Agent 'W' in 'Get Smarter' ( Must Watch Animation )
Another classic animation from Mark fiore . This time he looks at the claims of internal spying in the U.S.
You can watch it here Here
WAAHHH!! boo hoo uhu uhuh huh hhhhh WAAAHH!! boo hoo! boo hoo hoo hoo boo WAAHHH hooo WAHHHH!!!!
Boo hoo hoo *sniff* *sniff* boo *sniff* hoo *sniff sniff sniff* uh hah hah
That is great. I am sending it to my family.
Everybody has loved that animation so far.
What are you up to H? Are you going to have a Merry Christmas or a Happy Holidays?
Both are on my calendar. Happy Holidays!
BTW, I noticed you weren't posting as much on G's blog. I try to refrain from posting but you know how that goes.
I have been posting on his 'The Quest to Disprove God? (Pot Becomming the Potter?)'. Do you refrain from posting about God?
Everybody has loved that animation so far. yea its great isnt it , if you like him then you can get his weekly animations direct to your email from his site . He alwys makes me laugh
What are you up to H? Are you going to have a Merry Christmas or a Happy Holidays? , Well i call it christmas but not for any religous reasons , to be honest i doubt 'jesus' would care what you called it , dont you think its more about Commercial profits than any kind of christian reasons . I tend to reply in the same so as you said Happy Holdays......
Both are on my calendar. Happy Holidays! ..... I will say Happy holidays too !
BTW, I noticed you weren't posting as much on G's blog. I try to refrain from posting but you know how that goes. I have not got round to it today . I tend to be selective on what 'posts' i reply too and try to avoid issues that are pure internal US issues that have no connection to the wider world , of course being a super power mean that mosts things the US government does has an impact on the wider world . As you know i rarely agree with G so it would be to easy to attack every post but if i did i would have no time for my own site . so i go and stick my nose in and tend to argue with G alot by email as well ( btw my email is in my profile feel free to add to your list if you wish )
I have been posting on his 'The Quest to Disprove God? (Pot Becomming the Potter?)'. Do you refrain from posting about God? Not at all . I try to not refrain from posting anything . I get attacked most by the christian right on my site anyway ... but i am not religious myself and try to show all faiths respect . I will check it out later . Thank for your continued visits hype :-)
I was raised in Texas and religion has given me a bad taste in my mouth.
I ask too many questions.
My fear is that religion is holding us back. Maybe at some point in time it was useful to our development, but I am thinking it is detrimental to our future.
I would certainly agree that religion is a backbone of what has become the Neocon agenda .
saying that I am no fan of religion anyway , i see the dangers in it as you do ..
If it was applied as it is written in the texts then i would probably see it as being a good thing
But freedom of choice comes higher i suppose , i certainly would never wish to stop anyone worshiping their god if that is what they so choose , but like many things i think you should have a personal relationship with god (if 'god' exists) and it is for each to decide alone , nobody should attack your for accepting or not accepting your 'god'
wow , thats some way off course from the animation i have come now LOL
You have a safe and happy holidays!
you too hype :-)
Hype: " I was raised in Texas and religion has given me a bad taste in my mouth.
I ask too many questions. "
_H_: " I would certainly agree that religion is a backbone of what has become the Neocon agenda ."
The way I see it, they use religion to further their causes. It's not really their core, rather a tool that helps them achieve their goals.
_H_: "But freedom of choice comes higher i suppose , i certainly would never wish to stop anyone worshiping their god if that is what they so choose"
I've considered becoming a Pastafarian myself...
_H_ & Hype, according to Bill O'Reilly, we are at war against Christmas. Should we be using the word Christmas then? Should we be saying "Happy Winter Festive Time"? LOL
Merry celebration of that early leftist Jesus Christ.
I have come across the pastafarians before but still very amusing stuff
on the neocons "It's not really their core, rather a tool that helps them achieve their goals."
isnt that always the way .. in my view that have used it just as they have used fear to help justify their actions , what i suppose i ment was it is a core tool
on christmas and happy holiday , personally i couldnt care less , and you can take even more interest away due to stupid debate being started by Bill O'Reilly
the christmas card that bush sent actually had a verse from the bible in it , but i have said nothing on this subject for if the christian right want to attack bush then who am i to stand in their way :-)
what with the un christian way so many of them behave it is surpising they even notice
for me , i just reply in kind for it just means a big hole in my wallet and an excuse to endulge in lifes sweet trolley
Well, the whole Christmas flap is, of course, a way to get the citizenry all riled up about somehting that isn't even happening while the Republican Congress gives more gifts to Bush's "base." Distract them to rob them. I almost feel that anyone dense enough to fall for such a weak "jedi mind trick" deserves what they get.
Americans ' tortured me ' Saddam claims
Saddam Hussein has been beaten and tortured by the Americans, he has alleged at his trial in Baghdad. "I have been beaten on every place of my body, and the signs are all over my body," he told the court.
A White House spokesman dismissed the accusation, calling it "preposterous", AFP news agency reported. Saddam Hussein is on trial over the killing of 148 people in the Iraqi Shia village of Dujail in 1982. He denies responsibility for the deaths.Several times during his outburst, the sound feed to the television coverage being seen across Iraq was muted
, the BBC's Quil Lawrence reports from Baghdad.This has been seen as an attempt to keep Saddam Hussein from upstaging the testimony
of the witnesses who claimed today that they were tortured at the hands of the former regime, he says.
The prosecution gave little credence to the former president's claim he had been tortured, saying he was being held in an air-conditioned room when some of Baghdad had no power.Chief prosecutor Jaafar Mousawi said the claims would be investigated and that he would ask for Saddam Hussein to be transferred to Iraqi custody if there was any truth to them
Iraq's former leader had appeared to accept the court proceedings in the morning after boycotting an earlier sitting, calling the court "unjust". But late in the afternoon, he delivered a lengthy, rambling statement in which he claimed he and his co-defendants had been abused by their American jailers.Watch a video of events in the court today including Saddam making this claim Here .
(Video from the BBC , windows media player required)
Source : BBC
Ironically, what goes around comes around.
Try him, then hang him.
i know everybody should be given a fair trial but in his case, i think he deserves to be tortured, more than that i guess.
Were he really tortured, I don't think we'll ever know; but support for such action, tacit or otherwise, means that the supporter is no better than torturers like Saddam himself.
Gary, were you "in a "dark place," psychologically" when you expressed your desire for death? I certainly didn't see much "exquisite... sensitiv[ity]" or "hung[er] for love" in your comment.
ah , some sense at last , thankyou Djeb for moving beyond mob mentality
We ahve to forgive Gary. He claims to have a "severe mental illness"
"have," that is.
He's lucky he still has a breath!
Why is he even still alive?
Yet another one hungry for death.
Is President Bush a liar ? (Must Watch Video)
The 'New York Times’ eavesdropping story
Was President Bush 'lying' then or is he 'lying' now ?
Either way it seems he is a liar.
Watch the five minute video Here
(Windows media file )
Or Flash Presentation
My source : ICH
The conjunction "or" is incorrect. He was lying then and is lying now.
I agree , but if you leave an element of doubt . 'maybe' some bright spark will work it out for himself
Is the US the only so called democracy where political loyalty (from the people)is more important then factual accuracy
what democracy on earth would still have that man in power , its not just this event , there are dozens of events , but such loyalty from people in the face of obvious lies from their leaders is a little scary ..
"Is the US the only so called democracy where political loyalty (from the people)is more important then factual accuracy"
Not by any means, I would say.
"what democracy on earth would still have that man in power"
Where on Earth is there a democracy? Perhaps in some remote Indonesian or Amazonian tribe, but nowhere else.
LOL point accepted
i should have said "so called demcracy"
I just find it hard to imagine a country keeping such a far right wing headcase in power when there is more than enough evidence to impeach him
but i was equally stunned when he 'won' the last election , they must see something in the man , this surely couldnt end up with someone like president Schwarzenegger and his terminators in a few years could it !
maybe they just like rhetoric and lies , who knows
"I just find it hard to imagine a country keeping such a far right wing headcase in power when there is more than enough evidence to impeach him"
You have a Republican congress to thank for that.
Hitler set up a formula for coming to power in Mein Kampf that seems to work most times (not every time) it is used.
America kidnapped me
By Khaled El-Masri, KHALED EL-MASRI, a German citizen born in Lebanon, was a car salesman before he was detained in December 2003.
( LA Times
) THE U.S. POLICY of "extraordinary rendition" has a human face, and it is mine.
I am still recovering from an experience that was completely beyond the pale, outside the bounds of any legal framework and unacceptable in any civilized society. Because I believe in the American system of justice, I sued George Tenet, the former CIA director, last week. What happened to me should never be allowed to happen again
.I was born in Kuwait and raised in Lebanon. In 1985, when Lebanon was being torn apart by civil war, I fled to Germany in search of a better life. There I became a citizen and started my own family. I have five children.
On Dec. 31, 2003, I took a bus from Germany to Macedonia. When we arrived, my nightmare began. Macedonian agents confiscated my passport and detained me for 23 days. I was not allowed to contact anyone, including my wife.
At the end of that time, I was forced to record a video saying I had been treated well. Then I was handcuffed, blindfolded and taken to a building where I was severely beaten. My clothes were sliced from my body with a knife or scissors, and my underwear was forcibly removed. I was thrown to the floor, my hands pulled behind me, a boot placed on my back. I was humiliated.
Eventually my blindfold was removed, and I saw men dressed in black, wearing black ski masks. I did not know their nationality. I was put in a diaper, a belt with chains to my wrists and ankles, earmuffs, eye pads, a blindfold and a hood. I was thrown into a plane, and my legs and arms were spread-eagled and secured to the floor. I felt two injections and became nearly unconscious. I felt the plane take off, land and take off. I learned later that I had been taken to Afghanistan.
There, I was beaten again and left in a small, dirty, cold concrete cell. I was extremely thirsty, but there was only a bottle of putrid water in the cell. I was refused fresh water.
That first night I was taken to an interrogation room where I saw men dressed in the same black clothing and ski masks as before. They stripped and photographed me, and took blood and urine samples. I was returned to the cell, where I would remain in solitary confinement for more than four months.
The following night my interrogations began. They asked me if I knew why I had been detained. I said I did not. They told me that I was now in a country with no laws, and did I understand what that meant?
They asked me many times whether I knew the men who were responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, if I had traveled to Afghanistan to train in camps and if I associated with certain people in my town of Ulm, Germany. I told the truth: that I had no connection to any terrorists, had never been in Afghanistan and had never been involved in any extremism. I asked repeatedly to meet with a representative of the German government, or a lawyer, or to be brought before a court. Always, my requests were ignored.
In desperation, I began a hunger strike. After 27 days without food, I was taken to meet with two Americans — the prison director and another man, referred to as "the Boss." I pleaded with them to release me or bring me before a court, but the prison director replied that he could not release me without permission from Washington. He also said that he believed I should not be detained in the prison.
After 37 days without food, I was dragged to the interrogation room, where a feeding tube was forced through my nose into my stomach. I became extremely ill, suffering the worst pain of my life.
After three months, I was taken to meet an American who said he had traveled from Washington, D.C., and who promised I would soon be released. I was also visited by a German-speaking man who explained that I would be allowed to return home but warned that I was never to mention what had happened because the Americans were determined to keep the affair a secret.
On May 28, 2004, almost five months after I was first kidnapped, I was blindfolded, handcuffed and chained to an airplane seat. I was told we would land in a country other than Germany, because the Americans did not want to leave traces of their involvement, but that I would eventually get to Germany.
After we landed I was driven into the mountains, still blindfolded. My captors removed my handcuffs and blindfold and told me to walk down a dark, deserted path and not to look back. I was afraid I would be shot in the back.
I turned a bend and encountered three men who asked why I was illegally in Albania. They took me to the airport, where I bought a ticket home (my wallet had been returned to me). Only after the plane took off did I believe I was actually going home. I had long hair, a beard and had lost 60 pounds. My wife and children had gone to Lebanon, believing I had abandoned them. Thankfully, now we are together again in Germany.
I still do not know why this happened to me. I have been told that the American secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, confirmed in a meeting with the German chancellor that my case was a "mistake" — and that American officials later denied that she said this. I was not present at this meeting. No one from the American government has ever contacted me or offered me any explanation or apology for the pain they caused me.
Secretary Rice has stated publicly, during a discussion of my case, that "any policy will sometimes result in errors." But that is exactly why extraordinary rendition is so dangerous. As my interrogators made clear when they told me I was being held in a country with no laws, the very purpose of extraordinary rendition is to deny a person the protection of the law.
I begged my captors many times to bring me before a court, where I could explain to a judge that a mistake had been made. Every time, they refused. In this way, a "mistake" that could have been quickly corrected led to several months of cruel treatment and meaningless suffering, for me and my entire family.
My captors would not bring me to court, so last week I brought them to court. Helped by the American Civil Liberties Union, I sued the U.S. government because I believe what happened to me was illegal and should not be done to others. And I believe the American people, when they hear my story, will agree.
how dare !!! who gives them the right to whisk someone off from their regular life and put them to such torture. i understand defending your country is important. defending is a great responsiblility it self ... how irresponsiblily had this been handled?!! when they are handed a responsible job, they should have double checked before doing anything. good that he decieded to sue them. now the world will know, and more than that 'the defenders of the world' will know better .
Would they see the problem as being the act of kidnap and torture ?
Or would they see the problem as being caught in the act of kidnap and torture ?
Thanks for your comments ,
and i doubt they care about what they did , just that they got caught
37 days without food, and he survived? Bullshit.
You need to do some research , you dont die after 37 days without food .
You can see some examples of how long a person can survive on hunger strike Here around 60 days is very common . Infact not many people would die after 37 days
In other words, anon's comment is... "Bullshit."
yup , but he is not a crazy as our visiting spirit check out 'christian prophet' in one of the above threads , fantastic stuff , you have to read his profile , just make sure you have your nutter prevention suit fully armed before you read anything
he hears voices from the 'holy spirit' that tell him the GOP and Bush are good listeners
major dopamine inmabalance i would say
check him out
btw , hope you had a good break Djeb
UK : Did Intelligence agencies have prior knowledge of 'London Underground' attack !
( The Times
) Spymasters warned Tony Blair before the July 7 suicide bombings that Al-Qaeda was planning a “high priority” attack specifically aimed at the London Tube. A leaked four-page report by the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), which oversees all spying, is the first definitive evidence that the intelligence services expected terrorists to strike at the Underground.
The disclosure will fuel critics’ suspicions that Blair decided to rule out a public inquiry into the bombings last week because it could expose intelligence failings at the highest level.
The document, marked Top Secret and signed off by the heads of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, the government eavesdropping centre, was based partly on the interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Al-Qaeda’s then operations chief.
It stated: “The UK and its interests remain high in Al-Qaeda’s priorities . . . Plans have been considered to attack Heathrow, the London Underground and other targets.”
Ministers and senior security officials have insisted that there was no warning of an imminent attack ahead of the July 7 bombings, in which 56 people died. While technically true, the leaked document dated April, 2003, will be seized on by critics to show that ministers failed to disclose that they knew Al-Qaeda was targeting the Tube.
A statement in September 2003 by the prime minister and Sir John Stevens, the then Metropolitan police commissioner, that a suicide attack was “inevitable”, did not name the Tube as a specific target.
The performance of MI5 has already been criticised because it lost track of Mohammad Sidique Khan, leader of the suicide gang, whom it placed under temporary surveillance 18 months before the bombings.
Officers judged that Khan was not an immediate threat to national security and decided to stop monitoring him.
Blair ruled out a public inquiry on the grounds that it would detract from the investigation into the July 7 bombs and the failed July 21 attacks.
The report dated April 2, 2003 is entitled International Terrorism: The Current Threat from Islamic Extremists. Mohammed, who organised the 9/11 attacks, had been arrested in Pakistan the previous month.
In a key passage it states: “The UK and its interests remain high in Al-Qaeda’s priorities. Interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other detainees confirms this. “It shows that plans have been considered to attack Heathrow, the London Underground and other targets.” The report adds that terrorist suspects with links to east Africa are under surveillance.
“We do not yet know the full nature of their activity, but they do not appear to be planning attacks here (some were questioned by the police).”
JIC documents are circulated to a small group of senior ministers. These include the home secretary, the foreign secretary and defence secretary as well as top civil servants in Whitehall.
The Tories demanded the government publish the whole JIC document and disclose what other intelligence there had been about threats to the Tube. Patrick Mercer, the party’s homeland security spokesman, said: “This leak underlines our demand for an independent inquiry.”
Well that would explain why they are so reluctant to have a public inquiry !
Kia Ora (Hello) from a blogger down under in New Zealand. Hopefully people won't forget when the elections roll around and vote for someone else. We don't know how lucky we are down under in NZ.
There is always "someone who knew before hand"... the sensationalized stories leave out that you have use your 20/20 hindsight to put the pieces together though...
Analyst: "Sir, we have a report that a terrorist orginization may try, at some point, to attack the tubes, with orginzied methods, on a future date.... what shoudl we do?"
Boss: "Do we know who?"
Well, we can either lock them down indefinatly, or we can just hope our current survalence measures pick it up...
they should at least have a public inquiry into the attack. why does Gump have to make excuses before finding out exactly what happened?
Hype, it might have been a "figurative measure."
LOL I hate to say it DJEB but that actually gets funnier each time you post it
and Hype as you say , a public inquiry is the key , if there was nothing to hide then there would be no reason to withold any inquiry
if this is what the press does know , then like the visual sighting of an iceberg , you can be sure that there is much more below the surfice that we can not see
Oh and kelvin , thanks for, visiting , i appreciate your comment
I am amazed, especially coming from you H, that you wouldn’t be the first to state some probably reasons for no public inquiry.
I know Hype is an idiot, and I know DJEB has no potential of being able to actually spar with me on debate, so either's comments aren’t surprising, much less of any substantial value.
Here, let me give a couple of "off the cuff" reasons that the UK government may be less than open to a "public inquiry".
1. Risk of exposing sensitive intelligence gathering sources
2. Risk of exposing sensitive intelligence gathering methods
3. Risk of exposing vulnerabilities in intelligence gathering methods
4. Risk of exposing on-going operations
5. Risk of exposing active agents and/or operatives
6. Risk of exposing operational doctrine weaknesses
7. Lack of time, money, and/or effort for a fruitless endeavor
8. Because everyone doesn’t buy into the tin-foil hat theory you do.
Just chew on those for starters… then maybe we can actually have a discussion.
"I know Hype is an idiot"
"I know DJEB has no potential of being able to actually spar with me on debate"
Sorry, I don't accept non sequiturs, that's all. They are generally all you post, so there generally is not much debate possible.
As for reasons one to six, there are so oft repeated as to be cliche, like the declaration of noble intent every time any country ever attacks another. Commissions on terrorism have been carried out in the past in different parts of the world without the catastrophes you warn about occuring. As for number seven, you don't know that the endeavor would be fruitless until the inquiry is actually carried out, unless you have some magic crystal ball we don't know about. As for number eight, it's more "condescension" designed to make those who disagree with you afraid to speak on the matter.
Let me set a few things straight
G: i know you have issues with Hype but I find his views interesting and worthy of debate . I do understand that you both have 'issues' with each other but wish we could learn to attack the 'comments' of each other and not the people
thats just being unkind to each other
as for you comment on DJEB again i disagree , from personal experience know that he is a very inteligent person with a range of resources that make mine seem like they live in cigarette box
He maintains a rule on his site in regard to comments that would mean 'most' of what you write would not meet the criteria set
There is an art in debating and for it to be worthwhile debates should move forward aiming towards conclusions and his do just that
mine do not ... for i often sacrifice sense and reason to allow anyone (who isnt obscene) to make a comment here , ( see the latest post on saddam for examples)
I like your posts for you do represent what many americans feel , i usually disagree with you and often feel that you base your comments very much on 'gut feeling'
and hence can not be argued with factually .
