Kudos to Jon Gold-- real activism

Imagine if 100 or more people did this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YwQORV1Ieg&feature=player_embedded

more here:
http://911truthnews.com/not-on-the-fence-for-911-justice/

that ought to blow the lid off this thing, Spooked!

Too funny.

He must not have promoted this action very well at all, but hey, at least he got out and did something to stand up for what he believes in.

I did find a good link from the link you posted, though:



I'm gonna try to make plans to attend that one... don't know whether those plans will be successful, but I'm gonna try....

Thanks.

"On March 19—the anniversary of the brutal invasion of Iraq, where over a million Iraqis and almost 5,000 U.S. soldiers died with thousands more grievously injured—as the occupation of Iraq and the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan continue unabated, Veterans For Peace is calling for increased veteran-led nonviolent civil resistance at the White House."

http://www.stopthesewars.org/

The "one million Iraqis" number. No one is saying we should have invaded, but that number is grossly exaggerated.

Do I take it that you would never support this initiative?

( I dont know if I´m very much mistaken if I suggest that if I went there, and asked the people there about 911, the chances are pretty good that I would find the majority of them pretty close to the LIHOP-view. Would that be your feeling as well? )

dude.

Nevermind.

It´s not an evasion.

My view is that the one million may very well be wildly exaggerated.

Then there was the questions in return, that you didn´t want to get into.

That's why I pointed out your evasion. How you can now claim you did not evade it is fucking unbelievable.

But now I have told you that my view is that the number may very well be wildly exaggerated. So now I haven´t evaded the question?

do you understand the concept of temporization? At the time I stated you had evaded the question, you had not answered it. When you denied the evasion, you STILL had not answered it.

I don't have time to play games with you.

I thought my first answer ( starting with "So..." ) would be understood as :

"The number is greatly exaggerated"

Reply : "So..." ( Implying : so what? )

That is my explanation.

But I take the whole blame, so there´s no need for you to worry about that.

And no need to worry about my questions in return. Just forget about it.

:shrug:

Duh.

If I post a link to Sarah Palin saying jesus rode on dinosaurs, does that mean I have to substatiate her statement?

I don't think so...

fucking unbelievable, Ghost.

Oh, I forgot..."truthers" resent being asked for proof of their screwy claims.

How does posting a link to someone elses statement become MY "screwy claim" that I have to somehow prove?

That would be about like you posting a comment from Oily Taint about Obama not being a US citizen, and someone asking YOU to prove her claim. That's exactly what you are doing here, you're asking k-joerob to prove someone else's claim. You do know the meaning of "substantiate", don't you?

He did more than just report a "comment". He excerpted a portion of a website and linked to that website. The website isn't merely offering an opinion. It's making a false statement of fact.

If I promoted a website that claimed, say, only 2,000 Iraqi's had died as a result of our invasion, would you let that go unchallenged? Like I said, your double standard is fucking unbelievable.

See, that's an example of YOUR statement of fact, which you need to back up. However,

"If I promoted a website that claimed, say, only 2,000 Iraqi's had died as a result of our invasion, would you let that go unchallenged?"

No, I wouldn't let it go unchallenged, but I wouldn't expect YOU to prove THEIR assertions. If I had knowledge that disproved the claims in the link you posted, I would post a refutation to your post along with the relevent links to back me up.

As for believing that over a million Iraqis have been slaughtered, anyone paying attention for the past 8 years could reasonably believe that. The bottom line is this: Even the UN can't give an accurate number of the casualties. Numbers in 2006 ranged from 151,000 to over 1 million. Let's not forget the words of Lt. Gen. Tommy Franks, either: "We don't do body counts"






Checkmate, dude... now back up your assertion that the veterans involved with stopthesewars.org have made "false statements of facts". What's fucking unbelievable is some anonymous internet poster, who's probably never even worn a uniform, sitting here calling veterans liars. You got something against the anti-war movement, dude?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

No one. Ever. Never in the history of the internet. Congratulations! You're a leader!

You're really gonna try to compare anti-war activists to Hitler? I think you can rest secure in the knowledge that no one can ever out-stupid your comment.

Take a bow, Make7

You know, 'cause he's a decorated veteran.
You realize I joking, right?

I missed you "Hitler/peace activists" post.

Do you think you can reformulate it? Just so that I´m not left with the impression that you simply loath these peace activists.

... in my previous post (although I'm not really sure that would have made any difference).


And my entire post in response:


I was going for a variation of the "Do you know who else had a dog?" joke. Maybe I should have put 'Hitler' in all caps and/or used an exclamation point (although I'm not really sure that would have made any difference).

Honestly I thought my comment was sufficiently over the top so that people would understand that it was not meant to be taken literally but rather pointing out, by its own absurdity, the ridiculous logic of something else. Apparently I underestimated Ghost's ability to connect the dots (incorrectly connect them, but connect them nonetheless). I find it interesting that rather than ask for clarification of my point, he chose to interpret it in what is probably the least favorable light and then engage in his regular antics in response - which I must admit I find rather amusing.

My second reply to him basically restates my original point with different wording:


His outrage over the temerity of someone "who's probably never even worn a uniform, sitting here calling veterans liars" is preposterous; first because no one was actually calling veterans liars and second because even if someone did, it seems odd that he thinks veterans would be incapable of lying (or at least people should be polite enough not to point it out if they do). Or maybe his point is that only someone who has served in the military has earned the right to voice an opinion on the words and deeds of veterans. Which is odd because I thought the right to voice one's opinion is a right that the military is supposed to protect for everyone.

Anyway, my initial post was not intended to "compare anti-war activists to Hitler" but rather point out that being a veteran does not remove one from also being a human - which means they are also capable of lying or any other human endeavor, good or bad. Hitler was a decorated veteran of WWI, but I think most people would agree it is not unfair to call him what he was; he is not absolved of his subsequent actions just because he had previously been in the military.

But of course, painting what others say in a negative light and ranting about it is much more fun for some people than thinking about (or asking someone to clarify) what the intention of their words were in the first place. I wish I could say I was surprised, but I'm really not the least bit surprised in this instance.
 

You compared veterans, who are antiwar activists, to Hitler. You know it, I know it, and apparently whoever alerted on it and the mod who deleted it knew it too. Save your "I was going for a variation of the "Do you know who else had a dog?" joke" tripe for someone else.

I'm not sure exactly what you think I was trying to say.
 

So it´s a really bad thing to say that 1 million iraqis have died, if it in fact wasn´t that many?

"2.7 million internally displaced"

http://www.refintl.org/policy/in-depth-report/uprooted-and-unstable-meeting-urgent-humanitarian-needs-iraq

And "StopTheseWars" don´t mention them at all. But you don´t complain about this omission at all? What you feel is really bad, is if they say something that makes the wars look more disgusting than they are?

A quote from "StopTheseWars" :

"Madmen do not pity the suffering, do not empathize with others’ pain that they cause. Cold to the misery of others, immune to reason and conscience, they are a strange lot, these dispensers of death."

Do you have any sympathy at all for "StopTheseWars", when they use words like these about the US wars i Iraq and Afghanistan?

You're acting like it was dumb, when it actually hit home smartly.

You're acting like you do, but you're not fooling anyone. Comparing anti-war activists to Hitler = dumb, no matter how you slice it. and just for the record, I don't know who alerted on it, but it wasn't me. I was quite content to leave it there, in all it's glory, for everyone to see.

do you realize that someone can make a false statement of fact without lying?

If you need help with that, let me know.

Produce your facts that prove it's a "false statement of facts". You can do that, can't you?

only one of which is close to the figure they provided, Ghost. Arbitrarily using the highest number, when the consensus of estimates is substantially lower is a well-known propaganda technique.

http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War?wasRedirected=true

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"There are multiple estimates...only one of which is close to the figure they provided"

Yeah right... that's why there are two different estimates that show those figures in the post you responded to. In fact, I don't even think your comment is a false statement of fact, it's more of a factual inaccuracy. Why did you ignore what was right in front of you, then misrepresent it with a factual inaccuracy?

read the Alternet article excerpt a little more closely and, hopefully, you'll see the logical problem with your position.

In the meantime, I'm afraid you're not really capable of having a dispassionate disagreement over hardly anything, instead issuing below-the-belt broadsides one after another, many of which have been deleted. I think I'll let you cool down for a while, assuming that's even possible.

You have this bad habit of yammering about "logical flaws" this and "logical fallacies" that, yet you never seem to be able to point them out. I think it's a load of bullshit, just something you toss out when you have nothing else. Sounds like a "textbook egghead" to me. That's what you rely on, isn't it? All your little college book debate tactics look good on paper, dude, but they don't apply to many real world situations. It reminds me of a friend of mine. The guy is smart as a whip, as far as "book learning" goes, but he ain't got a lick of sense when it comes to common sense, or street smarts. I'll take someone with street smarts and real life experience over a "book learned" egghead any day. Now I'm not saying you're dumb, I think you're pretty intelligent actually, but you rely too much on what books are telling you about the way things are *supposed* to be. You don't seem to have a grasp on the way things work in the real world. Logic doesn't always work in the real world, dude, because there are a lot of stupid people out here... people who run on instinct or emotion and who don't give a shit what logic dictates. Once you understand this, you might begin to see things the way they are, as opposed to the way things are supposed to be. Take this for example: Logic dictates that our elected officials, those we choose to look out for us, would have our best interests at heart. Reality, however, is a cruel mistress and our elected leaders don't give a hairy rats ass about us, We, the People. They are too busy serving their corporate masters, whom they are beholden to. Their corporate masters control the purse strings and finance their campaigns. Their corporate masters are the ones who provide them with their wealth and riches. We, the common People, dont stand a chance. Think about that for a while, dude...

"In the meantime, I'm afraid you're not really capable of having a dispassionate disagreement over hardly anything, instead issuing below-the-belt broadsides one after another, many of which have been deleted. I think I'll let you cool down for a while, assuming that's even possible."

