Czuch: Not non-existent. Simply patsies. In order for the ruse to work, that's what you need. Look up the word "patsy."

The Usurper: We know that Israeli secret service was tracking & monitoring the so-called 19 hijackers before 9/11.



You cant have things two ways from sunday, mr usurper!

Now Israel are tracking (according to you}"non existent" hijackers?

(V): Some interesting tidbits...

We know that Israeli secret service was tracking & monitoring the so-called 19 hijackers before 9/11. Might the Israelis have been the "handlers" of these patsies? Either way, it would have been a joint operation with the U.S. Also, a group of Israeli "art students," later discovered to be spies, were seen videotaping the planes striking the WTC from the top of a van on the New Jersey side of the Hudson...taping & cheering. These kinds of things are reported, even by the Mainstream media...then conveniently shelved & forgotten.

(V): Even Fox News gets it right sometimes. It produced a 4-part expose of the Israeli Spy Ring in America. Real investigative reporting. But the series was pulled and even removed from Fox's internet archives. It can still be found online.

(V): "Who runs the USA? Israel or the United States?"

There are many duel Israeli-U.S. citizens at the top of the food chain. So one could make an argument either way. To which country is a duel citizen most loyal? Hmmmmm.... On the other hand, Israel does a lot of spying on U.S. soil, including high intel matters. But a blind is turned. It's an interesting question.

(V): So, because humans are not a logical being, it means we cannot have a logical government?

(V): But, you can even ask Usurper, there werent two rabbits to chase, Bush obviously knew that Bin Laden was a rouse, and did the right thing by not wasting time chasing a rouse... well we certainly loosed saddams grip all right, I would say

Czuch: You missed the point, I was using an analogy of how humans can not be logically thought out.

Czuch: Because it took away resources from the real war which was to find the terrorist leaders who was supposed to have been responsible for 911.

Saddam could have waited, the people of Afghanistan could now be completely free of the Taliban or such that they are neutralised.

If anything and the USA wanted to loosen Saddam's grip on Iraq, a limited invasion of the Kurds area in the North and taking the southern area centralised around Basra would have imho been a better strategy while the concentration on get old Bin could be maintained at a high level.

Some say if you chase two rabbits you'll lose them both.

(V): If you (like I have) studied some statistics regarding error factors and such when it comes to the likes of polls, you'd know that the figures are not perfect.

I know that most of the problems with polls are the ambiguous questions.... "are you happy with the way Bush is running the country?"

Well, 90% could answer that one NO.... but the question does not lead us to any real conclusions as to why.... a liberal might answer no because they are against the war in Iraq, and a conservative might answer no because they think he is acting too much like a liberal. Most polls are more of a waste of time and only serve to cloud issues more than shed any light on things.

(V): As it is well known that an all out war in the middle east would cause great tribulation for the rest of the world.


Why would you be so adamant against trying to bring some stability and prosperity to Iraq then?

Artful Dodger: Which bit Art? As it is well known that an all out war in the middle east would cause great tribulation for the rest of the world. Some recon due to the desperation for resources it might result in major wars between countries fighting for that last drop.

We ain't got the tech at the mo to replace oil and you know that.

(V):  It represents your strawman argument. 

Artful Dodger: Nice scarecrow? pic... makes me think of the "Wicker man" the original.

(V):

Sorry but when I saw this I laughed my head off...

Rita Mae Brown:

"If the world were a logical place, men would ride side saddle."

Artful Dodger: That is a matter of opinion, some of your ideas quite honestly would create more problems then solve them.

.... I mean, the destruction of the Palestinian people would cause a war in the middle east... and quite frankly Israel's only hope of survival after being Public enemy No.1 in both the the middle east and most of the world would be to use nukes.... And I think then even the USA would find it hard to justify supporting Israel.

And golly... An radio active middle east would not be good for the world as shortages and price increases would soon occur. Remember, we are reliant on oil. An analogy would be the Guild's (Dune the book) words "The spice must flowwwwwww".

They call it Mutually Assured Destruction or M.A.D. for short, commonly used to refer to the cold war and that both sides knew that there was no way to win in a nuclear war. All involved lose.

Czuch: Logic is good when it comes to computers, it is not always a successful answer when dealing with people, as you are dealing with a being, whether awake or asleep you are still dealing with a being who by the very nature of being a being is not a purely logical entity. If you (like I have) studied some statistics regarding error factors and such when it comes to the likes of polls, you'd know that the figures are not perfect. When it comes to humans you also have to consider that empirical experience will lead to people reacting in different ways, the weather, if they've had a bad day or not, financial problems, etc, etc, etc. Then there are the regional and country variations based on culture, education, peer pressure, genetics, etc, etc.

So to logically think about people and certain situations you'd have to keep this all in mind at the same time. Basically the only thing that can do that now is an Entity as we have not yet being able to create a machine with true AI.

As for gut, that's a good thing, following your beliefs whether correct or not is fine, but you must keep in mind that we are a developing creature by nature of our creation, we are not constant.

Czuch:   Easy one for me to answer:  Correctly

(V): How do you think when it comes to matters?

A combo of logic and instinct....

And btw Czuch.. I was talking about ALL politicians. You ought to watch Prime Ministers question time. It's like a game of who can show up someone the most half the time mixed with patting on the front.

Czuch: Are they? When I think I regarding a matter in which a person or people are involved I use my Intelligence, knowledge, wisdom and yes how I feel. Also if I don't know I'll ask someone or research using various search parameters to gain information from various people, including when needed professional organisations or in the case of a certain matter at home a government body for an explanation of the law and regulations regarding the subject at hand.

I also use reflective meditation techniques as a method of problem solving, which involve emptying the mind, which usually leads to several alternative possibilities regarding a matter of which one viable solution to a problem then makes itself clear, with back up solutions still available if it don't work.

..... It's great when you solving a problem that requires careful planning or thoughtfulness.

... How do you think when it comes to matters?

(V): I swear I get the felling that our leaders half the time brains are in respect to emotional


90% of liberal politics are based on emotions.....

The Usurper: Aye, power.... I swear I get the felling that our leaders half the time brains are in respect to emotional and other essential adult developments no older then 10 years old.

...... Or is it that they never left puberty and it's still controlling them.

(V):

The Usurper: Who runs the USA? Israel or the United States?

Larry Page and Sergey Brin

The Usurper: Who runs the USA? Israel or the United States?

Czuch: Mmmmmm It reminds me of a kid saying he's gonna get ya in a verbal dispute.

It's just talk, designed to keep the Israeli haters in Iran happy. He knows most Muslims while concerned over the matter will never take anything but peaceful actions such as marches.

But big mouths gotta act big.

Where the U.S. government usually consumes 21% of gross domestic product, this Obama budget spends 28% in 2009 and runs a deficit of $1.75 trillion, or 12.7% of GDP. That is four times the largest deficit of George W. Bush and twice as large a share of the economy as any deficit run since World War II.

Add that 28% of GDP spent by the U.S. government to the 12% spent by states, counties and cities, and government will consume 40% of the economy in 2009.

The Usurper: That is not true. Iran has no national policy of destroying Israel



Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called on Wednesday for world Muslims to join the Palestinian "resistance" against Israel

that civilians from all around the globe are way different then their government was.. I chat with peeps from countries I had been taught were places to watch out for... those I speak with confirm that they have the same wants and desires for their families and loved ones.. isn't that interesting.. so assuming certain things about another country isn't fair to scar the people living under the government..

(V): The latest example:

"US to boycott UN racism conference"
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/02/200922855014421433.html

Alas, Obama is no Martin Luther King, Jr. More like a white elitist in black skin. No significant U.S. policies will change during his administration. The ploy worked....America's anger at its criminal government funneled into a false hope. This is how it is designed to work. No matter which rascals you throw out, you're stuck with the same rascals.

(V): "I can't understand why a country would support state terrorism"

They support it because it is profitable. Our leaders are the extremist radicals we accuse Ahmadinejad & all Arabs of being. Death in the Middle East = Money. It is also a lever of world power, the ultimate motive.

The Usurper: Aye, the USA if it had supported the resolutions could have given rise to this problem being resolved years ago.

I can't understand why a country would support state terrorism, leaving blood on their hands as a result of their actions.

But there again.... Many USA citizens supported the IRA giving them guns and money while they were killing British soldiers and civilians, as well as Northern Ireland residents.

http://www.juancole.com/2009/01/palestinian-girl-israeli-troops.html

According to the laws of the Qu'ran firing at children is not acceptable. So those who say they do are breaking Islamic law, those who do suicide attacks, are breaking Islamic law and the words of the Qu'ran state they are going to hell.

