[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The Problem of the Bitcoin Billionaires

Biden: “We’re leaving America in a better place today than when we came into office four years ago … "

Candace Owens: Gaetz out, Bondi in. There's more to this than you think.

OMG!!! Could Jill Biden Be Any MORE Embarrassing??? - Anyone NOTICE This???

Sudden death COVID vaccine paper published, then censored, by The Lancet now republished with peer review

Russian children returned from Syria

Donald Trump Indirectly Exposes the Jewish Neocons Behind Joe Biden's Nuclear War

Key European NATO Bases in Reach of Russia's Oreshnik Hypersonic Missile

Supervolcano Alert in Europe: Phlegraean Fields Activity Sparks Scientists Attention (Mass Starvation)

France reacted to the words of a US senator on sanctions against allies

Trump nominates former Soros executive for Treasury chief

SCOTUS asked to review if Illinois can keep counting mail-in ballots 2 weeks after election day

The Real Reason Government Workers Are Panicking About ElonÂ’s New Tracking System

THEY DON'T CARE ANYMORE!

Young Americans Are Turning Off The TV

Taxpayer Funded Censorship: How Government Is Using Your Tax Dollars To Silence Your Voice

"Terminator" Robot Dog Now Equipped With Amphibious Capabilities

Trump Plans To Use Impoundment To Cut Spending - What Is It?

Mass job losses as major factory owner moves business overseas

Israel kills IDF soldiers in Lebanon to prevent their kidnap

46% of those deaths were occurring on the day of vaccination or within two days

In 2002 the US signed the Hague Invasion Act into law

MUSK is going after WOKE DISNEY!!!

Bondi: Zuckerberg Colluded with Fauci So "They're Not Immune Anymore" from 1st Amendment Lawsuits

Ukrainian eyewitnesses claim factory was annihilated to dust by Putin's superweapon

FBI Director Wray and DHS Secretary Mayorkas have just refused to testify before the Senate...

Government adds 50K jobs monthly for two years. Half were Biden's attempt to mask a market collapse with debt.

You’ve Never Seen THIS Side Of Donald Trump

President Donald Trump Nominates Former Florida Rep. Dr. Dave Weldon as CDC Director

Joe Rogan Tells Josh Brolin His Recent Bell’s Palsy Diagnosis Could Be Linked to mRNA Vaccine


World News
See other World News Articles

Title: British Backtrack on Iraq death toll
Source: Independent
URL Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2396031.ece
Published: Mar 27, 2007
Author: Jill Lawless
Post Date: 2007-03-27 06:38:41 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 30580
Comments: 394

British government officials have backed the methods used by scientists who concluded that more than 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since the invasion, the BBC reported yesterday.

The Government publicly rejected the findings, published in The Lancet in October. But the BBC said documents obtained under freedom of information legislation showed advisers concluded that the much-criticised study had used sound methods.

The study, conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, estimated that 655,000 more Iraqis had died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. The study estimated that 601,027 of those deaths were from violence.

The researchers, reflecting the inherent uncertainties in such extrapolations, said they were 95 per cent certain that the real number of deaths lay somewhere between 392,979 and 942,636.

The conclusion, based on interviews and not a body count, was disputed by some experts, and rejected by the US and British governments. But the chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, Roy Anderson, described the methods used in the study as "robust" and "close to best practice". Another official said it was "a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones".

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-162) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#163. To: BeAChooser (#160)

11 links that would take 5 hours to read and says who knows what. not one quotation snipped out even to demonstrate your point. and not one word about the details of your date with Jeff Gannon. Were you the boy or the girl? We're more interested in that.

But a TREASONOUS QUEER won't answer. and that is YET MORE PROOF that you ARE a TREASONOUS QUEER!!!!!!!!!!

Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Red Jones  posted on  2007-04-04   16:25:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#164. To: Destro, ALL (#140)

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8

Sorry, but none of that defines the FORM that a declaration of war must have.

Ergo, the law that Congress passed authorizing the use of force in Iraq might be considered a valid Declaration of War.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:36:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#165. To: ... (#142)

You know that Bush was supposed to return for a war resolution

Please link us to the written material requiring this. Bet you don't.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:37:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#166. To: Destro, ALL (#143)

"The resolution cited many factors to justify action in Iraq:"

All of them Bullshit.

That is YOUR opinion. The opinion of CONGRESS, however, was expressed in those twenty or so WHEREAS's in the law they passed authorizing the President to use force.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:40:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#167. To: BeAChooser (#164)

Ergo, the law that Congress passed authorizing the use of force in Iraq might be considered a valid Declaration of War.

Only in Tel Aviv (where it appears such matters for the United States are decided).

Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.

wbales  posted on  2007-04-04   16:42:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#168. To: Destro, ALL (#144)

I say the more plausible because it is less complicated explanation is that the method of murder was the crash of the airplane.

But the crash doesn't explain the head wound, which according to the pathologists looked more like something caused by a bullet.

I provided a link which I like because it does not mention any nonsense as a head shot.

What you provided was a STORY that someone made up and that doesn't account for the verifiable statements of the pathologists and photographer about what the wound, photos and x-rays told them.

If I see mention of a head shot I think disinfo attempt.

Why would the pathologists and photographer, who you can actually listen to talking about this matter if you desire, be part of a disinfo attempt? Because prior to their coming forward to blow the whistle in a variety of forums, there were no allegations of foul play in the Ron Brown matter. So why did they come forward?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:47:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#169. To: BeAChooser (#168)

But the crash doesn't explain the head wound,

Occam's Razor explains it well enough.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-04   16:49:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#170. To: BeAChooser, Destro, leveller, All (#164)

Destro: U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8

BAC: Sorry, but none of that defines the FORM that a declaration of war must have.

Ergo, the law that Congress passed authorizing the use of force in Iraq might be considered a valid Declaration of War.

Here's your answer from leveller on another thread which you have conveniently forgotten to read - furthermore, I believe leveller is better acquainted with the law ( hint, hint) than you are, BAC.

leveller states "No specific form is required. But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war."

So your ergo conclusion is worth squat, BAC. So what else is new?

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=49419&Disp=8#C8

#8. To: BeAChooser (#3)

BAC: the FORM the declaration must take.

leveller: No specific form is required. But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war.

An example of a valid declaration comes to us from 11 December 1941:

"The War Resolution Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States"

leveller posted on 2007-04-04 11:11:17 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

scrapper2  posted on  2007-04-04   16:49:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#171. To: Destro, ALL (#146)

Iraq posed no threat.

That's YOUR opinion.

The opinion of CONGRESS is expressed in the WHEREAS's of the bill they passed authorizing the use of force.

The UN did not authorize force to enforce its resolutions.

The UN does not supercede the right of the US to protect it's national security. And many of the members of the UN have been shown to have been on the take from Saddam or looking forward to very lucrative oil and weapon contracts the moment the sanctions were rescinded. In other words, they were compromised.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:50:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#172. To: Destro, Red Jones, Diana, ..., christine, ALL (#148)

I can only conclude that you are in fact a treasonous queer.

See the way the folks at 4um debate, Destro, when they have nothing to counter the actual facts?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:52:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#173. To: Diana, ALL (#150)

But those we vote for are suppose to represent us.

No, they are supposed to do what they think is RIGHT after having been elected.

They are not supposed to act solely on the basis of public polling.

Because public opinion, sadly enough, is easily manipulated and the public is often not aware of all the facts. Sometimes for security reasons. Sometimes out of their own sheer laziness or disinterest.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:54:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#174. To: Diana, ALL (#151)

You, for one because you actually believe in the mythical Zarqawi who no one where he was supposedly causing trouble ever heard of him.

Whatever, Diana.

I'll stand by the many links I've provided above.

Those visiting this forum can decide who is right.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:55:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#175. To: Destro, ALL (#154)

Bush is not the boss of the UN

And the UN is not the boss of the United States.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:56:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#176. To: All, Red Jones (#155)

Morgana, I don't mind telling you that I fully trust your version of these events and not BAC's.

Of course, Red Jones is one of those who thinks there were bombs throughout the WTC towers.

He has also refused to share details of his date with Jeff Gannon.

See how 4umers debate when facts don't work?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:58:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#177. To: BeAChooser (#172)

You don't use facts either - in fact you are not objective at all but an advocate for Bush or to be more honest the neocon policy that Bush pushes.

For example, Congress only authorized war as a last result - Bush abused the authorization congress gave him to go to war.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-04   16:59:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#178. To: Destro, ALL (#169)

Occam's Razor explains it well enough.

Don't you think trained forensic pathologists are aware of Occam's Razor?

You now seem desperate to avoid what those pathologists say.

I find that curious, Destro.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   17:00:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#179. To: scrapper2, ALL (#170)

"No specific form is required.

BINGO.

But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war."

According to whom? Sorry, but that's just an OPINION.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   17:02:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#180. To: BeAChooser, Destro (#172)

See the way the folks at 4um debate, Destro, when they have nothing to counter the actual facts?

Is Destro your brother or your debate coach, BAC? Why are you running to him to to report the "indignities" you invite and willingly suffer on this 4um?

Btw, "facts" are not what you post here, BAC. What you post are highly selective rightwing biased "cut and paste."

scrapper2  posted on  2007-04-04   17:03:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#181. To: Destro, ALL (#177)

You don't use facts either

I beg to disagree.

The law passed by Congress authorizing the use of force is a fact.

The expert opinions of the pathologists in the Ron Brown case is a fact.

You now seem to want to avoid both.

Congress only authorized war as a last result

And said Bush could define the final straw.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   17:05:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#182. To: BeAChooser, leveller (#179)

leveller: But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war."

BAC: According to whom? Sorry, but that's just an OPINION.

And what is it that you post, BAC, but an opinion - your opinion specifically - which I doubt is a result of professional legal training and education like leveller's is.

scrapper2  posted on  2007-04-04   17:07:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#183. To: BeAChooser (#178)

Don't you think trained forensic pathologists are aware of Occam's Razor? You now seem desperate to avoid what those pathologists say.

All one of them said - I am not aware of plural - is that they would have liked to have done an autopsy.

Why complicate the matter - it is clear the plane Ron Brown was on was directed into the mountainside. The crash killed everyone on board.

Trying to figure out how a shooter could execute the murder of Brown with a head shot (while not killing the rest of the passengers in the same way) and then exiting the plane - wither before lift off - during flight or afterwards is much more complicated a scenario.

If you can figure out how Ron Brown's execution could be coordinated with the crash scenario without looking like a cheap hollywood movie with guys jumping out of airplanes just before they crash like in Mission Impossible, be my guest.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-04   17:08:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#184. To: scrapper2, BeAChooser (#180)

I think because I try and attempt to see the other side of all arguments even if I disagree with them - and I disagree with BAC's argument on Iraq. All I hear from BAC is standard Bushbot talking points on Iraq from BAC.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-04   17:14:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#185. To: scrapper2, BeAChooser, leveller, burkeman1 (#182)

leveller: But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war."

That we have come to the point when this is not obvious to so many - especially among what I assumed would be the super dooper constitution upholding party like the Republicans - then the Republic is lost and its maintenance is a fiction.

Remember that the fiction of the Roman legions marching under the banner of SPQR was maintained well into the Byzantine era of the Roman empire.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-04   17:18:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#186. To: scrapper2 (#180)

it's funny the way the chooser complains about the way everyone on 4um debates him. he's been soundly and roundly annihilated over and over and over and mostly by the same posters who have done the same to him on LP. what a troll. fortunately, Neil has now given us an ignore thread function. ;)

christine  posted on  2007-04-04   17:22:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#187. To: BeAChooser, ... (#161)

...: The stuff you are spewing above is only published in third tier goob fooler rags targeted to conspiracy kooks such as yourself.

... snip ...

Do you have a shred of evidence for the SHIT that you just spewed above that comes out of a respectable publication?

BAC: See the above post. You are only making a fool of yourself, ...

HAHAHAHAHA. Come again, BAC, who is making a fool of himself?

The sources you point out to ... as showing him to be a fool does the very opposite - the sources show you to be the fool, the shill-dupe of reichwing prop.

Townhall, Fox News, National Review - eeeeeek - are you so thick, BAC, that you don't see what a useful tool you are?

Salem Comminications owns Townhall - born again ownership:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php? title=Salem_Communications_Corporation

As for Fox News:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News

...Relationship with Republicans

In late 2002, Fox News chairman Roger Ailes confirmed the allegation in Bob Woodward's book Bush at War that he had sent a note to Karl Rove in the Bush White House suggesting policies to be adopted in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Woodward described the note as advocating Bush take "the harshest measures possible" in order to maintain the support of the American public. Ailes said the note was not political advice but a message sent "as a human being and a citizen", and denied that he used the word "harsh" or "harshly".[3] ...The Poynter Institute, by former Fox News producer Charlie Reina, described the Fox newsroom as being permeated by bias...

