Author Topic Options
Offline

Vive Moderator


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5450
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 2:06 pm
 


<blockquote><br /> Let's see, you claim to oppose despotism, yet when it comes to treating people you dislike in a despotic way you're all for it. Some of those war criminals who spun up those WWII concentrations camps thought that way too. <br /> <br /> No contradictions there, nope.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Certificates, and hate law are both compromises between freedoms and rights to safety and security. Which should be compromised? (Your assertion that my not adopting your opinion makes me both a despot and Nazi notwithstanding)<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Who's Osama? Oh, he's that cave dweller that worked for the CIA. The guy who we're told masterminded the 9/11 attacks, but wait a minute, you think that the official 9/11 story is not true, but so what, the wars that used 9/11 as the excuse are OK with you anyway, never mind the lies used as a reason for the wars, because the reasons for the wars are not lies when you agree with the war.<br /> <br /> Nope, no contradictions in there at all.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> None, due to your Non sequitr. We've been down this path before, but I'll repeat it again: Osama being a CIA asset does not preclude him financing these operations, any more than FBI and CIA agents have in the past, been Russian spies.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> The Afghan war we're told, was all about what happened on 9/11, to get bad old Osama Bin Laden, the guy who plotted the attacks, yet you think the official story is a lie. If the pretext is a lie, then everything based on the lie is also a lie, and that remains so even if you happen to agree with what is being done.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> No, he financed the attacks, Sheik Kahled carried them out. Yes, I think the official story of why tower 7 collapsed is a farie tale. I think many of the theories as to why tower 1 & 2 collapsed are equally fiction. That does not negate who flew planes into the towers, nor why they did it. Nor does it preclude that US intellegence knew about it (or not) and let it happen (or not). Your assertion that if one thing is a lie, then they are all lies is also non-sequitr. (otherwise, no planes hit the towers, because that is part of the official story)<br /> <br /> I'd even go so far as to say that men hijacking a plane with boxcutters would be impossible if Sheik Kahled hadn't orchestrated exactally that very thing a few years previous in Japan. I believe he was going to smash that plane into somewhere in Tokyo. More territory we've already covered.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> The Canadian forces are not looking for Osama, never have been, and there's no threat to us Canadains from Afghanistan, never was, so why are our tax dollars being spent over there? Oh, sure, we're there killing Arfghans and messing the country up to make them more secure and we're not racist zealots but we're gonna make 'em think and act just like us. <br /> <br /> Yeah sure, than makes sense. No contradictions in there either.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Again, Non sequitr. Canadian Forces have recieved commendations, and have the longest confirmed kill in battle. All while on the hunt for Osama.<br /> <br /> Again more territory we've covered. Afghanistan harboured Osama and Shiek Kahled, who killed Canadians and therefore was a threat to Canada. Under the law, we had the right to forcibly remove him from Afghanistan.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Come on DC, you looked at more than just one video of a guy talking did'nt you? I mean, how can you miss looking at the wide expanse of mountains on top of mountains of evidence disproving the official story, especially considering all the reading and studying you are doing? <br /> <br /> Did you just start looking? Let's see we're just a few days shy of 2007, and the towers came down when?<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> I haven't looked in the glove box of my car in at least 3 years. Has anything changed? I doubt it. My time is limited, and now I have that much less time because of all the material you gentlemen have provided me.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Yes, but according to you, the wars that used the official and false story as an excuse are somehow right?<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> You do not believe the official explanation. I do not believe *all* of the official explanation. But, I believe enough that yes, the war to protect Canadians is justified.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> The movie <a href="http://www.911review.com/disinfo/videos.html#ips">In Plane Sight</a> was made in an attempt to discredit serious 9/11 research with lies that pretend to be associated with serious 9/11 research.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Funny, but I still don't see any debunking of clearly visible flashes just before the planes hit. In ethier the 911review links, or the Popular Mechanics debunking. Yet, you accuse me of believing the official falsehoods. Did you not just shrug me off, as you claim the 'micro nuke' fiends should be?<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> <blockquote>'What makes them crazy liars' all the time?</blockquote><br /> <br /> Gee, I don't know, I guess Vive le Canada should shut down since it's not actually needed, eh?<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Not an answer. Are they lying all the time?<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> <blockquote>Have you just met me?</blockquote><br /> <br /> My opinion of you is based on what you have written in these forums, up to and including your last post in reply. <br /> <br /> Based on what you've written, I repeat and maintain that you are full of contradictions.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Yes, as it should be, just as my opinion of you is based on what you write. And the more you repeat things that we've already been over, but still don't acknowledge, the more that opinion is reinforced.<br /> <br /> I might be hopelessly contradictory, but I still do have a lovely singing voice.<br />



Take the Kama Sutra. How many people died from the Kama Sutra as opposed to the Bible? - Frank Zappa


