Immigrants, Not Briton's, Must Adapt

[jester1470]

What do you know about credibility?

Your posts are all the same...Anti-Whatever I say. I don't mind really!! Because i know that there are smarter people in the world that take things like this a bit more seriously than you will ever do' date=' and come out with half a sentance that makes more sense than your entire input to this debate.

I've said time after time, I don't expect anyone to believe this nor do I push any version that I have "made up". I am a conspiritist, and I stand by what I say from what I have learned.

I know it must be tough letting some negativity encroach in your positive wee world, and I'm sorry that I'm the one to have brung it. But do not undermine what I have taken time out of my life to learn unless you have something of worth to say that you too have learned.

The lizard thing is a little bizzare imo2. Please do not think that I believe that, becasue unless I see a lizard wearing a crown and holding a septor whilst I'm sober, I don't think I will...lol.[/quote']

See the problem I have is not that its impossible to believe in cover ups etc,its the fact that the expectation is the amount of people that would have to be involved, the people who saw it, the emergency services, the people in the pentagon, the experts, the photographers, the army, the media. This isnt something that happened in the middle of nowhere it happened in the city, it was seen by a lot of people, the proof is in the pictures, the movies, everything that they didnt have time to fake.

And I have read David Icke, the guy is pretty nuts, he may have 2 or 3 good ideas but all credibitlity is ruined by the rest of it.

I tell you, read Von Daniken, you might like that, the guys so cool he even has a theme park devoted to his theories

http://www.daniken.com/e/index.html

Cheers

Stuart

[Cloud]

What do you know about credibility?

What is there to know? Credibility is usually gained by subjecting your work to intense peer review and defending it successfully - which is usually done by being right. People in this thread have torn holes in your statements' date=' so surely the answer is that your "facts" are not credible?

Your posts are all the same...Anti-Whatever I say. I don't mind really!! Because i know that there are smarter people in the world that take things like this a bit more seriously than you will ever do, and come out with half a sentance that makes more sense than your entire input to this debate.

Of course there's smarter people in the world, but what's wrong with my input?

Bux, do you realise that these people coming up with these theories usually wilt as soon as their work is subjected to any open peer review? Okay, let's look at a common demoninator - the alleged US/Israel/Jewish interests. A lot of these people pushing the theories are very anti those three - so do you not stop and think "Hang on, what is their agenda?". It doesn't take a genius to work out (apologies for invoking Godwin's Law here) that there must be an element of Anti-Semitism at work here.

http://www.publiceye.org/Icke/IckeBackgrounder.htm

I didn't even know Icke was involved with neofascist causes - but don't you understand the contradiction in someone saying "THE US IS EVIL!!!" while being part of the extreme right wing? He's part of the same ideology - so bang, there's his credibility gone right there. Perhaps Icke has been brainwashed by the US? who knows?

I've said time after time, I don't expect anyone to believe this nor do I push any version that I have "made up". I am a conspiritist, and I stand by what I say from what I have learned.

Do you not question the credibility of your sources? You've already admitted that Icke can be uncredible, so what makes you think that some of his stuff is credible? I'd be personally worried about the mental health of someone that thought lizards ruled the world.

I know it must be tough letting some negativity encroach in your positive wee world, and I'm sorry that I'm the one to have brung it. But do not undermine what I have taken time out of my life to learn unless you have something of worth to say that you too have learned.

What on earth, this sounds like the bizzare ramblings of someone who thinks about lizards all day.

I've learnt quite a lot thank you - over the course of tonight, I've learnt that there's a lot of dangerous people on the internet, pushing statements and "facts" that are at best untrue and at worst, highly dangerous. Thank you for that enlightenment

The lizard thing is a little bizzare imo2. Please do not think that I believe that, becasue unless I see a lizard wearing a crown and holding a septor whilst I'm sober, I don't think I will...lol.

And the lizard thing forms part of his core belief. If that's part of his core belief, it undermines everything else that he believes in.

I'm happy to place my trust in rational, credible people, thank you.

[Benji]

http://www.daniken.com/e/index.html - hmm...interesting...I'll need to delve further.

Cheers Stuart.

Maybe Icke is fucked in the head....infact there's a damn good chance, but, Watch 'The secrets of the matrix' which is performed live on stage infront of 6,000 people, who are just curious to know what he's on about. It lasts an entire afternoon of him going on about a variety of things listing from Iraq - to the 5th dimension, and I've quite clearly said I don't go into that kinda things. But his points based on the war are based around fact, all I ask is that you watch his dvd... Which you can see for free on freedom Tv, in Winamp. Then judge him. Then if you want ...Judge me.

I'm glad you feel enlightened..lol.. I can sleep better today knowing that I corrupted your mind, when all I am is a foot soilder thats helping fight NWO.

Look I respect what your saying dude, we've been at this thread now for days and i have no idea how it came to this...despite the title.. just don't be so sure your right, and I'll do the same.

[cytokine storm]

need proof?

Interesting how threads evolve over time.....

Not paranoid but informed... have a look at this link http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/index.shtml#bush or read "crossing the rubicon"

[Guest tv tanned]

Dont you mean Bush Jnr?

I havent read any statements from him before he came to power saying that he wanted to invade Iraq. In fact' date=' he campaigned on a right-wing isolationist foreign policy.[/quote']

Look harder.

I found this on a transcript of the Vice Presidential Debate between Cheney and Liebermann prior to the 2000 election:

MR. SHAW: This question is for you, Mr. Secretary. If Iraq's president, Saddam Hussein, were found to be developing Weapons of mass destruction, Governor Bush has said he would, quote, "take him out." Would you agree with such a deadly policy?

MR. CHENEY: We might have no other choice. We'll have to see if that happens. The thing about Iraq, of course, was at the end of the war, we had pretty well decimated their military. We had put them back in the box, so to speak. We had a strong international coalition arrayed against them, effective economic sanctions, and a very robust inspection regime that was in place, so that the inspection regime, under U.N. auspices, was able to do a good job of stripping out the -- the capacity to build Weapons of mass destruction, the work that he'd been doing, that had not been destroyed during the war, and biological, chemical agents, as well as a nuclear program.

Unfortunately, now we find ourselves in a situation where that's started to fray on us, where the -- the coalition now no longer is tied tightly together. Recently the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, two Gulf states, have reopened diplomatic relations with Baghdad. The Russians and the French now are flying commercial airliners back into Baghdad and sort of thumbing their nose, if you will, at the international Sanctions regime. And of course the U.N. inspectors have been kicked out, and there's been absolutely no response.

So we're in a situation today where I think our posture vis--vis Iraq is weaker than it was at the end of the war. I think that's unfortunate. I also think it's unfortunate that we find ourselves in a position where we don't know for sure what might be transpiring inside Iraq I certainly hope he's not regenerating that kind of capability, but if he were, if in fact Saddam Hussein were taking steps to either rebuild nuclear capability or Weapons of mass destruction, you'd have to give very serious consideration to military action to stop that activity. I don't think you can afford to have a man like Saddam Hussein with nuclear Weapons in the Middle East

If that doesn't satisfy you, then there's the statement here from the second presidential debate in which Bush states that he wants to see Saddam ousted.

BUSH: That's hard to tell. I think that, you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle the Iraqi situation better.

MODERATOR: Saddam Hussein, you mean, get him out of there?

BUSH: I would like to, of course, and I presume this administration would as well. We don't know -- there are no inspectors now in Iraq, the coalition that was in place isn't as strong as it used to be. He is a danger. We don't want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it's going to be hard, it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.

While this is not an explicit - invade Iraq - it is clear what the intentions were. I could go back to my thesis on this issue which I did in 2003, in order to get some more evidence, but it is stored on my parents' computer and I don't have access to it.

[Guest Bob]

As long as immigrants adopt our national dish - curry - they're ok by me.

[Bass Cadet]

Lol

[Mr Shankly]

Well Mr Tanned I stand by both my statements, although my second statement was slightly misleading and I will explain why later on.

First and foremost, I am discounting what Dick Cheney had to say for himself in 2000, as he is quite irrelevant to what I said, as I explicitly referred to George W. Bush.

To support your claim that I should have looked harder to presumably find evidence that Bush called for an invasion of Iraq prior to being President, you provide an excerpt from one of the debates between Gore and Bush during the campaign for the 2000 Presidential Election, which even you admit does not call for an invasion of Iraq!

To be honest I do not know why you even bothered replying to my post, surely if you were trying to find misleading statements in the thread Buxs posts would have been a good place to start. Unless, of course you believe that the US Government carried out the 9/11 attacks or that there is a World Government going to take over to enslave the Worlds population.

As you admit, no where in that excerpt does Bush lucidly call for an invasion of Iraq, what he does do is state that he would like to see the end of Saddam Husseins tyranny in Iraq. That is hardly a controversial statement. In fact, if he refused to say that he would like to see the end of Husseins tyranny in Iraq then he would have struggled to win Texas let alone Florida in the 2000 Election.

If you do equate wanting to see the end of a dictator to an invasion of a Country the fact that both Gore and Bush probably called the end of Castros tenure during debates on foreign policy disputes that. Unless you think that the US are going to invade Cuba in the near future. (When I say probably, I mean both candidates would have had to call for the removal of Castro to have any chance of winning the pivotal State of Florida).

On that same point many people in the anti-war movement have stated that they were against the War with Iraq, but were happy to see the end of Saddam Hussein, therefore you can ostensibly support the removal of Hussein, but not an invasion of Iraq.

I presume you were against the war, but are happy that Hussein has been removed from power?

Regarding my second statement, In fact, he (Bush) campaigned on a right-wing isolationist foreign policy, I must admit that my language was slightly misleading.

When I used the term right-wing isolationist it does appear to make Bush comparable to someone like Pat Buchanan and others like him in the US. That definitely was not my intention as they are extreme isolationists who I believe still write articles today about why the US should not have entered the Second World War. Instead of the term right-wing isolationist I should have used moderate isolationist or neo-isolationist as many of Bushs views regarding foreign policy during the 2000 campaign definitely took that form. For example, one of Bushs biggest campaigns regarding foreign policy during the 2000 Election was for the removal of US troops from the Balkans.

Also, there are numerous quotes form Bush during the campaign to suggest he would have a somewhat isolationist foreign policy. For example, I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops, But we cant be all things to all people in the world. I am worried about over-committing our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. I dont think nation-building missions are worthwhile.

Maybe you should read Bux's posts now...

[Guest tv tanned]

First and foremost' date=' I am discounting what Dick Cheney had to say for himself in 2000, as he is quite irrelevant to what I said, as I explicitly referred to George W. Bush.[/quote']

Yes, and I didn't quote him for any other reason than the lead comment by the questioner.

To support your claim that I should have looked harder to presumably find evidence that Bush called for an invasion of Iraq prior to being President, you provide an excerpt from one of the debates between Gore and Bush during the campaign for the 2000 Presidential Election, which even you admit does not call for an invasion of Iraq!

At present it is all I can find, suffice to say it was pretty clear when one studied a number of areas that Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, by military means if necessary.

To be honest I do not know why you even bothered replying to my post, surely if you were trying to find misleading statements in the thread Buxs posts would have been a good place to start. Unless, of course you believe that the US Government carried out the 9/11 attacks or that there is a World Government going to take over to enslave the Worlds population.

To be honest, I was not accusing you of a misleading statement, I was suggesting that you were not aware of some of the things Bush said prior to entering the White House.

I fail to see why me referring to your post means I automatically agree with Bux, but then maybe that's just your interpretation.

As you admit, no where in that excerpt does Bush lucidly call for an invasion of Iraq, what he does do is state that he would like to see the end of Saddam Husseins tyranny in Iraq. That is hardly a controversial statement. In fact, if he refused to say that he would like to see the end of Husseins tyranny in Iraq then he would have struggled to win Texas let alone Florida in the 2000 Election.

No, you're right, but when he admits to considering a policy of "take him out" what do you think it means? If you expect me to produce actual quotation of "I will invade Iraq" from his election campaign in order to prove he was willing to do so, then I think it is fairly unlikely such a direct quote exists.

That does not mean that he did not think about invading Iraq nor said that he would.

If you do equate wanting to see the end of a dictator to an invasion of a Country the fact that both Gore and Bush probably called the end of Castros tenure during debates on foreign policy disputes that. Unless you think that the US are going to invade Cuba in the near future. (When I say probably, I mean both candidates would have had to call for the removal of Castro to have any chance of winning the pivotal State of Florida).

Yes, but US invasion of Cuba has been a no-no since Bay of Pigs and Missile Crisis, so hardly analogous.

On that same point many people in the anti-war movement have stated that they were against the War with Iraq, but were happy to see the end of Saddam Hussein, therefore you can ostensibly support the removal of Hussein, but not an invasion of Iraq.

Yes, but equally the fact they both agreed with the need to take Saddam Hussein out implies that the job needed to be done by them.

I presume you were against the war, but are happy that Hussein has been removed from power?

Yes

Regarding my second statement, In fact, he (Bush) campaigned on a right-wing isolationist foreign policy, I must admit that my language was slightly misleading.

When I used the term right-wing isolationist it does appear to make Bush comparable to someone like Pat Buchanan and others like him in the US. That definitely was not my intention as they are extreme isolationists who I believe still write articles today about why the US should not have entered the Second World War. Instead of the term right-wing isolationist I should have used moderate isolationist or neo-isolationist as many of Bushs views regarding foreign policy during the 2000 campaign definitely took that form. For example, one of Bushs biggest campaigns regarding foreign policy during the 2000 Election was for the removal of US troops from the Balkans.

No, I am quite happy to accept that in a number of areas Bush was talking about removing troops from abroad. Indeed Rumsfeld's policy has been to develop a "Rapid Deployment" strategy to replace the "Two Major Wars" strategy which had gone before, so to an extent this is still being done, they just happen to have a lot of wars to fight as well!

Maybe you should read Bux's posts now...

I'll happily read them, I fail to see why any constructive discussion between you or I has to be somehow invalidated because I did not read or critique what Bux has said.

[Mr Shankly]

I wrote, “I haven’t read any statements from him before he came to power saying that he wanted to invade Iraq,” and you replied to that with “look harder” and provided examples that ostensibly disproved that claim. Of course, as you admit, no such words exist, therefore I fail to see why you bothered replying to my post as my statement was 100% correct, especially in the context of Bux’s assertion that “Bush has been trying to invade Iraq for years, I hope we can agree on that part at least”.

No' date=' you're right, but when he admits to considering a policy of "take him out" what do you think it means?

[/quote']

I’m not sure about the exact context of that quote; I believe he was asked what would you do if Hussein was developing WMD, so it is hardly surprising he would say such a thing considering the record of the Hussein regime for supporting terrorism and attempting to invade his neighbours, but, again, it is not evidence that he was wanting to invade Iraq.

[Guest tv tanned]

fair enough then, I'll concede that I took it the wrong way and misinterpreted you.