As for National Review, "The current director of the National Review is Jeff Sandefer, President of the Texas-based energy investment firm Sandefer Capital."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php? title=National_Review

scrapper2  posted on  2007-04-04   17:24:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#188. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2, ALL, Just who is this All, BAC? He never posts . . . (#179)

"But, though a solemn declaration, or previous notice to the enemy, be now laid aside, it is essential that some formal public act, proceeding directly from the competent source, should announce to the people at home their new relations and duties growing out of a state of war, and which should equally apprise neutral nations of the fact, to enable them to conform their conduct to the rights belonging to the new state of things. War, says Vattel, is at present published and declared by manifestoes. Such an official act operates from its date to legalize all hostile acts, in like manner as a treaty of peace operates from its date to annul them. As war cannot lawfully be commenced on the part of the United States without an act of Congress, such an act is, of course, a formal official notice to all the world, and equivalent to the most solemn declaration." Chancellor Kent, Commentaries On American Law, Vol I, Part 1, Lecture III (1826)

leveller  posted on  2007-04-04   17:46:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#189. To: scrapper2, leveller, ALL (#182)

leveller: But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war."

BAC: According to whom? Sorry, but that's just an OPINION.

And what is it that you post, BAC, but an opinion - your opinion specifically

All I've done is ask you folks to point out SPECIFICALLY in the Constitution or our laws where the FORM that a Declaration of War must take is spelled out.

And clearly you can't do it. Because it isn't. Perhaps the framers of the Constitution wanted it that way?

Instead, you just CLAIM that a state of war must be stated to exist by Congress for a Declaration of War. Based on YOUR opinion.

But the only opinion that really matters is that of Congress and the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has not ruled this war illegal. They have not ruled that the Authorization To Use Force doesn't constitute a "declaration of war".

And I posted the opinion of CONGRESS in the form of a law authorizing Bush to use military force to deal with the problem of Iraq. That law specifically states that "the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution."

Section 5 (b) puts a time limit of no longer than 90 days for the use of United States Armed Forces in a foreign nation without a declaration of war or a joint resolution of Congress otherwise authorizing the use of force.

That requirement has been met. You may not like it (in your OPINION), but it has been met.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   18:59:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#190. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#157)

I can't speak for the whole forum, BAC, but for my money, it's time for you to go back & suck on Goldi's sagging tits. You're draining too damned much good time and energy, around here.

(Time for the bozo/vote, I guess.)

By the way BAC, tell your handlers that I can be bought off. I told you that before, but you didn't listen.


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2007-04-04   19:00:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#191. To: Destro, ALL (#183)

"Don't you think trained forensic pathologists are aware of Occam's Razor? You now seem desperate to avoid what those pathologists say."

All one of them said - I am not aware of plural - is that they would have liked to have done an autopsy.

Then you haven't been paying attention. I posted to you half a dozen named forensic pathologists and what they said about the wound in Brown's head. See post #108. And they said a lot more than just that they would have liked an autopsy. And you responded to post #108 in post #114 ... so don't claim you didn't see it.

As I said, you now seem to be running as hard as you can from the pathologists and what they've said in numerous venues about the hole in Ron Brown's head. Curious ...

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   19:05:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#192. To: Destro, ALL (#184)

I think because I try and attempt to see the other side of all arguments

Except when it comes to what the pathologists have said about the hole in Brown's head. Then you just ignore the arguments and facts.

All I hear from BAC is standard Bushbot talking points on Iraq from BAC.

And labeling me a "Bushbot" isn't going to score you points either ... except perhaps in the eyes of the typical 4umer who believes I'm satan, bombs brought down the WTC, the hole in the Pentagon is 20 feet in diameter and an average of 600 Iraqis have been dying every single day since the war began.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   19:09:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#193. To: christine, ALL (#186)

he's been soundly and roundly annihilated over and over and over

No, he's been called "evil" by folks who still insist that the WTC towers collapsed in 10 seconds even though photos and videos at numerous sources prove that's absolutely false. That should tell you something, christine.

fortunately, Neil has now given us an ignore thread function.

