--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Acid:
How old is Kerry?

---

December 11, 1943 was Kerry's birthday, so he's kinda old.

Bush was born on July 6,1946, so he's not too much younger than Kerry. I'm not sure why it would matter,though.

[ 09-05-2004: Message edited by: Wintermute ]

--------------------

[ 09-05-2004: Message edited by: Wintermute ]

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Acid:
Seriously, its old dude. Go make love with Moore.

---

Michael Moore was born on April 23, 1954 You probably knew that, though.

--------------------

Go on, have a try. It's not that difficult, I noticed many BS numbers there myself. But that list is very, very long...

Makes me wonder why these people aren't in jail yet, or overthrown.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by FS:
Wow, I can't believe I'm agreeing with FS on this one

---

--------------------

--------------------

For insatance, this one: "0 Number of times Bush mentioned Osama bin Laden in his three State of the Union addresses." He did mention terrorism, the WOT, and IIRC, al Qaeda. The networked structure of the terrorist groups is such that a single leader is insignificant. Bin Laden could very well be dead and it wouldn't matter. IF our mission in the WOT were to kill the "leader" of the terrorists, it would be complete futility. His statements on in the state of the union reflect that fact. We need to fight and destroy the organizations seeking to do us harm. Not just their mouthpieces.

Most of the items presented there are similarly dubious. I could probably write a page on each one, but I don't think it should be necessary and I don't really care to spend so much time on it.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by WillyTrombone:
I didn't read the whole list. I saw the first few dozen items and...

Most of the items presented there are similarly dubious. I could probably write a page on each one...

---

You saw the first few dozen items, but later go on to state that most of the items presented were dubious. How would you know if most of them were similarly dubious if you only saw 24 or so?

In response to your assertion that one single leader is insignificant, I would have to disagree. Consider Osama Bin Ladens very special CIA training, his money ties, and the influence his name holds in Central Asia and the Arab world. Sure, there will always be well trained operatives to take his place. There will always be funding for their terrorist activities, but to say that the leader is insignificant is overstatement or perhaps a misunderestimation. If individuals were insignificant to the Al Qaeda operation, than I doubt we would have spent so much effort trying to retrieve Osama Bin Laden, and subsequently Saddam Hussein. Single operatives or alleged financial contributors such as Bin Laden and Saddam are
important to the network, and the actions of this administration reflect this opinion.

That was just one number, though. You can draw some pretty specific conclusions about Bush, his team, and his policies and attitudes from just single numbers, but the more numbers you put together, the fuller the picture becomes. For instance, some of those numbers make it pretty clear that Bush is pro business to the detriment of the environment, and at the very least to the exclusion of scientific opinion and world opinion. You can plainly see his questionable relationship with corrupt corporate types as well as Saudi Arabia even after 9/11 despite the fact that much if not most of the funding for 9/11 is purported to have come from Saudi Arabia. There's so much more there, and I could probably write a book on each number, but I as well don't have the time or inclination. I'll stick to posting.

--------------------

so yeah, I read a few of them, then my bullshit detector went off, and instead of wasting an hour reading and considering each one, I found something meaningful to do with my time.

[ 09-05-2004: Message edited by: WillyTrombone ]

--------------------

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by WillyTrombone:
If the CIA had killed OBL a month after his training, it would have been worthwhile. But it's totally naive to think that in somewhere around 20 years, he has not trained others on the same material that the CIA trained him. In fact, I don't know if you saw the news at any point during the Aghanistan operation, but there were entire camps training several hundred people in clandestine warfare at any given time.

so yeah, I read a few of them, then my bullshit detector went off, and instead of wasting an hour reading and considering each one, I found something meaningful to do with my time.

[ 09-05-2004: Message edited by: WillyTrombone ]

---

I think your bs detector may be setting itself off. There is nothing wrong with the items listed. They are merely numbers. What is made of them is completely up to you and me. You've read 2 dozen and shut down, and what for? You are a Bush person, and didn't like what the data seemed to indicate to you. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you haven't even taken the 5 minutes it would take to read this page. You've read around 10% of the data by my estimate.

Out of the part you did read, you chose what I would consider an insignificant if not weak angle on which to attack the whole of the data. There's obvious bias, prejudice, and intellectual dishonesty in your response as far as it relates to the integrity and its possible interpretation of the data presented.

Anyway, I will concede that it is possible that Osama is replaceable. There are no doubt others as equally capable as he to lead Al Qaeda. However, I believe that besides his unique training and style, his name alone has a mystique and property that gives Al Qaeda something to rally around and draw morale from. There is also a certain sense of solidarity that Al Qaeda no doubt gets from knowing their leader is Osama, the man himself.

Acid - I never said Al Qaeda would collapse or cease to function were Osama to be removed. As we know, when a president is removed from office whether by vote or assassination, our country keeps going, but the way that it functions may be very different depending on the President's policies, etc. Case in point, George W. Bush administration vs. the Clinton administration, or go even further back to an older president where the difference is no doubt going to be greater. Our country subtly changes in some ways and can also greatly change in other ways depending on what leader it has. So, to say that the difference between Osama's Al Qaeda and an Al Qaeda under different leadership is insignificant is to make a claim contrary to history and common sense.

--------------------

Acid - You and even Willy may have thought the information was boring, but that is not about common sense. That is purely your opinion. Also the analogy of 3 chapters in a book to one web page of approximately 200 numbers that would have taken 5 minutes to read is not a particularly good analogy. I might point out using your analogy that you wouldn't make comments as to the content of the whole book after only reading 3 chapters. While I value your right to your opinion, I don't much care for what your opinion is of what someone else's opinion might be. Willy seems quite capable of speaking for himself.

[ 09-06-2004: Message edited by: Wintermute ]

--------------------

lol

go re-read what you posted about now, just to make sure

edit- the 3 chapters was in comparison to reading the whole book, as he only read the first few items and not the entire list.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wintermute:
You've read 2 dozen and shut down, and what for? You are a Bush person, and didn't like what the data seemed to indicate to you.

---

quote:

---

There's obvious bias, prejudice, and intellectual dishonesty in your response as far as it relates to the integrity and its possible interpretation of the data presented.

---

I disagree. There is contempt for the posted "facts" in my response, but that contempt is in response to the intellectual dishonesty and purposeful misdirection written into the presentation of the data.

[/quote]There are no doubt others as equally capable as he to lead Al Qaeda. [/quote]And I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you're just missing the boat here. A networked system does not have and does not require a leader. There is no central strategy. The lack of a hierchical organization makes it nearly impossible to stamp out, and that is why they have adopted that style. I suggest you research CIA manuals on networked cells for clandestine operations. They are available on the internet and morethan adequately illustrate the point I'm trying to make.

--------------------

--------------------

Sure pick on one or two facts you don't like and ignore the rest.

Wake up and smell the oil.

--------------------

--------------------

--------------------

--------------------

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/atrios/bushlove.wmv

--------------------

--------------------