View Poll Results: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

Voters
64. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes we will see them and they are justified.

    5 7.81%
  • Yes we will see them but they will not be justified.

    4 6.25%
  • No we will not see them but they would have been justified.

    21 32.81%
  • No we will not see them and they would not have been justified.

    34 53.13%
Page 21 of 29 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 285

Thread: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

  1. #201
    Guru
    ADK_Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    05-07-11 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,706

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    What I'm saying is that international law is irrelevent to U.S. constitutional affairs because we cannot sign away american sovreignity,
    We are a signator of the Geneva Convention and a member of the world community. If a court, that the U.S. and SCOTUS agree has standing, brings indictments against Bush, and any of his cronies, then you can rest assured the USA will hand him over for prosecution.

    And that will be a sad but, righteous day.
    Last edited by ADK_Forever; 01-02-09 at 09:14 AM.
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  2. #202
    Another day in paradise..
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    68,026

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    We are a signator of the Geneva Convention and a member of the world community. If a court, that the U.S. and SCOTUS agree has standing, brings indictments against Bush, and any of his cronies, then you can rest assured the USA will hand him over for prosecution.

    And that will be a sad but, righteous day.



    nonsense, keep dreaming.....


    Matthew 10:34
    Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

  3. #203
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    nonsense, keep dreaming.....
    Exactly, the poster conveniently ignored the constitutional and contract law examples I generously stated earlier about why the postition of international law is untenable, any opinion to the opposite is simply that, an opinion.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  4. #204
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    Have you taken a gander at his approval ratings lately?
    Approval ratings versus your claim that "most americans think he is a traitor", I would love to see your logical process on this one.



    Hell-LOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW! How long have you been in that cave? What difference does it make if some people think more of Bush than someone else? What matters is what they think of Bush! That right wing tactic of switching the argument won't hold any water.
    The difference is YOU are trying to make the logical leap that low approval ratings = "Most Americans think Bush is a traitor" I am pointing out that the Democrat led bi-cameral house of Congress has a lower approval rating than the president, does that.....follow with me.......by your logic mean that "Most Americans think that the Democrat congress are traitors"? Where is this scientific poll that states "most Americans think Bush is a traitor"? What's the criteria? Margin of error? Polling group? Group doing the research? If you don't have that, then "Most Americans think Bush is a traitor" is YOUR opinion, and YOU are trying to assert that it is a shared one.



    You'll forgive me if I don't take Gobieman's word on this issue. Bush ordered Cheney and Rove to disclose the identity of an undercover CIA agent. No matter your party, that should be important to you. Bush ordered torture to be used against prisoners. Torture that people from other countries were convicted of using.
    Okay, it was Richard Armitage that leaked the source, "Valerie Plame" was NOT under covert status at the time, that's all been settled.



    Bush and Cheney lied to the world about what so-called proof they used to validate invading Iraq. He blamed Britain's intelligence doc which has been proven to be based on forged documents. AND there is talk that Cheney is the one behind that forged document. Oh if only they could prove that one!
    They didn't lie, the info was possibly bad, the buildup of military force allowed for a timeframe for weapons removal, which is speculation admittedly, the "forged documents" is bogus, already been proven, nice try though.



    GySgt provided history. It, however had nothing to do with why Bush invaded Iraq. What happen ten years ago doesn't matter when you're talking about invading an innocent country anticipating killing thousands of people! What is important is what is true at the time! And "at the time" Bush and Cheney and Rummy KNEW Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMDs. Got it, yet? To believe that right wing fairy tale is to swallow Bush and Cheney's lies, hook, line and sinker. Wake up and read what they actually did.
    So, you are saying that you know more than someone who has served in theater and is privvy to the information now? You are seriously losing all credibility in this one. C-YA.





    What is way past ridiculous is people like you defending the crimes this President has committed. If Clinton had done these despicable acts the neo-cons and right-wingers would have been all over him. And I would be right there with them! Party loyalty has its limits. And committing treason is way past any loyalty line.
    There are no crimes, get of the kool-aid for a second and use some logic.
    Even Bush 41 thinks his son is a traitor! As a former head of the CIA he knows how serious such a crime is.[/COLOR][/B]
    YouTube - Bush 41 on Traitors
    Yeah, cause a video on youtube could NEVER be edited right?
    Last edited by LaMidRighter; 01-02-09 at 12:12 PM.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  5. #205
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    [QUOTE=LaMidRighter;1057868713]
    There are no crimes, get of the kool-aid for a second and use some logic.
    Yeah, cause a video on youtube could NEVER be edited right?
    One last thing, That video was probably pre-judgement on the "Valerie Plame" case, when it was unknown whether her status was covert or not, she was not covert BTW, AND, where did that video state anything about GWB, I know though, your inferrence that the president and vice president should be enough in your mind to tie in the traitor speech of G.H.W.B. because we just don't get the "subtlety" of the speech right? This is a weak attempt from you an all fronts, ya gotta do better than that.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  6. #206
    King of Videos
    dirtpoorchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    WA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,554

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by MachuPicchu View Post
    There is nothing inherent about war crime prosecutions that state they can only happen after a government is overturned.

