DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on October 14, 2011, 11:48:40 AM
-
President Hypocrite, who doesn't hesitate to assassinate even his own citizens anywhere on earth, is upset at a phony plot, allegedly by Iran to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the US, and is demanding "punitive action" against Iran. Well, maybe it really IS just a fake exercise to take the spotlight off the Occupy Wall Street! uprising. A new little war ought to be a good distraction. It'll only cost a few trillion bucks a a couple million lives, so what the hell, anything's possible.
-
And you know its a phony plot because..........Iran said so?
-
And also because even the U.S. government admitted it had no direct evidence of Iranian government involvement. I posted the source in another thread, "Iran Rattles Sword at Boy Wonder."
-
Meaning they had no memo from the President Iran that said, assassinate the Ambassador? You'll give us an example of when, in modern time, such "direct" evidence was ever provided. 99.9% of the time, its indirect evidence. But by all means, you can continue to opine its phony, with no shred of "direct" evidence, of course, but yours and Iran's say so
-
I do not think that at this point, enough facts are known to claim that the Iranians clearly sponsored an assassination plot or are entirely innocent. I hardly think that the Administration would publicly announce a plot out of the blue, and there are certainly parts of the Iranian government that would support such a plot.
All we can really say at this point, is that it is a good thing that the plot did not result in any assassinations.
-
So, not enough facts to claim "phony" then
-
Something obviously happened. I really doubt that anyone would make the whole thing up.
We do not know what happened, and until we do, it is all speculation.
-
Precisly. Which is why its ludicrous to jump to the conclusion of "phony plot"
-
Phony because the US government has a long and disgraceful history of inventing outrageous lies to justify its aggressions against other countries -
- the lies of the Tonkin Gulf to justify the invasion of Viet Nam
- the lies (and faked satellite photos) of Iraqi troops "massing on the borders of Saudi Arabia" to justify Gulf War 1
- the lies of weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq
It was only natural to assume that the next reason for the next war would be more lies and bullshit from the world's only terrorist superpower.
-
So, as I said, no facts that back up your allegation. Merely selected excerpts from history, even trying to bring back....well, we won't go there, since you might have a hissy fit. Suffice to say, your references have zero connection to current history or administration, and merely the word of Iran. Even Xo isn't biting
-
I think they're lying, XO thinks they might not be lying. Time will tell which of us is right, though XO hedged his bet so he can't lose. I'm not losing any sleep over it - - if they're caught lying, it sure as hell won't be the first time. Probably not even the thousandth time.
-
Considering that Obama knew about the plot in June, and the story broke in October, I'm not sure how serious the plot was.
-
I said that Xo wasn't biting with your phony conclusion, Tee. I never said he agreed with me. And best not enter the "L-word". Couldn't help but notice who seemed to bring that up already
-
I said that Xo wasn't biting with your phony conclusion, Tee. I never said he agreed with me. And best not enter the "L-word". Couldn't help but notice who seemed to bring that up already
Why shouldn't Mikey say the administration is lying if he thinks they are?
-
Never said he couldn't. I'm pointing out he has no facts to support that conclusion. Where do you get off claiming I think he shouldn't be able to say......anything??
The "L-word" was me mistakingly thinking it was in reference to me. My bad
-
Time will tell which of us is right, though XO hedged his bet so he can't lose.
========================================================
I am not betting.
Nor do I consider this to be any sort of competition. It is not about winning or losing for me.
There are no prizes.
I just do not know. There appears to be smoke, there could be fire, and there is clearly secrecy involved.
No ambassadors were assassinated. That is a good thing.
-
Where do you get off claiming I think he shouldn't be able to say......anything??
Your warning about using the L word. and your admission after my post that you erroneously assumed he was referring to you concerning prevarication. Not sure how you got that when it was OBVIOUS he was referring to President Hypocrite.
-
Hopefully then, now that we're both enlightened, that you'll grasp, that I'd never say to anyone that they can't say X, about anyone or anything else.
-
So your warning about using the L word was non specific.
Ok if you say so.
-
No, but twist it anyway you wish
-
I think i'll let sleeping dogs lay.
You admitted the warning was in error, a mistaken reading of what Mikey was saying and to whom he was referring.
-
In other words, hardly non-specific
-
No you were just wrong in issuing the warning.
-
So much for letting sleeping dogs lie, and again hardly non-specific.
-
The above is why discussing anything with sirs is a total waste of time. All discussions end in some silly and obscure nonsense that has nothing to do with anything
-
<<I am not betting.>>
Of course not. I was using "hedging the bet" as a metaphor to indicate that you weren't committed to either possibility while I was favouring the possibility of the administration's story just being one more lie to justify one more aggression. Bad metaphor, I guess, because even a hedged bet is still a bet, which is different from any kind of commitment, however loose, to one side. Sloppy phrasing. Sorry that I inadvertently misrepresented your position.
-
The US administration and the CIA have clearly lied about all sorts of things in the past.
The President has only secondhand information in any case.
On the other hand, the Iranian government are also noted liars.
So one or both sides are lying about this.
Information is classified and certainly not thorough. Some day we may know what the truth is, but not now.
-
The above is why discussing anything with sirs is a total waste of time. All discussions end in some silly and obscure nonsense that has nothing to do with anything
And yet you continue to respond with typical rhetorical bisquick, devoid of any substance to the debate at hand. Are you a masochist? Your beef, I'm afraid, is with Bt apparently, since he's the one that brought up sleeping dogs and non-specific references
-
And yet it was you who pulled a Carly Simon on us thinking Mikey's post was about you, forcing you to issue your famous specific L word warning, which later you admitted your were woefully wrong in doing.
-
More silly and useless blather from sirs. He is surely loaded with the stuff.
-
And yet it was you who pulled a Carly Simon on us thinking Mikey's post was about you, forcing you to issue your famous specific L word warning, which later you admitted your were woefully wrong in doing.
LOL, nice spin. I think I already conceded the error, immediately on its discovery, and moved on. You and Xo seem to be on the same mission of bringing it up over and over, with no relevence what-so-ever. One can only wonder why, and the boredom factor for everyone else to be stuck watching
-
You have never conceded one damned thing, sirs.
But you do up the boredom factor.
-
You have never conceded one damned thing, sirs.
Do you enjoy being wrong (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15953.msg131613#msg131613) so often?
-
Being wrong about you being a contentious, unintelligent bore?
No, I am right about that.
-
Yea, wrong about that too, even though that's not what you claimed "You have never conceded one damned thing, sirs" before