'Be skeptical not cynical.' - Page 3 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

MattInFla · #31 (**permalink**) 08-14-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joao Dasilva

Matt (#22),

As you know, I DO NOT claim this board is a front for the GOP (I said that one could never prove that unless you saw the records of the financial backers of this site; I did prove that the mods of this site have a strong (100% of those who are also regular posters) conservative bias, and I stand by that proof. (See: post #173 of thread titled 'How Active Will you Be in 2006 Election'.

That you would continue to deliberately lie about that says more about you and the abysmal standards for moderation on this board than it does about me.

Yawn.

You know exactly what you did - make the implication, and leave it hanging there with the lame ass "I cannot concretely prove it" declaration. When directly asked whether or not you believe it is - even absent proof - you evade the question.

That's really intellectually dishonest, and you know it.

Matt

Joao Dasilva · #32 (**permalink**) 08-14-2006

I stated what I proved and stated what I could not prove.

Your problem if you can't see/understand that.

Now, I thought there were standards for staying on topic that were used by this board.

So please contribute something towards the topic, as this site is allegedly about politics, not childish insults.

I'm sure you are aware of that?

MattInFla · #33 (**permalink**) 08-14-2006

So maybe you'd like to address the issue of why Pakistan and Great Britain would participate in your conspiracy fantasy to protect Lieberman (or any other incumbent US politician)?

Matt

Joao Dasilva · #34 (**permalink**) 08-14-2006

Pakistan (Mousharaff; divergent spellings. I've chosen this one) is a dictator who is desperately currying favor with both the US- and the radical Islamists in his own country, especially in the Army. Sorta the Tito of the Middle East in that regard.

If (when) we withdraw from Iraq, his future gets very complicated.
Ever thought of that?

The UK (Blair) has proven (via the Downing Street memos) that they'll cover the broad American backside for no other reason that it makes them look like an international power.

And it's neither my (or anyone's) either 'conspiracy' or 'fantasy'. It is a plausable argument (for reasons given) of the only chance Rove has of staunching the hemmorage of voters in the Nov, 2006, elections:

Fear.

Remember the 'Your Money or Your Life' strategy of 2002?

Or The 'Fear Factor' strategy of 2004?

And you DO remember how Karl timed the start of the Iraq War to get the best political bounce?

doniston · #35 (**permalink**) 08-14-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

So maybe you'd like to address the issue of why Pakistan and Great Britain would participate in your conspiracy fantasy to protect Lieberman (or any other incumbent US politician)?

Matt

OK, time to pu on my little pointy tin-foil hat again. It has been reported that Leiberman has been speaking to Rove, and it has been decided that the repunlicans will not fund a republican candidate in opposition to Leiberman. thus assuring him a victory. Now that would seem to make him beholden to the Republican side and Bush, so why wouldn't foreign cronies try to get on the good side of Bush as well????

Miscreantgnomie · #36 (**permalink**) 08-14-2006

OK, time to pu on my little pointy tin-foil hat again. It has been reported that Leiberman has been speaking to Rove, and it has been decided that the repunlicans will not fund a republican candidate in opposition to Leiberman. thus assuring him a victory. Now that would seem to make him beholden to the Republican side and Bush, so why wouldn't foreign cronies try to get on the good side of Bush as well???? doniston wrote

What you said was true they did talk and it i think will ensure his victory. However I dont see it being some global conspiracy with pakistan England etc. The British intelligence doesnt really trust our intelligence to keep quiet.

We had so many leaks to the NYT etc. Do you think they would risk a conspiracy in that sort of enviorment. I know they wouldnt.

Andrewl · #37 (**permalink**) 08-14-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joao Dasilva

That was the advice of a counterterrorism expert on Keith Olbermann's island of sanity on MSNBC last night.

And that's what I am: skeptical about this alleged plot.

Here's why:

1. Timing: Too good to be true. Lieberman gets defeated by Lamont as 2 other House incumbents (1 Dem, 1 GOP) also get the boot. Not a good time to be an incumbent, it would seem.
Then there's the little matter of BP not checking its lines since 2002, and spiking gas prices. And even the mainstreamers are admitting the economy is 'slowing', economistese for even harder times for the bottom 80%.
So, a perfect time for a diversion, which has always been Karl Rove's forte. Like when he bugged his own office 2 days prior to the election in which he had a candidate in.

Maybe this is less about Muslim Terrorists and more about a solitary moon-faced Mormon one.

2. The alleged modus operendi. Back in 1994, in an operation by an Al Queda operative (one Ramiz Yousef) dubbed 'Operation Bojenka', the idea of a component bomb (liquid based) was tested- and failed to deliver the hoped-for results. One passenger died (unlucky guy who had said bomb planted under his seat) but the plane did not suffer damage necessary to bring it down.

There is an excellent discussion (both pro and con) of this which can be found at 'babble The Rabble.ca Discussion Forum' under the heading of 'Plot to Blow-up UK-US planes foiled.' This is a Canadian site, which brings me to my last reason for skepticism:

3. The US media. As many of you might have figured, I am an almost constant watcher of US news- even corporate sites. Which is why I can definitely say that never have I witnessed such a concerted, constant effort on the part of CNN, MSNBC (Olbermann, the 1 exception), et al, to pass unproven speculation, distortions, and even lies, off to the American public as if they were substantiated truth. It is as if they are all trying to out-Faux the notorious Fox "News' (aka: 'The Mind Of Rove', just like Comedy Central's "Mind Of Mencia', only not nearly as funny- unless youre into gallow's humor)

It is so bad that on BBC's 'News Night' (Thurs edition) the female anchor (didn't get her name; Scots accent) said categorically that most of the news comming out of America, especially from Homeland Security Dept, 'Could not be confirmed.'

I suggest that anyone wanting to keep up with the 'real' of this story either watch BBC or C-Span, as all else can be dismissed as propaganda, at this point.

In light of all this, it is only fair to say that the counterterrorism expert's advice is the only proven 'Fact', at present.

I believe that we should all heed it.

Ahhh this reminds me of a thread i started claiming that the arrest itself was timed perfectly, not that the plot itself was fabricated. I too was attacked for questioning the honesty of politicians, believe it or not.

Andrew

Joao Dasilva · #38 (**permalink**) 08-15-2006

On this board, we have the often-seen tactic of a small group of posters attempting to silence anything which damages the Neo-Con credibility.

Just ignore them is the best advice, as they provide insults, not facts.

And hope that this board continues to serve as an unbiased publisher of all views.

Joao Dasilva · #39 (**permalink**) 08-15-2006

............ Just In From CNN:

On an ancillary report (eg, after ten minutes of reports) (all speculative) on the alleged plot, which centered on the 'horrendous death toll', British Intelligence sources said they expected 'a number' of the alleged conspirators to be released from custody WITHOUT being charged with terrorism.

Not definitive, but noteworthy.

Miscreantgnomie · #40 (**permalink**) 08-15-2006

yes im sure they rounded up the entire group and there friends. their friends might be innocent but they get em all til the dust settles there

Joao Dasilva · #41 (**permalink**) 08-15-2006

My point exactally:

Let's wait until the dust settles.

But our regime in DC has a history of never doing that, as when the 'dust has settled' it turns out (based on their history) that it was all dust and no substance.

See 'Fear Factor' thread under the 'War and Peace' forum to see the 13 documented incidents in the past where the alarm has been raised with little or no substance............ and each time immediately after the Bushistas had suffered a defeat in the press.

Fancy that!

And just how much news coverage is Iraq getting these days?

You'd think the corporate media would care ALMOST as much about American kids who die in Iraq as they do Israeli kids dying in Lebanon, wouldn't you?

Evil_inKarlate · #42 (**permalink**) 08-15-2006

Jumping back to the actual OP for a moment, it seems like That is where one should be skeptical, not cynical.

The timing is good for elections? If the ideas was to protect the incumbents, the announcement should have come earlier. If the idea is to influence the final elections rather than the primaries, it should have come later.
Timing this to the elections doesn't fly.

The timing is good for 'distraction from a slowing economy'? Unless there was some large, specific announcement to cover up, it makes more sense to either save this for such an announcement or for when things are Really slowing down and people are more in need for something to cheer about.
Again, the argument makes no sense.

A liquid-based component bomb failed in 1994? This at least sheds Some doubt on the plot story, but it assumes the terrorists haven't learned anything new in the last 12 years. There may be new formulas, better quality components, and/or more competent operatives available now.
At least this one isn't outright stupid, even if it's still not a very good argument.

The media are falling all over themselves to report speculation and worse? This happens whenever there's a big story that people want to know about but the facts aren't available. 'Arabs bombed Oklahoma City' turned out to be Timothy McVeigh. Every 2-4 yrs we get exit polls literally ad nauseum. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.
This is at least a decent reason for skepticism, but it doesn't validate any conspiracy theories.

Joao Dasilva · #43 (**permalink**) 08-16-2006

The timing was critical to prevent Rove from losing control of the situation.

Look what was dominating ther news: Lamont's victory over a pro-war incumbent, the further-slowing economy, the meatgrinder that is Iraq.

That all went away, at least from the public mind, thanks to thios alleged plot.

Speaking of which:

We learned last night (MSNBC; Lisa Meyers):

1. The plotters (if that is what they are) had just begun to look at flight schedules. They had NO TICKETS, many didn't even own a passport!

So, why the dog and pony show in the airports?

'It's like the terrorists were in line waiting to board planes.' is a comon sentiment. Why the big media productioin with the liquids IF as we now know the group had been infiltrated since last Dec, and the Brits knew they were not even close to action?

And what about the alleged message from Pakistan saying 'Start your mission, now!' . That also makes zero sense.

2. The Brits are worried that because of US insistance to act when they did that the case against the alleged plotters is too weak to ever get any convictions.

3. There is video of the alleged co-ringleader at 2AM, just hours before the plot was alleged to be in 'it's action stage.'
What is he doing? Delivering products to neighborhood vendors from his home biz. Does he look nervous, like he's on his way to paradise and those 38 virgins?
'He was very calm, and personable.', according to the shopkeeper he delivered the goods to.

Then there is our media- especially CNN. They sem to be less about reporting and more about positioning.

Night before last, Christiane Amanpour, conducted a 1/2 hour telethon for the US to change its laws to allow for people (could be you, me, or a real terrorist- no proof is needed) to be held for 28 days before being charged.

Brit Law was good, then.

However, just 24 little hours later, the same Christiane Amanpour was interviewing a guy from our Homeland security Dept who was lamenting how many terrorism suspects walk away in the UK without any jail time, while 'They'd be incarcerated for life here.' (note: here= USA).

So now Brit Law bad.

and the dust continues to settle......................

MattInFla · #44 (**permalink**) 08-16-2006

Another Coup Coup Conspiracy theory.

Woo-hoo!

It seems less than believable that the UK and Pakistan would go to such lengths to protect Lieberman as the OP asserts.

Matt

Joao Dasilva · #45 (**permalink**) 08-16-2006

Well Matt,

Typical post for you:

Zero facts to challenge the record presented; just the words 'conspiracy theory' and your vaunted beliefs.

Would you like to see a list of proven US Gov't conspiracies?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode