British Soldiers 'Broken Out' of Iraqi Prison.

[Ali]

Basra breakout: army statement (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1788850,00.html)
By Times Online
Full statement by Brigadier John Lorimer, the Brigade Commander of the 12 Mechanised Brigade


"I want to speak to you about yesterday’s events in Basra.


"During the morning, two British soldiers were detained at the Jamiat police station in Basra. Under Iraqi law, as MNF (Multinational Force) soldiers, they should have been handed over to the coalition authorities. The Consul-General and I asked repeatedly for this but it did not happen.

"During the day we went to exhaustive lengths to achieve the hand-over of the soldiers. And in fact, as a result, we understand that the Iraqi Interior Minister personally ordered the release of the soldiers. However, that order seems to have been ignored.

"From an early stage, I had good reason to believe that the lives of the two soldiers were at risk and troops were sent to the area of Basra near the police station to help ensure their safety by providing a cordon. As shown on television, these troops were attacked with fire-bombs and rockets by a violent and determined crowd.

"Later in the day, however, I became more concerned about the safety of the two soldiers after we received information that they had been handed over to militia elements. As a result I took the difficult decision to order entry to the Jamiat police station. By taking this action we were able to confirm that the soldiers were no longer being held by the IPS. An operation was then mounted to rescue them from a house in Basra.

"I am delighted that the two British soldiers are back with British Forces and are in good health. We will be following up with the authorities in Basra why the soldiers were not immediately handed over to MNF as Iraqi law (CPA Order 17) says that they should have been.

"I should put the scale of yesterday’s disorder into context. British armoured vehicles being attacked by a violent crowd, including with petrol bombs, makes graphic television viewing.

"But this was a small unrepresentative crowd (200-300) in a city of 1.5 million. The vast majority of Iraqi people in MND(SE) are law abiding and value the contribution made by coalition forces to maintaining stability and security.

"Minor damage was caused to the prison compound wall and to the house in which our two soldiers were held.

"It is of deep concern that British soldiers held by the police should end up being held by militia. This is unacceptable and I should stress that we won’t hesitate to take action against those who are involved in planning and conducting attacks against coalition forces.

"Looking ahead, I should stress that the situation in Basra is now calm.

"We will continue to work closely with local authorities to maintain this calm, and with the Iraqi security forces whose capabilities we are helping to develop. It was a difficult day yesterday, but we have put this behind us and will move on."Chaos. Absolute bloody chaos.

Time to leave? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4263092.stm)

[sam i am]

Chaos. Absolute bloody chaos.

Time to leave? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4263092.stm)

The time is getting closer for all forces to leave. The Iraqis are getting more and more training and the Constitution was signed yesterday. A new President and Parliament are on the way.

Just like in Afghanistan, where they elected a new Parliament yesterday, the people in those countries are taking over their own responsibilities for their own lives. This was the plan from the beginning, but it TAKES TIME, just like everything else in life.

NASA didn't announce this morning that we'll be going to the Moon again next year - they stated it would take until 2018 to put everything into place properly to make it happen safely and effectively - also to setup for the next step : a manned mission to Mars by the 2020's or 2030's.

Most rational humans understand that processes take time, effort, blood, sweat, and tears to accomplish large and great tasks - that is what is happening in the Middle East and that is what is happening in outer space. They are analogous tasks that have been undertaken.

[Schmeltz]

that is what is happening in the Middle East and that is what is happening in outer space. They are analogous tasks that have been undertaken.


Analogous only in the sense that both involve people with their heads in the clouds.

[Ace42X]

Analogous only in the sense that both involve people with their heads in the clouds.

That was the wittiest thing I have heard in quite some time.

[Schmeltz]

Well, I try.

Welcome back, by the by.

[D_Raay]

The time is getting closer for all forces to leave. The Iraqis are getting more and more training and the Constitution was signed yesterday. A new President and Parliament are on the way.

Just like in Afghanistan, where they elected a new Parliament yesterday, the people in those countries are taking over their own responsibilities for their own lives. This was the plan from the beginning, but it TAKES TIME, just like everything else in life.

NASA didn't announce this morning that we'll be going to the Moon again next year - they stated it would take until 2018 to put everything into place properly to make it happen safely and effectively - also to setup for the next step : a manned mission to Mars by the 2020's or 2030's.

Most rational humans understand that processes take time, effort, blood, sweat, and tears to accomplish large and great tasks - that is what is happening in the Middle East and that is what is happening in outer space. They are analogous tasks that have been undertaken.

Surprised to see you just regurgitating the Republican talking points sam, you usually tend to think on your own.

This sort of explanation is empty and deflects the blame (surprise surprise) from it's sources.