Offline

CKA Elite

Profile
Posts: 3540
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 3:16 pm
 


http://www.fff.org/freedom/0500b.asp <br /> <br /> About 432,000 Jews emigrated from Germany between 1933 and 1940, including 117,000 from Austria. At first the Nazis encouraged Jews to leave the country, and placed few restrictions on the possessions they could take with them. Later, heavy emigration taxes were imposed, with more stringent controls on the amount of money that could be transferred out of the country. Even with the financial costs and losses imposed on emigration, undoubtedly more Jews would have left German-controlled areas of Europe, even following the outbreak of the European war in 1939-1940, if not for the fact that there were few countries willing to accept them as refugees and residents -- the United States not one of them.<br /> <br /> <br /> http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/holocaust/gedalyaliebermann.cfm <br /> <br /> At this point I must invoke the name of that wise Chinese philosopher, Ah Poo, <br /> <br /> I won’t be sending any more time in supplying the answer to you question of the offer to ship Jews <br /> You may take this as No info / No event, or you may not.<br /> <br /> I seem to recall you mentioning you played a role in military intelligence, or some such position, that being the case, that you did, indicates, along with other linguistic markers, there is a large percent of game playing being done. The combination led me to “In my opinion there is a dishonesty…”<br /> In my experience those who dance, twirl, duck & dodge, avoid, double back, spin, counter-spin do so for several reasons: Anonymity, Amusement and aggravation. <br /> <br /> Anyway it ain’t no big<br /> And life goes on <br /> <br /> “Obladi oblada life goes on brahhh...<br /> Lala how the life goes on...<br /> Obladi Oblada life goes on brahhh...<br /> Lala how the life goes on.<br /> Thank you Paul, George, John and Ringo<br /> <br />



"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

William Blake

"To acquire knowledge, one must study;
but to acquire wisdom, one must observe."


Offline

Vive Moderator


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5450
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 3:44 pm
 


[QUOTE BY= Diogenes] <br /> At this point I must invoke the name of that wise Chinese philosopher, Ah Poo, <br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> He's the Quik-e-mart owner, isn't he? <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'><br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Diogenes]<br /> I won’t be sending any more time in supplying the answer to you question of the offer to ship Jews <br /> You may take this as No info / No event, or you may not.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> No biggie, I can take it from there. Thanks for the headstart.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> I seem to recall you mentioning you played a role in military intelligence, or some such position, that being the case, that you did, indicates, along with other linguistic markers, there is a large percent of game playing being done. The combination led me to “In my opinion there is a dishonesty…”<br /> <br /> In my experience those who dance, twirl, duck & dodge, avoid, double back, spin, counter-spin do so for several reasons: Anonymity, Amusement and aggravation. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> No, I had a high clearance, but was not involved in gathering intel. I have a relative that was heavily involved in SIGINT, and had the second highest clearance in Canada.<br /> <br /> If I appear to be dodging the issue, then I apologise. I am exploring what I believe, and why I believe it. I'm also trying to do my regular daily work, so sometimes there is an hour or two between my sentences, and continuity may be disrupted. I'll also admit, sometimes I do dodge things because the correct answer could lead a dedicated person to my identity. <br /> <br /> Amusement and aggrivation are not options. I'd rather remain silent than intentionally anger someone.



Take the Kama Sutra. How many people died from the Kama Sutra as opposed to the Bible? - Frank Zappa


Offline

Forum Super Elite

Profile
Posts: 2044
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 5:09 pm
 


<blockquote><br /> Certificates, and hate law are both compromises between freedoms and rights to safety and security. Which should be compromised? (Your assertion that my not adopting your opinion makes me both a despot and Nazi notwithstanding)<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Ummm, is this despotism lite?<br /> <br /> Safety and security comes from the abolishment of secret trials and censorship. You should talk to those Holcaust victims about it if any are still alive, they know all about despotism and what it does for security and safety. <br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Osama being a CIA asset does not preclude him financing these operations, any more than FBI and CIA agents have in the past, been Russian spies.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> All the evidence points to Osama being a CIA asset rather than anything else. All we have are megalomaniacs, <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1207-26.htm">professional liars</a>, torturers, and assassins telling us that Osama is the culprit, but there's no more proof than that.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> No, he financed the attacks, Sheik Kahled carried them out. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> How the hell do you know what Sheik Kahled did? Oh yeah, you read it from a CIA press release. Well those CIA guys are so squeaky clean honest it must be true.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Yes, I think the official story of why tower 7 collapsed is a farie tale. I think many of the theories as to why tower 1 & 2 collapsed are equally fiction. That does not negate who flew planes into the towers, nor why they did it. Nor does it preclude that US intellegence knew about it (or not) and let it happen (or not). Your assertion that if one thing is a lie, then they are all lies is also non-sequitr. (otherwise, no planes hit the towers, because that is part of the official story)<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Sooooooo, if only some of the story is a lie but the rest is true, then why are they lying?<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> I'd even go so far as to say that men hijacking a plane with boxcutters would be impossible if Sheik Kahled hadn't orchestrated exactally that very thing a few years previous in Japan. I believe he was going to smash that plane into somewhere in Tokyo. More territory we've already covered.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Coirrect me if I'm worng, but according to the official story, the asian "test" run involved no box cutters or hijackings.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Again, Non sequitr. Canadian Forces have recieved commendations, and have the longest confirmed kill in battle. All while on the hunt for Osama.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Commendations for what? Kill, kill, kill. That's my point. The hunt for Osama involved bombing rocks and empty caves. About the only thing they killed were goats and other wildlife. Now that the hunt is over, they are killing Afghan resistance fighters who want the uninvited invaders out. Hitler did a lot of invasions too, and according to Hitler, it was done only with the best of intentions in mind, not to mention being perfectly legal. Oh, and the German army was probably the best army around at the time. They were very good at what they did and kicked a lot of ass, but as far as I'm copncerned they were little more than murderers.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Afghanistan harboured Osama and Shiek Kahled, who killed Canadians and therefore was a threat to Canada.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> All I see are professional liars, assassins, and tortures telling us that Shiek Kahled and Osama did anything with respect to 9/11. <br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Under the law, we had the right to forcibly remove him from Afghanistan.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> What law? Innocent people are being killed by our falling bombs based on (as you admit) lies.<br /> <br /> <a href="http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue46/articles/legality_civilian_toll.htm">Why the War Against Afghanistan is Illegal</a><br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> I haven't looked in the glove box of my car in at least 3 years. Has anything changed? I doubt it. My time is limited, and now I have that much less time because of all the material you gentlemen have provided me.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> All you need is 1 hour to figure it all out. <a href="http://911review.com/">Go here and read</a>.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> You do not believe the official explanation. I do not believe *all* of the official explanation. But, I believe enough that yes, the war to protect Canadians is justified.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> OK then, so how about telling me why a part of the official explaination is a lie, and how about telling me why our government is using that lie to dupe the public and send off our boys to their deaths in Afghanistan?<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Funny, but I still don't see any debunking of clearly visible flashes just before the planes hit. In ethier the 911review links, or the Popular Mechanics debunking. Yet, you accuse me of believing the official falsehoods. Did you not just shrug me off, as you claim the 'micro nuke' fiends should be?<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Here's one alternate explanation of the flashes: <a href="http://911review.com/errors/phantom/st_impact.html">The Missile-Firing Plane</a>. The point is that the flashes are proof of nothing, but the shills make a big deal out of it and dream up nonsense such as missiles being fired from the planes just before impact. I shrug off whatever has no proof, such as most of the official 9/11 story. About all we know, is that some planes hit 3 buildings, and 3 buidings (one of which was not hit by a plane) were blown up with explosives, and the US Gov, along with the Canadian gov and others, made up some lies about how it happened, destroyed the evidence, failed to investigate the crime, and did a whole lot of 'terrorist' fear mongering, kicked off some wars, arrested a number of innocent people, made despotic lists of names, set up some torture camps, changed laws to make it easier to arrest and spy on people for no good reason, and made us think that <a href="http://theidlereceptionist.blogspot.com/2006/11/explosive-nature-of-toothpaste.html">our toothpaste could somehow explode when carried onto an airplane</a>.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Are they lying all the time?<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> You don't have to lie all the time to be a liar, and even crazy people sometimes tell the truth.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> I might be hopelessly contradictory, but I still do have a lovely singing voice.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> <a href="http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ifilm.com%2Fifilmdetail%2F2424640">So does John Ashcroft.</a> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'>


Offline

CKA Elite

Profile
Posts: 3540
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 5:49 pm
 


Hey Brother DC<br /> It's all good!<br /> For those of us who it was meant to be, it is.<br /> <br /> I don't visit, *Ain'T it Awful* for long stops.<br /> <br /> Of freakin course it is what it is and will forever be whatever that is<br /> <br /> I witnessed a great line from the tv show MASH.<br /> <br /> Delivered by the traveling psyatrist's character<br /> <br /> "Ladies and Gents<br /> take my advice,<br /> Take down you pants,<br /> And slide on the ice."



"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

William Blake

"To acquire knowledge, one must study;
but to acquire wisdom, one must observe."


Offline

CKA Elite

Profile
Posts: 3540
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:02 pm
 


"Osama being a CIA asset does not preclude him financing these operations, any more than FBI and CIA agents have in the past, been Russian spies."<br /> <br /> tautology.<br /> <br /> exceedingly accurate, in and of itself, not the decidingly or, last word, though.<br /> <br /> Preclusion is also a red herring to send the reader of on a rabbit hole case, Perhaps, As intended.<br /> <br /> intention may be tough to *prove* as is *preclude* Goes to intented and without evidence to support the claim, the claim is a but a whisp of annoyance (sorry, had to wax poetic) <br /> <br /> Try this: Osama's position as a CIA operative broughthim into the realm of all sorts of unsavory situations.<br /> Y'all fergettin bout *isness*?



"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

William Blake

"To acquire knowledge, one must study;
but to acquire wisdom, one must observe."


Offline

CKA Elite

Profile
Posts: 3540
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:53 pm
 


"I might be hopelessly contradictory, but I still do have a lovely singing voice." <br /> <br /> Ah, Yes<br /> The lure of the lovely singing vioce and its <br /> irresistible charm puts me in mind of the effect the Sieren and their song they luring mariners to their destruction on the rocks surrounding their island.<br /> One must be Virgil<br /> (Virgil V, 846; Ovid XIV, 88).<br /> <br /> Wink Wink, Nod, pay the toll.



"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

William Blake

"To acquire knowledge, one must study;
but to acquire wisdom, one must observe."


Offline

Vive Moderator


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5450
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:46 pm
 


<blockquote><br /> Safety and security comes from the abolishment of secret trials and censorship. You should talk to those Holcaust victims about it if any are still alive, they know all about despotism and what it does for security and safety. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> I'll bet many would say the revocation of their right to live safely and securely was the first step.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> All the evidence points to Osama being a CIA asset rather than anything else. torturers, and assassins telling us that Osama is the culprit, but there's no more proof than that.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> You're right. There is a severe lack of proof, ethier way. <br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> How the hell do you know what Sheik Kahled did? Oh yeah, you read it from a CIA press release. Well those CIA guys are so squeaky clean honest it must be true.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Wow. Those CIA guys are really good, eh?<br /> <br /> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Shaikh_Mohammed<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Sooooooo, if only some of the story is a lie but the rest is true, then why are they lying?<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> We know the best lies involve some element of truth.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Coirrect me if I'm worng, but according to the official story, the asian "test" run involved no box cutters or hijackings.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> No, you are correct. The Asian test run was with bombs on planes, not hijacked planes as weapons. <br /> <br /> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Shaikh_Mohammed#Operation_Bojinka<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Commendations for what? Kill, kill, kill. That's my point. The hunt for Osama involved bombing rocks and empty caves. About the only thing they killed were goats and other wildlife. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Thats' what we pay soldiers to do. Kill people.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> All I see are professional liars, assassins, and tortures telling us that Shiek Kahled and Osama did anything with respect to 9/11. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> . . .all you choose to see, you mean.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> <blockquote><br /> Under the law, we had the right to forcibly remove him from Afghanistan.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> What law? Innocent people are being killed by our falling bombs based on (as you admit) lies.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> I've linked to the UN resolution before. I'm sure you remember it.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Why the War Against Afghanistan is Illegal<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Hehe. Yea, that guy exactally the kind of arguments you accuse me of employing. The Taliban are civillians? Civillians get protection under the Geneva conventions, but civillians who arm themselves are gurellias unless they put on a uniform. Gurellias have no protection under the Geneva conventions, the part he so carefully avoids mentioning. More territory already covered.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> All you need is 1 hour to figure it all out. <a href="http://911review.com/">Go here and read</a>.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Yep. Nothing changed, like I figured.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> OK then, so how about telling me why a part of the official explaination is a lie, and how about telling me why our government is using that lie to dupe the public and send off our boys to their deaths in Afghanistan?<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Non sequitr. How the building collapsed has no bearing on our soldiers safety.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Here's one alternate explanation of the flashes: <a href="http://911review.com/errors/phantom/st_impact.html">The Missile-Firing Plane</a>. The point is that the flashes are proof of nothing, but the shills make a big deal out of it and dream up nonsense such as missiles being fired from the planes just before impact. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> I agree, they are proof of nothing. But they exist, and nothing yet has explained them. Anyone familiar with the scientific method will tell you, a theory is only 'good' if it explains all observations and data involved.<br /> <br /> For me, no explanation will ever be good enough unless it does this. No theory explains WTC 7, no theory explains eyewitnesses seeing other planes near flight 93 - or it's debris pattern. No theory of WTC 1 and 2 explains those flashes.<br /> <br /> They are all incomplete.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> I shrug off whatever has no proof, such as most of the official 9/11 story. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Ahhhhh! But then:<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> About all we know, is that some planes hit 3 buildings, and 3 buidings (one of which was not hit by a plane) were blown up with explosives, <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Explosives? Where is the proof of that? You shrug off whatever has no proof, but you'll believe someone's word that there were explosives?<br /> <br /> Do I see a contradiction? <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> There is no evidence of explosives, but there is a solid theory that the 'explosions' could have been caused by the snapping of heat-weakened steel. No one has even said how explosives would have been planted, but the other theory uses everything that was know to exist in the Towers at the time of the airline strikes. It adequately explains what was observed.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> You don't have to lie all the time to be a liar, and even crazy people sometimes tell the truth.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> So, there might be some truth in all the lies. But, I must assume everything they say is a lie, and form my opinions based on that assumption?<br /> <br /> Wouldn't that mean drawing incorrect assumptions based on things that are truth?



