BF2S Forums Not everyone needs hindsight - Vote Obama

Dilbert_X wrote:

Engaging with Syria on peace talks. Engaging with the PA on peace talks. Agreeing in principle to give the Golan back to Syria.

In 60 years they've agreed, in principle, to talks about talks, until Olmert is fired - which could be any moment now.
Pretty weak for the 'only democracy' in the ME.

In 60 years, they've signed two peace treaties and recognized the Palestinian Authority as the legitimate government of the Palestinians. And they've ENGAGED in talks with Syria. And they've agreed in principle to giving back the Golan.

But to actually admit to the facts would be to admit your bias and lack of interest in opinions or facts that conflict with your bias. Can't have that now, can we?

Dilbert_X wrote:

I've changed my position on Israel (particularly WRT their relationship with the Palestinians). How's that for an example?

Could you spell it out so we understand what you mean? Still waiting for that link.

Spell it out? Of course you need it spoonfed to you...I had forgotten. Here you go: When I first started participating in this thread, it was my firmly-held belief that Israel was being victimized by terrorist Palestinians and anything Israel did was justified. I have since changed my view and agreed (in a post with Cam, I believe) that Israel's expansion of new settlements into the West Bank (and Gaza before) is simply wrong. And that the Israeli military is more heavy-handed than necessary in dealing with Palestinian terrorists. But I still don't feel that justifies the Palestinians' launching of rockets into civilian areas.

You can keep waiting for that link, because it wouldn't be a single link, but a series of posts. I told you something about my personal views. Unless you want to call me a liar, believe it. If you want to prove me a liar, then search for yourself and be frustrated.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I could name one quickly. Pretty sure you can't do the same.

I don't claim to have changed my position on anything, maybe I have, can't think of anything specific.

You just proved my point.

You say I won't change my views even when presented with facts contrary to that. I have proven in the post above that I actually have. And you just proved in your post that you haven't.

Pot. Kettle.

Dilbert_X wrote:

it's obviously your job to find proof of my point (cwutididthar).

What the hell are you on about? You expect me to provide proof for my claims and your claims?

Perhaps you should search your own posts, then. You might find the reference in your own words.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Palestinian Authority as the legitimate government of the Palestinians.

Big deal, no more than their due. Do they get a pat on the back for recognising the US President as the legitimate leader of the US?

Considering that many other countries hadn't recognized the PA, it can't be dismissed...particularly since the leader of the organization was one of the most ruthless terrorists in history.

Dilbert_X wrote:

And they've ENGAGED in talks with Syria. And they've agreed in principle to giving back the Golan.

Nothing has happened as yet. Its often a ploy of an outgoing premier to start something he knows will go nowhere.

So you discount the effort because it hasn't produced a signed treaty yet? You do realize that treaties don't just magically appear, right/

Dilbert_X wrote:

Perhaps you should search your own posts, then. You might find the reference in your own words.

Whatever, I remember declining to guarantee to give sources and links for every single point I made since whatever I put up you dismissed as rubbish, conspiracy theories or irrelevant when it was well sourced and accurate, they just didn't fit with your views.
If you choose not to put up anything at all which supports your position thats up to you.

Debating the merits of your sources is not dismissing them as rubbish. If they are factually incorrect, based on a flawed assumption, or from a source with a clear biased agenda (as many of them were), they are open for debate. I'm sure you've never dismissed any sources provided by another member here because you don't think the source is credible, right? Fox News much (even when they're just reporting an AP story)?

I source everything that isn't based on personal experience. How do you source personal experience?

Making claims of evil intent without any kind of backing for those claims IS rubbish.

Making claims about military planning that you have no background knowledge of other than what you've read in sources that have the same bias as you IS rubbish.

Dismissing corroborated, sourced, information that is contrary to your biases IS rubbish.

You just get pissy when you get called on it.

You guys are argueing details. Lets leave the Middle East alone! All troops out! Out of Europe, out of Asia!

Thats my point exactly, plus you won't be exposed to Islamic terrorism.

Here is what I found about Feith.

Between September, 2002 and June, 2003, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz created a Pentagon unit known as the Office of Special Plans (OSP), headed by Douglas Feith. It was created to supply senior Bush administration officials with raw intelligence pertaining to Iraq, unvetted by intelligence analysts, and circumventing traditional intelligence gathering operations by the CIA. One former CIA officer described the OSP as dangerous for U.S. national security and a threat to world peace, and that it lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam Hussein. He described it as a group of ideologues with pre-determined notions of truth and reality, taking bits of intelligence to support their agenda and ignoring anything contrary.[82] Subsequently, in 2008, the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity has enumerated a total of 935 false statements made by George Bush and six other top members of his administration in a carefully launched campaign of misinformation during the two year period following 9-11, in order to rally support for the invasion of Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#A … estruction

The OSP was set up by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to gather intelligence which would prove the case for war. In a staggering attack on the OSP, former CIA officer Larry Johnson told the Sunday Herald the OSP was "dangerous for US national security and a threat to world peace", adding that it "lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam".

He added: "It's a group of ideologues with pre-determined notions of truth and reality. They take bits of intelligence to support their agenda and ignore anything contrary. They should be eliminated.

Johnson said that to describe Saddam as an "imminent threat" to the West was "laughable and idiotic". He said many CIA officers were in "great distress" over the way intelligence had been treated. "We've entered the world of George Orwell," Johnson added. "I'm disgusted. The truth has to be told. We can't allow our leaders to use bogus information to justify war.""

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q … _n12583062
So sorry, someone appointed by Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld to run an agency with no checks and balances is not someone I would trust to tell me the time of day.

So you think sources that are factually incorrect, based on a flawed assumption, or have a clearly biased agenda shouldn't be debated on their merits?

Sound to me like you're talking about the whole intel operation leading to the Iraq invasion
I've tried to debate things on their merits, but you assume all my sources are as described above, and all yours are gospel fact just because they landed in your in-tray with a red stamp on them.

Britain has it's own problems Dildouche, worry about your problems..not Americas.

"Vote Obama"...we'll vote for whomever the fuck we choose.