We must leave Iraq

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Left Hehry, you may trust me or not but I also didn't believe it was inside job untill I've visited this thread of this very forum, more than a year ago. http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/12931-september-11th-conspiracy-theories.html

Great! Since that time I feel kind of obligation to this forum.

Everyone of the points made by the moonbats on this site have been debunked, they are the laughing stock of DP.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
Everyone of the points made by the moonbats on this site have been debunked, they are the laughing stock of DP.

Did you secure the rights to "moobat" from Turtledude before publishing? Or are you adding plagerism as one of your fallacious debating techniques?

 

[Bergslagstroll]

The lancet study is a joke and it's not an ad-hominem attack their methodology was fatally flawed and it has been proven time and time again, come into reality the water's fine.

Why is it a joke? And why is the methodology fatally flawed?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Bergslagstroll:
Why is it a joke? And why is the methodology fatally flawed?

October 16, 2006

Understanding the Iraq Mortality Survey

There’s no competition for this week’s top story -- a new survey of excess mortality in Iraq, put together by some of the same researchers at Johns Hopkins and al-Mustansiriyah University who did the last one in 2004, concludes that there have likely been 655,000 excess deaths of Iraqis during the first 40 months of the occupation, 601,000 due to violence.

George W. Bush, the expert statistician, apparently considers the numbers not “credible,” and believes that the researchers’ methodology is “pretty well discredited.” Somehow, I doubt that his aides explained to him [or TOT] what a clustered random household survey is, let alone log-linear regression – somehow, I doubt he [or TOT] has any aides who know.

His assessment was corroborated by epidemiological expert General George Casey. Other dismissive hacks included Anthony Cordesman, who understands military issues but little else, and Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institute [and, of coarse, DP's own..... TOT].

On the other hand,

no actual expert in epidemiology who was asked has dismissed the findings

(and, obviously, it passed peer review in the Lancet, the premier British medical journal), and Human Rights Watch has said that this is probably the best result out there.

It is true that the numbers are vastly different from other numbers you see out there. Iraq Body Count, which combs media reports thoroughly and hospital and morgue reports sporadically, and only counts civilian deaths, counts 44,000-49,000; the Los Angeles Times, which did a rather better job, looking at statistics from the Baghdad morgue, the Iraq Health Ministry, and other agencies, estimated that at least 50,000 Iraqis had died due to violence. Unlike the IBC, which viciously attacks anyone who comes up with higher numbers, the LA Times story acknowledged that its number was likely a serious undercount.

The reason for these strong divergences is simple. Suppose, say, you were trying to estimate the number of rapes in the United States. Even if you did a very thorough job combing police station and court reports, you would come up with a tremendous undercount. Surveying a random sample of people would likely give you a much more accurate estimate. In the United States, death – especially violent death – doesn’t work the same way. Virtually all of it gets reported and logged by some government agency; even here, though, trying to estimate deaths due to inadequate health-care from media and hospital reports would be a hopeless and ridiculous task.

In Iraq, by contrast, if you live in a small town in al-Anbar province and your family got hit by a U.S. airstrike, you bury them by sundown and go on. You don’t hit the AP speed-dial on your cell-phone and get a story in the papers; you don’t go to a useless government agency, even if you could find one; you don’t take dead people to a hospital. And you don’t get counted.

As Les Roberts and collaborators explain in their article, “passive” methods based on reports or monitoring how many bodies show up at a given location usually give dramatic undercounts in Third World countries wracked by violence – during the worst years in Guatemala, newspaper reports captured bout 5% of total deaths.

The survey has very high margins of error, because, although 1849 households were sampled, they had to be sampled in a total of 47 different randomly chosen clusters. Even the low end of the estimate, however, is just shy of 400,000, far greater than any other number yet produced. The high end is over 900,000.

The truth is that this study is the standard by which all the other numbers should be judged. Its conclusions are stunning -- one out of every 40 Iraqis, 2.5%, have died since the occupation started. In the 15-year Lebanese Civil War, about 150,000 people died. Iraq has 9 times the population, but it’s only been three years.

Of equal import, 31% of violent deaths were caused by the occupying forces – 186,000. Even during the period June 2005-June 2006, 26% of violent deaths were caused by the occupiers. The occupiers continue to be a major part of the problem, not, as recent news reports seem to suggest, an ineffectual part of the solution.

And TOT's response would be, "No it's not, man!"

But the fact is, TOT (or GySgt), have never posted any evidence to the contrary. Why, because our military doesn't count their [the Iraqi] dead. Or if they did, would not publish those reports. So, if the ones most qualified [boots on the ground in the area of conflict] won't count the dead, how the hell would TOT (or GySgt) know? Well, Gy has a better educated guess than TOT's (or mine) for that matter. And probably should be more respected than TOT's (or mine), since he was actually one of those boots on the ground in Iraq. If that sounds like I am back-peddling at little, all I have to say, in the words of TOT, "No it's not man!"

 

[Billo_Really]

More on report of Iraqi dead...

October 11, 2006

655,000 Excess Dead in Iraq War and Occupation

Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta, Shannon Doocy, and Les Roberts, of Johns Hopkins and Mustansiriyah University, have just published the results of a new Iraqi excess mortality study in the Lancet.

It concludes that in the 40 months from March 2003 through the end of June 2006 (originally, I had a typo -- June 2003 instead of June 2006; it was caught thanks to the alert vigilance of an Air Force public affairs person), excess mortality in Iraq is 655,000, with 601,000 of that due to violence. Of the violent deaths, 31%, or 186,000, were due to coalition forces.

After several moments of absolute shock, my initial reaction on reading the study is that the estimate is very plausible and the methodology for evaluating it is sound. Formidable sampling problems mean that the margin of error is high, but it has been considerably reduced from the margin of error for the first study, published in October 2004.

Although, as everyone has felt, the proportion of deaths caused by the occupying forces has declined, it remains much higher than most people think and much higher than one could possibly gather from news reports (security conditions now mean that reporters can only report on U.S. military operations from embedded positions -- except perhaps with regard to the Baghdad security sweeps -- and once embedded it's very hard to gather useful information on Iraqis killed). In the most recent period they covered, June 2005 to June 2006, 26% of total deaths were caused by occupying forces, roughly half due to air-strikes.

Perhaps stung by criticism of their coverage of the first Iraq mortality survey, the major papers have jumped to cover this story -- and to bury it at the same time. The Los Angeles Times and Washington Post each put it on page A12 and the New York Times, never to be outdone in snootiness, put it on A16. While the sometimes silly standards of journalism probably require that the North Korea situation remain the number one situation, I can't imagine how this is anything but the number two story, at least for a day.

A more detailed analysis and methodological note is forthcoming, but these are the highlights.

And how easyt65, aquapub or Stinger still say there is a liberal media just blows my mind.

Here's the link for the actual report in question.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Why is it a joke? And why is the methodology fatally flawed?

Well for starters they didn't use a large enough sample and because the sample was not distributed enough, the ILCS which used a comprable methodology only over a better distributed and larger sample population came to a very different conclusion. If one is to actually believe the Lancet study they would have to believe that 1 in 40 Iraqis have died since 2003, the study simply stretches credulity beyond any rational limits of believablity.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

And TOT's response would be, "No it's not, man!"

But the fact is, TOT (or GySgt), have never posted any evidence to the contrary. Why, because our military doesn't count their [the Iraqi] dead. Or if they did, would not publish those reports. So, if the ones most qualified [boots on the ground in the area of conflict] won't count the dead, how the hell would TOT (or GySgt) know? Well, Gy has a better educated guess than TOT's (or mine) for that matter. And probably should be more respected than TOT's (or mine), since he was actually one of those boots on the ground in Iraq. If that sounds like I am back-peddling at little, all I have to say, in the words of TOT, "No it's not man!"

No my response is that the ILCS (Iraq Living Conditiions Survey) conducted by the UNDP (United Nations Development Project) used a comprable methodology but over a much larger and better distributed sample population and came to a very different conclusion. For one to actually believe this study they have to conclude that since March 2003 1 in 40 Iraqi's have been killed by the war, and that isn't even taking into consideration how many people died from non-war related causes, this sh!t doesn't hold water Billo.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT
No my response is that the ILCS (Iraq Living Conditiions Survey) conducted by the UNDP (United Nations Development Project) used a comprable methodology but over a much larger and better distributed sample population and came to a very different conclusion. For one to actually believe this study they have to conclude that since March 2003 1 in 40 Iraqi's have been killed by the war, and that isn't even taking into consideration how many people died from non-war related causes, this sh!t doesn't hold water Billo.

Are you going to provide a link, or am I going to have to google it on my own?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Are you going to provide a link, or am I going to have to google it on my own?

http://reports.iraqbodycount.org/d/lancet_reality_checks.pdf

 

[arussian]

The burden of proof is on the accuser not on the defendent, you made the accusation you back it up.

OK I'm doing it, and wish you also support your claims.

Sir a 20 floor high portion of a building being ripped away from a building and a raging inferno will cause that buildings collapse due to the loss of structural integrity.

You’ve provided images of the worst quality with some destortions (due to the smoke?) those correspond to the right side of WTC 7. You’ve said they stay for a “rip” of a twenty floor portion. It is very doubtful because “ripping” something means cutting it away, while at your pics all of the floors are present.
By the way, how do you imagine “ripping” of an armored concrete building without using special high temperature explosives!? :mrgreen:

Nevertheless, even if we assume that the corresponding section was damaged so that it was unable to carry the floors above it the whole building WILL NEVER collapse uniformly due to this event!
Even collapse of a whole such a building is impossible due to the collapse of one side, to say nothing about simultaneous and uniformal collapse with the speed of free fall, as we've all seen it.



You have written a total nonsense, Trajan, and may I ask you, do you yourself sincerely believe in this stupidity, or you suppose that other readers (including me) are morons and will believe it, or you just type something whatever without any hope just due to your stubborn desire not to agree with the opponent?
[:doh 4-th option: It's a bot! Even the name "Trajan" strickingly resembles "trojan"]

WTF are you talking about, Zarqawi was not an asset of the CIA and you have no evidence what so ever that he was.

After what was said above about WTC7 collapse (or after e.c. Iraqi WMD scandal) the legal evidence is the following: Bushists propaganda says he was not, Bushists propaganda [most probably] lies, then [most probably] he was.:mrgreen:
Try to understand [if your are not a bot] that many people all over the world so hate this administartion because it lies so overtly and so stupidly that implies they all are morons. Such implication insults, you know.

No the sectarian violence creates anarchy, confusion, and adds to the fog of war allowing the foreign insurgency to move more freely and carry out operations against our soldiers more easily.

Insurgency (foreign as well) needs unity against occupation forces, it doesn't need such "smoke screen" that lessens its forces tremendously.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

OK I'm doing it, and wish you also support your claims.

You haven't provided any evidence, your evidence is making an unproven assertion that everything Bush says is a lie and given that axiom that you can say with certainty that whatever he says the opposite must be true. That's got to be one of the most fallacious logic example I have ever seen.

You’ve provided images of the worst quality with some destortions (due to the smoke?) those correspond to the right side of WTC 7.

And you provide an angle of the building not showing the 20 floor high chunk of the building that was ripped away from Tower 7.

You’ve said they stay for a “rip” of a twenty floor portion. It is very doubtful because “ripping” something means cutting it away, while at your pics all of the floors are present.

No you can clearly see in the following picture that a 20 floor high portion in the bottom right hand side of the building has been torn away by falling debris from the collapsing towers 1 and 2:

By the way, how do you imagine “ripping” of an armored concrete building without using special high temperature explosives!? :mrgreen:

Falling debris from the collapse of two of the largest constructions on the earth.

Nevertheless, even if we assume that the corresponding section was damaged so that it was unable to carry the floors above it the whole building WILL NEVER collapse uniformly due to this event!

And you base this on? Are you a structural engineer? Do you know the design of tower 7? Or is your expertise derived from conspiracy web sites?

Sorry I'm going to believe the National Institute of Standards and Technology over some wingnut with a computer:

NIST has released video and still photo analysis of Building 7 prior to its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, a large 10-story gash existed on the south facade, extending a third across the face of the building and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior.[1] A unique aspect of the design of 7 WTC was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns would lead to a severely compromised structure. Consistent with this theory, news footage shows visible cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately prior to the collapse, which started from the penthouse floors.[1]

The final report from NIST regarding the collapse of 7 WTC was due in July 2005, but is still ongoing.[7] NIST released a progress report in June of 2004 outlining its working hypothesis. On this hypothesis a local failure in a critical column, caused by damage from either fire or falling debris from the collapses of the two towers, progressed first vertically and then horizontally to result in "a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure".[8][9]

7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have written a total nonsense, Trajan, and may I ask you, do you yourself sincerely believe in this stupidity, or you suppose that other readers (including me) are morons and will believe it, or you just type something whatever without any hope just due to your stubborn desire not to agree with the opponent?

You think that 9-11 was an inside job and I'm the one writing total nonsense? You're a mentally disturbed indvidual who probably believes in UFOs and I'm the one writing nonsense. Coming from you that's a compliment.

From the pages of "Political Ideologies Their Origins and Impact 8th ed.," by Leon P. Baradat:

Just as the pluralist must be understood as distinct from elite theorists, care must be taken that the elite theorists are not confused with those who espouse conspiratorial theories. Conspiratorialists are phobic about politics. They believe that someone, usually a small group of unseen people, are secretly and diabolically controlling things from behind the scenes. Among the suspected master manipulators are communists, international bankers, Jews, and satan worshipers. The various militant civilian milititia groups around the country that have come to prominence since the 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City are deeply embroiled in conspiratorial suspicions. They see the federal government as a sinister culprit, constantly maneuvering to deny innocent patriots their liberties.

In the 1960s, Pulitizer Prize winning historian Richard Hofstadter analyzed the conspiratorial approach to politics, referring to it as the "paranoid style." While Holfstadter concedes in his book, the Paranoid Style in Ameican Politics, that some secret planning accompanies virtually every political movement, the paranoid style imagines a plot of colossal proportions affecting millions and the threatening the very nation itself. Using isolated facts together with a curious leap in imagination to prove to their own satisfaction the existence of the conspiracy, persons asserting the paranoid style mentally catapult from the "undeniable to the unbelievable," as Hofstadter puts it. They are convined that their imagined opponent is totally evil and that their own motives are pure, but often misunderstood. Public rejection of their point of view is often interpreted as persecution, and so their stance becomes increasingly militant as they see their situation becoming more and more hopeless.

The suggestion that the nation, or indeed the world, is controlled by such secret and evil power is frequently found very attractive. It brushes aside the immense complexity of modern politics and substitutes for it a very simple scenario. If people can believe that they are manipulated by unkown uncontrollable forces, they can escape any responsibility for understanding or solving social problems. Politics is thus reduced to a very simple equation. There is a single source of our difficulties, and if only we can get at the source and root it out all will be well.

Yet the very simplicity of such theories makes them suspect. It stretches credulity beyond rational limits to suggest that a few masterminds could, without our knowing it, be pulling the strings that make the rest dance like puppets. No less bizarre is the belief that the federal government has somehow become the tool of megalomaniacs whose mission is to enslave the hapless citizenry. To some people, however, believing in an evil force is preferable to coming to grips with the complexities of reality, and accepting such fantasies represents the ultimate abdication of personal responsibility so necessary to a successful democracy.

[:doh 4-th option: It's a bot! Even the name "Trajan" strickingly resembles "trojan"]

Yes I'm in the conspiracy. :roll:

After what was said above about WTC7 collapse (or after e.c. Iraqi WMD scandal) the legal evidence is the following: Bushists propaganda says he was not, Bushists propaganda [most probably] lies, then [most probably] he was.

After what you said about WTC7 I can come to a concludion to and that is that you're batshit crazy.

Iraqi WMD scandal? Please ellaborate so I can shred your revisionist history bullshit.

Try to understand [if your are not a bot] that many people all over the world so hate this administartion because it lies so overtly and so stupidly that implies they all are morons. Such implication insults, you know.

Yes I know it's called BDS, Bush Derangment Syndrome, of which you are most obviously afflicted, your hate of Bush has turned you into a deranged conspiracy theorist who bases his assertions not on facts, reason, or logic, but upon conspiracies, hatred, and emotion.

Insurgency (foreign as well) needs unity against occupation forces, it doesn't need such "smoke screen" that lessens its forces tremendously.

You have no idea what you're talking about, in Iraq you have sectarian violence, the domestic insurgency, and the foreign insurgency, the foreign insurgency needs the chaos which the sectarian violence creates so that they can move freely and execute their hanous crimes, I have already proven that this is precisely AQ in Iraq's game plan and that the Mosque bombing that started all of this was orchestrated by Al-Zarqawi and your only retort is to go into some half assed theory about 9-11 being an inside job and Zarqawi being a CIA asset. You're a joke.

 

[t125eagle]

would you rather that saddam stayed in power? killing kurds with gas bombs? or perhaps making the UN and the US look like idiots while he does whatever he wants because the "proof" cannot be seen. many have died, yes, but how many would have died had saddam stayed in power? which is the greater evil? going in and taking out a dictator and trying to recreate a country or stand by and let saddam hussein do whatever he wants, ,knowing there is nothing anyone can do?

 

[MSgt]

Doesn't matter. We are responsible for the deaths.
If we hadn't invaded, they'd still be alive.

This is a foolish argument and highly unfair. Would there be plenty of civilians alive in Europe if we decided to just sit it out instead of carpet bombing our way to Berlin? The only difference is that people widely agree with that war and not with this one. If Iraq was about a retribution for an immediate attack like 9/11 then all those civilians that have died in Iraq wouldn't matter - just like the civilians that have died in Afghanistan don't matter to so many.

In keeping with the "if" game...."If" Radical Islam was something we dealt with thirty years ago instead of turning our backs, would the Middle East look like it does today? Would there have even been a 9/11?

 

[MSgt]

Gysgt,

We don't count the bodies of dead Iraqi civilians because there are simply too many. Whatever the number is, it's in the 10s of thousands if not 100,000s.

It has nothing to do with Iraq. Are you suggesting that the civilian body count in Iraq is greater than that of the World War?

It has been a long military tradition to not account for the civilians in war. It is not something that was agreed upon and set into policy behind a closed door. It was just never a consideration. A combatant body count has always been a part of the future strategy. A military must know how badly another military was hurt in order to plan the best action. Counting civilians just doesn't aid in this strategy to kill the enemy. Policies have come forward over the last couple decades, but it all comes down to the roles of a military.

The military role is to kill. It's that simple. It has been quite recent in our world's history that the global citizen has been given a front row seat into the wars they encourage, cheer for, and were highly ignorant of. We have all been raised reading Comic Books where "truth and justice" prevailed and our television shows and movies showed us the romanticism of the American fighting man abroad. But nobody thinks to recognize exactly what it takes to be that man behind the gun or what he is trained to do. Today, we see a footage of a Marine smiling after he kills a combatant that may or may not be faking his injuries and people demand his punishment even though they will watch a product of Hollywood and cheer for him. We see Marines and soldiers that are eager to execute what they have trained so hard for and then take pride in their actions, but so many people on the outside scoff at such things as if every man is supposed to be mentally anguished and disturbed. Is the Marine or soldier supposed cry for the dead as he pulls his trigger?

Like I said above, the world has a front row seat. Our enemy is very media savvy and they are using civilian deaths to strike at western resolve. The act of slaughtering an Iraqi civilian is not as important as the camera crews that seek to record it. Our enemy knows this. When our enemy kills his victims, he knows that the global audience will be fixed on anything that will stop it - even if it is in his favor and not his victims. In the mean time, their are countless organizations determined to record civilian deaths and ask why the military doesn't while we conduct a war that Radical Islam has brought to us. Keeping civillian body counts may be an effort forced upon us by those that experience warfare through their television sets, but even then we will be met with those that want the count to be worse and dismiss us.

The media is a very dangerous thing. It has the capacity to deter acts against humanity and to encourage those same acts. The civilian body count was a record low in historical terms before the Iraqi and American Presidential elections. Since the whole highly publicized issue of a civilian body count became the marching wail of the anti-war voice, that body count began to take on speed. As long as the cameras roll and the American military critics continue to give the act strength...our enemies will continue to kill their own and the body count will get higher. This may be a tactic we will see over and over wherever we seek to address Radical Islam in the future.

 

[MSgt]

Also you have to remember that the Iraq goverment and American officials has a interest to keep the numbers low.

Just like our enemy has an interest to project that number as high as possible.

One thing intrest is that you said it counting body deters them from doing there job. Well it depend that you see as there job. If it was fighting in WW3 then yes then the goal is to "blast" as many enemy as possible. But in Iraq you have a much more delicate situation.

The role of the military is to kill. Every war has it's obstacles and it's differences in tactics. Currently there are no agencies within the military to account for civilian body counts. Taking man power away from their guns to appease the war critics does deter them from doing their jobs. Civilian agencies are better suited for such things, but they must behave responsibly and not force astronomical lies upon an already tough situation. It disrespects the effort, the legitimate civilian dead, and the integrity of "honest journalism."

The most accurate and unbiased count for such things will always be the host nations. In today's world and considering our enemies, we have to consider the degree of error amongst populations who look like their combatants.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Just like our enemy has an interest to project that number as high as possible.

Well just remember that there are alot more then two sides in this conflict.

The role of the military is to kill. Every war has it's obstacles and it's differences in tactics. Currently there are no agencies within the military to account for civilian body counts. Taking man power away from their guns to appease the war critics does deter them from doing their jobs. Civilian agencies are better suited for such things, but they must behave responsibly and not force astronomical lies upon an already tough situation. It disrespects the effort, the legitimate civilian dead, and the integrity of "honest journalism."

The most accurate and unbiased count for such things will always be the host nations. In today's world and considering our enemies, we have to consider the degree of error amongst populations who look like their combatants.

I just though it could have been a good idea if one part of the rebuilding effort could have been creating a independent organization for measuing the effect of the war. You mean that the Lancet study is a astronomical lie? Do you have any proof of it. Personally I think publishing in it in the Lancet for the second time (100000 dead study was there first studies) prove that there have some credibility. That of course doesn't mean it correct but it's a study to consider.

The journal itself: Elsevier

http://reports.iraqbodycount.org/d/lancet_reality_checks.pdf

There have this been published? That background does the people who write it have? Also remember that you with "common sense" can prove many things like that it's impossible to go faster then 16 miles an hours like they try do 200 years ago.

This is a foolish argument and highly unfair. Would there be plenty of civilians alive in Europe if we decided to just sit it out instead of carpet bombing our way to Berlin? The only difference is that people widely agree with that war and not with this one. If Iraq was about a retribution for an immediate attack like 9/11 then all those civilians that have died in Iraq wouldn't matter - just like the civilians that have died in Afghanistan don't matter to so many.

In keeping with the "if" game...."If" Radical Islam was something we dealt with thirty years ago instead of turning our backs, would the Middle East look like it does today? Would there have even been a 9/11?

Personally I think civilians always matter or else you are just like Djingis khan. But some time it can be necessary with war that causes civilian deaths. The problem with Iraq is that it lacked international credibility, clear motives why to start the war. That at the same time Iraq at that point in time of the war the oppression in Iraq was around the same level as that in the neighboring countries and there was and still is worst countries like Burma and North Chorea. Also even after three year of fighting there are no clear picture that the war will have a positive outcome. Yes you could have done a lot of things different like Europe also of course done. But the problem was not mainly that you stayed out of things but instead that you supported the wrong guys. Think if you didn’t had supported Saddam Hussein and that if you had supported the democratic process in Iran instead of the Shah.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

There have this been published? That background does the people who write it have?

The name of the organization is Iraq Body Count so their background is in doing body counts for Iraq, but they were quoting the UNDP's (United Nations Development Project's) ILCS (Iraqi Living Conditions Survey) which used a similar methodology to the Lancet survey only with a larger and better distributed population sample. Quite frankly sir the general consensus from just about everyone is that the study is a joke.

 

[arussian]

You haven't provided any evidence, your evidence is making an unproven assertion that everything Bush says is a lie and given that axiom that you can say with certainty that whatever he says the opposite must be true. That's got to be one of the most fallacious logic example I have ever seen..

You haven’t noticed “mr.green”’s icon that has accompanied corresponding text of mine?
Nevertheless, generally speaking US credibility is about zero now in the world, as far as I can see it in Russia, some other countries and Internet. There was nothing of this kind before, even in Cold war times. US was respected within SU and information was much more credited even regarding that deliberate deceptions were more natural for those times.


No you can clearly see in the following picture that a 20 floor high portion in the bottom right hand side of the building has been torn away by falling debris from the collapsing towers 1 and 2:

I can see only a cloud of dark smoke and hot air close to it.The latter disturbs a little the image of several floors only in the area that is close to the cloud. This is seen clearly, I agree.

By the way, how do you imagine “ripping” of an armored concrete building without using special high temperature explosives!?

Falling debris from the collapse of two of the largest constructions on the earth.

Still kidding!? Why have they affected the most remote building of the whole centre the one that even was shielded by WTC 6, and 5!!? Why WTC 3 small and thin and located between both of the twins has not collapsed due to debris and fire?!
Please stop treating me as an imbecile, mister.


WTC3 and 6 were totally under the debris but they were not ruined!
- Because it is not so simple to ruin an armored concrete building, you see.

And you base this on? Are you a structural engineer? Do you know the design of tower 7? Or is your expertise derived from conspiracy web sites?

It is absolutely enough to possess common sense for understanding matters of everyday life. Armored concrete buildings are not significantly affected by fire.
Just take OMFG a bulk of armored concrete and burn it!
If armored concrete buildings could be demolished with fire why then bother with pyrite squibs at every floor!? Just make a fire somewhere in the middle and it will fall by itself. And if a structural engineer will tell nonsense I’ll ask for the explication of physics of the process, that never was provided.

Sorry I'm going to believe the National Institute of Standards and Technology over some wingnut with a computer:...
The final report from NIST regarding the collapse of 7 WTC was due in July 2005, but is still ongoing. [7] NIST released a progress report in June of 2004 outlining its working hypothesis. On this hypothesis a local failure in a critical column, caused by damage from either fire or falling debris from the collapses of the two towers, progressed first vertically and then horizontally to result in "a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure". [8] [9]

Guys are frankly saying that they propose hypothesis, and if you’d bother reading the original text you’d see that this hypothesis are not tested even theoretically in this report.

This perhaps is the best example:

… suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns would lead to a severely compromised structure…

.
Yes, debris flew good 200-300 meters and hit several columns simultaneously. Nice shot!
[just look at the map - the heavy debris area is indicated there - over poor little WTC3!]

You think that 9-11 was an inside job and I'm the one writing total nonsense? You're a mentally disturbed indvidual who probably believes in UFOs and I'm the one writing nonsense. Coming from you that's a compliment.

You are more likely an UFO believer, mister, because you accept so easily violations of the laws of physics, of the common sense and of the everyday life experience.

Iraqi WMD scandal? Please ellaborate so I can shred your revisionist history bullshit.

Where are Iraqi WMD for which Bush said he has to occupy Iraq, I wonder? And if there are no such thing present what are your troops doing there?

Yes I know it's called BDS, Bush Derangment Syndrome, of which you are most obviously afflicted, your hate of Bush has turned you into a deranged conspiracy theorist who bases his assertions not on facts, reason, or logic, but upon conspiracies, hatred, and emotion.

So the problem is in me and millions of people worldwide and not in the certain group called “neocons” whose spiritual father Leo Strauss advocated for deception as a legal tool of both domestic and foreign policy ( just for example: Meet the "Whack Iran" Lobby )!? Group overtly declares “we are the liars!”, and you propose people to trust them?! It is something unbelievable!
By the way, why there was no Clinton syndrome?

You have no idea what you're talking about, in Iraq you have sectarian violence, the domestic insurgency, and the foreign insurgency, the foreign insurgency needs the chaos which the sectarian violence creates so that they can move freely and execute their hanous crimes, I have already proven that this is precisely AQ in Iraq's game plan and that the Mosque bombing that started all of this was orchestrated by Al-Zarqawi and your only retort is to go into some half assed theory about 9-11 being an inside job and Zarqawi being a CIA asset. You're a joke.

Oh, you proved, you proved! Several times repeated that ObL was not connected to CIA (while
at every site it is written that he was!) and proposed me to trust some fake letter from an American defense site.

Don’t you think that foreign insurgency is dependent on local populations attitude towards them and that Shi’a hostility would be more dangerous to them than to the occupation force?

 

[MSgt]

You mean that the Lancet study is a astronomical lie? Do you have any proof of it. Personally I think publishing in it in the Lancet for the second time (100000 dead study was there first studies) prove that there have some credibility. That of course doesn't mean it correct but it's a study to consider.

The journal itself: Elsevier

Well, which number have they reported? If it was the 650,000 then one must consider that the iraqi government announced two weekends ago that the count was 150,000. Keep in mind that the Iraqi count is much higher than the American count.

There is a lot of lying going on and the anti-war voice will always choose to believe the worst one.

The problem with Iraq is that it lacked international credibility, clear motives why to start the war.

Well, there is the problem. The international community didn't see a need to interfere with Sudan in the 90's either. The international community thought a couple years in Somalia was enough and they abandoned the effort. The international community has proven enough times that they have no credibility to offer. America has spent over a hundred years doing for our allies and even in their absence.

That at the same time Iraq at that point in time of the war the oppression in Iraq was around the same level as that in the neighboring countries and there was and still is worst countries like Burma and North Chorea.

Middle Eastern Radical Islam is the immediate threat. Not poor people in Burma and North Chorea.

Also even after three year of fighting there are no clear picture that the war will have a positive outcome.

The ramifications of Iraq won't be clear for a decade. However, so far, countries surrounding Iraq have moved towards democracy. From Lebanon to Egypt to Jordan and to Syria, we are seeing protests for democracy, talks for democracy, and actual democracies. Even the "House of Saud" has approved lower level elections in Saudi. The message is clear about democracy in the Middle East. Those that are fighting it are fighting it for a reason. They know that their Radical movement doesn't have a chance of survival in a Muslim country where the people choose their own leadership. Even Hamas knew this, as did those old bitter Mullahs in Tehran.

This is generational. In thirty years you will have your clear picture.

But the problem was not mainly that you stayed out of things but instead that you supported the wrong guys. Think if you didn’t had supported Saddam Hussein and that if you had supported the democratic process in Iran instead of the Shah.

If...if...if. We supported a man. That man did what he did on his own accord. If America is to be held accountable for not interfering with the way soveriegn leaderships treat their people then there should be no argument about our interference into Iraq's soveriegnty. Like I said..you can't have it both ways and no matter what, people are eager to blame America for something.

With Saudi Arabia, we "support" the House of Saud rather than the Bin Ladden's who want control.

With France, we "support" the French army's little known attrocities against western Africans.

With Pakistan, we "support" a military leadership over the prospect of allowing the Pakistani Radical control over his nukes.

The point is that in a world full of trades, agreements, and threats, America has to support somebody for the interest of all. Mean while, those we "support" have an obligateion to treat their people humanely. If they do not, it is they that should be blamed..not America. However, with regards to Islam, they are taught that all of their self-prescribed failures are the fault of foriegn devils and not their own culture.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You haven’t noticed “mr.green”’s icon that has accompanied corresponding text of mine?


Nevertheless, generally speaking US credibility is about zero now in the world, as far as I can see it in Russia, some other countries and Internet. There was nothing of this kind before, even in Cold war times. US was respected within SU and information was much more credited even regarding that deliberate deceptions were more natural for those times.

This is how much I care about the opinions of the hypocritical so called "world community" ................ ya not a whole lot, we're a damned if we do damned if we don't nation if we don't engage in interventionalist wars we are accused of support for tyranny and when we do engage we are accused of imperialism.

I can see only a cloud of dark smoke and hot air close to it.The latter disturbs a little the image of several floors only in the area that is close to the cloud. This is seen clearly, I agree.

Then you must be blind because the entire ****ing corner of the building is gone.

Still kidding!? Why have they affected the most remote building of the whole centre the one that even was shielded by WTC 6, and 5!!? Why WTC 3 small and thin and located between both of the twins has not collapsed due to debris and fire?!
Please stop treating me as an imbecile, mister.




WTC3 and 6 were totally under the debris but they were not ruined!
- Because it is not so simple to ruin an armored concrete building, you see.

WTC Buildings 3 and 6 were totally wiped out and building 5 was devestated as is evidenced from this aireal photograph:

It is absolutely enough to possess common sense for understanding matters of everyday life. Armored concrete buildings are not significantly affected by fire.
Just take OMFG a bulk of armored concrete and burn it!
If armored concrete buildings could be demolished with fire why then bother with pyrite squibs at every floor!? Just make a fire somewhere in the middle and it will fall by itself. And if a structural engineer will tell nonsense I’ll ask for the explication of physics of the process, that never was provided.

LMFAO, so you're saying that a 10-story gash on the south facade, extending a third across the face of the building and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior combined with a raging inferno couldn't bring down a building which was designed in such a way that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space?


Guys are frankly saying that they propose hypothesis, and if you’d bother reading the original text you’d see that this hypothesis are not tested even theoretically in this report.[/quote]

So you've read the report have you? That's cool because it hasn't been released yet that info was gleemed from a press release.

This perhaps is the best example:

Yes, debris flew good 200-300 meters and hit several columns simultaneously. Nice shot!

No one giant of debris hit the corner of the south facade tearing out a gash 10 stories high, stretching 1/3 across the building, and extending a quarter of the way into the interior.

[just look at the map - the heavy debris area is indicated there - over poor little WTC3!]

Ya look at the aireal photo, WTC 3 and 6 are gone, and WTC 5 is nearly completely destroyed.

You are more likely an UFO believer, mister, because you accept so easily violations of the laws of physics, of the common sense and of the everyday life experience.

No I believe scholarly reports over conspiracy websites.

Where are Iraqi WMD for which Bush said he has to occupy Iraq, I wonder? And if there are no such thing present what are your troops doing there?

All 16 members of the intelligence community concluded with high confidence in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that Saddam possessed and was expanding his WMD programs. The international community agreed as is evidenced by resolution 1441.

So the problem is in me and millions of people worldwide and not in the certain group called “neocons” whose spiritual father Leo Strauss advocated for deception as a legal tool of both domestic and foreign policy ( just for example: Meet the "Whack Iran" Lobby )!? Group overtly declares “we are the liars!”, and you propose people to trust them?! It is something unbelievable!

Why don't you just say what you really mean?

"neo-conservative" is a codeword for Jewish. As antisemites did with big business moguls in the nineteenth century and Communist leaders in the twentieth, the trick here is to take all those involved in some aspect of public life and single out those who are Jewish. The implication made is that this is a Jewish-led movement conducted not in the interests of all the, in this case, American people, but to the benefit of Jews, and in this case Israel." -- Barry Rubin

"Neo-conservatism is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no "neo-conservative" movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today neo-conservatism identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists. -- David Horiwitz
[If] you read the Middle Eastern press, it seems to be a euphemism for some kind of nefarious Zionist conspiracy. But I think that, in my view it's very important to approach [foreign policy] not from a doctrinal point of view. I think almost every case I know is different. Indonesia is different from the Philippines. Iraq is different from Indonesia. I think there are certain principles that I believe are American principles – both realism and idealism. I guess I'd like to call myself a democratic realist. I don't know if that makes me a neo-conservative or not." -- Paul Wolfowitz

By the way, why there was no Clinton syndrome?

There were plenty of conspiracy theories put out there against Bill Clinton, from the death of Vince Foster to him supporting AQ in Kosovo, but just like now it's just more anti-American bullshit propaganda and you're buying it hook line and sinker, and I'm not suprised after all once a Red always a Red.

Oh, you proved, you proved! Several times repeated that ObL was not connected to CIA (while
at every site it is written that he was!) and proposed me to trust some fake letter from an American defense site.

You have no evidence what so ever that OBL was a CIA asset your sources boil down to far left or conspiracy websites, and analysts have concluded that the Zarqawi letter was not a forgery.

As to the CIA OBL connection let's take a look at what a reputable source has to say:

Bergen: Bin Laden, CIA links hogwash

POSTED: 12:57 p.m. EDT, September 6, 2006

The story about bin Laden and the CIA -- that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden -- is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.

The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.

CNN.com - Bergen: Bin Laden, CIA links hogwash - Aug 24, 2006

Don’t you think that foreign insurgency is dependent on local populations attitude towards them and that Shi’a hostility would be more dangerous to them than to the occupation force?

No I don't, it is advantageous to the foreign inurgency to play the Sunni's and the Shia off of one another, it causes havok and confusion and gives the foreign insurgency (as well as the domestic Sunni insurgency) free reign to attack U.S. forces it also gives them the benefit of the American populace getting frustrated, saying this is an unwinnable civil war, and that we should pull out. That's their whole damn game plan, but I do so love how you blame everything under the sun including 9-11 on the U.S..

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Well, which number have they reported? If it was the 650,000 then one must consider that the iraqi government announced two weekends ago that the count was 150,000. Keep in mind that the Iraqi count is much higher than the American count.

There is a lot of lying going on and the anti-war voice will always choose to believe the worst one.

Do you have any proof that the study is a lie? Because as to my understanding there have been no scientific debunking of that studies credibility. That at the same time it’s been published in a peer review journal. Also remember that there result was 650000 deaths in total (civilians, military and “terrorist”) +/- 150000. That yes you can belive the result to be to high and wrong and I’m also skeptical of the result but it silly to just call a scientific research a lie just becuase you don't belive in the finding. Do some more search and try to find scientific critics ecpecially claiming that they have manipulated there methodology if you want to prove it as a lie.

Middle Eastern Radical Islam is the immediate threat. Not poor people in Burma and North Chorea.

Well you I think (but I could of course be wrong) and also other pro war people have pointed to the humanistic reason of going to Iraq. Then it could be intersting to point out what other countries people is in more need of assistance. And Burma compared to what Iraq had actually has a democratic elected government in exile. The security need for going to Burma can be discussed but still are there. Like for example having a big civilwar (that it can be in Burma in the future) in an area between the two emerging powers of the future China and India doesn’t seem very safe. Also remember that drugs directly and indirectly have killed more people in Europe and USA thien radical Islam and that Burma is one of the largest distrubitors of drugs. Also I hope you didn't mean that North Corea is not an immediate threath. Also it is very debatle if Iraq war is a good way to fight radical Islam. Because you have even your own intelligence rapport saying that the result is the opposite.

The name of the organization is Iraq Body Count so their background is in doing body counts for Iraq, but they were quoting the UNDP's (United Nations Development Project's) ILCS (Iraqi Living Conditions Survey) which used a similar methodology to the Lancet survey only with a larger and better distributed population sample. Quite frankly sir the general consensus from just about everyone is that the study is a joke.

Well if the general consensus is that the study is a joke, why is it hard to find scientific sources disproving it? Also do you have any proof that the study had a small and to bad distrubition population sample because just that another study have more and better metodigical data doesn't disculify another study? That yes I also sceptical to the report result but I havn't seen any proof that it's a joke.

 

[MSgt]

Do you have any proof that the study is a lie? Because as to my understanding there have been no scientific debunking of that studies credibility. That at the same time it’s been published in a peer review journal. Also remember that there result was 650000 deaths in total (civilians, military and “terrorist”) +/- 150000. That yes you can belive the result to be to high and wrong and I’m also skeptical of the result but it silly to just call a scientific research a lie just becuase you don't belive in the finding. Do some more search and try to find scientific critics ecpecially claiming that they have manipulated there methodology if you want to prove it as a lie.

Are you kidding? I don't have to prove anything. It's obvious. "650,000" as a "scientific" number is even dismissed by the American media. Even the Iraqi government came out with a number 500,000 less and they used the "scientific" method of counting bodies. To use your own words...prove that the scientific studies of "150,000" aren't a lie. For 650,000 dead bodies to have been accumulated over the past three years is rediculous. Do you know what the streets would look like? The point, as I stated earlier, is that anti-war voices will always choose the highest number. It is merely an exploitation of the facts and it is an insult to those that have actually died.

Maybe some experts in this field may be of some help towards a little honesty....


Robert Blendon, director of the Harvard Program on Public Opinion and Health and Social Policy said the number of deaths in the families interviewed — 547 in the post-invasion period versus 82 in a similar period before the invasion — was too few to extrapolate up to more than 600,000 deaths across the country. Donald Berry, chairman of biostatistics at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, was even more troubled by the study, which he said had “a tone of accuracy that’s just inappropriate.”

Without demographic information to assure a representative sample, there is no way anyone can prove--or disprove--that the estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths is accurate.

'Aqoul: Iraq the Mortal: Lancet reports 800 gazillion slain

Well you I think (but I could of course be wrong) and also other pro war people have pointed to the humanistic reason of going to Iraq. Then it could be intersting to point out what other countries people is in more need of assistance. And Burma compared to what Iraq had actually has a democratic elected government in exile. The security need for going to Burma can be discussed but still are there. Like for example having a big civilwar (that it can be in Burma in the future) in an area between the two emerging powers of the future China and India doesn’t seem very safe. Also remember that drugs directly and indirectly have killed more people in Europe and USA thien radical Islam and that Burma is one of the largest distrubitors of drugs. Also I hope you didn't mean that North Corea is not an immediate threath.

Again....Radical Islam is the threat. Not poor people somewhere else. The humanistic aspect of Iraq involves an entire region of social disaster that breeds religious terrorism. I am not aware of drug dealers dropping airplanes in New York City, continually attacking across the Israeli border, bombing subways in London, bombing busses in Spain, bombing hotels in Jordan, bombing discos in Bali, slaughtering millions in Sudan, ethnic cleansing across Africa, etc.

According to your logic, we should let the world rot and focus on driving. I believe vehicle accidents have killed more Americans than religious terrorists.

Also it is very debatle if Iraq war is a good way to fight radical Islam. Because you have even your own intelligence rapport saying that the result is the opposite.

We have intel reports that say all types of things. One needs to understand our intelligencia. They will always forecast failure and produce present day reports. They do this because it is always easier and safer to forecast failure. We even had an intel report state that Afghanistan forces would never be defeated in 2001, because they with stood the Soviets. Rubbish. They fell in a couple weeks.

Our intelligencia got into a bad habit a couple decades ago and forgot that they are supposed to "predict," not look for ways to play it safe.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Well if the general consensus is that the study is a joke, why is it hard to find scientific sources disproving it?

The Iraqi Living Conditions Study conducted by the UNDP disproves it.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Are you kidding? I don't have to prove anything. It's obvious. "650,000" as a "scientific" number is even dismissed by the American media. Even the Iraqi government came out with a number 500,000 less and they used the "scientific" method of counting bodies. To use your own words...prove that the scientific studies of "150,000" aren't a lie. For 650,000 dead bodies to have been accumulated over the past three years is rediculous. Do you know what the streets would look like? The point, as I stated earlier, is that anti-war voices will always choose the highest number. It is merely an exploitation of the facts and it is an insult to those that have actually died.

Just tried to have a serius debate, there are wondered how you could use the word lie? I have only to this point see you trie to prove that the result of the studies is wrong and yes I can agree with you that even the lower number 400000 seems to be high.

But yes finally you got some serius sources and yes they came to some intresting inputs to that could be wrong with the studies. But it seems more to do with faulty methodology then deceptions:

Maybe some experts in this field may be of some help towards a little honesty....


Robert Blendon, director of the Harvard Program on Public Opinion and Health and Social Policy said the number of deaths in the families interviewed — 547 in the post-invasion period versus 82 in a similar period before the invasion — was too few to extrapolate up to more than 600,000 deaths across the country. Donald Berry, chairman of biostatistics at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, was even more troubled by the study, which he said had “a tone of accuracy that’s just inappropriate.”

Without demographic information to assure a representative sample, there is no way anyone can prove--or disprove--that the estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths is accurate.

'Aqoul: Iraq the Mortal: Lancet reports 800 gazillion slain

Again....Radical Islam is the threat. Not poor people somewhere else. The humanistic aspect of Iraq involves an entire region of social disaster that breeds religious terrorism. I am not aware of drug dealers dropping airplanes in New York City, continually attacking across the Israeli border, bombing subways in London, bombing busses in Spain, bombing hotels in Jordan, bombing discos in Bali, slaughtering millions in Sudan, ethnic cleansing across Africa, etc.

According to your logic, we should let the world rot and focus on driving. I believe vehicle accidents have killed more Americans than religious terrorists.

Yes radical terrorism is of course is bad and of course it should be fought. But violence is not always the solution and you can't accept all wars in the name of fightin radical Islam. Also it could be good to put in perspective that during the last hundred years much more people got killed because of christian and seculare belifes then Islamic.

No my point was that it was several reasons why not go into Iraq. That doesn't of course that it's need to for miliatary action. As you now European counties for example is involved in many conflicts and humanitarian missions like Kosovo, Kongo, Afganisthan etc. Just that most European stayed out of Iraq war that of many reasons seems to be bad decision.

 

[arussian]

This is how much I care about the opinions of the hypocritical so called "world community" ................ ya not a whole lot, we're a damned if we do damned if we don't nation if we don't engage in interventionalist wars we are accused of support for tyranny and when we do engage we are accused of imperialism.

Yes it is obvious that neither you, nor decisive persons very high in Bush administration care about the image of USA in the world. My pro-American part (that makes me to contribute occasionally to this forum) is in deep depression because of it, while anti-American laughs.

Then you must be blind because the entire ****ing corner of the building is gone.

And you must be... not thinking while writing because if the corner was damaged the collapse would first happen to its side and not to the middle of the building!
It's so f.... obvious!

WTC Buildings 3 and 6 were totally wiped out and building 5 was devestated as is evidenced from this aireal photograph:

Of course they were not, except WTC 3.erial photograph you've provided doesn't lets it to estimate the heights of the remained buildings. Here is the official information on the status of buildings.

CNN.com In-Depth Specials

WTC ##4,5,6 said are "in danger of collapse", Verizon building is close to the WTC7 and is not more distant from WTC1 than the latter, but it was said to have "major structural damage".

LMFAO, so you're saying that a 10-story gash on the south facade, extending a third across the face of the building and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior combined with a raging inferno couldn't bring down a building which was designed in such a way that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space?

To bring it down in the way of controlled demolition? Never!
Collapse would have been partial in the areas of damage and not the uniformal one at once by all sides! Several floors could fall, but the last of a building will stay. Floors cannot pull down columns those are designed to carry 4 weights of the whole of such floors above. Floors breaks first somewhere in the area of one column that is falling and the other one that is standing! Never seen fallen houses, I wonder?
Is it so damned impossible to understand such a simple thing?

Guys are frankly saying that they propose hypothesis, and if you’d bother reading the original text you’d see that this hypothesis are not tested even theoretically in this report.

So you've read the report have you? That's cool because it hasn't been released yet that info was gleemed from a press release.

I've read report the wikipedia article to which you've linked was basing on.
FEMA403 chapter5.

No I believe scholarly reports over conspiracy websites.

Not a single report you've linked to never pretended to build the model of the process only vague ideas of how it would if it only could. I'vee read them all, what do you think and discussed them in the "9-11 was inside job" thread where it is by the way, I wonder?

All 16 members of the intelligence community concluded with high confidence in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that Saddam possessed and was expanding his WMD programs. The international community agreed as is evidenced by resolution 1441.

So they were mistaken?

Why don't you just say what you really mean?

What?!?!?! You know my thoughts, or Wolfowitz does!?!? My tin foil head is useless against your thought-scanning machine! Oh what shall I do!?
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
By the way, Cheney is jew?! Oh, who could expect. Thank you for telling this, bro, I was unaware!:mrgreen:
(hope you understand that the latter was a joke?)
But speaking seriously Trajan you are biased as hell. Good chances to be a champion in biased speeches!
Several days earlier in this thread you've called a joke the survey that was carried on 100.000 Iraqi sample. 100.000! Polls are conducted on 2.000 and accurate usually at 2-3%!
It is very representive and at the same time you trust some papers with hypothesis, that you obviously don't bother reading.

There were plenty of conspiracy theories put out there against Bill Clinton, from the death of Vince Foster to him supporting AQ in Kosovo, but just like now it's just more anti-American bullshit propaganda and you're buying it hook line and sinker, and I'm not suprised after all once a Red always a Red.

I doubt that I've seen a true Red, but those whom I've seen were resembling you and your neocon teachers. They've also saw enemies everywere and thought that military force is the most important thing while image of a state in the world is nothing.

You have no evidence what so ever that OBL was a CIA asset your sources boil down to far left or conspiracy websites, and analysts have concluded that the Zarqawi letter was not a forgery.

As to the CIA OBL connection let's take a look at what a reputable source has to say:

Apparently, you can figure out my attitude to it so there is no need to bother writing. Actually, I've said that consider important and lost plenty of time, while it is already damned late here. Bye.