Take the Kama Sutra. How many people died from the Kama Sutra as opposed to the Bible? - Frank Zappa


Offline

CKA Elite

Profile
Posts: 3540
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:01 pm
 


{In my opinion there is a dishonesty in such behaviours when your opponents are in ernest.}<br /> <br /> <br /> {So you believe I am not being honest here? I see.)<br /> <br /> This aspect may require addressing and *does* require dialogue.<br /> <br /> <br /> for the sake of clarification<br /> I have enjoyed the exchanges on this thread I see that the three of us are about winning and will employ tactics to do so.<br /> I have *won* in my own mind as far as I have not evoked not appied brute like behaviours.<br /> <br /> I have *won* by sharpening my skills<br /> <br /> Now as too the openining assertion on this post I see what I identify as dishonesty probably because what I see does ot fit my particular vision(in part)<br /> <br /> I also see a free for all use whatever one can to win as winning, or being *right* takes Precedent. <br /> That *Is* (returning to isness)my truth. I *own* my truth!<br /> However my truth, the truth i most identify with is not univeraly held, nor should it be!<br /> <br /> and ya know what?<br /> all deffinition are in the *I* of the beholder, some get shared<br /> Dr Caleb,You sir were *honest* as weall as gracious in your reponse. <br /> AND <br /> I believe you love to play<br /> <br />



"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

William Blake

"To acquire knowledge, one must study;
but to acquire wisdom, one must observe."


Offline

Vive Moderator


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5450
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:22 pm
 


[QUOTE BY= Diogenes] {In my opinion there is a dishonesty in such behaviours when your opponents are in ernest.}<br /> <br /> {So you believe I am not being honest here? I see.)<br /> <br /> This aspect may require addressing and *does* require dialogue.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Let me start by saying I wasn't offended. There are three things I hate to be called; a liar, a traitor and late for dinner. The first can't be proven or disproven in a situation like a discussion board, the second I think I've shown I am not, and the third . . <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> You took the high ground, and did not do that.<br /> <br /> It's been a while since I really thought of semantics, but I am curoius where you saw that. <br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> for the sake of clarification<br /> I have enjoyed the exchanges on this thread I see that the three of us are about winning and will employ tactics to do so.<br /> I have *won* in my own mind as far as I have not evoked not appied brute like behaviours.<br /> <br /> I have *won* by sharpening my skills<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> I too, have enjoyed this. You are both very good and very intelligent people to discuss things like this with. I also have much new reading to do. Theories cannot be formed without sufficient information.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Now as too the openining assertion on this post I see what I identify as dishonesty probably because what I see does ot fit my particular vision(in part)<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Therein lies the difficulty - to see the other persons point of view, through our own prejudgices.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> I also see a free for all use whatever one can to win as winning, or being *right* takes Precedent. <br /> That *Is* (returning to isness)my truth. [b]I *own* my truth![/b]<br /> However my truth, the truth i most identify with is not univeraly held, nor should it be!<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Indeed! But I don't think it's about winning, I think it's about exploring one's own convictions. I cannot be convinced to change my own opinions, unless I explore why I hold those opinions.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> and ya know what?<br /> all deffinition are in the *I* of the beholder, some get shared<br /> Dr Caleb,You sir were *honest* as weall as gracious in your reponse. <br /> AND <br /> I believe you love to play<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> I do. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/twisted.gif' alt='Twisted Evil'> And I thank you for the compliment. I must say, sometimes I find it difficult to follow your trains of thought, but I think I see now what you are not writing. That was what was confusing me.<br /> <br /> Since then, I have learned of E-prime.



Take the Kama Sutra. How many people died from the Kama Sutra as opposed to the Bible? - Frank Zappa