I do have a 'theory' as to why the UK government will not be having a public inquiry into the london attack , but it isnt covered by your 7 points ( the 8th is just a dig)
my views on your points 1 to 7 are identical to Djebs
I would just add that they are ALL written from a perspective that clearly assumes that they have decent and honorable reasons (for the country) for not doing so ..
rather the deep routed political reasons for not doing so
You americans are soooo trusting of people in authority its frightening
anyone who asks the slightest questions of accountabilty become "tin hat" types
where as it is more reasonable to suggest that those that dont ask such questions have become brain washed robots
The criteria on my site is essentially this.
"You americans are soooo trusting of people in authority its frightening"
It amazes me that the Right is supposed to be against government yet always seems to support the state when it carries out violence or support state institutions that carry out violence.
Does no one remember that it was just 4 local british pakistanis with no official ties to Al-Qaeda and that its actually just a name?
does anyone remember why they did it ? what the pre-recorded video statement said , that 2 of the bombers were known to MI5
I have not made any link to Al-Qaeda for i agree , there is none , but the worst terrorist attack ever on the UK mainland deserves a public inquiry
And refusing to have such an inquiry means that questions will and should be asked of the UK government
“ As for reasons one to six, there are so oft repeated as to be cliché”
Must be a reason for that… maybe because it’s true?
And “condescension” doesn’t come close to the way I address Hype, he gets much more special attention than that.
Also, your link for “criteria” on debate… that is cute and all, but seriously, are you trying to run a debate completion, or actively participate in the exchange of ideas? In a debate completion or class, you can win by simply finding the most relevant way, within the rules, to express your point. This is then “judged” by objective observes, and a winner declared. This seems to be what you are looking for in most cases.
To me, we enter into a topic of discussion with opinions that are based off many diverse things (i.e. news, history, personal experience, gut feelings, impressionistic theories, etc…), where one opinion may be shared, partially shared, or completely disagreed with.
But to come into this arena, and then attempt to completely dismiss any and all argument to a cause/issue that you support, simply on the premise that one (or more) of your “guidelines” were not met is either a quaint shield you use to protect yourself from uncomfortable situations, or an OCD complex disallowing you to enter “uncharted territory”.
Lets break it down into a quick and simple example: You wait three hours in line at the DMV, get up to the window, and the lady tells you that the little box that you checked was supposed to have an “x” in it, not a check mark. She then tells you to go back to the end of the line and try again.
You don’t win debate DJEB, you simply ignore the debate and try to detail it to death until your opponent loses interest and walks away. Much the way a turtle wins a fight, by hiding in the shell. Ignoring a point and/or facts (that you requested) does not make it go away, it does not make you right, and it does not accomplish anything. If H wants to play sycophant to you about your “resources”, that is fine, I will leave him to it, but please don’t expect me to get all weak in the knees when you use a English major’s word to try and dismiss relevant argument to issues which you support.
H, DJEB has yet to express or demonstrate anything to me that warrants your lauds and commendation. As far as Hype goes, you’ve seen him in action on my site and on Dions. The guy simply reads one/two talking points from someone else’s blog, and then tries to come around and regurgitate that same information into completely irrelevant discussions. When called on it, he then jumps immediately to either ridiculous accusations or standard cut/paste rhetoric from those same blogs.
Yes, 8 was a dig, meant for humor’s sake, not for actual consideration (Careful DJEB, there I go getting all crazy again). But I think it almost humorous that you (and DJEB) immediately dismiss the first seven reasons, and automatically assume the worst (and most complicated) scenario. For one, this defies one of your favorite analytical methods: Ockham’s razor. You accuse me of “trusting” too much, but at the same time overlook your fault seeing conspiracy too much. I promise that EVERYTHING is not a conspiracy. Sometimes things do happen for the most logical reasons. I don’t think government officials always have my best interests at heart, but I don’t think they ALWAYS have ulterior motives.
G , a per usual , flip your argument
nobody is saying they ALWAYS have ulterior motives , but in your mind they NEVER do
you listed 8 reasons and not one of them even touched on the idea that there may be more political reasons to do this than good honest reasons
Nobody here has claimed anything sinister went on , but only YOU have claimed that NOTHING sinister has gone on
you have no more information then me but you are so sure , Thas because your natural reaction is to trust your leaders
take a look at how many public inquiries wehave had this year alone in the UK , they are started at the drop of a hat
as per usual your leaping ahead of what anyone is saying ,
reading your comment you would think that a wrote " aliens kidnap tony blair and force him to attack london !!!"
all you are doing is trying to prevent legitimate questions by using Ridicule ( which is a comment tactic used my the right wing in the US , but does not work here )
I have an open mind as to the motives , where as you have a closed one , so which of us is being more sensible ?
as for a cliche being repeated enough then it must be true !!
does that mean you accept George bush is a fascist war criminal now then LOL
>"As for reasons one to six, there are so oft repeated as to be cliché”
Must be a reason for that… maybe because it’s true?
As I said before, "commissions on terrorism have been carried out in the past in different parts of the world without the catastrophes you warn about occuring." You seemed to miss that once already, so please allow me to repeat it a third time: "Commissions on terrorism have been carried out in the past in different parts of the world without the catastrophes you warn about occuring."
"And “condescension” doesn’t come close to the way I address Hype, he gets much more special attention than that."
So, you are cool with the hypocrisy then?
"Also, your link for “criteria” on debate… that is cute and all, but seriously, are you trying to run a debate completion, or actively participate in the exchange of ideas? In a debate completion or class, you can win by simply finding the most relevant way, within the rules, to express your point. This is then “judged” by objective observes, and a winner declared. This seems to be what you are looking for in most cases."
My link was in regards to comments _H_ made about my own site. However, if you have encountered a formal or informal fallacy in my reasoning, please point it out. If not, then I fail to see how logic is irrelevant.
"To me, we enter into a topic of discussion with opinions that are based off many diverse things (i.e. news, history, personal experience, gut feelings, impressionistic theories, etc…), where one opinion may be shared, partially shared, or completely disagreed with."
The "gut feelings" and "etc" are a wise choice in arsenal, aren't they. Logic is made irrelevant and you can always be correct because your "gut feelings" say so. Opinions are fine, but an opinion is just an unsubstantiated assertion. It is when people try to use this as a premise that they get into trouble.
"But to come into this arena, and then attempt to completely dismiss any and all argument to a cause/issue that you support, simply on the premise that one (or more) of your “guidelines” were not met is either a quaint shield you use to protect yourself from uncomfortable situations, or an OCD complex disallowing you to enter “uncharted territory”."
Again, if you have found an error in my logic, please point it out. Otherwise I don't see how logic is made irrelevant just because it is inconvenient for you. Oh, and the attack on me here is completely irrelevant.
"Lets break it down into a quick and simple example: You wait three hours in line at the DMV, get up to the window, and the lady tells you that the little box that you checked was supposed to have an “x” in it, not a check mark. She then tells you to go back to the end of the line and try again.
You don’t win debate DJEB, you simply ignore the debate and try to detail it to death until your opponent loses interest and walks away. Much the way a turtle wins a fight, by hiding in the shell."
First, your analogy is a faulty one. In your example, the conclusion is a foregone one. In discussing an issue, it is not. Again, show me the error in my arguments and I'll accept that. Otherwise, don't whinge about others not accepting illogical arguments.
"Ignoring a point and/or facts (that you requested) does not make it go away, it does not make you right, and it does not accomplish anything."
Nice charge. Where have I done this? Be specific. Where have I done this? I challenge you to show exactly where it is I have done this.
More on the real issue at hand in a moment, but this first:
"I promise that EVERYTHING is not a conspiracy."
I'll thank you not to use straw man arguments, please. No one is claiming conspiracy. We are discussing competence.
Now, back to the issue. I'll repeat what has been said in the hope that we can stick to the issue at hand.
_H_: "you listed 8 reasons and not one of them even touched on the idea that there may be more political reasons to do this than good honest reasons "
DJEB: "Commissions on terrorism have been carried out in the past in different parts of the world without the catastrophes you warn about occuring."
"As for number seven, you don't know that the endeavor would be fruitless until the inquiry is actually carried out, unless you have some magic crystal ball we don't know about."