America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ wasn't removed, just rebranded | RT

[Poor Richard Saunders]

So do you believe that it's an opinion that the FBI stated that they had no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11?

I am saying you can't tell the difference between facts and opinions. There are several problems with the article you linked to. It makes several leaps of logic that are not supported by facts.

1. Define hard evidence.
2. "hard" evidence is not required for indictments or convictions.
3. An indictment most often occurs when a suspect is in custody or in order to get them held and sent to the juridiction.
4. Osama was already wanted on a warrant. A second indictment wasn't needed until he was apprehended.

Taking a single fact and making large leaps of logic while ignoring many other facts is what conspiracy theories do all the time. You have shown you can't tell fact from opinion and are so gullible you believe multiple conspiracy theories that have been debunked.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I wonder if you even know the origins of that theory. I'll fill you in just in case:
**
Birds Aren't Real is a satirical conspiracy theory which posits that birds are actually drones operated by the United States government to spy on American citizens.[2][3][4][5] In 2018, journalist Rachel Roberts described Birds Aren't Real as "a joke that thousands of people are in on."[3]

Background

Poster inspired by the movement at the 35th Chaos Communication Congress conference in 2018
Peter McIndoe created the satirical conspiracy theory "on a whim" in January 2017. After seeing pro-Trump counter-protestors at the 2017 Women's March in Memphis, Tennessee, McIndoe wrote "Birds Aren't Real" on a poster and improvised a conspiracy theory amongst the counter-protestors as a "spontaneous joke". A video of McIndoe at the march went viral, which started the satirical movement.[2][6] In 2017, he posted on Facebook: "I made a satirical movement a few months ago, and people on Instagram seem to like it a lot." He later disclaimed the post, saying it was written by a staffer who was fired,[3] and did not admit until 2021 that he did not truly believe the conspiracy.[2][7]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birds_Aren't_Real

An article on Peter McIndoe, as to when and why he started it:
Who is Peter McIndoe, founder of the 'birds aren't real' movement? | hitc.com

Of course I know the origins of that. It is similar to almost all other conspiracy theories in that respect. It takes a complete asinine concept and then uses some facts while ignoring others to support its theory. The birds are not real conspiracy theory at least knows they are telling you a bunch of bullshit. They are simply using the same tactics that Dr Sam Bailey is using and the 9/11 truthers use. I'll bet if they hadn't copped to it being all fake you would have fallen for it like you fall for all the other conspiracy theories.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Always with this black and white notion of reading an article or source. As I've mentioned before, there is such a thing as -partially- reading a source of information. Anyway, I went back to where this all started and found the passage that you're referring to:

**
On June 6, 2006 the Muckraker Report ran a piece by Ed Haas titled “FBI says, ‘No hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.’” Haas is the editor and a writer for the Muckraker Report. At the center of this article remains the authenticity and truthfulness of the videotape released by the federal government on December 13, 2001 in which it is reported that Osama bin Laden “confesses” to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The corporate media—television, radio, and newspapers—across the United States and the world repeated, virtually non-stop for a week after the videotape’s release, the government account of OBL “confessing.”

However, not one document has been released that demonstrates the authenticity of the videotape or that it even went through an authentication process. The Muckraker Report has submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to the FBI, CIA, Department of Defense, and CENTCOM requesting documentation that would demonstrate the authenticity of the videotape and the dates/circumstances in which the videotape was discovered. CENTCOM has yet to reply to the FOIA request. After losing an appeal, the FBI responded that no documents could be found responsive to the request. The Department of Defense referred the Muckraker Report to CENTCOM while also indicating that it had no documents responsive to the FOIA request either.
The CIA however claims that it can neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of records responsive to the request. According to the CIA the fact of the existence or nonexistence of requested records is properly classified and is intelligence sources and methods information that is protected from disclosure by section 6 of the CIA Act of 1949, as amended. Therefore, the Agency has denied your request pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(1) and (b)(3).

Many people believe that if the videotape is authentic, it should be sufficient hard evidence for the FBI to connect bin Laden to 9/11. The Muckraker Report agrees. However, for the Department of Justice to indict bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks, something the government has yet to do, the videotape would have to be entered into evidence and subjected to additional scrutiny. This appears to be something the government wishes to avoid.

Some believe that the video is a fake. They refer to it as the “fat bin Laden”video.
**

Source:
No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11 | projectcensored.org

I'm part of the "some" that believe the video is fake and that the man depicted in the video isn't Osama Bin Laden. I certainly don't claim to have proof. I -do- believe that the Taliban had good reason to distrust the U.S.'s claims that Osama was responsible for 9/11 and their request for hard evidence that this was the case before turning him over.

Proving once again you can't tell fact from opinion.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Proof? I haven't even seen you show -evidence- for your assertion. What's more, I've been doing the heavy lifting here, providing article after article, frequently quoting them with evidence for my claims, whereas you tend to opt more for sound bites and insults, with some exceptions. Yes, I don't always read the articles in their entirety, but I can always go back to them if you reference a point in them and make it clear where you got the information.

Providing article after article that disprove what you think isn't much support for you. Why should I provide any articles when your own sources prove you can't tell fact from fiction. The fact that you don't read the articles you cite shows how ill informed you are and prove you are determined to stay ill informed.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

We can agree that the U.S. did neither of those things.

So we both agree to the same fact that says the US didn't tell Iraq to attack Kuwait but you somehow think that means they tricked them into it. Is that the same way I tricked you into being so gullible?

I'm not actually sure that the U.S. was trying to trick Iraq into attacking Kuwait, but I think it's rather clear how some have come to that conclusion. I just quoted what April Glaspie was reported to have said, but it seems you've already forgotten a rather relevant part as to the focus of April Glaspie's remarks. Requoting, and bolding the relevant part:

**
HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster.

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.
**

Source:
How Bush 41 Tricked Saddam Into Invading Kuwait | rense.com

Oh.. So suddenly you want to pretend you don't believe something you insisted I read because it supported a conspiracy theory? Do you see where this is going? Either you are trolling or you can't tell fact from fiction. You throw out conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory and then when your own sources either don't support it or are bereft of facts you accuse me of not providing anything to support my denial of those idiotic conspiracy theories.

Once again, you didn't read the entire article but only selected what you wanted to support your conspiracy theory.
Saddam said this...

I said to him that regardless of what is there, whether they are police, border guards or army, and regardless of how many are there, and what they are doing, assure the Kuwaitis and give them our word that we are not going to do anything until we meet with them.

Saddam made this promise 1 week before his attack on Kuwait.

Secondly, the transcript is an English translation from the Arabic transcript. Translations often don't capture the true meaning of what was said. Relying on transcripts for a single word or phrase is a good way to create a conspiracy theory but it shouldn't be relied on by people that can think for themselves.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Not in this case, simply because of the many similarities between the current war in Ukraine and the war to determine the fate of Texas back when it was still ostensibly a territory of Mexico, up through its annexation by the U.S. and the U.S.'s defeat of Mexican troops who didn't agree with the claim.

I think the most important part was the Texas referendum wherein citizens of the Republic of Texas decided to join the U.S. This is comparable to the referendum that Crimea held back in 2014 to rejoin Russia, the referendums in the Donbass republics to become independent Republics and the new Russian directed referendums in 4 Ukrainian regions wherein the populations reportedly decided to join Russia. Ultimately, I believe that the people in these war torn regions should be allowed to choose their own path. Don't you?

When did the US invade Texas, deport millions of residents, and then hold the referendum with men with guns going door to door to oversee the vote?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

If contagious viruses don't exist, I think you'd agree that your previous statement would lose all validity. So let's see if we can first agree on whether viruses exist.



Show me a case where I accept an argument that requires the viruses exist and you'd have a case.

I have already done that. If viruses don't exist then how can smallpox exist since it is caused by a virus?

But let's take this one step further and show how ridiculous the arguments you accept are.



I propose that humans don't exist. In order to prove they do exist science needs to do the following:

1.) Humans should be isolated from their normal environment into a neutral medium. No one has been able to isolate humans in water for a week.
2.) Humans must be tested for their DNA sequence.
3.) Every human must have the exact same DNA sequence to prove they are all humans and not simply different organisms
4.) Once a human has been "purified" by being kept in water for a week, it must be returned to its normal environment and prove it can survive.

Until and unless all of these requirements are met, humans can't be proven to exist.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Your response is a non sequitur.

You seem to be in the constant state of denying facts.

I've admitted no such thing.

You deny that and then in the next statement prove my statement to be true.

When I read articles with an interest of furthering a case I'm making in an argument, I read as much of the article as I think is necessary to do so. Based on what I've read from others, I tend to do more of it than most if not all the other people I debate with.

I literally quoted a passage from the Mueller report. Once again, the passage is this:
**
The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials-hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government-began that same month. Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November.
**

This passage can be found in the source that you yourself provided:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118-The-Mueller-Report

I then commented on it, saying the following:
**
I doubt this is true. I suspect that poster Matt Dillon was right in his belief that it was Seth Rich who leaked the DNC files, and for good reason too, and that they were in fact involved in his assassination.
**

It's all there in post #364:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...moved-just-rebranded-RT&p=5401546#post5401546

Proving you can't tell fact from opinion.

Many journalists have suspected this. Here's an article on the murder of Seth Rich that I thought was interesting:
Who Really Killed Seth Rich? | American Thinker

ROFLMAO. The American Thinker has no journalists. Proving once again you are incapable of telling what is opinion vs what is based on fact.

An interesting excerpt for the article:
**
The DNC denied the FBI access to the actual DNC servers. A real investigation wouldn't have allowed this – another big red flag. Again, what if the DNC hack was a local leak delivered by hand to Assange?

LOL. That has to be some of the stupidest shit I have ever seen. So, if the only way one can do any kind of analysis into what was on a computer is to have physical access to it, then I guess you just proved that the failure to have access to Hunter's laptop means that any claims about what was on it should raise red flags. The FBI has the laptop and had it prior to Rudy giving the hard drive backup copy to the NY Post.
What is your standard when it comes to computer analysis? Do the people investigating it require physical access or not? The NY Post never once had access to Hunter's laptop.

You seem to be confusing evidence with truth. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of false evidence. Just in case, here's an article on the subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_evidence

I am very familiar with false evidence. You have provided multiple examples for us to enjoy.

This may be true. It doesn't mean he didn't do it, however.

Your denials don't mean you didn't do it either and then you turned around right after your denial to claim that is precisely what you do with articles.

Can you quote and link to it?

I'll be happy to right after you quote the evidence that Fox had of Seth Rich stealing the documents. Keep in mind you have provided us with a nice definition of "false evidence." I'm sure you wouldn't resort to providing "false evidence" of Fox having the evidence. (Court rulings are wonderful things. You should read them some time since they lay out what Fox knew and didn't know.)

Making claims is not the same as proving them, or even providing evidence for them. I suggest you stick more to evidence and less to vague claims with little if any evidence to back them up.

One has to admit, you do have balls making that statement after you have promoted so many conspiracy theories for which you have no evidence.
Let's see your evidence that viruses don't exist. (Your evidence, not some conspiracy bullshit by a Dr that has since lost their license to practice due to their bullshit.)
Let's see some real evidence that RT is not propaganda.
Let's see some evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.
Let's see some evidence that an analysis of what was on Hunter Biden's laptop can be done without physically having the laptop but an analysis of what is on the DNC server can't be done when they don't have physical access.
You have made a lot of claims and provided nothing but false evidence in support of your claims. Be careful of crawling out of your hole because everyone will recognize you for the slug you are.

 

[Scott]

Many U.S. citizens were certainly killed on 9/11. However, the FBI has admitted that they had no hard evidence that Osama Bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks:

No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11 | projectcensored.org

Once again proving you can't tell the difference between facts and opinions.

Are you denying that the FBI said they had no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11?

I am saying you can't tell the difference between facts and opinions.

So do you believe that it's an opinion that the FBI stated that they had no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11?

I am saying you can't tell the difference between facts and opinions.

Yes, you've said that multiple times now. It's a statement I haven't seen you provide any evidence for. In any case, I see that you've said more than just that in response to the question that I asked you this time around, so let's get to that.

There are several problems with the article you linked to. It makes several leaps of logic that are not supported by facts.

Such as?

1. Define hard evidence.

I welcome you to try to do this yourself. I will also note that it was an FBI spokesperson who claimed that the reason that Osama bin Laden was never on the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted" poster was there was "no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.".

I believe that the FBI making this statement is so important that it's worth doing a deep dive into the exact context in which it was made. I've since found a more complete version of Ed Haas' Muckracker Report article and will use it as a source instead of my previous linked article:

**
On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.
**

Source:
FBI says, it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11” | informationclearinghouse.info

2. "hard" evidence is not required for indictments or convictions.
3. An indictment most often occurs when a suspect is in custody or in order to get them held and sent to the juridiction.
4. Osama was already wanted on a warrant. A second indictment wasn't needed until he was apprehended.

I have no disputes with your logic on these points.

 

[Scott]

I wonder if you even know the origins of that theory. I'll fill you in just in case:
**
Birds Aren't Real is a satirical conspiracy theory which posits that birds are actually drones operated by the United States government to spy on American citizens.[2][3][4][5] In 2018, journalist Rachel Roberts described Birds Aren't Real as "a joke that thousands of people are in on."[3]

Background

Poster inspired by the movement at the 35th Chaos Communication Congress conference in 2018
Peter McIndoe created the satirical conspiracy theory "on a whim" in January 2017. After seeing pro-Trump counter-protestors at the 2017 Women's March in Memphis, Tennessee, McIndoe wrote "Birds Aren't Real" on a poster and improvised a conspiracy theory amongst the counter-protestors as a "spontaneous joke". A video of McIndoe at the march went viral, which started the satirical movement.[2][6] In 2017, he posted on Facebook: "I made a satirical movement a few months ago, and people on Instagram seem to like it a lot." He later disclaimed the post, saying it was written by a staffer who was fired,[3] and did not admit until 2021 that he did not truly believe the conspiracy.[2][7]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birds_Aren't_Real

An article on Peter McIndoe, as to when and why he started it:
Who is Peter McIndoe, founder of the 'birds aren't real' movement? | hitc.com

Of course I know the origins of that.

Glad to hear it. Wouldn't want you falling for such a foolish conspiracy theory. There's another I suspect you've fallen prey to though. This one:

 

[Scott]

Always with this black and white notion of reading an article or source. As I've mentioned before, there is such a thing as -partially- reading a source of information. Anyway, I went back to where this all started and found the passage that you're referring to:

**
On June 6, 2006 the Muckraker Report ran a piece by Ed Haas titled “FBI says, ‘No hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.’” Haas is the editor and a writer for the Muckraker Report. At the center of this article remains the authenticity and truthfulness of the videotape released by the federal government on December 13, 2001 in which it is reported that Osama bin Laden “confesses” to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The corporate media—television, radio, and newspapers—across the United States and the world repeated, virtually non-stop for a week after the videotape’s release, the government account of OBL “confessing.”

However, not one document has been released that demonstrates the authenticity of the videotape or that it even went through an authentication process. The Muckraker Report has submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to the FBI, CIA, Department of Defense, and CENTCOM requesting documentation that would demonstrate the authenticity of the videotape and the dates/circumstances in which the videotape was discovered. CENTCOM has yet to reply to the FOIA request. After losing an appeal, the FBI responded that no documents could be found responsive to the request. The Department of Defense referred the Muckraker Report to CENTCOM while also indicating that it had no documents responsive to the FOIA request either.
The CIA however claims that it can neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of records responsive to the request. According to the CIA the fact of the existence or nonexistence of requested records is properly classified and is intelligence sources and methods information that is protected from disclosure by section 6 of the CIA Act of 1949, as amended. Therefore, the Agency has denied your request pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(1) and (b)(3).

Many people believe that if the videotape is authentic, it should be sufficient hard evidence for the FBI to connect bin Laden to 9/11. The Muckraker Report agrees. However, for the Department of Justice to indict bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks, something the government has yet to do, the videotape would have to be entered into evidence and subjected to additional scrutiny. This appears to be something the government wishes to avoid.

Some believe that the video is a fake. They refer to it as the “fat bin Laden”video.
**

Source:
No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11 | projectcensored.org

I'm part of the "some" that believe the video is fake and that the man depicted in the video isn't Osama Bin Laden. I certainly don't claim to have proof. I -do- believe that the Taliban had good reason to distrust the U.S.'s claims that Osama was responsible for 9/11 and their request for hard evidence that this was the case before turning him over.

Proving once again you can't tell fact from opinion.

I give you an essay you and you respond with a sound bite you've repeated numerous times now. Did you even read the post above or did you just do a TLDR and decide to just hit the thing with your trademark refrain?

 

[Scott]

Did you read the article I linked to above? I had only read a bit of it, but I decided to read through more of it this time. It turns it, it includes a long transcript of a dialogue between Saddam Hussain and U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie. Based on my reading, my view of what she said has changed. While it's true that she said that she had "no opinion" of Iraq's future intentions with regard to Kuwait, there are some nuances that need to be pointed out. I'll quote the part of the transcipt that includes her "no opinion" remark, but then continue with what she said aftewards:

**
***** GLASPIE: We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states.

HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster.

***** GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?

My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship -- not in the spirit of confrontation -- regarding your intentions.

I simply describe the position of my Government. And I do not mean that the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one.
**

Source:
How Bush 41 Tricked Saddam Into Invading Kuwait | rense.com

Proving once again you can't tell the difference between fact and opinion.

Proof? I haven't even seen you show -evidence- for your assertion. What's more, I've been doing the heavy lifting here, providing article after article, frequently quoting them with evidence for my claims, whereas you tend to opt more for sound bites and insults, with some exceptions. Yes, I don't always read the articles in their entirety, but I can always go back to them if you reference a point in them and make it clear where you got the information.

Providing article after article that disprove what you think isn't much support for you.

Saying that my articles disprove what I think is not the same thing as providing evidence for your assertion. What I'm wondering is if you even read what I quoted above concerning April Glaspie's conversation with Saddam Hussein.

 

[Scott]

Did you read the article I linked to above? I had only read a bit of it, but I decided to read through more of it this time. It turns it, it includes a long transcript of a dialogue between Saddam Hussain and U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie. Based on my reading, my view of what she said has changed. While it's true that she said that she had "no opinion" of Iraq's future intentions with regard to Kuwait, there are some nuances that need to be pointed out. I'll quote the part of the transcipt that includes her "no opinion" remark, but then continue with what she said aftewards:

**
***** GLASPIE: We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states.

HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster.

***** GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?

My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship -- not in the spirit of confrontation -- regarding your intentions.

I simply describe the position of my Government. And I do not mean that the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one.
**

Source:
How Bush 41 Tricked Saddam Into Invading Kuwait | rense.com

What immediately springs to mind is, why did James Baker instruct their official spokesperson to emphasize the instruction that the U.S. had "no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait"? I imagine you can agree that this certainly didn't seem to be true -after- Iraq invaded Kuwait. So what changed? Or perhaps nothing changed, and James Baker's instruction was made in order to lure Iraq into attacking Kuwait?

Did the US tell Iraq to invade Kuwait? Did they order them to invade Kuwait?

We can agree that the U.S. did neither of those things.

So we both agree to the same fact that says the US didn't tell Iraq to attack Kuwait but you somehow think that means they tricked them into it.

How you arrived at that conclusion is beyond me. I believe it's possible that some power brokers in the U.S. tricked Saddam Hussein into attacking Kuwait based on what former U.S. Ambassador in Iraq April Glaspie said in a conversation with Saddam Hussein prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

The leap to the US tricked them into invading is a pretty long one. Are you sure they weren't trying to trick them into attacking Egypt since Egypt is an Arab country.

I'm not actually sure that the U.S. was trying to trick Iraq into attacking Kuwait, but I think it's rather clear how some have come to that conclusion. I just quoted what April Glaspie was reported to have said, but it seems you've already forgotten a rather relevant part as to the focus of April Glaspie's remarks. Requoting, and bolding the relevant part:

**
HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster.

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.
**

Source:
How Bush 41 Tricked Saddam Into Invading Kuwait | rense.com

Oh.. So suddenly you want to pretend you don't believe something you insisted I read because it supported a conspiracy theory?

Suddenly? You clearly haven't been paying close attention to what I've been saying. My changed stance happened 2 days ago, back in Post#421. It's there at the top of the nested quotes above, but I'll requote it below so you don't have to go looking for it:
"Did you read the article I linked to above? I had only read a bit of it, but I decided to read through more of it this time. It turns it, it includes a long transcript of a dialogue between Saddam Hussain and U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie. Based on my reading, my view of what she said has changed. While it's true that she said that she had "no opinion" of Iraq's future intentions with regard to Kuwait, there are some nuances that need to be pointed out. I'll quote the part of the transcipt that includes her "no opinion" remark, but then continue with what she said aftewards:"

I'm sure you can find the rest quoted in the nested quote above with that as your starting point.

Once again, you didn't read the entire article but only selected what you wanted to support your conspiracy theory.
Saddam said this...
**
I said to him that regardless of what is there, whether they are police, border guards or army, and regardless of how many are there, and what they are doing, assure the Kuwaitis and give them our word that we are not going to do anything until we meet with them.
**

Saddam made this promise 1 week before his attack on Kuwait.

