples?Again, your complete lack of comprehension is showing through. Where "cannot be achieved" came from "could be lost" is beyond me. Your comment is total idiocy.

It went exactly to their design- 3.5-3.8% of GDP
Form here (http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20030123.htm):The modest increase planned for next year will still leave Pentagon spending at about 3.4 % of GDP, and Congressional Budget Office projections are that the proportion will decline to approximately 3% by 2007.
At the end of 2006, the defense spending was 3.3%

Iraq/Saddam is mentioned ~45 times in the doccAnd PH is mentioned twice which you deemed non-related. So Saddam's/Iraq being mentioned does not equate to the Iraq invasion being a part of the design.

No? Then what is ths oil law that is about to be passed in Iraq handing major control and profits over to forein firms that the Iraqis are protesting about?
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/17/1355251
Extremely ambiguous. What is the exact wording of said law that would allow the US to be able to take complete control of the Iraqi oil?

[lapman]

No, you say he isnt credible because the state dept disagree with him. I stated this where?

Dont even go into law.
Why? So you won't be embarrassed by your lack of knowledge?
They were supplied to CP. They exist. They would be supplied in court
True, if CP wasn't stretching the truth or the documents were legitimate. So why hasn't the "Truth Movement" obtain copies of said documents? Since these are supposed to be government supplied, a FOIA request could be made.
Again, a substanceless piece of opinion, nothing I can say here

as aboveCan't argue with the truth, can you?

Good. So you dont think that SF is alleging FT had a power down on the w/e b4 911.Again, comprehension of a zygote. SF alleges that PA had a power down on multiple floors and FT occupied some of them. Hence his reason for being in the towers that weekend. So FT was affected by the power down, not took part in the power down. Why is this simple concept so completely beyond your level of comprehension? Your continued allegation that FT is covering up anything:illustrates your moronic and untenable position very well

[HeyLeroy]

Borat is a direct vehicle for Cohen's social commentary. Thus if Borat is racist, logically so is Cohen.



Using your logic, Thomas Harris is a cannibalistic serial killer. Is Thomas Harris a cannibalistic serial killer, mjd1982?

Dude, do you not realize that you're showing an incomprehension of the differences between fantasy and reality when you say things like that?

(snip)
Pffff... Hilarious. Ok, boy, i dont even know if I want to go through this again...

He has stated that there was a power down in his offices, right? He is implying that something dodgy was happening, right? FT were having this pwer dowm, right? FT have not come out with details of this allegedly nefarious power down, not reported it to any sources, right? Thus they are involved in the cover up of of something nefarious. This is pretty damn simple.
(Snip)


Still waiting for mjd1982 to explain the relevance, as he has stated that the Twin Towers did not collapse due to controlled demolitions...

[Unsecured Coins]

Still waiting for mjd1982 to explain the relevance, as he has stated that the Twin Towers did not collapse due to controlled demolitions...


Good luck with that. I'm gonna go get tanked

[HeyLeroy]

Hup-to, Sarge.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally Posted by mjd1982. Borat is a direct vehicle for Cohen's social commentary. Thus if Borat is racist, logically so is Cohen.

Is anyone else not surprised he gets this completely backasswards?

[Unsecured Coins]

Hup-to, Sarge.

Well, not right now. I gotta finish up UC 6

[BillyRayValentine]

Well, you were the one that said the film is "dripping in symbolism... and serious intent", and thus cannot be a comedy...

(Bolding mine.)

Last comment - promise ;) - just that what we have here is known as a teachable moment.

To wit, substitute "is not" (what I said) for "thus cannot be" (your contrived, egregiously false strawman), and note the very substantial difference.

Such mendacity, particularly when it's so blatant, reflects poorly on you. Try remembering that going forward and you'll appear less foolish.

Here endeth the lesson.

[nicepants]

Borat is a direct vehicle for Cohen's social commentary. Thus if Borat is racist, logically so is Cohen.

Borat is a fictional character played by Cohen.

Cohen is not a racist simply because he plays a racist character. Just as Robin Williams is not a doctor simply because he played Patch Adams, or Tom Hanks an astronaut because he played one in Apollo 13.

You can't judge an actor based on one of his/her characters.

[beachnut]

To say this thread is moronic is an insult to morons everywhere. I propose that Mjd is given an honorary Stundie for failing to present any new evidence after over 2,600 posts.
Still no facts from you? Why? Over 2000 posts and not a fact to support your OP yet. Your opening post is more an oxymoron type of thing, don't you think?

[Corsair 115]

I'm pretty certain this isnt your first post here... Actually, you are correct. I missed my own name in the list of posters for this thread. This post marks my 14th entry in this thread.

...nonetheless, I dont know what your point is about my posting here. What is your point?No point, I just found the numerics interesting. You've got 721 of 763, or 94.5%, of all the posts you have on the boards here in this one single thread. It's not something I've really seen before, to see someone with their posts so concentrated into a single thread. Usually there is at least some spreading around of posting into different threads.

[DGM]

Actually, you are correct. I missed my own name in the list of posters for this thread. This post marks my 14th entry in this thread.

No point, I just found the numerics interesting. You've got 721 of 763, or 94.5%, of all the posts you have on the boards here in this one single thread. It's not something I've really seen before, to see someone with their posts so concentrated into a single thread. Usually there is at least some spreading around of posting into different threads.
The sad part is he's yet to convince anyone of.............anything!

[MIKILLINI]

Actually, it's pretty simple; Mjd believes...And I can't express how deep this belief is...that the Neocons are the watchdogs of the New Century and they wanted their empirical DESIGN to happen sooner in order for TRANSFORMATIONS to happen EASIER, although time constraints would not change significantly for implementation. It's just unfalsifiable propitiousness in his mind. That's point 1.

But now? A power down in the trade towers? What for? Mjd, if you don't believe the towers were destroyed by planted devices, why are you arguing the power down situation pointed out by Hey Leroy?

You have showed your hand to us "ilk". Intellectually, how could you have missed this?

[mjd1982]

no, you are incorrect, he uses borat to allow him to make fun of people, now answer the question i asked do not avoid again please

was warren mitchell a racist?

willie is in no way racist or can be deemed a racist character or written to be a racist character, i am scottish mate so i would know this better than you, it does not offend scots people in anyway

however if i was chinese and you made that remark i would think you racist and crass like borat
1. What was your question?
2. I also have a scottish mate. Silly point. Willie is a pejorative stereotype of a scottish person. This is your grounds for racism, in real terms. So why isnt he racist?
3. You start off by repeating me. Borat is a direct vehicle for Cohen's comedy and commentaries. Thus if Borat is racist, since he is an espousal of Cohens views, Cohen must also be racist. I dont know who Warren Mitchell is

[mjd1982]

yet again you avoid the issue, i said "in some ways", you are cherry picking the parts you would like to answer again

could or could not this murder have killed more than litvinenko, considering the manner it was carried out?

was it done on foreign soil?

was it only domestic victims in 911 like you claimed?

if the MET has reason to believe there was a conspiracy to murder british nationals in the US then you think they would just ignore these allegations would they? are the MET in on the conspiracy?

again why would they not at least start an investigation into the initial claims ? you said it was inconceivable they would travel abroad for an investigation like this when in fact they have already done so with a similar case?

your avoidance of points is ignorant to say the very least, if you cant answer something then just say you can't
wtf are u talking about? I have answered all your questions. I am telling you again- the Met investigatin Putin for killing a Russian spy is insignificant in every respect to investigating, by implication, Bush, for killing 3000 US.

If oyu cannot understand this, then I am willing to accept that it is questions of honestly, rather than intellect that hold you back

[mjd1982]

you know nothing about the oil industry, so do not even go down this road, you will only look more foolish, this is just a gentle warning to save you any more embarrassment

stick to your speculation and reading between the lines about PNAC, scott and OSL
Its not me, its Democracy Now. You'll have to prove how they are lying/wrong.

[mjd1982]

You're the one saying that they're not in it for the money, if that's the case, dylan could "sell" these dvds at cost. Or is he going to spend that $800,000 on a new investigation?
which new investigation? How do you know what he's spent the money on?

[mjd1982]

Why do I respond?

Or

Why do I (strawman) find difficulty responding?


I have no difficulty responding to your unsupported ideas and conjecture. You, apparently, have difficulty responding to my questions, or you would have provided proof that your buddy at FT is being harassed to keep quiet.
No, that's just illustrative of the fact that you have no interest in honest debate. There is zero feasible way I have of providing proof that he is being hushed up. I can provide evidence, but not proof. This is obvious, and hence so is your disinclination to honest debate. So why are you here?

[mjd1982]

Are you really that simple. The fact that the JSF was not canceled clearly shows how ridiculous your claims are. It may have been PNAC's design, but it was never part of the defense design for the future.


errr... so it was part of their design, but not of their design?


Again, your complete lack of comprehension is showing through. Where "cannot be achieved" came from "could be lost" is beyond me. Your comment is total idiocy.


I was giving you a chance. If you are stating that it could be lost through war therefore wars for hegemony dont get fought, you are twice as dumb as I thought


And PH is mentioned twice which you deemed non-related. So Saddam's/Iraq being mentioned does not equate to the Iraq invasion being a part of the design.


ROFL PH is an analogy Einstein; Iraq is reality


Extremely ambiguous. What is the exact wording of said law that would allow the US to be able to take complete control of the Iraqi oil?

LOLLLL... Oh dude. Start being honest/brighter, or you too will get the Belz treatment soon.

[mjd1982]

Using your logic, Thomas Harris is a cannibalistic serial killer. Is Thomas Harris a cannibalistic serial killer, mjd1982?

Dude, do you not realize that you're showing an incomprehension of the differences between fantasy and reality when you say things like that?



Still waiting for mjd1982 to explain the relevance, as he has stated that the Twin Towers did not collapse due to controlled demolitions...
Oh, another bright spark we have.

Borat is Cohen's parody of a Kazakh. It is pejorative. Hence is could be considered, by stupid people, as "racist"

Lecter is not a parody of anything.

End.

[mjd1982]

(Bolding mine.)

Last comment - promise ;) - just that what we have here is known as a teachable moment.

To wit, substitute "is not" (what I said) for "thus cannot be" (your contrived, egregiously false strawman), and note the very substantial difference.

Such mendacity, particularly when it's so blatant, reflects poorly on you. Try remembering that going forward and you'll appear less foolish.

Here endeth the lesson.
Your quote:


The juxtapositions and incongruities that simpletons like yourself dismiss as dark humor are, in fact, dripping with symbolism and have serious intent


Hence the contrasting of "dark humour" with "symbolism" and "serious intent", reinforced by the use of the opposing "in fact". And therefore the suggestion that "serious intent" and "symbolism" are incompatible with dark humour.

Here endeth the lesson. The one worth going to, anyway

[mjd1982]

Still no facts from you? Why? Over 2000 posts and not a fact to support your OP yet. Your opening post is more an oxymoron type of thing, don't you think?
Good. So you believe that the PNAC doc is not a fact. We can stick you on the "discard" pile.

[mjd1982]

Actually, it's pretty simple; Mjd believes...And I can't express how deep this belief is...that the Neocons are the watchdogs of the New Century and they wanted their empirical DESIGN to happen sooner in order for TRANSFORMATIONS to happen EASIER, although time constraints would not change significantly for implementation. It's just unfalsifiable propitiousness in his mind. That's point 1.


What utter nonsense. What the hell are watchdogs of the new century? What do you mean "empirical design? Where do I say that time constraints would not change significantly? I have said that the transformation is not one that would happen overnight. This does not mean that the speed of it would not be sped up significantly by a new PH, in the eyes of PNAC. The proof for this, is that PNAC said it.

And it is very very easy to falsify. Go to the doc, and illustrate that they do not want a quicker, easier transformation. Show why. If this is so obvious, this should be very, very easy for you to do. Given that none of your herd of independent minds has come close in ~3000 posts, I dont rate your chances to highly


But now? A power down in the trade towers? What for? Mjd, if you don't believe the towers were destroyed by planted devices, why are you arguing the power down situation pointed out by Hey Leroy?


It doesnt matter that I do not say the towers were CDd. Does that mean that when Scott tells me there was a power down, and he is being hassled to keep quiet etc etc, that I should call him a liar, since the towers were not imploded? Or that I should say that it doesnt matter that this is being covered up, and he is being hassled to keep quiet, since the towers werent CDd? A cover up is a cover up, and it should be investigated to see where it leads. This is pretty elementary stuff.

[DGM]

And it is very very easy to falsify. Go to the doc, and illustrate that they do not want a quicker, easier transformation. Show why. If this is so obvious, this should be very, very easy for you to do. Given that none of your herd of independent minds has come close in ~3000 posts, I dont rate your chances to highly

Why would we want to do such a thing? Do you think that the PNAC has some magical power over the government that would allow the murder 3000 of their own? You are suggesting just that.
Why don't you try to show us that they had that capability. If you could, then and only then someone might listen to you. Anything short of that and it's just what everyone else thinks it is, nothing.

[nicepants]

which new investigation? How do you know what he's spent the money on?

The one that he claims he wants.
I know he hasn't spent the money on a new investigation.

There is zero feasible way I have of providing proof that he is being hushed up. I can provide evidence, but not proof.

So provide this evidence.

[BillyRayValentine]

Your quote: "The juxtapositions and incongruities that simpletons like yourself dismiss as dark humor are, in fact, dripping with symbolism and have serious intent."


Hence the contrasting of "dark humour" with "symbolism" and "serious intent", reinforced by the use of the opposing "in fact". And therefore the suggestion that "serious intent" and "symbolism" are incompatible with dark humour.


What an infantile exercise.

The "quote" you provided was, in actuality, but one sentence. A sentence plucked from an entire paragraph. A paragraph containing other sentences, both preceding and following, which rendered the context and meaning of your selected "quote" quite unambiguous.

Honestly. I'd like to leave you alone. It's just difficult to ignore such brazen, and positively stupid, duplicity. Each successive post of yours breaks new ground with respect to your ability to make an arse out of yourslf. It's like a train wreck that never ends, and it's rather difficult to look away.

[lapman]

errr... so it was part of their design, but not of their design?So the stupidity continues. Let me clarify this for you so your addled mind might be able to comprehend this. The PNAC and Defense Department are 2 separate entities. The PNAC's design in not the Defense departments design. This has been made clear, but you have shown a complete absence of the ability to comprehend this.

I was giving you a chance. If you are stating that it could be lost through war therefore wars for hegemony dont get fought, you are twice as dumb as I thoughtThe depth of your stupidity has shown to be a bottomless pit. Name one time a war was fought for hegemony in a place were hegemony was already achieved.

ROFL PH is an analogy Einstein; Iraq is reality
But, according to you, PNAC had the requirement of making the "new PH" a reality. Either way, the mention of Iraq is irrelevant. What part of:
the
need for a
substantial
American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of
the regime of Saddam Hussein.Do you simply not understand?
LOLLLL... Oh dude. Start being honest/brighter, or you too will get the Belz treatment soon.Well, if you want to continue to show yourself to be a dishonest dullard, please, be my guest.

[funk de fino]

1. What was your question?
2. I also have a scottish mate. Silly point. Willie is a pejorative stereotype of a scottish person. This is your grounds for racism, in real terms. So why isnt he racist?
3. You start off by repeating me. Borat is a direct vehicle for Cohen's comedy and commentaries. Thus if Borat is racist, since he is an espousal of Cohens views, Cohen must also be racist. I dont know who Warren Mitchell is

i doubt you have any mates

a stereotype is not racist, borat says racist and bigoted things about jews and other ethnic minorities and races, this is the difference, you have this arse about face boyo, completely wrong again

on what grounds is willie a pejorative stereotype rahter than a stereotype?

not at all, warren mitchell played alf garnet, please dont tell me you do not know who alf garnett is? is he racist or is his character racist?

[funk de fino]

wtf are u talking about? I have answered all your questions. I am telling you again- the Met investigatin Putin for killing a Russian spy is insignificant in every respect to investigating, by implication, Bush, for killing 3000 US.

If oyu cannot understand this, then I am willing to accept that it is questions of honestly, rather than intellect that hold you back

you answered none of the questions you just use incredulity, you are a coward

[funk de fino]

Its not me, its Democracy Now. You'll have to prove how they are lying/wrong.

how did this relate to anything in my post

what that story is saying and what you think are two compeletely different things, again do not start on the oil industry as you quite obviously have no idea what you are posting about

[mjd1982]

Why would we want to do such a thing? Do you think that the PNAC has some magical power over the government that would allow the murder 3000 of their own? You are suggesting just that.
Why don't you try to show us that they had that capability. If you could, then and only then someone might listen to you. Anything short of that and it's just what everyone else thinks it is, nothing.
I take it this post is a joke?

You would "want to do that" since this is a debate, you have claimed that my point is unfalsifiable, I have just shown you how you would go about falisfying it. So go ahead.

As regards the 2nd para, for the zillionth time, the pnac doc shows that the neo cons viewed a new PH as propitious to policy. Not that they did it, not that they planned it. This was the 1st stage in my argument.

Now, you will say, "Oh 2700 posts to make 1 point!- i should take this occassion to illustratee that after 2700 posts, you still havent understood 1 point.

Its pretty pathetic, no?

[mjd1982]

The one that he claims he wants.
I know he hasn't spent the money on a new investigation.



So provide this evidence.
1. As i illustrated on p5, of this now 60 page thread, such an investigation would need congressional approval. Why must I keep telling you this again and again?

2. The evidence has been provided. Only the most dull of minds would have missed it. He is a truther. He has a big truther story. However he is not making a big deal of it. He is hardly coming to ny truther events. He is hardly posting on truther sites. He is hardly doing any interviews. Why do you think this is?

[mjd1982]

What an infantile exercise.

The "quote" you provided was, in actuality, but one sentence. A sentence plucked from an entire paragraph. A paragraph containing other sentences, both preceding and following, which rendered the context and meaning of your selected "quote" quite unambiguous.

Honestly. I'd like to leave you alone. It's just difficult to ignore such brazen, and positively stupid, duplicity. Each successive post of yours breaks new ground with respect to your ability to make an arse out of yourslf. It's like a train wreck that never ends, and it's rather difficult to look away.
It is infantile, as explaining something to someone with infantile intellectual capacities inevitably is


Yes, I understand humor in all of its many forms. What you don't seem to understand is that the common thread is always, inescapably, AMUSEMENT.

Clockwork is not (except, of course, among the ignorant, morally undeveloped teenage boy set), nor was it intended to be, amusing on any level The juxtapositions and incongruities that simpletons like yourself dismiss as dark humor are, in fact, dripping with symbolism and have serious intent. The film is a severe parable, rich in metaphors. And they're not there for the viewer's amusement, genius. They're all completely loaded.

Clockwork is a satire. That you equate this with "Clockwork is humor for a moral purpose" speaks to a dim, uneducated, juvenile mindset.

Try reading serious reviews and criticism of the film if you'd like to learn. Posting links to insipid websites like "rotten tomatoes", or one review from 35 years ago that stands in contrast to just about every other one out there, does not impress.

Educate yourself, young man. You'll be less inclined to make a horse's ass out of yourself.

P.S. Since you apparently haven't the slightest clue as to what constitutes dark humor, rent Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove". That should help.


Hence the contrasting of "dark humour" with "symbolism" and "serious intent", reinforced by the use of the opposing "in fact". And therefore the suggestion that "serious intent" and "symbolism" are incompatible with dark humour.

As for the 2nd half of your point, as will be evident to all here, the reason why you cannot "tear yourself away" from this, is because you are getting humiliated, over and over again, and yes, by someone much younger than you. You cannot let this lie, so you keep coming back to try and rectify your idiocy. But, fittingly, you just keep digging a deeper hole for yourself.

[Brainache]

1. As i illustrated on p5, of this now 60 page thread, such an investigation would need congressional approval. Why must I keep telling you this again and again?

2. The evidence has been provided. Only the most dull of minds would have missed it. He is a truther. He has a big truther story. However he is not making a big deal of it. He is hardly coming to ny truther events. He is hardly posting on truther sites. He is hardly doing any interviews. Why do you think this is?

Because he is totally focused on making as much money as he can from gullible people who buy his BS?

[mjd1982]

So the stupidity continues. Let me clarify this for you so your addled mind might be able to comprehend this. The PNAC and Defense Department are 2 separate entities. The PNAC's design in not the Defense departments design. This has been made clear, but you have shown a complete absence of the ability to comprehend this.


Right, except that you had the secretary of defense, the deputy secretary of defense, the under secretary of defense, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, plus the chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, all members of PNAC.

Chin up.


The depth of your stupidity has shown to be a bottomless pit. Name one time a war was fought for hegemony in a place were hegemony was already achieved.


So prior to the war in iraq the US had hegemony over Iraq.

Duh!


But, according to you, PNAC had the requirement of making the "new PH" a reality. Either way, the mention of Iraq is irrelevant. What part of:
Do you simply not understand?


Iraq is part of the Gulf region, and has the 2nd largest proven oil reserves in the world (?). Hence it is a very important part of the Gulf region.

[Brainache]

...
As for the 2nd half of your point, as will be evident to all here, the reason why you cannot "tear yourself away" from this, is because you are getting humiliated, over and over again, and yes, by someone much younger than you. You cannot let this lie, so you keep coming back to try and rectify your idiocy. But, fittingly, you just keep digging a deeper hole for yourself.

Does the word "projection" mean anything to you?

[mjd1982]

i doubt you have any mates

a stereotype is not racist, borat says racist and bigoted things about jews and other ethnic minorities and races, this is the difference, you have this arse about face boyo, completely wrong again

on what grounds is willie a pejorative stereotype rahter than a stereotype?

not at all, warren mitchell played alf garnet, please dont tell me you do not know who alf garnett is? is he racist or is his character racist?
1. ?

2. Hence why i said pejorative

3. He's a menial working, unrefined, ugly, uncultured simpleton, who lives in a shack and who people laugh at

4. I did up to now presume that you were a teenager, but now I assume you must be in you 40's? Can you guess my age? Ive never watvched that programme

[mjd1982]

you answered none of the questions you just use incredulity, you are a coward
wtf??? I have answered all your points time and time again. You are trying to equate the Litvinenko murder with 911. I have pointed out that, for one reason, the fact that 3000 died in one, and 1 died in the other, that one is much worse than the other.

Do you understand this?

[mjd1982]

how did this relate to anything in my post

what that story is saying and what you think are two compeletely different things, again do not start on the oil industry as you quite obviously have no idea what you are posting about
It shows how the US are forcing through a law that will take the country's oil wealth away from the Iraqis, to th US, and how the Iraqis are protesting against this. Wont read that in the MSM, will you?