    It just so happens that in the past, the only way to bring to light war crimes is by toppling the government who manipulates public opinion. That is no longer the case with the free flow of information due to the advent of the internet. The media still holds significant sway in terms of public opinion, but things can no longer be ignored as blogging and less prevalent journalism has a medium to inform the public.
    Summary of Findings: Internet Overtakes Newspapers As News Source
    And that means it's time to expect internet control soon.
    Is society was made of coral our world would be floral.

  7. #207
    Guru
    ADK_Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    05-07-11 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,706

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    They didn't lie, the info was possibly bad, the buildup of military force allowed for a timeframe for weapons removal, which is speculation admittedly, the "forged documents" is bogus, already been proven, nice try though.
    They lied through their teeth.

    Why do you think Cheney was so mad at Wilson for exposing the White house's lies to go to war?

    The forged document was simply an excuse to blame it all on Britain's intel.

    So, you are saying that you know more than someone who has served in theater and is privvy to the information now?
    What does "serving in theater" have to do with knowing the facts leading up to war? The military would be one of the last groups to find out the truth why they're in a war. They don't have the free will to make judgements as to why they're at war. They simply follow orders in good faith that their President is acting in good faith. THEY should be more inquisitive about the truth and THEY should be the angriest at the truth. If they choose to not look for the truth, that to me is akin to the ostrich hiding its head in the sand. GySgt's "history" is just that. He avoided the real reasons and the time immediately prior to Bush's lying to Congress and the American people.

    There are no crimes
    Then why did Bush insert into a bill attempting to give immunity to his entire staff against prosecution for the war crime of torture? If there was no crime, what would he and his gang need immunity from?

    Here's a bone to chew on...

    George Bush Leaks identity of CIA agent according to Scooter Libby: YouTube - George Bush Leaks identity of CIA agent
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  8. #208
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 01:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    [QUOTE=LaMidRighter;1057868381]
    And that would matter only if they committed war crimes, which most of them have not done since international law doesn't apply to U.S. war powers in this case.
    Actually, even US law prohibits torture, to give an example.

    What attrocities are you talking about specifically?
    I love how the Bush supporters LOVE to play dumb like this.... anytime a point is made it's just a matter of denying that anyone else had made that point previously.

    Wrong, because he is the commander in chief, but is not issuing direct orders.
    Not issuing direct orders, BUT DOES direct the policies for the subordinate commanders who 'trickle down' these policies into their orders.... and plus, there was a newscast shown previously where WHITEHOUSE PERSONEL (in Bush's cabinet) were shown to have been DISCUSSING SPECIFIC TORTURE, DURATION and TECHNIQUE of torture of SPECIFIC DETAINEEES IN THE WHITEHOUSE!!!

    ?????? If you are talking about defense spending you are absolutely incorrect, it's called the supply chain, every step in making any produced unit involves supplies including but not limited to finished goods(parts) made from raw materials, no one company is completely involved in the whole chain as a general rule, so every one unit arguably creates jobs at a 1:5 ratio, that's a lot of paychecks, the next argument is that those paychecks purchase other goods and services or are else invested or saved, creating more mobility of the money as lending or purchasing power. If this is what you are calling "trickle down" it does work, if you are simply blathering then that would explain why you are using that old "rich get richer......" argument.
    You're right, it's not 1 company that gets all the money, it's a small handful of companies, oil companies, arms dealers, military contractors (re:mercenaries).

    Yes, 'trickle down' does work... it ensures that the CEO's of various companies have their multimillion dollar bonuses intact while the average workers are paid enough for sustenance and sometimes a little extra. That 'rich get richer' argument is old because it is a truism. I mean just compare the prices of various things from the 1940's-50's compared with the EQUIVALENT products today and you will see an inflation rate in the 1000's of percent while the rates of pay have gone up in the hundreds of percent (150-250%)... add to the fact that there is many times more DEBT then there is currency in circulation.