Offline

Forum Super Elite

Profile
Posts: 2044
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:46 pm
 


<blockquote><br /> I'll bet many would say the revocation of their right to live safely and securely was the first step.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Yes, and lack of safety and security comes from the enactment of secret trials and censorship, policies the Nazi party was infamously known for implementing. <br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> You're right. There is a severe lack of proof, ethier way. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Then you agree, Osama was innocent? Oh right, I almost forgot, you've told me more than once that you don't agree with the concept of innocence until proven quilty. <br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Wow. Those CIA guys are really good, eh?<br /> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Shaikh_Mohammed<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> I don't know what you're getting at, but according to what I've read, the US claims to have captured Mohammed and he's being held without charges or trial in Gitmo where he's likely being tortured (assuming he actually has been captured). Innocence always comes before quilt, unless you agree with despotism, which you do.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> <blockquote><br /> Sooooooo, if only some of the story is a lie but the rest is true, then why are they lying?<br /> </blockquote><br /> We know the best lies involve some element of truth.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> You did not answer my question. Why are they lying about the collapse of WTC 7 and the twin towers?<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> No, you are correct. The Asian test run was with bombs on planes, not hijacked planes as weapons. <br /> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Shaikh_Mohammed#Operation_Bojinka<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Just to be clear, I'm not saying that there was a test run, only that the US government alleges that the bombing was a test run, which is probably yet another lie considering their long history of habitually lying.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Thats' what we pay soldiers to do. Kill people.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Yes, they kill people, but we're told that they are helping people, which is another one of those lies. The original reason given for the invasion of Afghanistan was to get rid of Bin laden and the threat of terrorism, yet none of those excuses has any basis in terms of reasonable proof that they are true.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> <blockquote><br /> All I see are professional liars, assassins, and tortures telling us that Shiek Kahled and Osama did anything with respect to 9/11. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> . . .all you choose to see, you mean.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Well, what can I say? Bush and his handlers who are the sole source of this information are admitted torturers, and they have been caught making up some very big lies on several occasions, and have they have assasinated and attempted to assisinate multiple people. <br /> <br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> I've linked to the UN resolution before. I'm sure you remember it.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> And I noted that there are no UN troops in Afghanistan. I also noted that the UN is not a democracy, in fact the permanent members of the security council has veto power over all other nations and is the only entity that matters.<br /> <br /> They are: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States. <br /> <br /> Shall we leave it to these weasels to do the right thing? Russia for example only recently got kicked out of its attempt at taking Afghanistan. France likes to commit terrorist acts against peace activists by blowing up their boats, China is as despotic and inhuman as a government can get, the UK is Bush's lapdog, and the USA needs no introduction.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Hehe. Yea, that guy exactally the kind of arguments you accuse me of employing. The Taliban are civillians? Civillians get protection under the Geneva conventions, but civillians who arm themselves are gurellias unless they put on a uniform. Gurellias have no protection under the Geneva conventions, the part he so carefully avoids mentioning. More territory already covered.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Civilians have the right to defend themselves however they can. The US and its puppet allies gave up on the Geneva Conventions long ago, as they cluster and fire bomb civilians, employ collective punishment, and destroy entire cities.<br /> <br /> And please stop with the "Taliban" propaganda. The "Taliban" is a catch-all for anyone who opposes the invasion force.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Yep. Nothing changed, like I figured.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> You didn't read any of it did you?<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> <blockquote><br /> OK then, so how about telling me why a part of the official explaination is a lie, and how about telling me why our government is using that lie to dupe the public and send off our boys to their deaths in Afghanistan?<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Non sequitr. How the building collapsed has no bearing on our soldiers safety.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> I did not mention anything about our soldiers safety and I have no idea why you bring this up.<br /> <br /> You did not answer my question. Our government is lying to us because it knows just as we do that the official 9/11 story is false. If the official reason for war is a lie, then the justification for war is also a lie. <br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> No theory explains WTC 7<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> What are you talking about? Controlled demolition fits like a glove. Too bad the perps hauled away all the veidence and refused to investigate themselves.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> no theory explains eyewitnesses seeing other planes near flight 93 - or it's debris pattern.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Plane shot down fits like a glove.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> No theory of WTC 1 and 2 explains those flashes.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> I pointed out some ideas of why the flashes happened, but so what, the flashes mean nothing anyway.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Explosives? Where is the proof of that?<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Right in front of your nose.<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it0VpgWEl90">9/11 - Explosions at the WTC</a><br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> but there is a solid theory that the 'explosions' could have been caused by the snapping of heat-weakened steel. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> The pancake theory has been discredited several times over. In its basic form, assuming that the smoldering fires could have weakened the steel enough to cause a failure, the remaining 95 or more percentage of the structure was at full strength. Conservation of momentum which is a hard law of physics would have resisted the falling mass. In fact the mass was being turned into powder (as you can see in the video clips) which means it would not have had enough momentum to smash down the structure below it in the same way falling water is deflected as it hits a solid structure.<br /> <blockquote><br /> No one has even said how explosives would have been planted,<br /> </blockquote> <br /> <br /> Not true, do you need a link?<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> but the other theory uses everything that was know to exist in the Towers at the time of the airline strikes. It adequately explains what was observed.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> No it does not. The freefall speeds are impossible using the pancake theory.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> So, there might be some truth in all the lies. But, I must assume everything they say is a lie, and form my opinions based on that assumption?<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> We are talking about justifying war, i.e., the killing of people, many of which are innocent. If even one thing is a lie, then the whole act is a barbaric crime.<br /> <br /> You have not answered my question: Why are they lying at all? Obviously there's something about the story that they don't want the people to know about.<br /> <br />


Offline

CKA Elite

Profile
Posts: 3540
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:44 pm
 


Finding Ones *voice* in the written form has , up to now been difficult for me. wah wah wah.<br /> Frustration abounds!<br /> for the reader as well as the writer.<br /> <br /> I am not qite ready to reveale (,that word!however it is spelled)the method I employ getting there.<br /> <br /> Ya see For me the stbleing blocks are <br /> Pain/Temptation Hate the former love the latter. once I close some of the 30 or so windows I have open I'll post the balance of the above, assuming I can find it <br /> in the meantime multitasking, another word for *scattered* brought this >>>Ultimately, the only way for us to have a "snowball's chance" is to understand the rules of the "game" and to come to an understanding of the true nature of the Law. The lawyers have established and secured a virtual monopoly over this sphere of knowledge by implying that the subject is just too difficult for the average person to understand, and by creating a separate vocabulary out of English words of otherwise common usage. While it may, at times, seem hopelessly complicated, it is not that difficult to. grasp. Are lawyers really as smart as they would have us believe? Besides, anyone who has been through a legal battle against the government with the aid of a lawyer has come to realize that lawyers know procedure, not law. <br /> <br /> <br /> Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, master, thus saying thou reproachest us also. And he said, woe unto you also, ye lawyers! For ye made men with burdens grievous to be born, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers... Woe unto you, lawyers! For ye have taken away the key of knowledge; ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. <br /> <br /> (Luke 11:45-52)<br /> DAMN! AH POO stikes again I'll get it on the appropo thread<br /> <br />



"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

William Blake

"To acquire knowledge, one must study;
but to acquire wisdom, one must observe."


Offline

Vive Moderator


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5450
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:56 pm
 


<blockquote><br /> Yes, and lack of safety and security comes from the enactment of secret trials and censorship, policies the Nazi party was infamously known for implementing. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> When did any Jew get a trial before getting in the 'showers'?<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Then you agree, Osama was innocent? Oh right, I almost forgot, you've told me more than once that you don't agree with the concept of innocence until proven quilty. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Ah, fine propaganda! Do you have a link to me saying that? Do you really want to play that game?<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> I don't know what you're getting at, but according to what I've read, the US claims to have captured Mohammed and he's being held without charges or trial in Gitmo where he's likely being tortured (assuming he actually has been captured). Innocence always comes before quilt, unless you agree with despotism, which you do.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> No, he's at a maximum security facility, in solitary. And more propaganda? Care to quote me? Why all the ad-hominem attacks?<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> <blockquote><br /> We know the best lies involve some element of truth.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> You did not answer my question. Why are they lying about the collapse of WTC 7 and the twin towers?<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Good question. When we know why they were destroyed, we'll be closer to answering it.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Just to be clear, I'm not saying that there was a test run, only that the US government alleges that the bombing was a test run, which is probably yet another lie considering their long history of habitually lying.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Well, except the plane was enroute to Tokyo airport, so it was the Japanese government . . .<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Yes, they kill people, but we're told that they are helping people, which is another one of those lies. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> So, they aren't helping people? Be careful how you answer that . . . all I have to do is show one instance, and then it is not a lie.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> The original reason given for the invasion of Afghanistan was to get rid of Bin laden and the threat of terrorism, yet none of those excuses has any basis in terms of reasonable proof that they are true.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Well, except for the US embassy bombings . . the USS Cole, and killing of Canadians on 9/11 . . . no proof at all.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Well, what can I say? Bush and his handlers who are the sole source of this information are admitted torturers, and they have been caught making up some very big lies on several occasions, and have they have assasinated and attempted to assisinate multiple people. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> You might want to check the sources then. <br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> And I noted that there are no UN troops in Afghanistan. I also noted that the UN is not a democracy, in fact the permanent members of the security council has veto power over all other nations and is the only entity that matters.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Well, no. the UN has no troops. NATO was attacked, therefore NATO responded. And we've been through before . . .<br /> <br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Civilians have the right to defend themselves however they can. The US and its puppet allies gave up on the Geneva Conventions long ago, as they cluster and fire bomb civilians, employ collective punishment, and destroy entire cities.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> The Taliban were the government, police force, and militia in Afghanistan. They were and are anything but civillians in the eyes of the Geneva conventions. <br /> <br /> Using the conventions when it suits you is not a winning strategy.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> And please stop with the "Taliban" propaganda. The "Taliban" is a catch-all for anyone who opposes the invasion force.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Mmmmm, nope. What was that sound? *Bzzzzzzzt*. By 'Taliban' I mean the religious extremeists that wore black turbans, black vests and performed any number of human rights violations. <br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> You didn't read any of it did you?<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Yes, I read most of it. Nothing changed. Same old theories, based on supposition.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> <blockquote><br /> <blockquote><br /> OK then, so how about telling me why a part of the official explaination is a lie, and how about telling me why our government is using that lie to dupe the public and send off our boys to their deaths in Afghanistan?<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Non sequitr. How the building collapsed has no bearing on our soldiers safety.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> I did not mention anything about our soldiers safety and I have no idea why you bring this up.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> See your last sentence? "why our government is using that lie to dupe the public and send off our boys to their deaths in Afghanistan?"<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> You did not answer my question. Our government is lying to us because it knows just as we do that the official 9/11 story is false. If the official reason for war is a lie, then the justification for war is also a lie. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Canadians died on 9/11. Brits, Germans and Americans too. That is not a lie. Our NATO agreements state that if one NATO country is attacked, then all will respond. That is not a lie. UN resolutions allow a country that is attacked by terrorists to enter a country harbouring the terrorists and remove them. That is not a lie.<br /> <br /> The official reason for war in Afghanistan is not a lie.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> <blockquote><br /> No theory explains WTC 7<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> What are you talking about? Controlled demolition fits like a glove. Too bad the perps hauled away all the veidence and refused to investigate themselves.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Of course it does. How dense do you think I am? Tell me how they wired the building up, give me some eyewitness or some paper trail where they hired demolition experts or bought explosives. There has never been any official explanation of why we saw what we saw with WTC 7.<br /> <br /> It had to be controlled demolition, but there is no theory as to how that was carried out.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> <blockquote><br /> no theory explains eyewitnesses seeing other planes near flight 93 - or it's debris pattern.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Plane shot down fits like a glove.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Of course. I believe that too. Give me some tail numbers, some other piliot in the area who saw a plane equipped with missles - something! Anything!<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> <blockquote><br /> No theory of WTC 1 and 2 explains those flashes.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> I pointed out some ideas of why the flashes happened, but so what, the flashes mean nothing anyway.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Until they are explained, how do we know?<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Explosives? Where is the proof of that?<br /> </blockquote><br /> Right in front of your nose.<br /> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it0VpgWEl90">9/11 - Explosions at the WTC</a><br /> </blockquote><br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> If you've ever seen high strength steel fail due to stress, you'd see there is no difference between that and an explosion. Again, show me somebody who planted the explosives - a paper trail - anything that backs up that theory. Until then, heat stress is the most plausible.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> <blockquote><br /> but there is a solid theory that the 'explosions' could have been caused by the snapping of heat-weakened steel. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> The pancake theory has been discredited several times over. In its basic form, assuming that the smoldering fires could have weakened the steel enough to cause a failure, the remaining 95 or more percentage of the structure was at full strength. </blockquote><br /> <br /> Yes, I've seen the 'debunking'. All about as solid as Jell-O. In structural engineering, 95% is a failure.<br /> <br /> Ever seen that video of a football stadium that was being built, and the crane collapses because it is put in a wind that is 3 mph over ratings? There's a good example of high strength steel 'exploding' too. You'll hear 3 big 'explosions' before it collapses.<br /> <br /> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjib_I_ab84<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Conservation of momentum which is a hard law of physics would have resisted the falling mass. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Dude, don't start with me and physics! That was my field of Honours in University!<br /> <br /> Conservation of momentum is when two inelastic objects meet, the total momentum in the system is conserved. If the objects are travelling at different speeds, and have different masses, the speeds they will be travelling will be in proportion to their masses after the colission. (Newtons third law)<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> In fact the mass was being turned into powder (as you can see in the video clips) which means it would not have had enough momentum to smash down the structure below it in the same way falling water is deflected as it hits a solid structure.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> And there is where the debunking of the pancake theory fails. Firstly, the momentum is conserved, because the mass of the concrete is still the same. However, the STEEL in the building is still in motion, and represents the greater mass in the system. Concrete is not a solid - it is a concrete. Look it up if that seems silly. It is a glue that holds other things together. When hit by an appropriate mass, it will turn to powder.<br /> <br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> No it does not. The freefall speeds are impossible using the pancake theory.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Newtons third law. "An object in motion remains in motion, unless acted upon by an outside force." Every building that is standing, is in motion. It is falling. But, the support structure is the outside force stopping it from falling.<br /> <br /> Once 10 floors of a building start to move - nothing we know of today will stop them.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> We are talking about justifying war, i.e., the killing of people, many of which are innocent. If even one thing is a lie, then the whole act is a barbaric crime.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Mmmm, no. We were talking about Holocaust revisionism, but somehow ended up on our favourite topic - Afghanistan.<br /> <br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> You have not answered my question: Why are they lying at all? Obviously there's something about the story that they don't want the people to know about.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> When we find out what they are lying about, then we'll know why they are lying.