What's wrong, duder, are you losing your taste for caustic debate? That's how you like it, isn't it? Or is it only when you're dishing it out? The King of "bullshit!" and "not this bullshit again" can't handle it coming back? By the way, dude, I don't think you have any room to be talking about deleted posts. It seems you've racked up your share of them too, haven't you? Here's an idea for you: from now on, when you mention these "logical flaws" and "logical fallacies", how about you actually point them out and open them up for discussion? Otherwise it's just going to be discounted as bullshit being tossed because you don't have anything else to go with. Sound fair to you??

Peace,

Ghost

best interests at heart"

Really, Ghost? How would "logic" dictate that?

Boy, I love anti-logic rants.

Logic dictates that those who go into public service actually want to.. you know... serve the public.

Logic also dictates that if you were interested in discussion, you would have pointed out those "logical flaws" that I asked you about in my previous reply. You avoided doing so, so I can logically assume that you have nothing.

I'm not really interested in discussing much of anything with you, dude.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Since my certainty has done me well so far in this thread, and yours not so much, you might consider considering it.

I'm certain they don't mean jack shit to anyone else, either. There's something for you to consider.

If it were true that my comments didn't mean jack shit to you, my comments wouldn't result in so many rule-breaking replies from you. In fact, I doubt there would be any replies at all.

Again, your claims of certainty don't appear to be reliable measures of veracity.

Your existence on this site, and even in this world, means nothing to me. Why you have delusions of grandeur and think otherwise is beyond me. It appears that you have some stalkerish tendencies, too.


"If it were true that my comments didn't mean jack shit to you, my comments wouldn't result in so many rule-breaking replies from you. In fact, I doubt there would be any replies at all.

Again, your claims of certainty don't appear to be reliable measures of veracity."

Your claims appear to be flat-out falsehoods and fabrications. Here's an idea for you: why don't you try posting something that is of relevence to the OP, instead of continuing your asinine, juvenilistic attempts at lame personal insults against me. It's easy for you to act brave while hiding behind your monitor, isn't it? Let's see if you can act like you're intelligent, too. I'm betting you can't...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The debunkers are forcing us to break the rules.

Too funny.

Hmmm... The post is gone. Have to watch my step apparently.

( The same goes for you Ghost. Don´t forget it. :) )

A link at the initial claim or subsequent discussion would have obviatied the entire sub-thread.

just sayin'

that with the numbers the truth movement claims they have, that more than 2 people would've shown up. Especially in today's age of social networking and such.

And I think it's amusing that there's now a thread lauding his "efforts". Why aren't ALL the truthers pulling off stunts like this?

More like a Toto.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...just an attentive observer.

You have no problem doing it to others, you shouldn't have a problem subjecting yourself to the same treatment, right? What are you waiting for? Just about everyone has a cell phone with a camera in it these days, shouldn't be too hard for you to snap a pic of yourself, with this screen behind you to prove it's really you, should it?

"...just an attentive observer."

Yeah, right... that's real Progressive of you to sit there and make judgements about another progressive, based on his appearance. Again, if you're not a coward, post your picture and subject yourself to the same treatment you bestow on others.

theories you champion.
Don't be a coward!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...in order to reveal the truth to Dorothy and company.

Some intimidation, they must clearly be new at the NWO.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

kinder and gentler.

we've had to scale everything back, including the intimidation. Everyone misses the old days when we could physically throttle people at will.

Instead of getting those nice hard boots to stomp on people, all we get are flip-flops.

Rememder our once proud motto;

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

flip-flops. In my division, we have to go barefoot. How are you supposed to strike terror in the hearts of the People without jackboots?

I would hold a work slowdown until you at least get sneakers.

I got those damn Crocs, and I'll tell ya'.... They're so freakin' comfy that I just loose the urge to keep the man down.

He's the diety of practicing Pastafarians. You must praise the Almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster! May you be touched by His Noodley Appendage. Ramen!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the turnout was pathetic, I have to say. Seems like more people could have been organized.

The CTist in me can imagine that Gold is cointelpro and actually did this to make the truth movement look weak.

So, your theory is Gold is COINTELPRO?

Spooked, do you seriously have trouble understanding why people don't take you seriously here?

:loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya:
:loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya:
:loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya:

Came across this just now, and it seems very relevant to the discussion on this thread conserning deaths in the Iraq war :

"WikiLeaks analysis suggests hundreds of thousands of unrecorded Iraqi deaths.

(...)

A research team from the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health released a report this week analyzing the amount of overlap between the 66,000 WikiLeaks reports and the previously known listing of IBC. The team developed a system for grading the likelihood that the WikiLeaks War Log record matched an entry in IBC, scoring the match between 0 (not a match) to 3 (very likely a match). The matching records were graded by at least two reviewers and then a third reviewer arbitrated any discrepancies. The conclusion? Only 19% of the WikiLeaks reports of civilian deaths had been previously recorded by IBC. With so little overlap between the two lists, it is almost certain that both tallies combined are missing the majority of civilian deaths, suggesting many hundreds of thousands have died."

http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/wikileaks-analysis-suggests-hundreds-of-thousands-of-unrecorded-iraqi-deaths/