[sam i am]

Surprised to see you just regurgitating the Republican talking points sam, you usually tend to think on your own.

This sort of explanation is empty and deflects the blame (surprise surprise) from it's sources.

Let's see.... I agreed it's getting closer to the time for the US and others to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and I get accused of "regurgitating the Republican talking points?" Hmmmm.....don't think I've heard that point being made by Bush, et. al....

I actually posted my ideas based upon reading the newspapers and watching the cable news and looking at my yahoo mail before I posted. I never read any Republican talking points, but hopefully they'll pick up on me. I guess I should be flattered that my thinking is being picked up by the Republicans, eh?

Finally, I don't believe my explanation is "empty." I thought I had come up with an apropos analogy - i.e., that large efforts take a lot of time, money, resources, and, yes, sacrifices, to accomplish great. You may disagree with my explanation or dislike my analogy, but calling it empty is untoward and implies that I had a lightweight idea in the first place. If you'd rather call me that, that's fine, but then you probably shouldn't turn around and toot my horn in the previous sentence....damning with faint praise, while an interesting rhetorical tool, is rarely cognizant of the ability of the recipient to recognize the damnation along with the praise.

Finally, I wasn't aware that we were blaming. I must have missed my talking points on that one. I know the Democrats churn out their own talking points daily as well, and I'm sure that blaming Bush is rarely at the top of the agenda. Oh no, I'm sure the talking points are just stock-full of the ways and means to improve the working conditions of the Democrats' constituencies, raise the standards of living of all Americans, and solutions to all of the world crises that they damn the Republicans and Bush for. Quite sure, I am.

[D_Raay]

It might take ten years to build a pile of shit high enough to take a flying leap off, the question is... is it really worth it?

[D_Raay]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050920&articleId=972

The following Reuters report raises some disturbing questions.

Why were undercover British "soldiers" wearing traditional Arab headscarves firing at Iraqi police?

The incident took place just prior to a major religious event in Basra.

The report suggests that the police thought the British soldiers looked "suspicious". What was the nature of their mission?

Occupation forces are supposesd to be collaborating with Iraqi authorities. Why did Britsh Forces have to storm the prison using tanks and armoured vehicles to liberate the British undercover agents?

"British forces used up to 10 tanks " supported by helicopters " to smash through the walls of the jail and free the two British servicemen."

Was there concern that the British "soldiers" who were being held by the Iraqi National Guard would be obliged to reveal the nature and objective of their undercover mission?
----

Two British soldiers were caught wearing Arab clothing, firing on Iraqi police and driving a car filled with explosives and detonators. Then they send a force in there to rescue them which has now prompted massive demonstrations in the streets of Basra.

Such progress is being made. I can see how this is a long term solution to creating a democracy in the middle east. They love us so, why wouldn't they embrace our capitalistic modem of government? The important thing is that in 10 years they all have an iPod dangling from their tunics, and several thousand crumpled Big Mac wrappers littering their streets. It's a way of life really, the AMERICAN way of life.

[sam i am]

Analogous only in the sense that both involve people with their heads in the clouds.

Are you against space exploration and research?

[sam i am]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050920&articleId=972

The following Reuters report raises some disturbing questions.

Why were undercover British "soldiers" wearing traditional Arab headscarves firing at Iraqi police?

The incident took place just prior to a major religious event in Basra.

The report suggests that the police thought the British soldiers looked "suspicious". What was the nature of their mission?

Occupation forces are supposesd to be collaborating with Iraqi authorities. Why did Britsh Forces have to storm the prison using tanks and armoured vehicles to liberate the British undercover agents?

"British forces used up to 10 tanks " supported by helicopters " to smash through the walls of the jail and free the two British servicemen."

Was there concern that the British "soldiers" who were being held by the Iraqi National Guard would be obliged to reveal the nature and objective of their undercover mission?
----

Two British soldiers were caught wearing Arab clothing, firing on Iraqi police and driving a car filled with explosives and detonators. Then they send a force in there to rescue them which has now prompted massive demonstrations in the streets of Basra.

Such progress is being made. I can see how this is a long term solution to creating a democracy in the middle east. They love us so, why wouldn't they embrace our capitalistic modem of government? The important thing is that in 10 years they all have an iPod dangling from their tunics, and several thousand crumpled Big Mac wrappers littering their streets. It's a way of life really, the AMERICAN way of life.

We can nitpick each individual event and extrapolate out to whatever conclusion we want. Have you seen the altest polls in Iraq as to what standing the US has there? How about Afghanistan? Although we are fast becoming a nation of self-haters here in the US, our standing with those we are trying to help is, overall, better than ever. Now, I'm sure I'll get flamed with all of the terrible news in Iraq or Afghanistan, but the bigger picture will, eventually, prevail. The tides are turning....

[D_Raay]

We can nitpick each individual event and extrapolate out to whatever conclusion we want. Have you seen the altest polls in Iraq as to what standing the US has there? How about Afghanistan? Although we are fast becoming a nation of self-haters here in the US, our standing with those we are trying to help is, overall, better than ever. Now, I'm sure I'll get flamed with all of the terrible news in Iraq or Afghanistan, but the bigger picture will, eventually, prevail. The tides are turning....
Says who? Are you seriously taking the position that that the tide is turning while our own country is suffering from lack of competence and a lack of resources that we would otherwise have if not for this foolishly planned out and deceptive war in Iraq? Not to mention the tax cuts for the rich that all they can whisper out now is how they have put the plans for permanent cuts on the back burner.

Ridiculous arguments from ridiculous people. And our OWN polls show that support for this government is at best pathetic.

So rather than actually address any of the grievances of the public, we get a massive PR movement to regain public support for failed policies. We get Karl Rove put in charge of procurement and rebuilding of New Orleans. We get Halliburton (who "lost" 9 billion dollars of taxpayers money). We get a new chief justice who won't even answer any questions about what exactly his views are. We get The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is investigating whether gasoline price profiteering has occurred and if oil companies have constrained refinery capacity to manipulate fuel prices, an agency official said Wednesday. .

I could go on forever...

[sam i am]

Says who? Are you seriously taking the position that that the tide is turning while our own country is suffering from lack of competence and a lack of resources that we would otherwise have if not for this foolishly planned out and deceptive war in Iraq? Not to mention the tax cuts for the rich that all they can whisper out now is how they have put the plans for permanent cuts on the back burner.

Ridiculous arguments from ridiculous people. And our OWN polls show that support for this government is at best pathetic.

So rather than actually address any of the grievances of the public, we get a massive PR movement to regain public support for failed policies. We get Karl Rove put in charge of procurement and rebuilding of New Orleans. We get Halliburton (who "lost" 9 billion dollars of taxpayers money). We get a new chief justice who won't even answer any questions about what exactly his views are. We get .

I could go on forever...

Ok, but the carping and going on forever doesn't CHANGE anything. I know you feel the election was "stolen," but whether you accept it or not, we have the government we have because it was elected to be there. Local and state and congressional Democrats must be in Halliburton's back pocket as well, in your worldview.

So, your argument, if I have it correctly, is that PR is all that is keeping Bush in office, not the Constitution or that a lot of Americans still support him DESPITE what you characterize as failures? Hmmm.....food for thought.

[D_Raay]

I am no democrat. That always seems to be the response. Well, what would you do as a democrat? I expect as a U.S. citizen to have candidates from both parties that have the people's best interests in mind (not to mention some actual qualification to be the president). Having ones who are only interested in what corporate america has to say is the norm now for both parties.

You know, I got a tax cut too. You know what I did with mine? Gave it to the local homeless shelter that was in danger of being shut down due to lack of funds.


It's completely ridiculous and un- American and yes it is only PR that keeps them above water right now as well as a healthy dose of apathy.

[Ace42X]

I know you feel the election was "stolen," but whether you accept it or not, we have the government we have because it was elected to be there.

Logical fallacy. If the election was "stolen" then the government has *not* been elected to be there.

Local and state and congressional Democrats must be in Halliburton's back pocket as well, in your worldview.

Illogical conclusion. From the argument, you could equally attribute it to any combination of: incompetence; laziness; self-interest that does not involve bribery; being politically out-maneouvred, and thus unable to do anything about it.

So, your argument, if I have it correctly, is that PR is all that is keeping Bush in office, not the Constitution or that a lot of Americans still support him DESPITE what you characterize as failures? Hmmm.....food for thought.

Ipse dixit fallacy - the relative popularity of the president with the US public has no bearing on his misconduct. And " alot of Americans" is misleading - his popularity has been plumetting according to the news articles I have seen. As PR could (literally) include anything, from subliminal messaging right down to intimidation, using it to "play down" the importance is disengenuous. Even if you use PR in the accepted sense, you are still being dismissive about the persuasive power of it, or assuming that the argument precludes anything other than "pr".

[Ali]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050920&articleId=972

Two British soldiers were caught wearing Arab clothing, firing on Iraqi police and driving a car filled with explosives and detonators.For real?

Reminds me of the stories one hears of Iraqis being detained and taken for questioning by Occupation forces, then released and told to go to an Iraqi police station. When they get their cars back and set off on their way, they stop to have a look in the car and find it packed with explosives, ready to blow.

Obviously, these stories cannot be corroborated, but when one hears of British soldiers pretending to be Insurgents and then the Army's reaction when they get caught... one can only wonder.

