Last edited:
In Search of Common Ground: A Conversation with Ron Wieck
http://www.mockpaperscissors.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/The-Bandar-Bush-kiss.jpg
Breach of rule 5 removed. Do not hotlink images from other sites without permission.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Cuddles
Last edited by a moderator:
NoahFence
Banned
How terribly creative.
You do realize that its been proven that Bush wasn't behind 9/11, right?
You do realize that its been proven that Bush wasn't behind 9/11, right?
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Makes no difference. Ideological diatribes and conspiracy theories are MUCH more fun.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
[qimg]http://www.mockpaperscissors.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/The-Bandar-Bush-kiss.jpg[/qimg]
What's in the image - a claim? A premise? A rational argument? Anything at all? Say it in words! State your premises, make your claims! Don't just poison the well!
Oh and don't pretend like not everybody noticed how you are running away like a weasle from the "shoot-down" desaster, that argument you so thoroughly lost due to your not even trying to state premises and argue claims! Please admit that you realize you have no argument with regard to shoot-down or stand-down, that, for over 6 pages running, your own derail produced zero evidence in favour of your misguided delusions!
NoahFence
Banned
In other words... par for the truther course.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
[qimg]http://www.mockpaperscissors.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/The-Bandar-Bush-kiss.jpg[/qimg]
Bush likes him some hot man on man love? I don't hold that against him, he's probably just looking for some common ground.
I don't think that's Ron Wieck in the photo either!
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
You've lost the shoot-down argument.
You've failed to prove Saudi involvement.
There's no point to derail any further.
Thread over.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Hey shure, I moved the goal posts back to where they have been for a long time. You didn't resolve that issue yet!
ozeco41
Philosopher
his evasions sure cover a lot of irrelevant territory.
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
I don't recall anyone on JREF extolling W's, or any other politicians performance on 911. Given standing orders and the uncertainty of the moment its not surprising they failed to shot any of the planes down. In reality until the second one hit no one would have even suggested it.
As for the Saudis, the you miss the bit where they have an awful lot of oil? The US has had to tread carefully with the Saudis for decades so why would it be strange on 911? I've yet to see any evidence that ties the Saudi rulers with 911 so why piss off another nation that could do us harm for no particular purpose?
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Early on I suggested that the style of argumentation from Shure and timd was not very effective because of the constant interruptions by links and extensive quotes, with very little coherent analysis.
Nothing has changed since then, unfortunately. I suspect very few people are willing to wade thru the walls of quotations and links to find out what is relevant and interesting and what the main points are.
An analogy comes to mind: imagine hiring a P.I. to do some digging for you, and asking him/her to summarize and explain his findings. You sit down expecting some kind of focused presentation, but instead the P.I. takes a huge stack of papers and folders and dumps it down on the desk, insisting 'here it is - you read it!'.
You ask 'Well, what about so-and-so? What did you find?' Again the answer is (pointing to stack of papers) 'you read it'.
There's no attempt to intelligently discuss the material, just terse, sarcastic replies and more thumping of the stack.
Not an effective form of communication, I'm afraid. A few allegations muttered here and there are not a convincing argument.....
These guys should do themselves a favor and organize the materials into something vaguely coherent and readable or find someone who can do it for them. As it stands it's a mess.
Nothing has changed since then, unfortunately. I suspect very few people are willing to wade thru the walls of quotations and links to find out what is relevant and interesting and what the main points are.
An analogy comes to mind: imagine hiring a P.I. to do some digging for you, and asking him/her to summarize and explain his findings. You sit down expecting some kind of focused presentation, but instead the P.I. takes a huge stack of papers and folders and dumps it down on the desk, insisting 'here it is - you read it!'.
You ask 'Well, what about so-and-so? What did you find?' Again the answer is (pointing to stack of papers) 'you read it'.
There's no attempt to intelligently discuss the material, just terse, sarcastic replies and more thumping of the stack.
Not an effective form of communication, I'm afraid. A few allegations muttered here and there are not a convincing argument.....
These guys should do themselves a favor and organize the materials into something vaguely coherent and readable or find someone who can do it for them. As it stands it's a mess.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Early on I suggested that the style of argumentation from Shure and timd was not very effective because of the constant interruptions by links and extensive quotes, with very little coherent analysis.
Nothing has changed since then, unfortunately. I suspect very few people are willing to wade thru the walls of quotations and links to find out what is relevant and interesting and what the main points are.
An analogy comes to mind: imagine hiring a P.I. to do some digging for you, and asking him/her to summarize and explain his findings. You sit down expecting some kind of focused presentation, but instead the P.I. takes a huge stack of papers and folders and dumps it down on the desk, insisting 'here it is - you read it!'.
You ask 'Well, what about so-and-so? What did you find?' Again the answer is (pointing to stack of papers) 'you read it'.
There's no attempt to intelligently discuss the material, just terse, sarcastic replies and more thumping of the stack.
Not an effective form of communication, I'm afraid. A few allegations muttered here and there are not a convincing argument.....
These guys should do themselves a favor and organize the materials into something vaguely coherent and readable or find someone who can do it for them. As it stands it's a mess.
Possibly the state of their evidence reflects the state of their mind, a disorderly mess of unrelated and wrongly understood data.
Last edited:
I don't often say "this," but ^^^ this.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Just reread some of your OP. The OP is OT from itself by such a wide margin that this thread was basically doomed to die of cancer. There were so many topics introduced in your OP, so many claims, that this metastatic wall-of-quotemines style produces.
Basically it started out as a giant spam, and we've been attempting to deal with it as such.
You really have no one else to blame but yourself.
I think most of us wouldn't mind seeing the contents of the 28 pages, IF they ever come available. But it is wishful thinking to
a) suppose that the public has a right to view classified documents per se, simply because they might potentially be interesting
b) suppose that the documents might be some kind of 'smoking gun', as you have alleged.
Neither is guaranteed to be a valid premise, so I wouldn't treat them as such if I were you. I would suggest that there are probably many other sources of information regarding the Saudis that you can find out there. A great deal of info about America's relationship with Saudia Arabia is public, it's not new news.
Call me a cynic, but I think Americans are quite naive about the Saudis. They are not America's friends in many regards; it's more of a malignant symbiosis - America needs Saudi oil and influence in the region; the Saudis need America's military protection. American leaders have stuck their heads so far up the Saudi's asses, ignoring the cruel dictatorship, corruption and commitment to spreading militant fundamentalist Islam, while trying to hide the ugly truth from the American public. But frankly, the American public in general doesn't care at all what goes on over there, so long as they can continue to consume oil and live the American dream. They don't want to know, quite simply.
The facts are out there in the open already, you don't need a secret document to understand what's going on. Reforms in the US won't happen, IMO, until the American people decide that they don't want their lifestyle to be maintained by reliance on corrupt dictators, and they don't want to send their armed forces to fight wars of aggression.
So back to the alleged links to the corrupt Saudi regime - of course the Saudi regime is linked to Islamic terrorists!! What did you think was going on? This is not news. If you want a list of US politicians who are covering up this fact go back to the end of WWII and start counting - it's been American policy for decades. Gimme a break!
The rise of OBL and Al Qaeda is directly linked to the Carter/Reagan administrations and the cold war support for Islamic militants starting in 1979, with the full cooperation of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's ISI. This is all in the public record, it isn't secret at all.
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
Early on I suggested that the style of argumentation from Shure and timd was not very effective because of the constant interruptions by links and extensive quotes, with very little coherent analysis.
Nothing has changed since then, unfortunately. I suspect very few people are willing to wade thru the walls of quotations and links to find out what is relevant and interesting and what the main points are.
An analogy comes to mind: imagine hiring a P.I. to do some digging for you, and asking him/her to summarize and explain his findings. You sit down expecting some kind of focused presentation, but instead the P.I. takes a huge stack of papers and folders and dumps it down on the desk, insisting 'here it is - you read it!'.
You ask 'Well, what about so-and-so? What did you find?' Again the answer is (pointing to stack of papers) 'you read it'.
There's no attempt to intelligently discuss the material, just terse, sarcastic replies and more thumping of the stack.
Not an effective form of communication, I'm afraid. A few allegations muttered here and there are not a convincing argument.....
These guys should do themselves a favor and organize the materials into something vaguely coherent and readable or find someone who can do it for them. As it stands it's a mess.
I'm afraid you're right. Out of courtesy (and a bit of morbid curiosity), I took the time to wade through the wall of text they threw up here and dissected their points. I took the time to build a series of (hopefully) coherent posts with readily available facts and was willing to debate each point. All I got in return was a bunch of one-off unrelated comments, mish-mashed walls of Gish, and pure nonsense.
I seriously don't understand why they even show up here? Validation? Boredom? I mean, the truther sites out there are either dead or dying, and any others are just a few lost causes pat each other on theirs backs for the great job they're doing...so it makes sense, no?
It's just amazing, and a bit disturbing, that no truther seems to know how to "debate". All they know are logical fallacies and pompous projections.
NoahFence
Banned
I'd be real curious as to the answer to that as well. But we know their track record of answering simple questions, don't we?
ozeco41
Philosopher
At last the key time point is recognised -- well spotted sheeplesnshills.
Way back in post 16 I identified that "timeline" was the key to any discussion of shoot down.
I deliberately left it open to shure et al to follow through. In true truther style both he and jimd3100 ignored the opportunity and continued to post unreasoned, emotively loaded walls of crap.
So Sabretooth "spoon fed" them the timeline and still they have evaded reasoned discussion. An opportunity lost because the topic is worthy of reasoned discussion.
Now sheeplesnshils has identified the critical factor about that timeline. I've quoted it above and it is this:
"In reality until the second one hit no one would have even suggested it..."
It is far stronger than that. Until at least "the second one hit" the US could not have withstood the international condemnation that would have flowed from deliberately shooting down a civilian airliner. Please think about that in the context of how the events unfolded on the day --- 20/20 hindsight may lead to different conclusions but it was not available in real time.
My comment - made several times - "how many non US nationals were on the planes" has, I think been missed/ignored.
My opinion is that even "when the second one hit" is a bit on the optimistic side - it is probable that it was not till the first tower fell that the decision could have been taken in the context of international reaction. Again don't use hindsight on your considerations- real time please.
And, just to indicate that I do understand some of the realities of managing emergencies in real time - the warning orders could have been initiated "when the first one hit". Orders in these situations are not a single all or nothing event at one point in time. Something I am sure beachnut and others with military and/or emergency management experience can confirm.
Last edited: