2
   

Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 12:12 pm
f4f: It's clear you know how to post links and images. Will you please identify when you make block quotes such as the one you made above, and show the source for the quote? Thanks.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 12:12 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Ok. But if it's true, don't you think it brings into question whether the other two bombings were truly accidental?


I think the mere mention of this will have that effect. Whether it's "true" or not is inconsequential.
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 12:20 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
f4f: It's clear you know how to post links and images. Will you please identify when you make block quotes such as the one you made above, and show the source for the quote? Thanks.


Wtf are you talking about tico, which block quotes ? Very Happy

Still trying to discredit my sources, can you please start to defend Bush ? :wink:
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 12:30 pm
freedom4free wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
f4f: It's clear you know how to post links and images. Will you please identify when you make block quotes such as the one you made above, and show the source for the quote? Thanks.


Wtf are you talking about tico, which block quotes ? Very Happy


I was specifically talking about the following, which appears to have been originally written by one Boris Johnson and posted in the Telegraph yesterday:

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/11/24/do2401.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/11/24/ixopinion.html]The Telegraph[/url] wrote:
Who knows? But if his remarks were just an innocent piece of cretinism, then why in the name of holy thunder has the British state decreed that anyone printing those remarks will be sent to prison?

We all hope and pray that the American President was engaging in nothing more than neo-con Tourette-style babble about blowing things up. We are quite prepared to believe that the Daily Mirror is wrong. We are ready to accept that the two British civil servants who have leaked the account are either malicious or mistaken. But if there is one thing that would seem to confirm the essential accuracy of the story, it is that the Attorney General has announced that he will prosecute anyone printing the exact facts.

What are we supposed to think? The meeting between Bush and Blair took place on April 16, 2004, at the height of the US assault on Fallujah, and there is circumstantial evidence for believing that Bush may indeed have said what he is alleged to have said.


SOURCE


f4f wrote:
Still trying to discredit my sources, can you please start to defend Bush ? :wink:


I was not attempting to discredit your source, but I would ask you to identify it. Thanks.
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 12:36 pm
Re: I'll go to jail to print the truth about Bush and al-Jaz
freedom4free wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/images/op_nrand_smal.gif

I'll go to jail to print the truth about Bush and al-Jazeera

By Boris Johnson
(Filed: 24/11/2005)


Quote:
If someone passes me the document within the next few days I will be very happy to publish it in The Spectator, and risk a jail sentence. The public need to judge for themselves. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If we suppress the truth, we forget what we are fighting for, and in an important respect we become as sick and as bad as our enemies....
Telegraph


Interesting.... please read the full article.


Ticomaya,

I already posted that link yesterday....try to read the posts.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 12:50 pm
That was indeed in printed and online versions of the Telegraph. And freedom4free really linked it - so what's your question about that, Tico?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 02:50 pm
Walter: In one of his posts yesterday, f4f quoted a couple of lines from the Telegraph article -- but not the lines he quoted today. How on earth was anyone supposed to know he was quoting from the Telegraph article from yesterday? When one quotes someone, one should attribute it, and link to it if possible (including if one quotes from the same story the next day). He did not do that in the post I was addressing. That was my statement; I didn't have a question.

That coupled with his apparent attempt yesterday to pass off an article from the leftist site "The Nation" as being a relatively more mainstream "Yahoo News" story, has caused me to watch his links more closely.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 03:25 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Ok. But if it's true, don't you think it brings into question whether the other two bombings were truly accidental?


I think the mere mention of this will have that effect. Whether it's "true" or not is inconsequential.


Yeah, I was talking more specifically about you yourself. Would you question whether those other two bombings were truly accidental if this story were true, or do you already question it?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Nov, 2005 01:24 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Ok. But if it's true, don't you think it brings into question whether the other two bombings were truly accidental?


I think the mere mention of this will have that effect. Whether it's "true" or not is inconsequential.


Yeah, I was talking more specifically about you yourself. Would you question whether those other two bombings were truly accidental if this story were true, or do you already question it?


No.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Nov, 2005 08:00 pm
Why not?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 01:16 pm
CoastalRat wrote:
I don't think anyone is necessarily doubting the article Fedral. At least in my case, I just don't understand why any attention is being given to this story. It's not a big deal.


I doubt the article.

Ever since their bizarre napalm story, it has been apparent that the Daily Mirror is nothing but an insurgent propaganda rag.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 01:44 pm
Fedral wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:

I suppose, you certainly will advocate that all those who are in US jails just for talking about crimes will be freed as soon as poassible!


Examples por favor ?


http://www.rense.com/general32/speech.htm
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 05:46 pm
Thats forward thinking. Just disreguard anything you dont want to hear
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 06:17 pm
rabel22 wrote:
Thats forward thinking. Just disreguard anything you dont want to hear


I am unsure whether you are referring to me or someone else.

Disregard this if you meant someone else.



The problem with the Daily Mirror is not that they say things that I don't want to hear, but that they are printing outright falsehoods about my country. They are nothing but an outlet for insurgent propaganda.

Since I know they are lying outright, I see no reason why I should believe any stories that they print.
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 06:29 pm
Ostriches and heads in sand come to mind.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 06:45 pm
username wrote:
Ostriches and heads in sand come to mind.


Yes. It is an apt description for those who refuse to face the fact that the Daily Mirror is nothing but an insurgent propaganda outlet.
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 06:53 pm
Nice try, ora. Not them.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 07:29 pm
username wrote:
Nice try, ora. Not them.


Not at all.

An ostrich is a perfect metaphor for those who can't accept the reality of what the Daily Mirror is.
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 09:08 pm
Shoot the messenger.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2005 04:56 am
username wrote:
Shoot the messenger.


In cases like the Daily Mirror where the message is nothing but malicious lies. Certainly, shoot the messenger.

Fire away with those thermobaric bazookas the Marines used at Fallujah. Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/08/2023 at 10:44:53