Oh, and do not start on 9/11 as you quite obviously have no idea what you are posting about

[mjd1982]

I think that things are getting a little bit sidetracked here, so its useful to do a bit of a recap. I will now show where my argument has come to. It will be an important crystallisation of my argument thus far, and I am fully aware that there will not be anyone who will argue it sensibly. Nonetheless, I can only do this in the hope that people reading this will find your humiliation instructive.

The PNAC doc illustrates a military and strategic radicalisation that needs to take place if the US is to retain it's hegemony for the "New American Century". It is essential that these strategies are crystallised in decision makers minds by the tim of the Oct 01 QDR, and such changes need to happen under one coherent, global banner, not "decoupled" from one another.

The transformations recommended bear an astonishing resemblance, almost blow by blow, to what is now called the WOT. You can read more here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473&page=3)

Further it is stated that the transformation will take several decades, absent a catastrophic and catalysing event. The reason for this extra duration is due to difficulties, backlogs and overhauls, difficulties that will be circumvented by the occurence of a new PH:


Domestic politics and
industrial policy will shape the pace and
content of transformation as much as the
requirements of current missions. A
decision to suspend or terminate aircraft
carrier production, as recommended by this
report and as justified by the clear direction
of military technology, will cause great
upheaval. Likewise, systems entering
production today – the F-22 fighter, for
example – will be in service inventories for
decades to come. Wise management of this
process will consist in large measure of
figuring out the right moments to halt
production of current-paradigm weaponsand shift to radically new designs. The
expense associated with some programs can
make them roadblocks to the larger process
of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter
program, at a total of approximately $200
billion, seems an unwise investment.


Hence, the new PH will make the process of transformation quicker, due to its enhanced ease. This leads as to the uncontroversial conclusion that a new PH was deemed propitious to policy.

PS- I was going to go onto foreknowledge, but I do wanna give anyone a chance to get distracted. Let's see how the herd of independent minds does with this.

[Brainache]

I think that things are getting a little bit sidetracked here, so its useful to do a bit of a recap. I will now show where my argument has come to. It will be an important crystallisation of my argument thus far, and I am fully aware that there will not be anyone who will argue it sensibly. Nonetheless, I can only do this in the hope that people reading this will find your humiliation instructive.

When you say "your humiliation", are you referring to any particular poster or to the amorphous "them" who haunt your nightmares?


The PNAC doc illustrates a military and strategic radicalisation that needs to take place if the US is to retain it's hegemony for the "New American Century". It is essential that these strategies are crystallised in decision makers minds by the tim of the Oct 01 QDR, and such changes need to happen under one coherent, global banner, not "decoupled" from one another.

Well jeeze, they stuffed that up then didn't they?


The transformations recommended bear an astonishing resemblance, almost blow by blow, to what is now called the WOT. You can read more here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473&page=3)

Further it is stated that the transformation will take several decades, absent a catastrophic and catalysing event. The reason for this extra duration is due to difficulties, backlogs and overhauls, difficulties that will be circumvented by the occurence of a new PH:

Not an extra duration mate, an actual real and expected duration. The transformations were made impossible by subsequent events (ie 9/11) and have consequently not happened. The US military is still bogged down in the same technology they had before and have not transformed into the high tech, multi-faceted unstoppable heroes of truth justice and whatever else that the PNAC wanted.



Hence, the new PH will make the process of transformation quicker, due to its enhanced ease. This leads as to the uncontroversial conclusion that a new PH was deemed propitious to policy.

as above.:duck:


PS- I was going to go onto foreknowledge, but I do wanna give anyone a chance to get distracted. Let's see how the herd of independent minds does with this.

Foreknowledge huh? Ya think them thar ebil gubments got sum witches? BURN 'EM!!!

[funk de fino]

1. ?

2. Hence why i said pejorative

3. He's a menial working, unrefined, ugly, uncultured simpleton, who lives in a shack and who people laugh at

4. I did up to now presume that you were a teenager, but now I assume you must be in you 40's? Can you guess my age? Ive never watvched that programme

1. not nice resorting to snideness and name calling is it?

2. its not pejorative to me at all and as i am scots i would know better than you, ask your scots mate if groundskeeper willie offends him

3. this is in no way stereotypical of a scotsman and is not supposed to be, it is certainly not racist which is what you are claiming, exactly what are homer simpsons trait? is this a racist chracter or a pejorative stereotype? if the scots character had been barney the drunk then you maybe, and only slightly maybe, have a had a small point here

4. never assume, check, i assumed you were intelligent and rational, i was wrong so that makes two of us

does willie ever have racist or bigotted lines in the show? does he offend scots?

now apply the same questions to borat but substitute scots with kazahks, jews, women, gay people etc

if you have the same answers then you are even less intelligent than i feared

[funk de fino]

wtf??? I have answered all your points time and time again. You are trying to equate the Litvinenko murder with 911. I have pointed out that, for one reason, the fact that 3000 died in one, and 1 died in the other, that one is much worse than the other.

Do you understand this?

was that the only question in the post?

[funk de fino]

It shows how the US are forcing through a law that will take the country's oil wealth away from the Iraqis, to th US, and how the Iraqis are protesting against this. Wont read that in the MSM, will you?

Oh, and do not start on 9/11 as you quite obviously have no idea what you are posting about

the US are not

as they should and as i would if i was ignorant of the facts

you have no idea how this wealth will get to america because you have no idea how the oil industry works and that "control" is the wrong word in this case

they are not stealing the oil, if so why do they import less now from iraq that they did before?

why waste a trillion dollars on this war when their biggest supplier is next door? venezuela is a better option than iraq also

do you think all countries oil industries are operated by the domestic companies and it is a closed industry to outsiders, i'll give you a clue here, the answer is no

look at mexico who are one of the few who have a closed shop, they produce next to nothing compared to wht they could because of lack of technology from outside countries (US) and high taxation by the govt

this law if anything will allow iraq to make more money from the oil

look at oil industry technology and where the majority of the companies are based that allow us to drill for oil, where do we go to to get rigs to drill for this oil? where do we go for the drilling technology and the completion technology?

unfortunately i know a lot of things about 911, for instance i knew the top deck in tower two was not powered down when scott claimed it was

that is only one, i do not know everything but i know enough to make my stand on it, i do not have to second guess documents and use pure speculation as my evidence

[funk de fino]

Iraq is part of the Gulf region, and has the 2nd largest proven oil reserves in the world (?). Hence it is a very important part of the Gulf region.

it is part of the gulf

does it have the 2nd largest proven reserves in the world? i told you not to get into this cause you are going to be wrong a lot of times

at least do some research before spouting this claim

the US were already in saudi which has the largest proven reserves in conventional oil, why waste all that time, lives and money for iraq's

remember proven in this case is not so clear as proven in a court of law

[funk de fino]

It shows how the US are forcing through a law that will take the country's oil wealth away from the Iraqis, to th US, and how the Iraqis are protesting against this. Wont read that in the MSM, will you?


in fact i have, in numerous MSM outlets??

[Brainache]

Do you think we should show him all the docs about the CIA's activities in Venezuela (organising the coup against Chavez etc) to show how easy that kind of thing is to expose, or let him try to dig it up himself?

[mjd1982]

Oh, before I start replying, I should note some common refutations that get propounded by the herd-

1. But the Iraq war is draining much of the money.

This is an issue of the neo cons poor execution of the plan, rather than a refutation of their design

2. But the doc says ~"We advocate a process of transformation over the coming decades"- therefore they wanted a slow and hard change

No my empty headed friend, in this instance the only alternative "We advocate a new Pearl Harbor, and it must happen before Oct 2001". This clearly is never going to happen, and hence the argument is invalid. It does not touch at all on the fact that a new PH would have been propitious to policy.

[mjd1982]

When you say "your humiliation", are you referring to any particular poster or to the amorphous "them" who haunt your nightmares?


Amorphous them, but no nightmares. An odd post.


Well jeeze, they stuffed that up then didn't they?

Not an extra duration mate, an actual real and expected duration. The transformations were made impossible by subsequent events (ie 9/11) and have consequently not happened. The US military is still bogged down in the same technology they had before and have not transformed into the high tech, multi-faceted unstoppable heroes of truth justice and whatever else that the PNAC wanted.


How foresightful of me. Read my previous post,point 2 (you have in fact alluded to it in your 1st point here, inadvertently i assume)

[mjd1982]

1. not nice resorting to snideness and name calling is it?

2. its not pejorative to me at all and as i am scots i would know better than you, ask your scots mate if groundskeeper willie offends him

3. this is in no way stereotypical of a scotsman and is not supposed to be, it is certainly not racist which is what you are claiming, exactly what are homer simpsons trait? is this a racist chracter or a pejorative stereotype? if the scots character had been barney the drunk then you maybe, and only slightly maybe, have a had a small point here

4. never assume, check, i assumed you were intelligent and rational, i was wrong so that makes two of us

does willie ever have racist or bigotted lines in the show? does he offend scots?

now apply the same questions to borat but substitute scots with kazahks, jews, women, gay people etc

if you have the same answers then you are even less intelligent than i feared
Lol, sorry, but you have started arguing against yourself here. My point is that Willie isnt racist. Not the other way around.

This is because he is a stereotype of a scot (harsh accent, bagpipe playing, kilt wearing, footbal fan, red headed etc), and is depicted as a unrefined, ugly, uncultured simpleton

[mjd1982]

the US are not

as they should and as i would if i was ignorant of the facts

you have no idea how this wealth will get to america because you have no idea how the oil industry works and that "control" is the wrong word in this case


Good. So you can write to Amy Goodman and tell her that shes wrong. Oh, and write to the thousands of Iraqi oil workers who disagree with you too.


they are not stealing the oil, if so why do they import less now from iraq that they did before?


I said steal the oil wealth, not the oil. Big difference. They are suppressing the oil supply so as to drive up prices. This has been widely documented.


why waste a trillion dollars on this war when their biggest supplier is next door? venezuela is a better option than iraq also


Not so easy to invade Venezuela though, was it? But this is why they participtaed in the overthrow of Chavez not too long ago, and why there is so much anto venezuela rhetoric on the msm.


do you think all countries oil industries are operated by the domestic companies and it is a closed industry to outsiders, i'll give you a clue here, the answer is no


???

Where have I ever suggested this?


look at mexico who are one of the few who have a closed shop, they produce next to nothing compared to wht they could because of lack of technology from outside countries (US) and high taxation by the govt


as above


this law if anything will allow iraq to make more money from the oil


as per my 1st point


look at oil industry technology and where the majority of the companies are based that allow us to drill for oil, where do we go to to get rigs to drill for this oil? where do we go for the drilling technology and the completion technology?


Halliburton, Bechtel etc.


unfortunately i know a lot of things about 911, for instance i knew the top deck in tower two was not powered down when scott claimed it was


Again, what a fount of knowledge you are! You know more about the exploitation of the Iraqi oil industry than the people workig in the Iraqi oil industry; and you know more about te happenings in a place far far away from you, than someone who was actually there. You are clearly the intelligent one here.