Take the Kama Sutra. How many people died from the Kama Sutra as opposed to the Bible? - Frank Zappa


Offline

CKA Elite

Profile
Posts: 3540
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 11:28 pm
 


{When we find out what they are lying about, then we'll know why they are lying.}<br /> <br /> What they are lying about is evident,<br /> Simply lies are employed to protect the guilty, self preservation, a time proven strategy.<br /> These dudes are knowledgeable about law and that is why Slick Willy was able to smooth them with, *language* <br /> “ If a tree falls in the forest and no woman hears Bruce Cockburn sing about it, Is a man still guilty?”<br /> <br />



"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

William Blake

"To acquire knowledge, one must study;
but to acquire wisdom, one must observe."


Offline

CKA Elite

Profile
Posts: 3540
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 11:47 pm
 


I knock them off as o stumble ot them,at times . now is such a time,<br /> <br /> Indeed! But I don't think it's about winning, I think it's about exploring one's own convictions. I cannot be convinced to change my own opinions, unless I explore why I hold those opinions.<b> <br /> re the bolded part <br /> <br /> Au Contrair mon ami<br /> <br /> I have executed a parts intergration as requested and agrree to, with out knowing content.<br /> The subject, by their admission and by their physiology, had an epipthany (changed their own mind) via the strategy I employed.<br /> <br /> conviction may, and can occur in a nano second<br /> That dude and the bath tub and displaced water to measure volume<br /> Eureka!<br /> <br /> ask me how<br /> contact Endless Enterprise for a free qoute<br /> <br /> Cash in advance!!<br /> If *you*do*not*get it * its* free* til* you* do*<br /> <br />



"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

William Blake

"To acquire knowledge, one must study;
but to acquire wisdom, one must observe."


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Vive Le Canada.ca. Powered by © phpBB.