FEOS wrote:
PluggedValve wrote:
Anyway, moral of the story is dont throw stones if you live in a glass house. And when you are saying "this is because people blindly blame everything on the admistration because they hate the admin." that makes you the guy throwing stones in your glass house. You WORK for the gov't, so maybe you are the one actually blindly blaming Muslims because GWBush said that they did it when in fact it hasn't been "proven beyond a shred of a doubt". If ya haven't noticed there is still ALOT of doubt.
Im not trying to attack you or your opinion, but your one liner about "blindly hating the Bush Admin" is BS. By the way their are alot of people on your side of this debate that are quite blind themselves.
"Erm...wow. I won't address the part I deleted. Mainly because I wouldn't even know where to start."
"But as to your assertion that somehow, because I work for the govt, I am a blind supporter of this administration is flat wrong. There is no political litmus test to work for the government. In fact, the majority of the govt employees in Washington DC are flaming liberals who despise Bush. There's no doubt I'm conservative, but I'm no big fan of Bush or his administration."
I never said that BECAAUSE you work for the gov't your a blind supporter, I said that you may have something to lose, therefor more CHANCE of being a blind supporter. Im not pretending i know you, Im not saying your wrong for that matter. Im just saying that a government employee may have more to lose by having an anti-gov't opinion than a private sector person.
"What exactly is "my side of the debate"? I've only pointed out technical and logical flaws with the assertion that intel was falsified and/or officials lied when discussing said intel. All I get back are "Bush lied people died" and other emotional garbage. When I do get a return argument that is somewhat lucid, it's normally based on an incorrect assumption about either military planning or intelligence processes. And it normally comes from someone who has no background to speak of in either of those disciplines. Unfortunately, when people who aren't educated in those areas get return fire in the form of facts (as opposed to emotion), they are too close-minded to see that it is not as black-and-white an issue as they would like to believe. That, while the Bush administration has made many mistakes, lying about pre-war intelligence was not one of them."
From your blog posts it seems your "side of the debate" is that the government has done their investigation, and that any other investigation is wrong unless it finds the same as the gov't. And about the investigation, If you were a suspect in a murder case would they allow you to do the investigating?? The gov't HAS to be at least considered a suspect as so many things went wrong all at once. Wether or not they did it, they at least should be investigated by a NON-gov't body to prove their innocence. But they didn't allow any third party investigations, hmmm.
"It's just too hard for some of these people to believe that it was bad intel...because they want so much to pin all blame for everything on Bush."
Its hard to believe, your right about that. Way too much bad intel to casually blame on that. I would like to pin all the blame on Bush but he doesn't have the mental capacity to pull this off. I will say that he has the connections to pull this off, even if he knows nothing about it they could have manipulated him. He is not known as the brightest light in the box, i think you would agree.
"If I had an opinion about, say, real estate...and Kmarion came back and said "it doesn't work that way", I would stop and re-examine my opinion. Maybe research the things he recommended I research. Why? Because he has an experiential background in real estate that I don't. I only know that because he has said he's a realtor...so I take him at his word. I don't call him names or say he's condescending or anything like that."
I didnt call you any names. And im sorry if i sound condescending, but i would also say your one liner was condescending. Bringing us to the glass house story again.
"But that approach doesn't work in these types of threads...because apparently there are so many military planning and intelligence experts on BF2S. I mean, who'da thunk it?"
Look, i haven't claimed to be an expert on the military. I have done my own independent research though and i have read articles from many sources from David Icke, Truth.org, i watched most of Bush's speeches when rallying the country for war and in explaining 9/11, i watch right wing media including Pat Robertson, Billy Kristol and the mighty FOX news. And alot of stuff in between. The reason i come to the conclusions i have is based on the evidence provided by each arguement and source. I am yet to hear anyone explain how Jet Fuel melted the support beams in WTC and "weakened" the metal to a point that it fell in virtual free fall. The speed of gravity. As if there was no floor to slow the fall. The official story said the building collapsed because of what they called "a pancake effect". If this imaginary pancake effect actually took place the building would have taken longer to fall. I cant say exactly how much longer, but it certainly would NOT have fallen at the speed of gravity. Now as soon as the "official story" can explain at least half of the major questions like this, I will consider believing it. But the official story has holes all over the place and they will not allow an independent investigation to support their claim. So why would i believe them??
For about half the population, the Bush admin doing the investigation is the equivelant of Osama Bin Laden doing the investigation for the other half. That is my point, why should i believe the investigation when the investigators are IMO also suspects.