http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0whTPXxwU
Printable View
It's not 2003 anymore.
you really think the occupation efforts have any less to lose if damning info comes out from a credible inside source...undermining the imperialistic activities in the middle east?Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
it all boils down to the damage level and the source.
where there are estimated trillions at stake in the minerals in afghanistan, do you think those who stand to gain will hesitate to eliminate credible dissent once again, if that in fact took place here?
The tide has already turned. There's very little legitimacy left to lose. We'll see what happens to Julian Assange.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
You actually read the dailymail with seriousness?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
Which other newspaper do you read most often? The National Enquirer or Weekly World News?
If our debacle in Iraq is any indication, a decade of war in Afghanistan will leave us at a disadvantage to our strategic competitors (Russia and China) wrt Afghanistan's mineral wealth.
"dailymail with seriousness"
it's a news article, not an opinion article
true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
are you dismissing the facts in the article here because of the source? are you saying the "facts" as reported aren't "facts" at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cry Havoc
or have you even read the article?
So why overhype the danger to dissenters?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
The article was just submitted for the forum's reading pleasure, and the title of the thread, like most articles you'll find, was given a dramatic edge to promote interest.
the info is important. if we cast out issues like this because of age, we will never ever catch up to those whose evil deeds go undiscovered for years.
dont be lulled to sleep, and I suggest you dont promote that readers should go back to sleep either. we have enough sheepish skepticism on this board as it is
It says he was on an Iraqi hit list since 1997. Are they saying Iraqis from the Saddam Hussein regime killed him or what?
That would actually help the case for war.
except that since he came out against the establishments' stated justifications, and essentially undermined the war effort prior to getting hit by iraqi agents, Iraqi holdovers must have erased his name, only to be written on some neo-con list.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
i know its hard to follow at home...
seems self explanatory that iraqi agents had more to deal with than some hit list in 03. for those promoting the fleecing of the globe, however, that cant be said, as their respective nations were not under attack/subject to foriegn occupation/dissolution/political reorganization/in shambles at the time.
I'm saying that I don't trust media sources that are untrustworthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
But that's just me.
are you saying that the multiple authorities demanding an inquest are not really demanding an inquest here? and that the british gov is in fact cooperating with the public cry for investigation, if any?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cry Havoc
do you have any evidence to back up your claims?
So you are saying he was on a different hit list that wasn't mentioned at all in the article?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
but implied, since he the article points to foul play that occurred after he spoke out on the false justification of the war?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
and one which the article has no evidence of, and so understandably does not contend, but implies plain as day?
do you really need an answer here?
?
If that is the answer, that was the worst article ever written and not worth posting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
the article states the facts. the implications stem purely from the facts. I dont know how you can judge a statement of facts so harshly because of the implications.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
as for being worth posting, i think if there is any nefarious interest that goes around killing those that speak out against the lies that led us into Iraq, even if that happened six or seven years ago, I think its worth posting.
Question: do you think these facts should be buried because we didnt see the whole picture immediately after the event occurred? a six year statutory limitations on possible acts of murder perhaps? or perhaps just on the freedom of the press to discuss the murder more than five years after the fact, if it indeed went unsolved? or maybe just a ban on posting the same at Spurstalk?
Sure I can. If it was just poorly written, then your inference could simply be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
Again, that is your inference.Quote:
as for being worth posting, i think if there is any nefarious interest that goes around killing those that speak out against the lies that led us into Iraq, even if that happened six or seven years ago, I think its worth posting.
More really bad inferences.Quote:
Questoion: do you think these facts should be buried because we didnt see the whole picture immediately after the event occurred? a six year statutory limitations on possible acts of murder perhaps? or perhaps just on the freedom of the press to discuss the murder more than five years after the fact, if it indeed went unsolved? or maybe just a ban on posting the same at Spurstalk?
I agree the secrecy is suspicious, but that's about it.
then why fault the article as the most poorly written article ever? why not just fault my inference, followed by your logic as to why it fails?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I said if the intent of the writer was to imply what you inferred, it was horrible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
I don't really think it was making that implication.
whats your take, bud?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
That he was on an Iraqi hit list and he died under circumstances that have not been fully explained.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
An Iraqi hit would not be out of the question, and steps that could be taken to rule that out have not been taken. I think that is the only thing being implied here.
If the writer were trying to say someone else may have killed him, he easily could have done so.
a restatment of factsQuote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
see belowQuote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
then why include the info about his opposition to the stated justifications for war? wouldnt the author understand the implications from this inclusion? dont most readers? dont you?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
and as for him just stating this plainly, why would the author come out and say either faction might have done it? in fact he never does. he just implies. one to a greater degree, based on the strength of evidence alone. but both inferences can be drawn based on the info.
Well, duh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
I can see how some readers would make up a new hit list in their minds.Quote:
then why include the info about his opposition to the stated justifications for war? wouldnt the author understand the implications from this inclusion? dont most readers? dont you?
