Think Twice Before You Speak Out On Iraq

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0whTPXxwU

It's not 2003 anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

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?

---

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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0whTPXxwU

---

You actually read the dailymail with seriousness?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

There's very little legitimacy left to lose.

---

true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

You actually read the dailymail with seriousness?

Which other newspaper do you read most often? The National Enquirer or Weekly World News?

---

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?

or have you even read the article?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

true.

---

So why overhype the danger to dissenters?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

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?

or have you even read the article?

---

I'm saying that I don't trust media sources that are untrustworthy.

But that's just me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

I'm saying that I don't trust media sources that are untrustworthy.

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?

do you have any evidence to back up your claims?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

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.

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.

---

So you are saying he was on a different hit list that wasn't mentioned at all in the article?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

So you are saying he was on a different hit list that wasn't mentioned at all in the article?

---

but implied, since he the article points to foul play that occurred after he spoke out on the false justification of the war?

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?

?

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?

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 ChumpDumper

If that is the answer, that was the worst article ever written and not worth posting.

---

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.

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?

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.

---

Sure I can. If it was just poorly written, then your inference could simply be wrong.

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.

---

Again, that is your inference.

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?

---

More really bad inferences.

I agree the secrecy is suspicious, but that's about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Sure I can. If it was just poorly written, then your inference could simply be wrong.

Again, that is your inference.

More really bad inferences.

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 Parker2112

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?

---

I said if the intent of the writer was to imply what you inferred, it was horrible.

I don't really think it was making that implication.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I said if the intent of the writer was to imply what you inferred, it was horrible.

I don't really think it was making that implication.

---

whats your take, bud?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

whats your take, bud?

---

That he was on an Iraqi hit list and he died under circumstances that have not been fully explained.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

That he was on an Iraqi hit list and he died under circumstances that have not been fully explained.

---

a restatment of facts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

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.

---

see below

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

If the writer were trying to say someone else may have killed him, he easily could have done so.

---

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?

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.