--Two nations stand out above all others as notorious serial abusers of UN resolutions - the US and Israel. Over the last half century, the US has used its Security Council veto many dozens of times to prevent any resolutions from passing condemning Israel for its abusive or hostile actions or that were inimical to Israeli interests. It's also voted against dozens of others overwhelmingly supported by the rest of the world in the UN General Assembly. By its actions and with 6% of the world's population, the US has thus arrogantly ignored the will of nearly all the other 94% to support its client state even when Israel had committed war crimes or crimes against humanity the rest of the world demanded it be held to account for. In the words of one UK observer using a baseball analogy: "Only the USA could have a World Series and not invite the rest of the world."--

Full article here:
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/3460

Artful Dodger: Rubbish. They have what they call these days "Rules of Engagement" written down in their Holy book, just as the Jewish people have "an eye for an eye".

And as for it always being the Arabs..... that is as far from reality as we are from the edge of the universe. In respect Israel broke peace terms and conditions regarding the Palestinians for years.... hence the problems. I think they've broken more UN resolutions then Saddam, they taken land not theirs (like Saddam and Kuwait), abuse the Palestinian people daily (just like Saddam) denying them basic human rights and the Palestinian people are just supposed to go "ooOOOOoo we deserve it as we are Arabs and the bad guys"...

If Israel had kept to UN resolutions on borders and the rest then the hate level in that area would be far, far less.

Now what is the USA going to do about a country that has broken resolution after resolution, killed and made a peoples existence a hell of sorts and has WMD's?

Artful Dodger: Check your PM.

Artful Dodger: LOL We may both fail miserably. Unfortunately I can't afford to bribe you..... :o)

The Usurper:   It will be my quest in life to lead you to the right path; and your quest to lead me astray  ;) 

Artful Dodger: "I do get your point but I'm still right."

That's a good line to end tonight's debate with. lol

Sleep well. Who knows where the P-Board will lead us tomorrow? (eery background music)

The Usurper:I'll look at it.  But I'll also offer some other quotes that are similar to Iran's leader and so actually support my position and put yours in question.

The Usurper:It is logical to keep it in mind but it doesn't necessarily "raise the odds" as his information can easily be checked out.  If what you say is true, then no news source is trustworthy as all of us, no matter what we claim to the contrary, have a bias.  I am biased toward the conservative view.  But if I report on something the Democrats said or did, the fact that I favor conservatism doesn't preclude my truth telling with regard to my reporting.  You commit a logical fallacy when you paint the report because of the source.  The source MAY be relevant to the criticism, but it doesn't simply follow that since the reporter is close to the story then the story must be taken with a grain of salt. 



I do get your point but I'm still right. 

Artful Dodger: I've known for some time about the mistranslation. During the current debate, I googled & found the Wikipedia article, so that's what I posted.

I just googled this:

Ahmadinejad mistranslation
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Ahmadinejad+mistranslation&btnG=Search

I don't have the energy to prove it line-by-line. lol But it is something you might research.

Artful Dodger: It certainly doesn't. But it does raise the odds that he is playing funny with the "facts." It is logical to take this into consideration.

The Usurper:"There is a lot of dubious translation"

Prove it - line by line

The Usurper:What you can do is show where the Palestinians have put forth real and consistent effort at peace.  Rather than try to refute everything I offer, show some positive proof.  And BTW, wikipedia isn't a reliable source.  Even I can contribute to articles there.  It's not a scholarly deposit of information.  It's a collection of information from anyone who cares to add to the lot.  Sure there are safeguards, but it's the internet and I went to the link and was able to edit some of the information.  So how reliable is that source?

Artful Dodger: There is a lot of dubious translation in your posted quote, as is well-documented. Suffice to say, Ahmadinejad
does not like the Zionist regime & properly recognizes it as an enemy. He does not advocate the genocide of the Jewish people. And the fact remains, that Iran has no official policy of military aggression towards Israel or anyone else. The only war they've fought in recent memory is a defensive war against the American-backed invasion of Iran by Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

The Usurper:Not so.  It's a logical fallacy to "take with a grain of salt" historical facts simply because they are reported by someone who shares ancestry with the land he is reporting on.  You can't just wipe them out because the person reporting is Jewish.  His Jewishness doesn't preclude truth telling. 

Artful Dodger: This article (in your link) is written by Barry Rubens, a professor in Herzliya, Israel. He is American in nationality & Jewish in ancestry. Some might consider those affiliations cause for bias, and his sweeping statements therefore to be taken with a grain of salt.