    Yes, because people are trying to engineer the economy, which wrecks it, if you let the natural rules of economics take effect you wouldn't need external stimuli such as war, but as of right now we must fix what socialists have decimated, and unfortunately war is an easy sell when you have true evil in the world, such as Saddam, Osama, Milosevic, et. al.
    So, which is it?? Do we live in a 'free-market' or do we live in a 'trickle-down' economy?? You seem to be arguing for both sides of this?

    Yes, there is TRUE evil in the world... and while it may be 'socialists' that have wrecked the economy, it's not 'socialists' like you've mentioned that have caused this, but the 'socialists' within our own country included.

    It's more complex than "banks fail and down the economy", it has more to do with constantly supplementing earnings with goodies, coercion towards risky loans by government on banks, overinflated markets, lack of a hard money standard, overly complex economic theories that don't work replacing the common sense of free-market economics, and an overall "gimme" attitude within our generation.
    - constantly supplementing earnings with goodies, I agree.
    - coercion towards risky loans, while this 'coercion' is a factor, the banks took it a step further and HEAVILY ADVERTISED these risky loans arguably KNOWING that this would eventually come back to 'bite them' (unless the goal is to impoverish america)
    - overinflated markets, this issue boils down to fraud on a company by company basis, where companies might play with the numbers in order to maximize tax deductions or various other reasons slowly building up a house of cards that eventually crumbles when the truth of the company finances are forced to come out.
    - a free-market system rather than the 'complex theories', I would agree except that we aren't really in a 'free market', make the distinction the market has a lot of 'freedoms' but we end up with 6 big media companies controlling over 90% of the media, a small handful of large auto-manufacturers accounting for the VAST MAJORITY of car sales, or like in Canada where there is a 'free choice' of 3 or 4 cell phone companies, a free market in software where the choice is Windows, Mac or linux, a free market in soft drinks where the choice is always coke, pepsi or imitation.
    - the 'gimme' attitude, I agree with that as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    Have you taken a gander at his approval ratings lately?
    Last I saw was a 20% or less approuval... too bad there isn't really a 'vote of no confidence' in the president.

    You'll forgive me if I don't take Gobieman's word on this issue. Bush ordered Cheney and Rove to disclose the identity of an undercover CIA agent. No matter your party, that should be important to you. Bush ordered torture to be used against prisoners. Torture that people from other countries were convicted of using.
    Don't forget that Bush could admit to sustaining himself by eating 3 babies a day and still some would jump to his defense and say that 'he only eats terrorist babies'...

    GySgt provided history. It, however had nothing to do with why Bush invaded Iraq. What happen ten years ago doesn't matter when you're talking about invading an innocent country anticipating killing thousands of people! What is important is what is true at the time! And "at the time" Bush and Cheney and Rummy KNEW Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMDs. Got it, yet? To believe that right wing fairy tale is to swallow Bush and Cheney's lies, hook, line and sinker. Wake up and read what they actually did.
    Add the distinction : They did NOT SAY that there was a connection, BUT they HEAVILY associated 9-11 and Saddam hussein while presenting the case for war.

    [QUOTE=LaMidRighter;1057868713]
    Approval ratings versus your claim that "most americans think he is a traitor", I would love to see your logical process on this one.
    The last CNN poll I had seen on the issue found that app. 80% of americans felt lied to on Iraq, about the same number that feels that 9-11 was at the least 'ALLOWED to happen' if not 'orchestrated by' the US.

    They didn't lie, the info was possibly bad, the buildup of military force allowed for a timeframe for weapons removal, which is speculation admittedly, the "forged documents" is bogus, already been proven, nice try though.
    It's bogus because someone in the Bush administration 'debunked it'... the same person that 'debunked' the downing street memo'...

    Look, it's only been 'debunked' if you use the definition of debunked as being 'I have a different opinion therefore YOU are wrong.'

    There are no crimes, get of the kool-aid for a second and use some logic.
    Yeah, cause a video on youtube could NEVER be edited right?
    LMAO... I love that defense... like on the issue of 9-11 what are you basing this assertion of edited videos?? Are you an expert in the field and have evidence that the video was modified? or are you on a 'debunking' spree??

    So, show us the evidence to back up your claim, the original video side by-side with the 'edited' one...

    Gotta love neo-con supporters defending an issue... if it's a valid point 'it never happened', was 'debunked' or 'does not apply'.

  9. #209
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    They lied through their teeth.
    BULL **** You have no proof and THERE ARE NO PERJURY CHARGES FILED or CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS Until that happens you are in fact slandering the president by constantly asserting he lied without proof AND committing libel. In case you don't know those definitions, they are spoken and written defamation of another, that means you are spreading falsehoods, if you can prove yourself even half correct, I will apologize, until then quit with the "Bush lied" garbage, it makes you look silly.
    Why do you think Cheney was so mad at Wilson for exposing the White house's lies to go to war?
    Jesus ****ing christ, your side already got shot down on this, Joe Wilson basically came out with two different stories under two different administrations, if you wanna be pissed about lying, be pissed at him.

    The forged document was simply an excuse to blame it all on Britain's intel.
    Again, the "forged document" is a debunked myth.



    What does "serving in theater" have to do with knowing the facts leading up to war? The military would be one of the last groups to find out the truth why they're in a war.
    You don't have to serve in theater to know what's happening, but I know many people who have and their unclassified personal accounts match our resident G.S, not yours, your accounts match those of the kooks that constantly spread mis-information to people like......well.....you, who do YOU think is going to be more accurate
    They don't have the free will to make judgements as to why they're at war. They simply follow orders in good faith that their President is acting in good faith.
    Bull, they have plenty of time when off duty, it's not like they are being shot at 24/7.
    THEY should be more inquisitive about the truth and THEY should be the angriest at the truth. If they choose to not look for the truth, that to me is akin to the ostrich hiding its head in the sand. GySgt's "history" is just that. He avoided the real reasons and the time immediately prior to Bush's lying to Congress and the American people.
    Look in the MIRROR before you go spouting that off, you don't trust anyone with a differing opinion and it shows, I have seen you lose just about every debate because you go with emotion over logic to maintain this worldview you have, face it, you are wrong.


    Then why did Bush insert into a bill attempting to give immunity to his entire staff against prosecution for the war crime of torture? If there was no crime, what would he and his gang need immunity from?
    Does the term witchhunt mean anything to you? In other words, when the Democrats tried to re-define interrogation techniques as torture, then the president had to protect his people, don't be obtuse.
    Here's a bone to chew on...

    George Bush Leaks identity of CIA agent according to Scooter Libby: YouTube - George Bush Leaks identity of CIA agent
    And here's more egg on your face.
    YouTube - Richard Armitage Admits Plame Leak "Extraordinarily Foolish"
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  10. #210
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post

    Actually, even US law prohibits torture, to give an example.
    It prevents torture of U.S. citizens, and that actually came about because of court cases and an interpretation of standing principle to formulate more accurate due process laws, you are technically correct, but the wording of the constitution bans no such thing specifically. Point two is that torture is debateable, and, as I adressed to the other poster, people constantly tried to re-define torture v. interrogation throughout the whole war, so the argument's effectiveness is debateable when talking about U.S. law and invalid towards the Geneva conventions and nill on the need for an international tribunal.






    Not issuing direct orders, BUT DOES direct the policies for the subordinate commanders who 'trickle down' these policies into their orders.... and plus, there was a newscast shown previously where WHITEHOUSE PERSONEL (in Bush's cabinet) were shown to have been DISCUSSING SPECIFIC TORTURE, DURATION and TECHNIQUE of torture of SPECIFIC DETAINEEES IN THE WHITEHOUSE!!!
    Bush's personnel, okay, they were talking about interrogation techniques, again, how much context is provided in the video, and what are the rights under the constitution or geneva conventions for those caught as enemy combatants, they aren't members of any standing army, and they aren't technically citizens of any country, much less ours, so what protections are due them exactly?



    You're right, it's not 1 company that gets all the money, it's a small handful of companies, oil companies, arms dealers, military contractors (re:mercenaries).
    No, there is more to it, at the intial purchase then it is this "handful" of companies, but their employees go out and purchase, which requires another supply chain, which leads to those employees purchasing, and yet another supply chain is used......etc.......etc.

    Yes, 'trickle down' does work... it ensures that the CEO's of various companies have their multimillion dollar bonuses intact while the average workers are paid enough for sustenance and sometimes a little extra.
    Really, that's why I've never had a job with pay rate stagnation, I put out extra effort and it always comes back to me, maybe if people earned more they would get it.
    That 'rich get richer' argument is old because it is a truism.
    Maybe if someone is in a stagnant union contract are is willing to work for stagnant wages, not anyone else's fault but the individuals.
    I mean just compare the prices of various things from the 1940's-50's compared with the EQUIVALENT products today and you will see an inflation rate in the 1000's of percent while the rates of pay have gone up in the hundreds of percent (150-250%)... add to the fact that there is many times more DEBT then there is currency in circulation.
    Read the history behind that, here's the dirty secret, it involves the government and overregulation/taxation at all levels, and leaving the gold standard.


    So, which is it?? Do we live in a 'free-market' or do we live in a 'trickle-down' economy?? You seem to be arguing for both sides of this?
    They aren't mutually exclusive.

    Yes, there is TRUE evil in the world... and while it may be 'socialists' that have wrecked the economy, it's not 'socialists' like you've mentioned that have caused this, but the 'socialists' within our own country included.
    Yes, it is socialism that wrecked the economy, by slowing down the processes necessary for markets to correct, war jump starts economies like this, which is why they are so easy to get into, all you need is a bad guy. That doesn't invalidate our wars or reasons to get into them, but it just explains why they are easy to get into.



    - constantly supplementing earnings with goodies, I agree.
    Good, and correct
    - coercion towards risky loans, while this 'coercion' is a factor, the banks took it a step further and HEAVILY ADVERTISED these risky loans arguably KNOWING that this would eventually come back to 'bite them' (unless the goal is to impoverish america)
    Correct
    - overinflated markets, this issue boils down to fraud on a company by company basis, where companies might play with the numbers in order to maximize tax deductions or various other reasons slowly building up a house of cards that eventually crumbles when the truth of the company finances are forced to come out.
    Also correct
    - a free-market system rather than the 'complex theories', I would agree except that we aren't really in a 'free market', make the distinction the market has a lot of 'freedoms' but we end up with 6 big media companies controlling over 90% of the media, a small handful of large auto-manufacturers accounting for the VAST MAJORITY of car sales, or like in Canada where there is a 'free choice' of 3 or 4 cell phone companies, a free market in software where the choice is Windows, Mac or linux, a free market in soft drinks where the choice is always coke, pepsi or imitation.
    Good point, it boils down to the overregulation of corporations, I may have a better idea than the competition, but start behind the eight ball because I don't have the money to cover regulatory burdens, costs, and time losses necessary to the impending beauracracy that comes with it.
    - the 'gimme' attitude, I agree with that as well.
    We need to get rid of the mentality of automatic rights creation and get back to innovation, production, and investment.


    Last I saw was a 20% or less approuval... too bad there isn't really a 'vote of no confidence' in the president.
    We may see that within the next generation or so, I don't think the president gets more than a C- for his time in office, but think he takes crap for the wrong reasons and gets a pass on the things we should be questioning.



    Don't forget that Bush could admit to sustaining himself by eating 3 babies a day and still some would jump to his defense and say that 'he only eats terrorist babies'...
    Understood, I think we need to be fair and have some standard of criticism, instead of the current method of throwing out unsubstantiated opinion as fact.



    Add the distinction : They did NOT SAY that there was a connection, BUT they HEAVILY associated 9-11 and Saddam hussein while presenting the case for war.
    It's not an impossible stretch, Iraq and Al-Quaida did have a loose relationship, it's a judgement call.

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post

    The last CNN poll I had seen on the issue found that app. 80% of americans felt lied to on Iraq, about the same number that feels that 9-11 was at the least 'ALLOWED to happen' if not 'orchestrated by' the US.
    I stand corrected on the numbers, however that isn't proof on anything, also, public opinion is tainted IMO because of daily negative press and opposition attacks on him, hard evidence MUST be the standard.



    It's bogus because someone in the Bush administration 'debunked it'... the same person that 'debunked' the downing street memo'...
    The downing street memo wasn't even a third party account, it was quite a few tiers down from that.

    Look, it's only been 'debunked' if you use the definition of debunked as being 'I have a different opinion therefore YOU are wrong.'
    No, it's been debunked.



    LMAO... I love that defense... like on the issue of 9-11 what are you basing this assertion of edited videos?? Are you an expert in the field and have evidence that the video was modified? or are you on a 'debunking' spree??
    Actually, yes, I am college educated in broadcasting and know quite a few editing techniques, and I know that most news packages are edited for time considerations, but, my professors who weren't exactly conservative, taught us how many of the Michael Moore's and other "documentary" producers, as well as inependents(conspiracy theorists), and even major producers edit to make video say whatever they want it to. I could easily make someone say something embarrasing on video simply for looking for the right spot to take out of context, or patching together video to create something that didn't actually happen. This is why I don't trust anything other than raw footage in full.

    So, show us the evidence to back up your claim, the original video side by-side with the 'edited' one...
    I'm not using the video, so my credibility isn't in question.

    Gotta love neo-con supporters defending an issue... if it's a valid point 'it never happened', was 'debunked' or 'does not apply'.
    Nice try, I am a republican but will probably be switching to constitutionalist party in the next year or so. You are saying people invalidate things because they disagree with the position, which is not true, we simply state that the invalid or discredited aren't valid points.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

Page 21 of 29 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •