Quote:

Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death:
Anyway, I have a question. At what point does a conspiracy theory stop being a conspiracy theory and become a valid theory?



I'd say it's no longer a theory when you can prove it, with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't think you've met your burden of proof yet.

There are those who keep the spectre alive, even after the burden of proof has been met that a conspiracy did NOT take place. I believe that's what you'll continue to do here, in your unwarranted self-righteous zeal, no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary.

Similar to how so many newspapers investigated the November 2000 Presidential election, and found after months of investigation that if the Supreme Court ruling had not ended the election, that G.W Bush would have actually won by even more votes.
But Democrats continue to whine about Bush "stealing" the election, and make slanderous allegations about Bush, despite investigations published in even the most liberal newspapers, that numerous recounts prove Bush won fairly by the electoral system. ( I voted for Ralph Nader, but I still accept George W. Bush as our legally elected President).

And similarly, the PLO's (and Arafat's) direct involvement in suicide bombings and terrorism, even though they claimed these charges by Israel were false. But Israel found documents that prove this PLO involvement absolutely, documents confiscated when Israeli troops invaded the Jenin and Ramallah offices of the PLO. And now, in a last ditch of spin-control, the PLO says that this proof was falsified by Israel.
(Lesson: When caught at a lie, continue to lie about your accuser.
Looking at your unprovoked venom toward me above, it seems you've learned that lesson pretty well, Jack.)

So even when there's absolute proof, those who wish to perpetuate the lie will allege the proof is false.

Your comments remind me of what I was once told about legal defense tactics:
When the facts are on your side, pound the facts.
When the facts are NOT on your side, POUND THE TABLE !

Snottily charicaturing me as a goose-stepping enemy of American freedom is just a diversion from the fact that: You haven't been able to prove your conspiracy theory.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death: posted 07-10-2002 05:18 AM
Retreating to that kind of cowardly, fascist logic is a sign that you're starting to waver in your convictions. I'm disappointed, though. You should know better than to think that such a tactic would influence anyone with an IQ over 80.

...And your implication that I sympathize with the terrorists is absolutely craven...

I will defend my nation to my dying breath. I'll start by defending it from people like the Shrub, and from you.

I don't remember if you ever told us what country you live in, Dave, but clearly you haven't the slightest clue of what America is really about. You probably think you do, but I think you read the same brochures that the Shrub did before he and his little fraternity decided to take over. You missed the fine print.

This is my country. It's a beautiful place. ...I'm sorry, I know how much guys like you would love to turn America into one big shopping mall where you pay [to] breathe the air and you pay to take a piss and you pay for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but it isn't gonna happen. Maybe if whatever country you belong to had ever had a Founding Father that declared in bold, unwavering handwriting that all of these rights are inalienable and self-evident, you'd know what I'm talking about, but clearly you don't.

I'm disappointed, Dave. I expected better from you.



I frankly expected better from you than unprovoked name-calling, venomous caricatures and slander.

Forcing others to accept your paranoid conspiracies, or be labelled with all kinds right wing fascist labels, is your own form of fascism, that liberals like yourself impose on the rest of us, and dare to call yourselves superior, when it is in truth YOU who are forcing your ideas on US. And branding us jackbooted thugs if we don't.

[ And by the way regarding my national origin, I'm an American whose lived almost my entire life in Florida. If you were less rash and more observant, you would notice that my home state appears on the lower left of each of my posts, and on my user-I.D. screen on both this (since Sept 11) and the DC Boards (since July 2000). ]

I tried to be gracious the first round, despite the unprovoked rancorousness of your post.

But it's difficult to remain polite when you consistently remain such a prick to me. And needlessly so:

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death: posted 07-14-2002 06:35 PM <strong>

Now, I shall patiently wait for Dave to explain to me why the world really is flat ... darn those Copernicans.




Oh yeah, that was really necessary...

A typical liberal charicature of anyone whose views are one millimeter to the right of yours. Talk about cowardly and craven...

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death: posted 07-14-2002 06:32 PM

The problem, Dave, is that the American public would not have allowed for the removal of the Taliban based on the capture of nineteen terrorists, none of whom were Afghani.



I don't buy that for a second.

We went to South Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, Kosovo, Haiti, and other places in the last five decades, without a massive terrorist act that was "allowed to happen" by some governmant conspiracy, to create "a successful terrorist attack to produce the blind faith required for the American public to cheer on the troops" .

And the nineteen Al Qaida may not have been Afghani, but they were trained in camps for repeated attacks on the U.S. since 1996, with the full blessing and complicity of the Taliban. I have no doubt that you fully understand that, and fail to understand why you would attempt to omit such obvious facts. But for the fact that it instantly broadens the issue truthfully, beyond your narrow conspiracy theory.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death: posted 07-14-2002 06:32 PM

It explicitly states that they needed to get rid of the Taliban to push ahead with the pipeline -- not because the Taliban are evil, but because they didn't have enough control over the region.



Funny, how I read the same report without a predisposed belief in conspiracy, and didn't come to the same conclusion.

All it clearly says is that there are great oil resources to be developed in central Asia, and that developing it would benefit the region.
And the U.S. and Europe as well.

It doesn't specifically advocate the U.S. wiping out the Taliban (although the pre-9/11 Al Qaida terrorism against the U.S. from Afghanistan warrants invasion regardless).

The report also said that the current (1998, Taliban) Afghan leadership was agreeable to the pipeline and seeing the obvious benefit to their country, had already agreed, at the time of Unocal's study, to cooperate in its construction.
And at the current time of that Unocal report (again, 1998), the report says Unocal had done studies of various other possible routes through the Caspian and Black seas to the east, through Iran, west to China, and while other routes were possible, the Afghan route was simply the easiest and most cost effective.
There's nothing in the report you can look at and say: this advocates the U.S. military conquest of Afghanistan.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death: posted 07-14-2002 06:32 PM

The American public isn't really into the idea of sending troops overseas. Look at how intensely unpopular Bosnia was (you wouldn't know it to watch the news these days but it was a pretty heated topic back in the day). Regis-friggin'-Philben even took the time to preach about how important it was to get our troops out of there.

They needed a successful terrorist attack to produce the blind faith required for the American public to cheer on the troops as they paved the way for the pipeline. So they produced one. It's as simple as that.




It's as OVERsimplified as that.

As I said just a paragraph or two above, the U.S. has been involved in a number of previous police actions without requiring an allegedly staged bit of terrorism to whip the masses behind supporting it.

There was some public apprehension about our initially sending troops into Bosnia (and Kosovo, and Somalia, and Rwanda, and Haiti...) but once the decision was made, the public was behind it.
In the case of Somalia, where troops were quickly withdrawn, I think it was more Clinton's perceiving that bailing out would be more popular with the public, and withdrawing troops pre-emptively before there was any potential for a public outcry, than any widespread outcry to get our troops out.

Vietnam is the only war where there was widespread public rally to get our troops out.

And I don't look to Regis Philbin for the best information on foreign issues. That's like basing foreign policy on Jay Leno's monologue. Or the spiritual quotations of Homer Simpson.