Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bingo
Seems to me I came right at it.
I pointed out that I don't need to defend the guy because I didn't use him as a source of any kind in this or any other discusssion. I can't get any more straight forward than that.
Lanny throws O'Reilly at me, you picked it up and did the same, and now I have to defend the guy? Why? I find him entertaining, but I don't quote the guy in arguments or use him in any way to defend my position on this or any other matter.
So which part of that isn't straight forward?
Beyond that ... I imagine the man's lawyers would have a field day in forcing you to prove ...
+ lacks any form of crediblity
+ is a known and repeated liar
+ a plagiarist
+ unapologetic racist
If I painted you with an incorrect brush I'm sorry, but were you not one of the two or three guys that spend 6 pages trying to force me to believe this guy is the cat's ass on mideast politics?
|
It's not about being the cats ass, it's about preventing the muddying of waters about a respected scholar's academic record by someone who's never even read his work, and goes solely by the non-peer reviewed opinion pieces of his detractors, many of whom are themselves proven plagiarists and fabricators. I just wanted to point out for anyone else that may be unfamiliar with chomsky that you don't know what you're talking about in regards to that particular subject, so your point of view should be seen in that light. It would be like me insulting the flames draft history without knowing a single draft pick.
Quote:
|
I don't think any of the three targeted US carriers use anything but large body planes, I could look it up though. Unless you're watching old Aiport movies I don't think the survival rate would be all that high.
|
I don't care about the survival rate. I was pointing out how rediculous it is to say 4000 dead when the upper most ceiling possible, should everything align perfectly, would barely surpass that number. I could just as easily use the figure of 10 dead, because the precedent of these attacks has resulted in the deaths of only those sitting in the seat where the bomb is located. That would be based more on reality than the figure of 4000, but would also be improper because of a total dismissal of other possible outcomes. It's akin to statiscal outliers.
Quote:
|
Who knows ... maybe next time the US and Brits should just stand down and let it happen so they don't get accused of fear mongering!
|
Again, this isn't about whether there was a plot or not, but rather the assertion by both governments that the attack was imminent and pressing. Hmm, where else have we heard that before?
This isn't about a terrorplot, it's about the subtle manipulation of a population by their government. To what ends isn't really that important, the crux of the issue is wilfully misleading the public by their elected representatives.