[sam i am]

Logical fallacy. If the election was "stolen" then the government has *not* been elected to be there.

I was pretty sure the quote marks around "stolen" would tip you off, but obviously not. You must be tired, ace. No logical fallacy when one is theorizing and hypothesizing.

Illogical conclusion. From the argument, you could equally attribute it to any combination of: incompetence; laziness; self-interest that does not involve bribery; being politically out-maneouvred, and thus unable to do anything about it.

Just because you state it's an illogical conclusion does not make it so. My logical conclusion is just as valid as all of the logical (or illogical) conclusions you reached in trying to counteract my assertion.

Ipse dixit fallacy - the relative popularity of the president with the US public has no bearing on his misconduct. And " alot of Americans" is misleading - his popularity has been plumetting according to the news articles I have seen. As PR could (literally) include anything, from subliminal messaging right down to intimidation, using it to "play down" the importance is disengenuous. Even if you use PR in the accepted sense, you are still being dismissive about the persuasive power of it, or assuming that the argument precludes anything other than "pr".

I was referring to the 80% of Republicans (the President's base), not the remainder of the American public. With that 80% Republican base, and much smaller pools of support among "Independents" and Democrats, he still has a mandate to govern. The way elections work in the US is that you do not have to campaign for popular support outside of elections. Unless unlawful acts are PROVEN, there is very little chance that anything will topple Bush or the Republicans from power before 2006/2008 (Congressional midterm elections and the next general election).

So, the point is not that he is popular or not, but that he is there to stay. Generating support for the alternatives is the only avenue truly available to the American people to make a change in 2006/08. Protest marches, petitions, opinion pieces, etc. can only go so far. The true test, or measure, of an idea's or candidate's efficacy is the enaction (through legislative or judicial means) of an idea or the electability of that candidate. Otherwise, it is all useless carping that almost never engenders true change in the country.

[Ace42X]

I was pretty sure the quote marks around "stolen" would tip you off, but obviously not.

They could indicate a number of things. I took them to mean that you (erroneously) believe the election was won 'fairly'. An alternative reading would be that you were pointing out the term "stolen" was not to be taken literally (as you cannot literally steal an abstract event like an election, anymore than you can "steal the show").

Eitherway I fail to see what that has with my point either way.

No logical fallacy when one is theorizing and hypothesizing.

Nonsense. A theory can be illogical and thus invalid.

Just because you state it's an illogical conclusion does not make it so. My logical conclusion is just as valid as all of the logical (or illogical) conclusions you reached in trying to counteract my assertion.

Yes, if you disregard what the word "logical" actually means. When I use it, I mean that it is "in accordance with logical rules", thereby a sound argument. Use wikipedia to search for logical fallacies, and then apply them to your arguments to see why your conclusions are invalid. I pointed out quite clearly why your conclusion was illogical.

Unless unlawful acts are PROVEN, there is very little chance that anything will topple Bush or the Republicans from power before 2006/2008 (Congressional midterm elections and the next general election).

They have been. You mean unless unlawful acts are accepted by the public to have occured or prosecuted by some sort of "authority". Much like expecting cavemen to believe the world is round in either case.

But this is beside the point. If you go back an re-read your post, you were implying that the president was still in office because (and I quote) "a lot of Americans still support him DESPITE what you characterize as failures?"

Firstly, you yourself pointed out that it is procedural convention, and not popular support that keeps him in office, in effect going back on your own argument.

Secondly, "a lot of Americans" is meaninglessly vague. If you mean "a substantial number of republicans that are the only ones in a position to do anything about his presidency mid-term" then I would question the usage of "a lot" given it being substantially *less* that the number of people who disapprove of him.

So, the point is not that he is popular or not, but that he is there to stay. Generating support for the alternatives is the only avenue truly available to the American people to make a change in 2006/08. Protest marches, petitions, opinion pieces, etc. can only go so far. The true test, or measure, of an idea's or candidate's efficacy is the enaction (through legislative or judicial means) of an idea or the electability of that candidate. Otherwise, it is all useless carping that almost never engenders true change in the country.

Erroneous assumption. As you have not yet countered the assertion that the election was "stolen" you cannot assume that "electability" will result in any efficacy whatsoever in the slightest. However, given this, I will say you are right in stipulating that his popularity is irrelevant, although for quite different reasons. If you "steal" an election, clearly the opinions of the voters are irrelevant.

[sam i am]

They could indicate a number of things. I took them to mean that you (erroneously) believe the election was won 'fairly'. An alternative reading would be that you were pointing out the term "stolen" was not to be taken literally (as you cannot literally steal an abstract event like an election, anymore than you can "steal the show").

Prove the election was "unfair" or "stolen." You CAN'T. So, stop stating it as if it were fact, not fantasy.

But this is beside the point. If you go back an re-read your post, you were implying that the president was still in office because (and I quote) "a lot of Americans still support him DESPITE what you characterize as failures?" Firstly, you yourself pointed out that it is procedural convention, and not popular support that keeps him in office, in effect going back on your own argument.

So even if it is "procedural convention," so what? We live in the United States of America, not some dysfunctional 2nd World country in Europe. We elect our leaders to TERMS OF OFFICE, where they stay unless they are forced out through a CONSTITUTIONAL procedure. I know with Parliamentary shenanigans like you have in Europe, all kinds of maneuverings take place and you have elections at all kinds of odd times due to "votes of lack of confidence." So, there exists a lack of confidence. So what? Are you always confident in everybody you trust with your life? Really? How confident are you that the cook at the restaurant you ate at wasn't in a pissed-off mood that day and swirled his penis in your soup?

So, whether "popular support" is ebbing or waxing doesn't matter in the US system. Our founders recognized that the tyranny of the mob is easily swayed by so-called leaders like yourself, preying on their inabaility to see through the obfuscations that rabble-rousers can perpetrate. The only time that popular support matters is during elections. And, despite whatever contrarian inanity you may contrive to undermine the validity of the US electoral system, it's here and to stay.

Secondly, "a lot of Americans" is meaninglessly vague. If you mean "a substantial number of republicans that are the only ones in a position to do anything about his presidency mid-term" then I would question the usage of "a lot" given it being substantially *less* that the number of people who disapprove of him.

Not true. See above. Disapproval doesn't mean squat. Ability to get electoral votes is what matters, which translates into a popular mandate to DO WHAT YOU WERE ELECTED TO DO. The US populace knew what Iraq was like prior to the '04 elections and RE-ELECTED HIM ANYWAYS. So, my point above was spot-on : despite was a completely accurate term I employed.


Erroneous assumption. As you have not yet countered the assertion that the election was "stolen" you cannot assume that "electability" will result in any efficacy whatsoever in the slightest. However, given this, I will say you are right in stipulating that his popularity is irrelevant, although for quite different reasons. If you "steal" an election, clearly the opinions of the voters are irrelevant.

I was not assuming anything. Again, PROVE your point instead of just asserting it from on high. You CANNOT PROVE that the '00 or '04 elections were anything but legitimate, despite your visceral response to the outcomes.

[Ace42X]

Prove the election was "unfair" or "stolen." You CAN'T. So, stop stating it as if it were fact, not fantasy.

It is undeniable fact you egotistical dickweed. That black people were unjustly purged from electoral roles is not disputed. Google for it, there are pages of it. That is, by every definition of democratic elections, "unfair".

So even if it is "procedural convention," so what?

So, that one sentence, in itself, refutes your argument. If you were going to argue something else, ARGUE IT. Instead of making feeble points, and then redefining your arguments whenever they are debunked.

We live in the United States of America, not some dysfunctional 2nd World country in Europe.

And yet the US elections were considered to be "less than satisfactory" by international observers.

So, whether "popular support" is ebbing or waxing doesn't matter in the US system.

And if you had taken that into account when embarking on a spurious argument, I wouldn't've had to correct you. Bear that in mind next time, and save us both the effort of posting.

Our founders recognized that the tyranny of the mob is easily swayed by so-called leaders like yourself, preying on their inabaility to see through the obfuscations that rabble-rousers can perpetrate.

Leaders like myself? I've never considered myself a leader before, but I do like it. Perhaps I should adopt an epithet. "The Great Ace42" or some such. And you talk of obfuscation, perhaps you are not used to literal speaking, given the soundbytes put forward by your party in your lifetime.

And, despite whatever contrarian inanity you may contrive to undermine the validity of the US electoral system, it's here and to stay.

If by "contrarian inanity" that I "contrive" you mean "inherant faults which allow the results to be manipulated" then yes, yes it is here and here to stay. But that is hardly commendable or anything to boast about. Much like your posts on this board.

The US populace knew what Iraq was like prior to the '04 elections and RE-ELECTED HIM ANYWAYS. So, my point above was spot-on : despite was a completely accurate term I employed.

Our founders recognized that the tyranny of the mob is easily swayed by so-called leaders

You can't even be consistant within three paragraphs for chrissake. And you expect people to take you seriously?

I was not assuming anything.

Wishful thinking doesn't make it so. I know you have trouble following the back and forth of argument, and as such have a tendancy to get lost when it comes to simply logical deduction, but please try to keep up with what has been said.

Again, PROVE your point instead of just asserting it from on high.

Firstly, the facts of the matter are irrespective due to the logic error of your argument. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of where the burden of proof lies in this particular debate. You cannot counter an assertion with assumption, which is precisely what I pulled you up on.

You CANNOT PROVE that the '00 or '04 elections were anything but legitimate, despite your visceral response to the outcomes.

As legitimate voters were disbarred from voting, the election cannot be legitimate QED. Irrespective of your facistic attempts at revisionism.

Do some research on the voting machines and their inherant security flaws, do some research on the republican activists turning voters away. Do some research on the numerous attempts at voter suppression evidenced all across the media.

I SAW a live report of a BBC correspondant filming people being denied access to polling stations. I saw the Republican activist that had his car boot filled with democrat ballots that he simply *wasn't going to turn in*.

Why not actually check the posts here from that period and see example after example of electional misconduct. Why not ask some of the posters here about their PERSONAL EXPERIENCES of dirty tricks and cynical fraud? Why not take your fingers out of your ears, and stop going "LA LA LA" - weren't you paying attention to the last eight years? Or were you watching Fox?

[sam i am]

Since we're now debating electoral fraud.....see my post on it going both ways during elections.

I never asserted that NO chicanery took place in elections. That has been occurring since time immemorable : see the film "Gangs of New York" for some historical perspective.

Now, you mudslinging dog, as to your personal attacks : hope you are enjoying your vain attempts to dissuade me from engaging in debate with you, you worthless swine. Your vehemence in attempting to undermine me are completely in synch with your lack of character or cognitive ability. Waste your breath at your own peril, you filth-ridden peice of some animal's carcass. (All of the above insults brought to you courtesy of inspiration from "The Princess Bride," BTW.)

Finally, as to the efficacy of arguing your point based on first-person, unsubstantiated rumors and accounts : didn't you ever take any debate classes or study any history when you were in school? EVIDENCE is necessary to formulate your points. Your so-called "evidence" has been debunked and the election was WON, electorally, employing the United States' system of law, by George W. Bush, both in 2000 and 2004. Republicans INCREASED their majorities in BOTH houses of Congress. Where was all your faux bleating back in the day when Democrats ran the Congress and won Presidencies? I bet you weren't even alive to know what the hell was going on back then, were you?

Secondary accounts, reviewed by historians and experts are widely-acknowledged to be the best sources for events and happenings in the world around us. Remove your primary accounts and your ridiculous emotionality from this particular issue and you will come to a MUCH different conclusion than you have, thus far.

[Ace42X]

I never asserted that NO chicanery took place in elections.

"Legitimate" or "legal" suggests nothing "illegal" took place.

Again, you can argue until you are blue in the face, but until you actually use words that mean what you are trying to say, you won't get anywhere.

All of the above insults brought to you courtesy of inspiration from "The Princess Bride,"

I thought they were rather feeble.

Finally, as to the efficacy of arguing your point based on first-person, unsubstantiated rumors and accounts : didn't you ever take any debate classes or study any history when you were in school?

And as video-taped evidence of a factual nature is admissable in court, it is by any definition totally substantiated and legitimate.

EVIDENCE is necessary to formulate your points.

And the testimony of significant numbers of your own congressmen doesn't count as evidence? Not the constant media evidence?

Your so-called "evidence" has been debunked

I have never seen the word "debunked" to mean "ignored" before...

I bet you weren't even alive to know what the hell was going on back then, were you?

Of course I wasn't, and it is ridiculous to compare it. Since when has past injustices justified present ones? You might as well say "I bet you weren't even alive when we were lynching niggers, who cares that they don't get their constitutionally protected right to vote?"

Secondary accounts, reviewed by historians and experts are widely-acknowledged to be the best sources for events and happenings in the world around us. Remove your primary accounts and your ridiculous emotionality from this particular issue and you will come to a MUCH different conclusion than you have, thus far.

That is the most insipidly ignorant bollocks I have ever had this misfortune to hear.

"Secondary accounts are widely acknowledged to be the best sources" - no wonder you have a totally distorted view of the world if you think heresay and speculation are "the best sources."

As any ACTUAL historian will tell you, it is the first-hand accounts that are of primary value, as they are the least susceptible to spin.

Jeez you can be a real moron sometimes.

[sam i am]

And as video-taped evidence of a factual nature is admissable in court, it is by any definition totally substantiated and legitimate.

Were we arguing a legal case here? Civil or criminal? Is preponderance of evidence enough or do we need to convict you "beyond a reasonable doubt?"

And the testimony of significant numbers of your own congressmen doesn't count as evidence? Not the constant media evidence?

What testimony? Where? This has been tried in only one place that matters : the court of public opinion. 2004 proved that the jury found Bush innocent enough to be re-elected. The Defense rests, your honor, and asks that the case be thrown out due to scurrilous lack of evidence.

I have never seen the word "debunked" to mean "ignored" before...

Really? How sad for you. Debunked means what it says. Look it up.

Of course I wasn't, and it is ridiculous to compare it. Since when has past injustices justified present ones? You might as well say "I bet you weren't even alive when we were lynching niggers, who cares that they don't get their constitutionally protected right to vote?"

I wasn't comparing. Nice try. I was pointing out that you don't know, as usual, what the hell you are pontificating about.

That is the most insipidly ignorant bollocks I have ever had this misfortune to hear.

So glad you pay attention to the precision of your language. Were you reading out loud so you could hear the melodious sound of your own voice? What a narcissist you must be! Your hopeless meanderings in the swamp of ignorant bliss have become tiresome and your fulsomeness in your presentation has become meaningless background noise at this point.

"Secondary accounts are widely acknowledged to be the best sources" - no wonder you have a totally distorted view of the world if you think heresay and speculation are "the best sources."

Sorry to burst your bubble. Actually HAVING a history degree from a world-class University, I can speak with great authority on this subject. Move along, child, you're intruding upon the conversation of adults here. Oh, BTW, since when are secondary sources "hearsay (although you misspelled it as usual) and speculation?" Secondary MEANS that there has been RESEARCH and FACT-CHECKING PRIOR to publication, you slovenly scholar.

As any ACTUAL historian will tell you, it is the first-hand accounts that are of primary value, as they are the least susceptible to spin.

Bull-fucking-shit. You are speaking out of your ass here, ace. You have not an iota of sense or backing on this subject. "...least susceptible to spin?" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Sure - those most emotionally involved are the least likely to be influenced by those around them, not to mention the pervading media at the time, etc., et. al......check and CHECKMATE, brother.

Jeez you can be a real moron sometimes.

Jeez, you can be a completely ignorant, self-righteous, pontificating ass sometimes.

[EN[i]GMA]

That black people were unjustly purged from electoral roles is not disputed.

I had believed this to be false, but it is apparently the truth: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4137694,00.html#top

[sam i am]

GMA']I had believed this to be false, but it is apparently the truth: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4137694,00.html#top

Here's the key paragraph from that article :

"A few counties found it was so full of mistakes that they dumped the list altogether. Some sent out warning letters to the people who had been stripped of their voting rights, putting the burden on them to appeal. But most simply accepted the flawed list, and removed thousands of names from the rolls."

It was the county governments who were ultimately responsible and who didn't follow through on their responsibilities. All of the casting of aspersions in other directions is clearly muddled and unsubstantiated.

[EN[i]GMA]

Here's the key paragraph from that article :

"A few counties found it was so full of mistakes that they dumped the list altogether. Some sent out warning letters to the people who had been stripped of their voting rights, putting the burden on them to appeal. But most simply accepted the flawed list, and removed thousands of names from the rolls."

It was the county governments who were ultimately responsible and who didn't follow through on their responsibilities. All of the casting of aspersions in other directions is clearly muddled and unsubstantiated.

I would daresay the county governments do share a significant portion of the blame.

Regardless, the voting apperatus broke. What is to be done?

[Ace42X]

Were we arguing a legal case here? Civil or criminal? Is preponderance of evidence enough or do we need to convict you "beyond a reasonable doubt?"

Sorry, are you trying to imply that you feel evidence that is acceptable in a court of law is somehow "too shoddy" for debating here? Maybe in YOUR country.

What testimony? Where?

On your goddamn fucking TV you hill-billy sack of crap. Go watch Farenheit 9/11. See the bit where all those crazy black folks are complaining about their constituents being disenfranchised? Let me guess, that is holywood staging, despite not ONE DAMN PERSON yet saying it is fake...

This has been tried in only one place that matters : the court of public opinion. 2004 proved that the jury found Bush innocent enough to be re-elected.

You dsicredited "public opinion" not two posts ago, retard. Try to keep up with your own arguments.

The Defense rests, your honor, and asks that the case be thrown out due to scurrilous lack of evidence.

Google for it knob-jockey. Check the news of the day. What, did you have your head in the goddamn sand?

Debunked means what it says.

Hmm, jsut looked it up. It us a synonym for refuted. As the evidence hasn't been refuted, as Enigma points out, that makes you WRONG A FUCKING GAIN. I am getting tired of you going "no I'm not!" and making shit up. I have no patience for it.

I wasn't comparing. Nice try. I was pointing out that you don't know, as usual, what the hell you are pontificating about.

Either you were: A. Comparing; or B. making a totally random and irrelevant comment out of context in the middle of nowhere for no apparent reason.

Eitherway, it makes you a cock-smoker.

So glad you pay attention to the precision of your language.

You fuck cows in retrospect.

Sorry to burst your bubble. Actually HAVING a history degree from a world-class University, I can speak with great authority on this subject.

Bullshit do you. I know you yanks are backwards, but no self-respecting university would award degrees to someone so totally divorced from the crux of their subject as you are. I don't believe that you do for a second.

Secondary MEANS that there has been RESEARCH and FACT-CHECKING PRIOR to publication, you slovenly scholar.

"1 entry found for secondary source.
Main Entry: secondary source
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: any document that describes an event, person, place, or thing, usu. not created contemporaneously"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=secondary+source

Fact checking something that is not contemporary is pointless, as all you can determine is that it is "genuinely not contemporary."

Moron.

Bull-fucking-shit. You are speaking out of your ass here, ace. You have not an iota of sense or backing on this subject. "...least susceptible to spin?" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Sure - those most emotionally involved are the least likely to be influenced by those around them, not to mention the pervading media at the time, etc., et. al......check and CHECKMATE, brother.

Secondary sources are more likely to *reinterpret* events because unlike first-hand sources, it is impossible for them to *report* events.

CHECK FUCKING MATE.

Jeez, you can be a completely ignorant, self-righteous, pontificating ass sometimes.

Which is ironic coming from someone with delusions of education. If you do have a degree, which I sincerely doubt, it is not worth the paper it is written on.

[EN[i]GMA]

You fuck cows in retrospect.

I'm interested in hearing the physics behind that feat.

[Ace42X]

GMA']I'm interested in hearing the physics behind that feat.

It's a sexylosers quote. As he had decided to overlook the very basic flaws in his argument (IE inability to maintain internal consistancy) I decided to give up arguing with logic reason and facts. There's no point when someone is going to argue that the context of a phrase can make the word-meanings irrelevant.

[sam i am]

Sorry, are you trying to imply that you feel evidence that is acceptable in a court of law is somehow "too shoddy" for debating here? Maybe in YOUR country.



On your goddamn fucking TV you hill-billy sack of crap. Go watch Farenheit 9/11. See the bit where all those crazy black folks are complaining about their constituents being disenfranchised? Let me guess, that is holywood staging, despite not ONE DAMN PERSON yet saying it is fake...



You dsicredited "public opinion" not two posts ago, retard. Try to keep up with your own arguments.



Google for it knob-jockey. Check the news of the day. What, did you have your head in the goddamn sand?



Hmm, jsut looked it up. It us a synonym for refuted. As the evidence hasn't been refuted, as Enigma points out, that makes you WRONG A FUCKING GAIN. I am getting tired of you going "no I'm not!" and making shit up. I have no patience for it.



Either you were: A. Comparing; or B. making a totally random and irrelevant comment out of context in the middle of nowhere for no apparent reason.

Eitherway, it makes you a cock-smoker.



You fuck cows in retrospect.



Bullshit do you. I know you yanks are backwards, but no self-respecting university would award degrees to someone so totally divorced from the crux of their subject as you are. I don't believe that you do for a second.



"1 entry found for secondary source.
Main Entry: secondary source
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: any document that describes an event, person, place, or thing, usu. not created contemporaneously"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=secondary+source

Fact checking something that is not contemporary is pointless, as all you can determine is that it is "genuinely not contemporary."

Moron.



Secondary sources are more likely to *reinterpret* events because unlike first-hand sources, it is impossible for them to *report* events.

CHECK FUCKING MATE.



Which is ironic coming from someone with delusions of education. If you do have a degree, which I sincerely doubt, it is not worth the paper it is written on.

I've rarely laughed so hard. Thank you, ace.

So television accounts and Farenheit 9/11 are what you have, eh? Oh, well. Guess I'll take my news from sources that are not biased.

Again, just because you SAY secondary sources are "more likely to *reinterpret* events" doesn't make it so. They are JUST as likely to report events. Scholarly research without the *emotionality* of the moment is much more likely to give a clear, untarnished perspective on events.

Here's an example : Mein Kampf. Take Hitler's word for world events as a PRIMARY fucking source or look to secondary sources who DEBUNKED his whole stupid, muddled, idiotic ideology.....I'll take the latter.

I COULD go on and on, but I'm sure that one example is enough for your feeble-mindedness to wrap it's few existing brain cells around, you worthless pile of cow manure.

[sam i am]

It's a sexylosers quote. As he had decided to overlook the very basic flaws in his argument (IE inability to maintain internal consistancy) I decided to give up arguing with logic reason and facts. There's no point when someone is going to argue that the context of a phrase can make the word-meanings irrelevant.

This is so FUNNY! :p

Really? My "inability to maintain internal consistancy (again misspelled, idiot)" is any different than YOURS?

Please. Go pander your meaningless, two-bit "logic" somewhere else.