Have you considered the possibility that Saddam kept his word? All he said that was that he wouldn't do anything until he met "them". I'm not completely sure who he's referring to by them, but my take, from everything Saddam said in his conversation with April Glaspie, is that he was essentially saying that if the Kuwaitis agreed to his demands, he wouldn't invade. I believe it's safe to say that they didn't meet his demands, so he invaded.

Secondly, the transcript is an English translation from the Arabic transcript. Translations often don't capture the true meaning of what was said. Relying on transcripts for a single word or phrase is a good way to create a conspiracy theory but it shouldn't be relied on by people that can think for themselves.

We go with the information we can get. When it comes to the evidence that certain U.S. power brokers may have wanted Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait, I think the strongest piece is James Baker's order to April Glaspie to tell Iraq that the U.S. had no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." At the very least, I think that any reasonable person would want to know why James Baker made that decision.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Glad to hear it. Wouldn't want you falling for such a foolish conspiracy theory. There's another I suspect you've fallen prey to though. This one:

Are you arguing that you don't believe it was 19 people that were recruited by Al Qaeda? Or are you saying you don't believe the bullshit in the video?
The conspiracy nuts that claim it was not planes flown by terrorists leave out many facts and simply ignore the reality when those are pointed out? Are you one of those people that believes false evidence which is what omitted evidence is?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I give you an essay you and you respond with a sound bite you've repeated numerous times now. Did you even read the post above or did you just do a TLDR and decide to just hit the thing with your trademark refrain?

There is no reason to provide anything more than the soundbite because your 'essay' proves my statement.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Saying that my articles disprove what I think is not the same thing as providing evidence for your assertion. What I'm wondering is if you even read what I quoted above concerning April Glaspie's conversation with Saddam Hussein.

Later in the same article Saddam says he won't attack Kuwait.

Did you read the transcript in the original Arabic? Do you know what happens when something is translated from English to Arabic and then back to English? The phrasing is often garbled from the original. To pick out a single phrase and try to claim that is all the proof you need shows you have no critical thinking skills.

Saddam said this after the phrase you think is some smoking gun....
assure the Kuwaitis and give them our word that we are not going to do anything until we meet with them.
Then one week later Saddam attacked Kuwait after giving his word he wouldn't. If Saddam believed he had the green light why would he lie to the US about not doing anything?

Your article doesn't prove that Saddam was tricked into attacking Kuwait. It proves you are either gullible or incapable of doing any critical thinking since you cherry pick out one phrase and ignore all the rest.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

How you arrived at that conclusion is beyond me. I believe it's possible that some power brokers in the U.S. tricked Saddam Hussein into attacking Kuwait based on what former U.S. Ambassador in Iraq April Glaspie said in a conversation with Saddam Hussein prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

It's hardly a conclusion on my part. You agreed that the US didn't tell Iraq to attack Kuwait. Your statement here proves the second part of my statement. My statement is clearly a statement of fact since both parts are true. Which part do you think is false? This proves once again that you can't tell the difference between facts and opinions.

Suddenly? You clearly haven't been paying close attention to what I've been saying. My changed stance happened 2 days ago, back in Post#421. It's there at the top of the nested quotes above, but I'll requote it below so you don't have to go looking for it:
"Did you read the article I linked to above? I had only read a bit of it, but I decided to read through more of it this time. It turns it, it includes a long transcript of a dialogue between Saddam Hussain and U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie. Based on my reading, my view of what she said has changed. While it's true that she said that she had "no opinion" of Iraq's future intentions with regard to Kuwait, there are some nuances that need to be pointed out. I'll quote the part of the transcipt that includes her "no opinion" remark, but then continue with what she said aftewards:"

Can you tell us what the nuance is in Arabic since that is what the conversation was in? Applying nuance to a translation is an exercise in deception on your part.

Have you considered the possibility that Saddam kept his word? All he said that was that he wouldn't do anything until he met "them". I'm not completely sure who he's referring to by them, but my take, from everything Saddam said in his conversation with April Glaspie, is that he was essentially saying that if the Kuwaitis agreed to his demands, he wouldn't invade. I believe it's safe to say that they didn't meet his demands, so he invaded.

Are you incapable of reading? Do you not understand how pronouns work in the English language? They normally refer back to the previous noun. A third grader in the US would have no problem figuring out who the word "them" refers to in this sentence.
assure the Kuwaitis and give them our word that we are not going to do anything until we meet with them. The fact that you even question who them refers to makes me wonder if Russian is your first language.

Your attempt to twist words to other meanings is getting ridiculous at this point.
Meet with them does not mean agree my demands.
No opinion does not mean we don't care if you attack.

We go with the information we can get. When it comes to the evidence that certain U.S. power brokers may have wanted Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait, I think the strongest piece is James Baker's order to April Glaspie to tell Iraq that the U.S. had no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." At the very least, I think that any reasonable person would want to know why James Baker made that decision.

Except you don't go with the information you get. You go with the information that proves your conspiracy bullshit and ignore all the other information. Where is your evidence of this "order" by James Baker? How is telling someone you have no opinion on a subject a trick? No reasonable person that has a modicum of understanding of diplomacy would question why that decision was made. Diplomacy is the art of appearing to not take sides even if you are taking sides.

 

[Scott]

Not in this case, simply because of the many similarities between the current war in Ukraine and the war to determine the fate of Texas back when it was still ostensibly a territory of Mexico, up through its annexation by the U.S. and the U.S.'s defeat of Mexican troops who didn't agree with the claim.

I think the most important part was the Texas referendum wherein citizens of the Republic of Texas decided to join the U.S. This is comparable to the referendum that Crimea held back in 2014 to rejoin Russia, the referendums in the Donbass republics to become independent Republics and the new Russian directed referendums in 4 Ukrainian regions wherein the populations reportedly decided to join Russia. Ultimately, I believe that the people in these war torn regions should be allowed to choose their own path. Don't you?

When did the US invade Texas, deport millions of residents, and then hold the referendum with men with guns going door to door to oversee the vote?

In war, leaving civilians in the war zone is frequently not the best idea. It frequently makes more sense to move them to safer areas. Russia put a lot of energy into doing this. I haven't heard of any credible reports where Russia forcibly moved civilians.

As to your notion that the Russian led referendums in 4 regions of Ukraine by having "men with guns going door to door to oversee the vote", I believe that's a caricaturization of what actually happened, especially in the independent republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. You may be unaware of the fact, but they actually held referendums to become more independent from Ukraine back in 2014. Ukraine wasn't pleased and started a civil war with them, but despite this, they managed to hold on to parts of their republics up until Russia came to their defense earlier this year.

Some areas were taken away from them by military force, such as Donetsk's Mariupol. RT actually did a documentary on Mariupol's history since the 2014 Euromaidan event that resulted in the elected Ukrainian President fleeing for his life, well worth a watch in my view. It can be seen here:

Mariupol: A Homecoming | RT

 

[Scott]

If contagious viruses don't exist, I think you'd agree that your previous statement would lose all validity. So let's see if we can first agree on whether viruses exist.

Show me a case where I accept an argument that requires the viruses exist and you'd have a case.

I have already done that. If viruses don't exist then how can smallpox exist since it is caused by a virus?

You have yet to provide solid evidence that contagious viruses exist at all. You need to start there first.

But let's take this one step further and show how ridiculous the arguments you accept are.

I propose that humans don't exist. In order to prove they do exist science needs to do the following:

1.) Humans should be isolated from their normal environment into a neutral medium. No one has been able to isolate humans in water for a week.
2.) Humans must be tested for their DNA sequence.
3.) Every human must have the exact same DNA sequence to prove they are all humans and not simply different organisms
4.) Once a human has been "purified" by being kept in water for a week, it must be returned to its normal environment and prove it can survive.

Until and unless all of these requirements are met, humans can't be proven to exist.

Humans are visibile to the naked eye, and I imagine you consider yourself part of the species, as do I. My analogy of a microbe being confused for a contagious virus being the equivalent of a Narwhal's horn being confused with a unicorn's horn was more accurate.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You have yet to provide solid evidence that contagious viruses exist at all. You need to start there first.

It seems you can't explain why smallpox exists. That is what I asked you to do. Give us a valid explanation of how smallpox exists and is transmitted that does not include any microorganism.

Humans are visibile to the naked eye, and I imagine you consider yourself part of the species, as do I. My analogy of a microbe being confused for a contagious virus being the equivalent of a Narwhal's horn being confused with a unicorn's horn was more accurate.

That does not meet the requirements I set out. Since you can't prove anything I requested then by the logic used by Dr Sam Bailey, humans do not exist.