The writer never says he was on any hit list other than the Iraqi one. You inferred there was another hit list.Quote:
and as for him just stating this plainly, why would the author come out and say either faction might have done it? in fact he never does. he just implies. one to a greater degree, based on the strength of evidence alone. but both inferences can be drawn based on the info.
right, but the "you" here is actually you.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
The manner of address was emphatic: think twice, hippie!Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
OIC. This is meant to lure us over near the bushes, the better to witness the show. You'd probably even like us to beat the bushes for you, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
No offense, but no thanks. :hat
Cf., Heraclitus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
Cf,. Manuscript found at Saragossa, UBIK.Quote:
A person in (the) night kindles a light for himself, since his vision has been extinguished. In his sleep he touches that which is dead, though (himself) alive, when awake touches that which sleeps.
two chicks is always a good time?
"The upward-downward path" (hodos ano kato) takes on a whole nother significance there.
You dodge much?
I've never had the good fortune of dodging two chicks!
btw, wtf are trying to say?!?!
It can be. I wouldn't count on that, tho.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
Both the Jan Patocki novel and PKD's UBIK use intricately inter-nested metanarratives to blur the line between reality and dream/afterlife to strikingly hallucinogenic effect.
@Parker2112:
Your suggestion that everyone else here would be asleep but for your exertions, I find hilarious.
Isn't there some way to make a very similar point without putting every body else down?
"we have enough sheepish skepticism" does not = "everyone else here would be asleep but for my exertions"Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
but glad you got a laugh out of it though...
"we have enough sheepish skepticism" does not = "putting every body else down"Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
again, your preconceptions win out over reality. this is becoming habit winehole...
and final note, as I have said before, and I will repeat to you, I dont have the answers...I come here for opinions...sheep refers to those who refuse to challenge their preconceptions...
Cf., Pink Anderson.
Cf., Floyd Council.
Cf., Animals.
I may have overread you somewhat when you said,Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
just after you said:Quote:
we have enough sheepish skepticism on this board as it is
In other words, by suggesting that the role of WH23 is to put posters back to bed, you also insinuated the board was already asleep in general.Quote:
dont be lulled to sleep, and I suggest you dont promote that readers should go back to sleep either.
You either overlooked the plain meaning of your own words or selectively edited your own comments. Pick one.
Plus, it just grates that you seem to think others are asleep merely because they are not receptive to what you say.
nah....I think you overreacted based on personal bias.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I can be biased while you're acting like a conceited jackass. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
I agree with ChumpyD. You smuggled an inference in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
Your defense of it now still smuggles it in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
everyone knows full well what the implications are based on the facts stated. you do to winehole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
I dont deny acting like this...as does damn near the entire forum at times. and I would say at least 50% do it with more regularity than me. I cant help that you view me through the bully list, but understand that the bias doesnt help your logic much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Everybody knows. Perhaps. But the OP did not point the finger itself: for that we have you, P2112.
:toastQuote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
How comforting. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
glad I could put you at ease!Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
the thing is winehole, I dont deny being a jerk, an ass etc., but the bottom line is Im not going to reign it in for your viewing pleasure. And though I acknowledge I get quality views in some of your posts, I am not going to curb my enthusiasm for you. sorry sir.
(is slightly creeped out by ^^^)
(as enthusiasm courses...)Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
mogrovejo? is that your stilted english?
micca's?
(percolating continues...)Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
There needs to be an investigation of the possible connection between Dr. David Kelly's murder... the outings of Valerie Plame and the CIA's Brewster-Jennings WMD counter-proliferation network in the same week.....these events happened on the following timeline: Late May 2003, Kelly begins whistle-blowing to the BBC..... June, the Blairites hunt him down within the government and interrogate him at a "safe house." ....July 6, Plame's husband Joe Wilson publishes his whistle-blowing article (also questioning the lies told to justify the war)...... July 7, Tony Blair is informed that Kelly "could say" (not had said--"could say") some embarrassing things to a parliamentary committee, if they force him to testify...... July 14, Plame is outed (by Novak). July 18, Kelly is found dead near his home in highly suspicious circumstances...... July 22, the entire B-J network is additionally outed (also by Novak).
Let me repeat the essential dates:
July 14, Plame is outed.
July 18, Kelly is found dead.
July 22, the entire B-J network is additionally outed.
Kelly was killed WITHIN THREE DAYS of the Plame outing..... There is other connective tissue--including the Judith Miller connection. But the dates alone warrant an investigation of the possible coordinated effort of the Bushites and the Blairites to punish and silence critics, possibly in a context of something that is not yet known....for instance, their plan to plant WMDs in Iraq, perhaps trackable to Iran, to extend the war to Iran then and there--a plan that would explain insider Kelly's rebellion, and effort to whistle-blow, after the invasion and with the Iraq war well under way. U.S. soldiers--accompanied by Judith Miller--were still "hunting" for the non-existent WMDs in July--in a very high profile "hunt" with daily headlines--while Plame was being outed and Kelly murdered.
I don't expect any such investigation in the U.S., any time soon. I'm afraid that we are too far gone down the path of the "Big Lie." But maybe some day...