[mjd1982]

it is part of the gulf

does it have the 2nd largest proven reserves in the world? i told you not to get into this cause you are going to be wrong a lot of times

at least do some research before spouting this claim

the US were already in saudi which has the largest proven reserves in conventional oil, why waste all that time, lives and money for iraq's

remember proven in this case is not so clear as proven in a court of law
Youre a good one matey

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm


Iraq has the world’s second largest proven oil reserves


ROFL

Oh, and just so everyone can see the rest, and we can put this stupid debate to bed


According to oil industry experts, new exploration will probably raise Iraq’s reserves to 200+ billion barrels of high-grade crude, extraordinarily cheap to produce. The four giant firms located in the US and the UK have been keen to get back into Iraq, from which they were excluded with the nationalization of 1972. During the final years of the Saddam era, they envied companies from France, Russia, China, and elsewhere, who had obtained major contracts. But UN sanctions (kept in place by the US and the UK) kept those contracts inoperable. Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, everything has changed. In the new setting, with Washington running the show, "friendly" companies expect to gain most of the lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in the coming decades. The new Iraqi constitution of 2005, greatly influenced by US advisors, contains language that guarantees a major role for foreign companies. Negotiators hope soon to complete deals on Production Sharing Agreements that will give the companies control over dozens of fields, including the fabled super-giant Majnoon. However, despite pressure from the US government and foreign oil companies, the current Iraqi government has not passed a national oil law. While regional governments angle for influence over the foreign oil contracts, most Iraqis favor continued control by a national company and the powerful oil workers union opposes de-nationalization. Iraq's political future is very much in flux, but oil remains the central feature of the political landscape


This national oil law is the one being disputed right now.

ETA- in the interests of sensible, adult debate, I am not going to get into any arguments about whether the invasion of Iraq was for oil or WMDs

[mjd1982]

in fact i have, in numerous MSM outlets??
1. Then why are you arguing against it?

2. Show me them

You are a bit confused, I think

[funk de fino]

Lol, sorry, but you have started arguing against yourself here. My point is that Willie isnt racist. Not the other way around.

This is because he is a stereotype of a scot (harsh accent, bagpipe playing, kilt wearing, footbal fan, red headed etc), and is depicted as a unrefined, ugly, uncultured simpleton

how is that a pejorative stereotype, a lot of scots are like that? it is not pejorative at all and you claimed it was? one character does not mean they are trying to depict all scots as the same as willie

why did you bring the simpsons into it as a comparison, willie and borat are completely different? one is racist and bigotted and one is "apparently" a pejorative stereotype?

is this not what i claimed about borat?

or is saying racist or bigotted things about jews, women, gays or kazahks not racist or bigotted, i notice you avoided that question again

do you think i should use the chinese remark when i fly over there later next month? see if they think it is racist?

[mjd1982]

Do you think we should show him all the docs about the CIA's activities in Venezuela (organising the coup against Chavez etc) to show how easy that kind of thing is to expose, or let him try to dig it up himself?
CIA docs arent MSM.

duh!

[mjd1982]

how is that a pejorative stereotype, a lot of scots are like that? it is not pejorative at all and you claimed it was? one character does not mean they are trying to depict all scots as the same as willie


How is being portrayed as a boorish, unrefined, menial, ugly simpleton pejorative? I'll let you work that one out.

The stereotyping comes from the stereotypical scottish characteristics he is imputed with that I mentioned b4


why did you bring the simpsons into it as a comparison, willie and borat are completely different? one is racist and bigotted and one is "apparently" a pejorative stereotype?


Dont you realise how badly your ridiculous comments are stacking up? Now you ae denying that Borat is a pejorative stereotype?

Think before you post.


or is saying racist or bigotted things about jews, women, gays or kazahks not racist or bigotted, i notice you avoided that question again


The 1st 3 are racist in the sensible term of the word- racism as a social taboo. To be racist about Kazakhs, New Zealanders, or Guyanese is not "racist" in the sensible sense of the word, because no one cares.


do you think i should use the chinese remark when i fly over there later next month? see if they think it is racist?

No, since that would be a deliberate provocations.

Actually, go ahead- give it a try!

[funk de fino]

Good. So you can write to Amy Goodman and tell her that shes wrong. Oh, and write to the thousands of Iraqi oil workers who disagree with you too

what they think will happen and what will happen is different, it is also different to what you think will happen, if i was them and did not know the full facts then i would be unhappy too



I said steal the oil wealth, not the oil. Big difference. They are suppressing the oil supply so as to drive up prices. This has been widely documented

no they are not, the terrorists and the security situation is affecting the oil supply, also the lack of infrastructure for the industry, the oil does not just flow to the surface itself

if they put in technology to help they are stealing, if they dont the are suppressing supply, it cant be both for the truthers



Not so easy to invade Venezuela though, was it? But this is why they participtaed in the overthrow of Chavez not too long ago, and why there is so much anto venezuela rhetoric on the msm.

i see you completely missed the canada reference, why do you need to invade to control? only in truther logic, they control large portions of the uk oil and gas but did they invade to get this?

???


so it is not unusual for american companies to create great wealth from other countries oil industries? if not unusual then why is this an issue here?


as above

as above

as per my 1st point

which was us stealing wealth?? not creating more wealth for iraq?

Halliburton, Bechtel etc.
so sadly far off the mark here it is unreal, typical truther who sees the oil industry as halliburton cause cheney is there, look a little further

Again, what a fount of knowledge you are! You know more about the exploitation of the Iraqi oil industry than the people workig in the Iraqi oil industry; and you know more about te happenings in a place far far away from you, than someone who was actually there. You are clearly the intelligent one here.

for exploitation insert stimulation

with no investment there is no oil industry sufficient to get the wealth it deserves, the americans have companies (not just halliburton) who will invest in the industry in iraq and make it wealthy, do investors invest on the promise of no returns?

i have been there actually and have also been in saudi and bahrain recently as well on oil industry business, foot in mouth mate

[lapman]

Right, except that you had the secretary of defense, the deputy secretary of defense, the under secretary of defense, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, plus the chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, all members of PNAC.

Chin up.
Irrelevant. It would make sense to have people who know how the defense department works to advise them. This does not prove that PNAC and the defense department are one in the same or that the military would automatically adopt the PNAC's design.

So prior to the war in iraq the US had hegemony over Iraq.

Duh!
Hmm, two no-fly zones, can attack at any time and Saddam's decision to allow inspectors back in were directly linked to our preparation for attack, sometimes within minutes of the go - no go decision time. Yeah, I would definitely say that we had hegemony over Iraq.

Iraq is part of the Gulf region, and has the 2nd largest proven oil reserves in the world (?). Hence it is a very important part of the Gulf region.Very true, but that is not proof that the invasion was part of the RAD design. Saddam's and Iraq were not a threat to the US hegemony in the region, so your implication that the invasion was a RAD requirement is baseless.

[funk de fino]

Youre a good one matey

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm

ROFL

Oh, and just so everyone can see the rest, and we can put this stupid debate to bed
This national oil law is the one being disputed right now.

ETA- in the interests of sensible, adult debate, I am not going to get into any arguments about whether the invasion of Iraq was for oil or WMDs

one source? using words like probably instead of definites when mentioning amounts?

at the moment iran has more proven reserves of conventional oil than iraq and if you look at non conventional oil then venezuela and canada have more then any of them

it is not the second largest oil reserves in the world, i told you to do more research not just parrot one site you have googled

iraq is about 4th and that is only up there due to suspect calling of reserves about 1987 when production limits were set on reserves, iraqs suddenly jumped up

i never claimed the national oil law is not being discussed, it is you who are claiming the US are pushing it through though? have you seen what they want to change about the law and what this will mean to the oil industry?

i'll let you choke on that ROFL

[funk de fino]

1. Then why are you arguing against it?

2. Show me them

You are a bit confused, I think


1. arguing what?? i am not saying they are not protesting am i? i am saying you know sod all about the oil industry and do not know what these protests mean in real terms for the oil industry in iraq

2. is the guardian MSM?

[funk de fino]

How is being portrayed as a boorish, unrefined, menial, ugly simpleton pejorative? I'll let you work that one out.

The stereotyping comes from the stereotypical scottish characteristics he is imputed with that I mentioned b4



Dont you realise how badly your ridiculous comments are stacking up? Now you ae denying that Borat is a pejorative stereotype?

Think before you post.

The 1st 3 are racist in the sensible term of the word- racism as a social taboo. To be racist about Kazakhs, New Zealanders, or Guyanese is not "racist" in the sensible sense of the word, because no one cares.

No, since that would be a deliberate provocations.

Actually, go ahead- give it a try!


only pejorative in a slight manner if they were saying all scotsmen were like that and they are not, it is a comedy character which cause no offence to anyone

yes i am saying he is a racist ad bigotted boor and that i know not one kazakh who is like that so it cannot be a stereotype

1st three are not racist, they are bigotted

and i think kazakhs, new zealanders and guyanease would be the ones who would decide if people cared

how can you use racist sensibly?

borat is a racist and a bigot and willie is not

you made the comparison and you were wrong, are you trying to say that borat is not being bigotted when he slanders jews? or gays? or not racist when he slanders kazakhs?

so is borat not being provocating when he uses bigotted language?

[BillyRayValentine]

Hence the contrasting of "dark humour" with "symbolism" and "serious intent", reinforced by the use of the opposing "in fact". And therefore the suggestion that "serious intent" and "symbolism" are incompatible with dark humour.

One minor problem, youngster. Nothing I said comes remotely close to suggesting that "serious intent and symbolism are incompatible with dark humour". See, that little bit of stupidity is what's called a fallacy. And since it underpins your whole argument, I'll just chuckle and mock you some more.

My statement referred specifically to the incongrutities and juxtapositions in Clockwork, and why they were included. I said they weren't there for amusement, as teenage boys think; they were there for serious purposes. I didn't say they're not amusing because of their serious intent, and I didn't make any "suggestions" about the incompatability of humor and serious intent. I simply said that in this case, they're their for a serious purpose, not amusement.

Are you really trying to argue that that's the same thing as saying that amusement and seriousness of purpose are, as a rule, incompatible??? Are you seriously tring to put those ridiculous, blatantly contrived words in my mouth? Is that the point of the moronic, semantical gymnastics quoted above?

Good grief, junior. How incredibly transparent and lame. I think you've reached terminal velocity in your descent into the intellectual abyss.

As for the 2nd half of your point, as will be evident to all here, the reason why you cannot "tear yourself away" from this, is because you are getting humiliated, over and over again, and yes, by someone much younger than you. You cannot let this lie, so you keep coming back to try and rectify your idiocy. But, fittingly, you just keep digging a deeper hole for yourself.

The irony here is second to none, a part of the entertainment factor that, in actuality, is what keeps me coming back. Your arguments are so fraudulent, your lies so blatant, it's fun to mock you and see what you'll say next. This goes for your ilk in general, but you are an especially precious case.

A guilty pleasure, I suppose...

I'm sorry my presence seems to rattle you. Try saying stupid things less often. That'll help.

[mjd1982]

what they think will happen and what will happen is different, it is also different to what you think will happen, if i was them and did not know the full facts then i would be unhappy too


No, it is what they think is happening.

Once again, you know what is going on in their lives better than they do. Well done you!


no they are not, the terrorists and the security situation is affecting the oil supply, also the lack of infrastructure for the industry, the oil does not just flow to the surface itself


Prove it!


if they put in technology to help they are stealing, if they dont the are suppressing supply, it cant be both for the truthers


To help... them get oil out for themselves. As the workers are protesting about. The iraqi oil workers, who know more about the iraq oil industry than you.


i see you completely missed the canada reference, why do you need to invade to control? only in truther logic, they control large portions of the uk oil and gas but did they invade to get this?


Lol, dude youve gotten to the stage of debunking yourself. They dont need to invade Canada or the UK to control, just as they didnt need to invade Iran from 53-79. Can you take it from here yourself?



so it is not unusual for american companies to create great wealth from other countries oil industries? if not unusual then why is this an issue here?


What? Wealth for themselves, you do realise...?


which was us stealing wealth?? not creating more wealth for iraq?


that doesnt really make sense, i'm afraid


so sadly far off the mark here it is unreal, typical truther who sees the oil industry as halliburton cause cheney is there, look a little further


no, I have given you 2 examples, of which they are 1


for exploitation insert stimulation


Right, so the US invaded Iraq as an altruistic act to "stimulate" its oil industry, for the good of those Iraqi civilians the US loves so much... shame theyre all dead now, eh?


with no investment there is no oil industry sufficient to get the wealth it deserves, the americans have companies (not just halliburton) who will invest in the industry in iraq and make it wealthy, do investors invest on the promise of no returns?


duh!!! Returns to whom? Any idea how much Halliburtons share price has gone up since March 03?


i have been there actually and have also been in saudi and bahrain recently as well on oil industry business, foot in mouth mate

Oh boy... then you need to brush up a little bit my friend, the world is far far ahead of you in it understanding

[mjd1982]

Irrelevant. It would make sense to have people who know how the defense department works to advise them. This does not prove that PNAC and the defense department are one in the same or that the military would automatically adopt the PNAC's design.
Hmm, two no-fly zones, can attack at any time and Saddam's decision to allow inspectors back in were directly linked to our preparation for attack, sometimes within minutes of the go - no go decision time. Yeah, I would definitely say that we had hegemony over Iraq.
Very true, but that is not proof that the invasion was part of the RAD design. Saddam's and Iraq were not a threat to the US hegemony in the region, so your implication that the invasion was a RAD requirement is baseless.
1. Yes its irrelevant that when you say that PNAC had nothing to do with the DOD, and I list all the PNAC/DODers, yes, it is very irrelevant.

2. That is not the definition of hegemony. Duh!!!

3. Read the doc. Iraq/Saddam mentioned once every 2 pages. Is something starting to click?

[mjd1982]

one source? using words like probably instead of definites when mentioning amounts?

at the moment iran has more proven reserves of conventional oil than iraq and if you look at non conventional oil then venezuela and canada have more then any of them

it is not the second largest oil reserves in the world, i told you to do more research not just parrot one site you have googled

iraq is about 4th and that is only up there due to suspect calling of reserves about 1987 when production limits were set on reserves, iraqs suddenly jumped up

i never claimed the national oil law is not being discussed, it is you who are claiming the US are pushing it through though? have you seen what they want to change about the law and what this will mean to the oil industry?

i'll let you choke on that ROFL
Lol, right sure. So now you know more than the UN?

Source, and maybe someone migth believe a word you say

[mjd1982]

1. arguing what?? i am not saying they are not protesting am i? i am saying you know sod all about the oil industry and do not know what these protests mean in real terms for the oil industry in iraq

2. is the guardian MSM?
1. Yep, your one hell of an expert- you know more about Iraqs oil than Iraqi oil workers, and more about the world's oil than the UN.

Hmm.. actually...

2. The Guardian does not explicity pin the Iraq war as a war for oil. Stuff may slip through from time to time, but the explicit pinning does not happen

[mjd1982]

only pejorative in a slight manner if they were saying all scotsmen were like that and they are not, it is a comedy character which cause no offence to anyone

yes i am saying he is a racist ad bigotted boor and that i know not one kazakh who is like that so it cannot be a stereotype

1st three are not racist, they are bigotted

and i think kazakhs, new zealanders and guyanease would be the ones who would decide if people cared

how can you use racist sensibly?

borat is a racist and a bigot and willie is not

you made the comparison and you were wrong, are you trying to say that borat is not being bigotted when he slanders jews? or gays? or not racist when he slanders kazakhs?

so is borat not being provocating when he uses bigotted language?
bored and frustrated, sorry. Go back and read my posts, since trust me when I tell you you havent understood a word of what has passed from me to you on this topic

[mjd1982]

One minor problem, youngster. Nothing I said comes remotely close to suggesting that "serious intent and symbolism are incompatible with dark humour". See, that little bit of stupidity is what's called a fallacy. And since it underpins your whole argument, I'll just chuckle and mock you some more.

My statement referred specifically to the incongrutities and juxtapositions in Clockwork, and why they were included. I said they weren't there for amusement, as teenage boys think; they were there for serious purposes. I didn't say they're not amusing because of their serious intent, and I didn't make any "suggestions" about the incompatability of humor and serious intent. I simply said that in this case, they're their for a serious purpose, not amusement.

Are you really trying to argue that that's the same thing as saying that amusement and seriousness of purpose are, as a rule, incompatible??? Are you seriously tring to put those ridiculous, blatantly contrived words in my mouth? Is that the point of the moronic, semantical gymnastics quoted above?

Good grief, junior. How incredibly transparent and lame. I think you've reached terminal velocity in your descent into the intellectual abyss.



The irony here is second to none, a part of the entertainment factor that, in actuality, is what keeps me coming back. Your arguments are so fraudulent, your lies so blatant, it's fun to mock you and see what you'll say next. This goes for your ilk in general, but you are an especially precious case.

A guilty pleasure, I suppose...

I'm sorry my presence seems to rattle you. Try saying stupid things less often. That'll help.
as above.

Oh, and referring to my age doesnt do much for your case I'm afraid.

[mjd1982]

Oh, and by the way:


I think that things are getting a little bit sidetracked here, so its useful to do a bit of a recap. I will now show where my argument has come to. It will be an important crystallisation of my argument thus far, and I am fully aware that there will not be anyone who will argue it sensibly. Nonetheless, I can only do this in the hope that people reading this will find your humiliation instructive.


#2662

Come on herd, you can do better than this.

[MIKILLINI]

The new PH will make the process of transformation quicker, due to its enhanced ease. This leads as to the uncontroversial conclusion that a new PH was deemed propitious to policy.
PS- I was going to go onto foreknowledge, but I do wanna give anyone a chance to get distracted. Let's see how the herd of independent minds does with this.

Mjd, you have to realize what goes on with defense spending in this country before you presume what is discussed in PNAC is propitious for anything.
Read some of Winslow Wheeler's articles..You should have no trouble finding them, since Counterpunch publishes some of his articles. This is one of them;

President Bush's request for a Pentagon budget for fiscal 2008 (FY 08) is $481 billion.

To determine total U.S. security costs, add $142 billion to cover the anticipated costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; add $17 billion requested for nuclear weapons costs in the Department of Energy; add another $5 billion for miscellaneous defense costs in other agencies, such as the General Services Administration's National Defense Stockpile, the Selective Service, and some Coast Guard and international FBI costs; and you get a grand total of $647 billion for 2008.

That amount will strike some as incomplete. An inclusive definition of our defense budget might also include homeland security costs; for those expenses (beyond the ones already in the Defense Department), add $36 billion.

In addition, there are other essential U.S. security costs in the budget of the State Department for diplomacy, arms aid to allies, U.N. peacekeeping, reconstruction aid for Iraq and Afghanistan and foreign aid for other countries; add all or most of the International Affairs budget ($38 billion).

Some might want to include some of the human costs of past and current wars; add another $84 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Still others might want to add the share of annual payments on the interest of the national debt that can be attributed to the Defense Department; add another $75 billion. There's more--various defense-related costs, such as costs to the Treasury for military retirement, are distributed all over the federal government.

The total for costs identified here come to $878 billion for 2008, a huge amount, but there will probably be even more.

Many analysts believe the war costs will grow in the year ahead, especially if the tempo of fighting grows in Iraq or Afghanistan, which has been the pattern for both up to now. Moreover, if the White House and Congress have cut corners on the costs to repair and replace equipment worn out by war operations, which has been their routine all the way through 2007, there will be additional "reset" costs for 2008, probably in the billions of dollars.

There are also the costs estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to actually execute the 2008 Pentagon budget.

For many years, the CBO has found that the Defense Department underestimates its own costs to develop, produce and maintain weapons and to support military personnel--beyond the other underestimations of war costs. If the CBO is right (and just about every Pentagon budget analyst says it is), add somewhere between $50 billion and $100 billion, just for 2008.

The actual total for 2008 is unknown; it will not be the $878 billion cited above.

Include or exclude any of the incremental costs listed above according to your own biases of what you believe should be counted; by any measure, it is not puny. Spending just for Pentagon expenses in 2008 ($625 billion) is today larger in inflation-adjusted dollars than at any point since the end of World War II.

According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, the rest of the world spent just over $611 billion on defense in 2005, the latest year available. That compares to the $510 billion we spent on just Pentagon costs that year. And with most foreign defense budgets stagnant or shrinking and ours growing rapidly, we can be confident that the United States now exceeds the rest of the world combined in defense spending.

According to the CIA's World Fact Book, the next biggest defense spender in the world, China, spent $81 billion in 2005--a very poor second place; it's just 13 percent of the $625 billion that our Pentagon will spend in 2008.

The U.S. budget for security is not posed against a competing giant; it faces only pigmies in relative dollar terms.

And yet the White House, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the military services and some big defense spenders among Washington's think-tank punditry would have you believe that the American budget colossus is puny and shriveled, desperately needing augmentation.

The lens they apply to make the mountain appear a molehill is to describe the percentage of gross domestic product that America spends on defense; the FY 08 Pentagon budget amounts to an inconsequential 4 percent. The figure is made to look even more anemic when these advocates compare today's share of GDP for defense to that spent by President Reagan in 1985 (6.1 percent) or better yet, by President Kennedy in 1962 (9.4 percent).

By using (or rather, misusing) this measure today, we appear to be strangling the defense budget, and clearly we should pay more, they argue.

Advocates do not point out that although our defense budget has grown since the Kennedy and Reagan administrations, the economy has grown much, much more, thereby making the percentage for defense smaller. These enthusiasts are literally arguing that our defense spending should be a function of the number of McDonalds in the country.

They cook their arguments because they have plans to expand defense spending further. The chiefs of the military services are just now sending to Congress what they describe as their list of "unfunded requirements" (also known as "wish lists") for additional programs to be added to the FY 08 Defense Department budget.

The Army has a list that totals $10.3 billion; the Marines have one for $3.2 billion; the Navy's comes to $5.7 billion; the immodest Air Force has one for $16.9 billion; even the Special Forces Command has one for $400 million. The total is "only" $36.5 billion.

Although these considerable lists exceed what Bush and Gates permitted in the defense budget, neither will do anything to deter this bootstrapping. Indeed, Bush and Gates have already tacitly endorsed the end run around their own budget. They are both quite happy to have the additional spending. Indeed, their budget anticipated the gambit; this game has been played every budget year for the last 10.

No need to have a catastrophic and catalyzing event when these budget games are the norm.

[twinstead]

Oh, and by the way:



#2662

Come on herd, you can do better than this.

Ironically, to us, YOU are the herd. You're being told what to think. You're a walking, talking drone of the truth movement. You don't have to think, all you have to do is post links to their propaganda.

Boy, they really have you firmly in their grasp.

See, all this 'sheep' stuff depends on ones perspective, nicht wahr?

[funk de fino]

No, it is what they think is happening.

Once again, you know what is going on in their lives better than they do. Well done you!

Prove it!

To help... them get oil out for themselves. As the workers are protesting about. The iraqi oil workers, who know more about the iraq oil industry than you.

Lol, dude youve gotten to the stage of debunking yourself. They dont need to invade Canada or the UK to control, just as they didnt need to invade Iran from 53-79. Can you take it from here yourself?


What? Wealth for themselves, you do realise...?


that doesnt really make sense, i'm afraid

no, I have given you 2 examples, of which they are 1

Right, so the US invaded Iraq as an altruistic act to "stimulate" its oil industry, for the good of those Iraqi civilians the US loves so much... shame theyre all dead now, eh?

duh!!! Returns to whom? Any idea how much Halliburtons share price has gone up since March 03?

Oh boy... then you need to brush up a little bit my friend, the world is far far ahead of you in it understanding

you have no idea, as you have just proved with those replies, i told you not to go there but you did, dont say i did not try to stop you make a tit of yourself

look at all oilservice companies share prices since 2003 you dolt, including the one i work for, here is the performance of two of their competitoirs in the last few years along with the performance of the GSPC, done them a lot of good eh?

http://ichart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=BHI&t=2y&q=l&l=on&z=m&c=HAL,SLB,%5EGSPC&a=v&p=s

i never said they invaded for any oil but now they are there they will stimulate the industry

halliburton make oil rigs do they?

halliburton and these type of oil service companies help with technology to get the oil out of the ground, the do not then own the oil they just get paid for doing this, the iraq oil industry workers will be better off in the end and more jobs will be created

noiw just leave it there because it is quite blatant you have no idea wht you are talking about

stick to your speculation on PNAC et al

[funk de fino]

Lol, right sure. So now you know more than the UN?

Source, and maybe someone migth believe a word you say

you really never did any research on this apart from one google search eh?

how embarrassing, as an industry worker i know it is generally recognised that iraq is 4th largest, in future howvwer this may change due to more exploration (carried out by US companies with iraqi workers) once the security situation is settled

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html

http://www.globalfirepower.com/list_oil_proven.asp

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4688984.stm

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

http://www.opec.org/library/Annual%20Statistical%20Bulletin/pdf/ASB2005.pdf

[funk de fino]

It shows how the US are forcing through a law that will take the country's oil wealth away from the Iraqis, to th US, and how the Iraqis are protesting against this. Wont read that in the MSM, will you?


2. The Guardian does not explicity pin the Iraq war as a war for oil. Stuff may slip through from time to time, but the explicit pinning does not happen

this is what you posted, it says nothing about going to war for oil or that this is what MSM should be reporting or not

they are not protesting about war for oil they are protesting because they think they will lose jobs if the law goes through, yet again you are reading things into stuff that is not there

the MSM are reporting the protests and the reasons behind them, this is what you claimed was not happening

do not change it now, you already stated you did not want to get into whether it was a war for oil or for WMD's but then have just tried to do it??

[funk de fino]

bored and frustrated, sorry. Go back and read my posts, since trust me when I tell you you havent understood a word of what has passed from me to you on this topic

well avoided again, coward

borat is a racist and bigotted character that in no way means cohen is, he is in no way a stereotype of any kazakh i have met

willie is not a racist or bigotted, why compare them?

just see your flaw, it will help you later when you make more mistakes

[mjd1982]

Ironically, to us, YOU are the herd. You're being told what to think. You're a walking, talking drone of the truth movement. You don't have to think, all you have to do is post links to their propaganda.

Boy, they really have you firmly in their grasp.

See, all this 'sheep' stuff depends on ones perspective, nicht wahr?
lol. yes, and as you can see, my perspective is the one that is far more seriously and creditably researched

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88622

The idea of propaganda that you so hilariously allude to has little significance with non mainstream movements. It has total relevance when you apply it to the mainstream, as you wont find out when you dont read those links.

[mjd1982]

Ironically, to us, YOU are the herd. You're being told what to think. You're a walking, talking drone of the truth movement. You don't have to think, all you have to do is post links to their propaganda.

Boy, they really have you firmly in their grasp.

See, all this 'sheep' stuff depends on ones perspective, nicht wahr?
oh, and lest I forget:


So, I win my bet for the non sensible response. I will ask the question again.

Go back to #750, and see how many of the 1750 posts since have addressed post #750.

If you can't, you can either keep on squirming, or you can apologise. Its your choice.


I'm doing this just for fun now.

[Unsecured Coins]

so you're not actually planning on posting anything new, you just hope to baffle us with your circular interpretations?

[twinstead]

oh, and lest I forget:



I'm doing this just for fun now.

Every time you lie and claim that your posts haven't been addressed, a kitten dies somewhere.

How do you sleep at night?

And yea. You're a conspiracy theory drone. Deal with it.

[Belz...]

Il y a une difference entre "simpliste" et "simple". Je pense k je pourrais bien t'enseigner ta langue maternelle, evidemment!

Et en plus- nous discutons

évidemment.

Et j'ai bien dit "simpliste". Je connais la différence entre les deux.

Stop trying to educate me and start educating yourself, Mjd.

[Unsecured Coins]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/rickjamesowned.gif

[Belz...]

Desgin is all that matters, since what the PNAC doc represents is design- the design that a new PH would be propitious to policy.

But since you admitted that they do not state this, all you have is speculation.

Possede!

In French, we have what we call "accents", Mjd.

You believe that indicting Putin in killing 1 person is worse than indicting Bush in 911.

This is a substanceless post.

Why dont you read the doc, it wil remove lits of cobwebs

As above.

Well, you were the one that said the film is "dripping in symbolism... and serious intent", and thus cannot be a comedy, so your comments are more directed at yourself, I'm afraid.

Think before you post.

I'm pretty certain this isnt your first post here; nonetheless, I dont know what your point is about my posting here. What is your point?

Please read post #1303.

2. I also have a scottish mate. Silly point. Willie is a pejorative stereotype of a scottish person. This is your grounds for racism, in real terms. So why isnt he racist?

See above.

No, that's just illustrative of the fact that you have no interest in honest debate. There is zero feasible way I have of providing proof that he is being hushed up. I can provide evidence, but not proof. This is obvious, and hence so is your disinclination to honest debate. So why are you here?

Read the doc.

[funk de fino]

Lol, right sure. So now you know more than the UN?


UN?

you quoted these lot

Thanks to individuals like you, Global Policy Forum has for many years monitored policy making at the United Nations, promoted accountability of global decisions, educated and mobilized for global citizen participation, and advocated on vital issues of international peace and justice.


UN? or GPF?

do the UN know more about oil reserves than OPEC?

or industry experts?

i hope that ROFL didnt make you choke too much

[lapman]

1. Yes its irrelevant that when you say that PNAC had nothing to do with the DOD, and I list all the PNAC/DODers, yes, it is very irrelevant.Your ignorance of how things work here is showing. It is a common practice to have people from many departments in a think tank like PNAC and still be completely autonomous. So it is irrelevant.

2. That is not the definition of hegemony. Duh!!!
Yet is absolutely is. We had predominant influence over Saddam as I have shown.

3. Read the doc. Iraq/Saddam mentioned once every 2 pages. Is something starting to click?Irrelevant. They were simply stating current events. Try comprehending what was written and not just reading it. Please explain how the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. means We must invade Iraq.

[BillyRayValentine]

Oh, and referring to my age doesnt do much for your case I'm afraid.

Your age is definitely relevant. You lack wisdom. You lack life experience. You're arguments are informed by the abstract politics of anti-establishment college kids, with zero understanding or appreciation of how the world really works. You struggle mightily to weave together a compelling tale, but it's clearly just a reflection of your (naive) politics, not a reasonable, real-world interpretation of the facts.

You are driven by politics, but it's your lack of worldliness that allows you to make so many stupid claims and reach so many unrealistic conclusions.

The good news is, you'll likely grow out of it. Though since I assume you're already in your mid-twenties, you really should be further along...

[mjd1982]

Mjd, you have to realize what goes on with defense spending in this country before you presume what is discussed in PNAC is propitious for anything.

[snip]

No need to have a catastrophic and catalyzing event when these budget games are the norm.
All that has been said there is that the US is spending a lot on defense. This has nothing of consequence for anything, I'm afraid; absolutely nothing at all.

I presume you are trying to make the point that was attampted by many of your colleagues that the war in Iraq/Afghanistan is taking up so much money that the RAD transformations are getting hindered? Is that it? If so, I'm afraid that this has been dealt with oh too many times now.... Learn the difference between design and execution, and all will become clear to you my friend.

[mjd1982]

you have no idea, as you have just proved with those replies, i told you not to go there but you did, dont say i did not try to stop you make a tit of yourself

look at all oilservice companies share prices since 2003 you dolt, including the one i work for, here is the performance of two of their competitoirs in the last few years along with the performance of the GSPC, done them a lot of good eh?

http://ichart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=BHI&t=2y&q=l&l=on&z=m&c=HAL,SLB,%5EGSPC&a=v&p=s

i never said they invaded for any oil but now they are there they will stimulate the industry

halliburton make oil rigs do they?

halliburton and these type of oil service companies help with technology to get the oil out of the ground, the do not then own the oil they just get paid for doing this, the iraq oil industry workers will be better off in the end and more jobs will be created

noiw just leave it there because it is quite blatant you have no idea wht you are talking about

stick to your speculation on PNAC et al
Theyre share price has gone up a hell of a lot. They have made a killing, as have the oil companies, and the arms companies who significantly fund and intersperse with the government. End of story.

If the Iraqis will all be happy, then why are they protesting? Or are you saying they should all be happy?

And mosr interestingly of all, why do you think the invasion happened in the 1st place?

[mjd1982]

you really never did any research on this apart from one google search eh?

how embarrassing, as an industry worker i know it is generally recognised that iraq is 4th largest, in future howvwer this may change due to more exploration (carried out by US companies with iraqi workers) once the security situation is settled

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html

http://www.globalfirepower.com/list_oil_proven.asp

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4688984.stm

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

http://www.opec.org/library/Annual%20Statistical%20Bulletin/pdf/ASB2005.pdf
Well, I could do more


The respected Petroleum Economist Magazine estimates that there may be as many as 200 bbl of oil in Iraq; the Federation of American Scientists estimates 215 bbl; a study by the Council on Foreign Relations and the James A. Baker III Institute at Rice University claimed that Iraq has 220 bbl of undiscovered oil; and another study by the Center for Global Energy Studies and Petrolog & Associates offered an even more optimistic estimate of 300 bbl—a number that would give Iraq reserves greater even than those of Saudi Arabia.


http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/luft20030512.htm


While its proven oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks Iraq second in the work behind Saudi Arabia, EIA estimates that up to 90-percent of the county remains unexplored due to years of wars and sanctions. Unexplored regions of Iraq could yield an additional 100 billion barrels. Iraq's oil production costs are among the lowest in the world.


http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm

So the point stands regardless

[mjd1982]

Every time you lie and claim that your posts haven't been addressed, a kitten dies somewhere.

How do you sleep at night?

And yea. You're a conspiracy theory drone. Deal with it.
LOLLLL... This is too fun. I'll do it again (#4)


So, I win my bet for the non sensible response. I will ask the question again.

Go back to #750, and see how many of the 1750 posts since have addressed post #750.

If you can't, you can either keep on squirming, or you can apologise. Its your choice.

[mjd1982]

évidemment.

Et j'ai bien dit "simpliste". Je connais la différence entre les deux.

Stop trying to educate me and start educating yourself, Mjd.
G pas les accents sur mon ordinateur.

Si francais est ta langue maternelle, tu devrais pas faire des erreurs comme ca... c un peu honteux.

Et ouais, tu connais pas la difference entre "simple" et "simpliste". Je pourrais bien t'instruire en francais ainsi qu'en anglais, evidemment...

[mjd1982]

Your ignorance of how things work here is showing. It is a common practice to have people from many departments in a think tank like PNAC and still be completely autonomous. So it is irrelevant.
Yet is absolutely is. We had predominant influence over Saddam as I have shown.
Irrelevant. They were simply stating current events. Try comprehending what was written and not just reading it. Please explain how means
Hahaha... oh boy, come on dude, I think you fellas should start scouting round the forum for some help, this is getting a little embarassing. Even i'm starting to blush...

So its irrelevant to the link between PNAC and the DoD that the sec, dep sec, under sec, under sec for policy, chairman of defense council, and more, were all from PNAC. I think you should have a clown as your avatar from now on.

Enforcing no fly zones doesnt mean hegemony.

It doesnt mean "We must invade Iraq", it implies that an invasion of Iraq would be... propitious.

[mjd1982]

Your age is definitely relevant. You lack wisdom. You lack life experience. You're arguments are informed by the abstract politics of anti-establishment college kids, with zero understanding or appreciation of how the world really works. You struggle mightily to weave together a compelling tale, but it's clearly just a reflection of your (naive) politics, not a reasonable, real-world interpretation of the facts.

You are driven by politics, but it's your lack of worldliness that allows you to make so many stupid claims and reach so many unrealistic conclusions.

The good news is, you'll likely grow out of it. Though since I assume you're already in your mid-twenties, you really should be further along...
You do well to assume my age, especially seeing that my birth year is posted on my avatar! Duh!!!

Oh, and I have nothing to do with anti establishment whatevers.

I have sympathy for your frustrations, but dont worry, Your not alone. Seek solace in the rest of your spanked herd. That will help.

[Gravy]

Je pourrais bien t'instruire en francais ainsi qu'en anglais, evidemment...


Non.

Yep, your one hell of an expert- you know more about Iraqs oil than Iraqi oil workers, and more about the world's oil than the UN.

[WildCat]

I see mjd1982 has yet to provide a single 9/11 "conspiracy fact".

http://home.mindspring.com/~turniton/COTC/bathroom/yawn.jpg

[mjd1982]

Non.
??

An odd post. But while you are here, will you tell us why you have not responded to my riposte to your LC guide PNAC section? I have asked kindly many times...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473&page=3

[mjd1982]

I see mjd1982 has yet to provide a single 9/11 "conspiracy fact".

http://home.mindspring.com/~turniton/COTC/bathroom/yawn.jpg
Oh, boy, how my heart sunk when I saw your name on this thread... These guys are in trouble, I think you should maybe be clearing space for more intelligent OTers...

[MIKILLINI]

All that has been said there is that the US is spending a lot on defense. This has nothing of consequence for anything, I'm afraid; absolutely nothing at all.
Now that's exactly right, it's how the defense budget works; That was an example of what Congress and the White House do when it comes to defense spending. Spending increases when Republicans are controlling the purse strings, they have a tendency to be more hawkish towards defense procurements. There is no need for a "manufactured" catastrophic and catalyzing event.

[mjd1982]

Now that's exactly right, it's how the defense budget works; That was an example of what Congress and the White House do when it comes to defense spending. Spending increases when Republicans are controlling the purse strings, they have a tendency to be more hawkish towards defense procurements. There is no need for a "manufactured" catastrophic and catalyzing event.
I see, ok. Before I even get into that point, you do note that you are disagreeing with PNAC here? And that such a disagreement is completely irrelevant to the issue? Do you realise this?

[Unsecured Coins]

MJD - will you finally post something relevant or will you just keep running around in circles?

[MIKILLINI]

I see, ok. Before I even get into that point, you do note that you are disagreeing with PNAC here? And that such a disagreement is completely irrelevant to the issue? Do you realise this?

This is not an agreement or disagreement with PNAC. This is an example of defense spending and how this process is usually played out.
PNAC is an example of how Republicans viewed Clinton's policies toward defense initiatives, and, in the Neocon Republican view, had allowed it to deteriorate during his Administration. PNAC was the written response as to what would be needed to correct the Clintonian policy of neglect.
This is the true design of PNAC, not a catastrophic and catalyzing event as you say.

[MIKILLINI]

MJD - will you finally post something relevant or will you just keep running around in circles?

http://www.ezthemes.com/previews/s/shannonelizabethpat3.jpg

Here's something relevant, UC.

[funk de fino]

Theyre share price has gone up a hell of a lot. They have made a killing, as have the oil companies, and the arms companies who significantly fund and intersperse with the government. End of story.

If the Iraqis will all be happy, then why are they protesting? Or are you saying they should all be happy?

And mosr interestingly of all, why do you think the invasion happened in the 1st place?

look at their competitors on that chart that i kindly provided for you

has halliburton shares done better than them by being in iraq?

the others are not there

they are not far above normal market rises which is pretty poor considering how high the price of oil is? do you agree

and that rise in the price of oil is why all the other companies you mention have had record years

I think the iraqi oil workers are afraid for their jobs

I think mr Bush wanted to get rid of Saddam and used the flimsiest excuse possible to achieve this

Not for oil, because they do not need to, they can get it cheaper elsewhere

[funk de fino]

Well, I could do more

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/luft20030512.htm

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm

So the point stands regardless

you quote a magazine and the US goverment ahead of OPEC? and both of your links are from 2003?

check when mine were from

this is not a pissing contest about how many links you can find, as an oil industry expert who has been to these places I am telling you, as well as industry experts in links i gave you, that Iraq is generally regarded as having the 4th largest oil reserves

the point does not stand, you are wrong

[mjd1982]

Yes, their true design was increase in military spending, to spur a military radicalisation. A radicalisation which would be sped up by the occurence of a new PH. Hence why they felt a new PH was necessary.

I think this is pretty simple?

[mjd1982]

Interestingly, regarding PNAC, you will note that the main source of OTisms on it comes from the LC guide. This part was dismantled by me on p3 on this thread. Its author has been asked, many many many times to respond sensibly to this criticism. For near 70 pages he has not done so.

So if he cannot, what hope do any of you have? (ps this question has been asked before...)

[mjd1982]

look at their competitors on that chart that i kindly provided for you

has halliburton shares done better than them by being in iraq?

the others are not there

they are not far above normal market rises which is pretty poor considering how high the price of oil is? do you agree

and that rise in the price of oil is why all the other companies you mention have had record years

I think the iraqi oil workers are afraid for their jobs

I think mr Bush wanted to get rid of Saddam and used the flimsiest excuse possible to achieve this

Not for oil, because they do not need to, they can get it cheaper elsewhere
You have no idea how stock prices are driven, do you? The companies that have increased more than Halliburton could have had this happen due to a myriad of reasons- good management, deregulation in areas of operation, personnel changes etc etc, not to mention the issue of price volatility. This does not affect in the least the fact that Halliburton's price has increased significantly due to the Iraq war. Your implication that had they not been involved, their price would have risen more has zero basis, therefore.

[mjd1982]

you quote a magazine and the US goverment ahead of OPEC? and both of your links are from 2003?

check when mine were from

this is not a pissing contest about how many links you can find, as an oil industry expert who has been to these places I am telling you, as well as industry experts in links i gave you, that Iraq is generally regarded as having the 4th largest oil reserves

the point does not stand, you are wrong
Fine fine , I dont mind. Iraq has the 4th biggest proven reserves. What was the original point? Iraq has a hell of a lot of oil, cheap oil, hence why the US wants to invade.

Dont miss the wood for the trees my friend

[funk de fino]

You have no idea how stock prices are driven, do you? The companies that have increased more than Halliburton could have had this happen due to a myriad of reasons- good management, deregulation in areas of operation, personnel changes etc etc, not to mention the issue of price volatility. This does not affect in the least the fact that Halliburton's price has increased significantly due to the Iraq war. Your implication that had they not been involved, their price would have risen more has zero basis, therefore.

i am not saying it would have risen more if they had not been involved i am saying that your reasons for thinking that it has risen due to the war is false

putting words in my mouth again ROFL boy

the two companies in that chart are there two biggest direct competitors, they are not involved in iraq and there share price has increased more - correct?

halliburton due to there involvement in the iraq oil industry have obviously gained nothing against their competitors by being involved in the iraq location - correct?

so again listen to me, i have more idea how Oil service stocks work than you because i trade in them in them and have for years

they are very closely tied to the price of oil and supply of oil, even when a company is having record financial performance in a year the city can get scared by a dollar drop in the price of oil and the share will drop, these companies are invariably linked in performance of the industry as a whole and not on normal economic factors, sometimes all oil service stocks can be rising as everything else is plummeting and vice versa, price volatility effects all the three companies i showed exactly the same, personnel changes have had no effect on the prices of the shares i showed you and deregulation is the same for all the companies, we are in the same locations

their price increased rapidly prior to the war but then has lagged these competitors since so it has given them no advantage, there is one other reason there was a massive rise before the war but as you are the expert i will let you find it

[funk de fino]

Fine fine , I dont mind. Iraq has the 4th biggest proven reserves. What was the original point? Iraq has a hell of a lot of oil, cheap oil, hence why the US wants to invade.

Dont miss the wood for the trees my friend

i am glad you can at least admit you are wrong, it is more than most of your type do

cost of war = approx $1 trillion by the time it is final?? plus thousands of deaths, plus possible impeachment for 911 when you lot find your smoking guns

cost of oil from canada = approx $77 a barrel minus the offset of millions of dollars made by US companies in canada drilling this oil minus no deaths or threats of jail?

dont start a business pal

[WildCat]

i am glad you can at least admit you are wrong, it is more than most of your type do

cost of war = approx $1 trillion by the time it is final?? plus thousands of deaths, plus possible impeachment for 911 when you lot find your smoking guns

cost of oil from canada = approx $77 a barrel minus the offset of millions of dollars made by US companies in canada drilling this oil minus no deaths or threats of jail?

dont start a business pal
And of course we could have just bought Iraqi oil also.

BTW mjd1982, exactly how much oil has been stolen from Iraq to date? And what is the price compared to 2002?

[Belz...]

Theyre share price has gone up a hell of a lot. They have made a killing, as have the oil companies, and the arms companies who significantly fund and intersperse with the government. End of story.

Sure, end of story. In a pig's eye.

G pas les accents sur mon ordinateur.

You don't have international ASCII codes on your computer ?

And it's "J'ai", not "G".

Si francais est ta langue maternelle, tu devrais pas faire des erreurs comme ca... c un peu honteux.

So a Frenchman can't possibly make typos ? Remind me to point out every single mistake you ever make.

Oh, by the way, in French we have articles that are required in front of every noun. It's not "Si francais", it's "Si le Français". Thanks. Next week, we'll learn about adjectives.

Et ouais, tu connais pas la difference entre "simple" et "simpliste".

I know exactly what I said. I said English was simplistic, not simple.

Je pourrais bien t'instruire en francais ainsi qu'en anglais, evidemment...

You probably couldn't get a bird to fly.

[Cuddles]

Actually, you are correct. I missed my own name in the list of posters for this thread. This post marks my 14th entry in this thread.

No point, I just found the numerics interesting. You've got 721 of 763, or 94.5%, of all the posts you have on the boards here in this one single thread. It's not something I've really seen before, to see someone with their posts so concentrated into a single thread. Usually there is at least some spreading around of posting into different threads.

You might find this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87038) interesting. Or possibly just amusing in a rather sad way. Apparently the fact that he only posts here is entirely the fault of the forum design, the management, the composition of members and the fact that the vast majority of the world do not believe his "theory". But it's absolutely nothing to do with him.

[lapman]

So its irrelevant to the link between PNAC and the DoD that the sec, dep sec, under sec, under sec for policy, chairman of defense council, and more, were all from PNAC.It's irrelevant here in the US. Since you're not from here, I can understand why you are having such a hard time understanding this.


Enforcing no fly zones doesnt mean hegemony.
It absolutely is part of the hegemony we had over Iraq.

It doesnt mean "We must invade Iraq", it implies that an invasion of Iraq would be... propitious.Nope, not even close. I guess "transcends the issue" means something different there in the UK than it does here in the US. I guess there it means "propitious to."

[BillyRayValentine]

Your implication that had they not been involved, their price would have risen more has zero basis, therefore.

He made no such implication, junior. You have a habit of coming up with your own distorted, blatantly false interpretation of what others say, so you can then argue against it. That's called being dishonest. If you hope to earn any respect from the adults present, I suggest you stop. It's a moronic tactic, and obvious as all hell.

P.S. The point is that Halliburton has not seen an outsized increase in value relative to its peers, results that run counter to the claim that they are making a killing off the war. Your simplistic drivel about what drives share prices is irrelevant to the point. Such a peer comparison always examines a variable of choice, holding all else equal.

You're getting in way over your head. I suggest you kick for the surface and regroup.

[Belz...]

Nope, not even close. I guess "transcends the issue" means something different there in the UK than it does here in the US. I guess there it means "propitious to."

No. It just means it in United Mjdom.

[mjd1982]

i am not saying it would have risen more if they had not been involved i am saying that your reasons for thinking that it has risen due to the war is false

putting words in my mouth again ROFL boy

the two companies in that chart are there two biggest direct competitors, they are not involved in iraq and there share price has increased more - correct?

halliburton due to there involvement in the iraq oil industry have obviously gained nothing against their competitors by being involved in the iraq location - correct?

so again listen to me, i have more idea how Oil service stocks work than you because i trade in them in them and have for years

they are very closely tied to the price of oil and supply of oil, even when a company is having record financial performance in a year the city can get scared by a dollar drop in the price of oil and the share will drop, these companies are invariably linked in performance of the industry as a whole and not on normal economic factors, sometimes all oil service stocks can be rising as everything else is plummeting and vice versa, price volatility effects all the three companies i showed exactly the same, personnel changes have had no effect on the prices of the shares i showed you and deregulation is the same for all the companies, we are in the same locations

their price increased rapidly prior to the war but then has lagged these competitors since so it has given them no advantage, there is one other reason there was a massive rise before the war but as you are the expert i will let you find it
Well if you trade in them you will, or should, know that the share of a company will rise or fall dependent on a number of factors, as I have already explained to you.

So to say that they have gained nothing against their competitors due to Iraq is falsely presupposing that absent Iraq their stock price would be higher than it is now, an assertion taht you cannot support.

[mjd1982]

i am glad you can at least admit you are wrong, it is more than most of your type do

cost of war = approx $1 trillion by the time it is final?? plus thousands of deaths, plus possible impeachment for 911 when you lot find your smoking guns

cost of oil from canada = approx $77 a barrel minus the offset of millions of dollars made by US companies in canada drilling this oil minus no deaths or threats of jail?

dont start a business pal
Well, thats a message to forward to Bush, not me.

[mjd1982]

You might find this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87038) interesting. Or possibly just amusing in a rather sad way. Apparently the fact that he only posts here is entirely the fault of the forum design, the management, the composition of members and the fact that the vast majority of the world do not believe his "theory". But it's absolutely nothing to do with him.
A suitably ignorant post.

1, It is nobody's "fault" that this is the case. If you are stll unable to understand that, then you might wanna sit the next few out.

2. 45% of US believed, over a year ago, that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success. 47% dont.

http://www.911truth.org/page.php?page=zogby_2006

You will try, and fail to explain how this constitutes a "vast majority"

[beachnut]

Well, thats a message to forward to Bush, not me.
And still not a real fact to support a single smoking gun fantasy. Wow.

[mjd1982]

It's irrelevant here in the US. Since you're not from here, I can understand why you are having such a hard time understanding this.

It absolutely is part of the hegemony we had over Iraq.
Nope, not even close. I guess "transcends the issue" means something different there in the UK than it does here in the US. I guess there it means "propitious to."
1. Hilarious. So the argument is now that the overwhelmingly PNAC composed DOD had no links with PNAC, but since I'm not from the US I wont be able to understand why. Right. Have some balls and admit when your wrong, you coward.

2. Learn what hegemony means first: "The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others."

So prior to the war, the predominant influence in Iraq wasnt Saddam, it was the US.

Unbelievably moronic.

3. It states that the important of the Gulf is more important than Saddam. Saddam is a major threat nonetheless. The need for a huge military presence there is, and wil always be great. Hence an invasion and overthrow will be propitous. Control of theor oil supply will also be propitious, as I have shown time and again.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

[mjd1982]

He made no such implication, junior. You have a habit of coming up with your own distorted, blatantly false interpretation of what others say, so you can then argue against it. That's called being dishonest. If you hope to earn any respect from the adults present, I suggest you stop. It's a moronic tactic, and obvious as all hell.

P.S. The point is that Halliburton has not seen an outsized increase in value relative to its peers, results that run counter to the claim that they are making a killing off the war. Your simplistic drivel about what drives share prices is irrelevant to the point. Such a peer comparison always examines a variable of choice, holding all else equal.

You're getting in way over your head. I suggest you kick for the surface and regroup.
They are making a killing off the war. As is the oil industry. This is clear, and no one with a brain would dispute it.

The question raised by someone is whether they are making more money than their peers. I have said that this is irrelevant, since their peers may be making a killing off other initiatives. This does nto preclude the fact that Halliburton are making a killing off Iraq, money which they may not have otherwise made.

This should not be hard to understand. Another score for Junior.

Btw- shouldnt you be off this thread about 2 weeks ago?

[DGM]

You might find this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87038) interesting. Or possibly just amusing in a rather sad way. Apparently the fact that he only posts here is entirely the fault of the forum design, the management, the composition of members and the fact that the vast majority of the world do not believe his "theory". But it's absolutely nothing to do with him.
Your right, amusing and deluded. Next thing you know he'll quote an internet survey and then challenge that they're accurate.:rolleyes:

[beachnut]

1. Hilarious. So the argument is now that the overwhelmingly PNAC composed DOD had no links with PNAC, but since I'm not from the US I wont be able to understand why. Right. Have some balls and admit when your wrong, you coward.

2. Learn what hegemony means first: "The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others."

So prior to the war, the predominant influence in Iraq wasnt Saddam, it was the US.

Unbelievably moronic.

3. It states that the important of the Gulf is more important than Saddam. Saddam is a major threat nonetheless. The need for a huge military presence there is, and wil always be great. Hence an invasion and overthrow will be propitous. Control of theor oil supply will also be propitious, as I have shown time and again.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html


The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.
OMG, it is like a school. OMG, they had an army with Dick's shotgun, until his wife took it away due to shooting a friend. Now PNAC has no army. Darn, unarmed and only words. Sounds like you.

It looks like no one can follow our example of peaceful revolution, even with lots of help. OMG, watch out PNAC army is coming. Dick with no gun. Run....


The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.
Debate, that is real scary. OMG, they are going to talk us to death like you are?

You are funny, in both ways.

[funk de fino]

Well if you trade in them you will, or should, know that the share of a company will rise or fall dependent on a number of factors, as I have already explained to you.

So to say that they have gained nothing against their competitors due to Iraq is falsely presupposing that absent Iraq their stock price would be higher than it is now, an assertion taht you cannot support.

you do not know the factors that is your problem, yet you accuse me of not knowing how stocks work when i trade in them??

i'm not saying anything of the sort, compared to their competitors in the same years they have not had a great success, if they were making millions from iraq in an area where they had monopoly in the business they would have done better IMO, if iraq was the cash cow for them you assume it is they would have a higher stock price IMO, i am not saying they would have been better off out of iraq, words in my mouth again pal, it maybe has not affected the share price in any way?? who can tell??

[funk de fino]

Well, thats a message to forward to Bush, not me.

no it was a message to re-iterate i told you not to get involved in the oil industry discussion like i warned you not too, cause you had no idea what you were on about

also puts another slant on invasion for oil fallacies??

[lapman]

1. Hilarious. So the argument is now that the overwhelmingly PNAC composed DOD had no links with PNAC, but since I'm not from the US I wont be able to understand why.
Right. Have some balls and admit when your wrong, you coward.
:dl:
You mean like you had the balls to admit that you were wrong about the defense GDP levels? Oh wait, you haven't admitted that.


2. Learn what hegemony means first: "The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others."

So prior to the war, the predominant influence in Iraq wasnt Saddam, it was the US.Let me see, sanctions that we mainly enforced. Main influence on the inspections. Attack at will. Establishing camps for the Kurds in Iraq. Practically every move he made was dictated by what we were doing. Yeah, I would say a predominant influence.

3. It states that the important of the Gulf is more important than Saddam. Bingo! Give that man a qupie doll!
Saddam is a major threat nonetheless. The need for a huge military presence there is, and wil always be great.Which transcended Saddam's threat to the region. So in the overall plan, Saddam was a minor issue.
Hence an invasion and overthrow will be propitous. Control of theor oil supply will also be propitious, as I have shown time and again.No, you claim to have shown but you've only given your speculation and conjecture.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.htmlProves nothing about the PNAC - Iraq link.

[BillyRayValentine]

Well if you trade in them you will, or should, know that the share of a company will rise or fall dependent on a number of factors, as I have already explained to you.

At issue is whether one of the companies in the peer group - Halliburton - had a unique characteristic (the Iraq War), something that set it apart from the others. If so, we would expect a relative increase in value if this unique characteristic resulted in a significant economic advantage. All other "factors" are assumed equal, or non-unique. You apparently think the operating assumption should be that Halliburton is lacking, or far less than equal, with respect to these other "factors", thereby mitigating the positive impact of their Iraq goldrush. A baseless, ridiculous claim, plucked out of thin air.

Your other operating assumption is that the war was a Halliburton windfall. You keep skipping right past the question of whether it actually was, partly because you're incapable of drawing a distinction between profits and outsized profits. Halliburton is certainly making money in Iraq. But if they weren't there, those resources would be directed elsewhere. And by all indications, "elsewhere" would be similarly profitable.

So to say that they have gained nothing against their competitors due to Iraq is falsely presupposing that absent Iraq their stock price would be higher than it is now, an assertion taht you cannot support.Bolding mine

And you go right ahead and do it again - use tortured logic to try and put words in someone's mouth. And I do mean tortured logic. The bolded piece is one of the least intelligent things I've ever read. You're breaking new ground. Nice work.

[AZCat]

You might find this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87038) interesting. Or possibly just amusing in a rather sad way. Apparently the fact that he only posts here is entirely the fault of the forum design, the management, the composition of members and the fact that the vast majority of the world do not believe his "theory". But it's absolutely nothing to do with him.

The word "pathetic" just doesn't seem to do that thread justice. Perhaps there is another with more "oomph"?