But you failed to use it on this thread. ;)

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   19:13:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#194. To: scrapper2, ..., ALL (#187)

The sources you point out to ... as showing him to be a fool does the very opposite - the sources show you to be the fool, the shill-dupe of reichwing prop.

So scrapper ... you are saying that NTI's Global Security Newswire, the Associated Press, Jordanian Times, Agence France-Presse, CSPAN, The Washington Times, the San Diego Union-Tribune, The Boston Globe, CNN, USATODAY, CBS News, MSNBC, FOX News, ABC News, The National Review, townhall, the Pittzburgh Post-Gazette, The Irish News, Powerline, FrontPageMag, Larry Elder, LittleGreenFootballs, Reuters and The Washington Post all are working together?

Because they ALL carried the story about the Jordan chemical bomb plot.

Contrary to ...'s claim that my only source was Newsmax.

Yes, scrapper ... I do think I know who is making fools of themselves here.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   19:35:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#195. To: leveller, scrapper2, ALL (#188)

As war cannot lawfully be commenced on the part of the United States without an act of Congress, such an act is, of course, a formal official notice to all the world, and equivalent to the most solemn declaration."

Which is exactly what Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502 did.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   19:38:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#196. To: BeAChooser (#194)

So scrapper ... you are saying that NTI's Global Security Newswire, the Associated Press, Jordanian Times, Agence France-Presse, CSPAN, The Washington Times, the San Diego Union-Tribune, The Boston Globe, CNN, USATODAY, CBS News, MSNBC, FOX News, ABC News, The National Review, townhall, the Pittzburgh Post-Gazette, The Irish News, Powerline, FrontPageMag, Larry Elder, LittleGreenFootballs, Reuters and The Washington Post all are working together?

No I didn't say that that "all were working together."

But most of the "news" sources you cited are echo chambers of one another's right wing bias. Come on - how different is FrontPage from Townhall from Fox news,from Little Green Footballs, from Larry Elder, from Washington Times?

The others I'd need to check on ownership. Most of the US news sources are owned by approx 6 or so parent companies whose owners have questionable AmericaFirst persuations, politely speaking.

scrapper2  posted on  2007-04-04   19:46:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#197. To: BeAChooser (#189)

Take a close look at the US declarations of war against Japan and Germany. You'll notice that each declares that a state of war exists betwen the US and a specific nation.

Now look at AUMF. One reason, apparently that its text does not declare that a state of war exists, is that such a sentence would require completion by specifying the particular nation with which the US is or was at war.

AUMF, however, unconsitutionally delegates to the President the power to declare war, by allowing him to determine against whom military force shall be used:

"Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

leveller  posted on  2007-04-04   19:49:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#198. To: BeAChooser (#191)

Then you haven't been paying attention. I posted to you half a dozen named forensic pathologists

So? No link.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-04   19:55:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#199. To: BeAChooser (#192)

Except when it comes to what the pathologists have said about the hole in Brown's head. Then you just ignore the arguments and facts.

Unsourced cut and pastings.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-04   19:56:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#200. To: scrapper2, ALL (#196)

Come on - how different is FrontPage from Townhall from Fox news,from Little Green Footballs, from Larry Elder, from Washington Times?

... from CNN, from MSNBC, from CBS, from CSPAN, from ABC, from Washington Post, from USATODAY, from Boston Globe, from Associated Press, from AFP, from Reuters.

If you include those in your list, the answer is as different as night and day. Which is why you deliberately didn't include them. And if you are claiming that all of them are lying to you about what happened in Jordan and what those terrorists said on live Jordanian TV and in court, then I'm afraid most people are going to think you are a bit paranoid.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   19:59:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#201. To: leveller, ALL whoever they are (#197)

Take a close look at the US declarations of war against Japan and Germany. You'll notice that each declares that a state of war exists betwen the US and a specific nation.

Good for them.

But the fact remains that neither the Constitution or laws define the form a declaration of war must take.

And did you know that none other than President Thomas Jefferson sent his military forces to the Med with orders to look for *someone* to fight ... at a time when we weren't at war because one hadn't been declared by Congress? In fact, Jefferson sent the forces WITHOUT CONSULTING CONGRESS AT ALL. Jefferson sent the navy with permission to "protect our commerce and chastise their insolence - by sinking, burning or destroying their ships and Vessels wherever (he should) find them." And post facto Congress did approve Jefferson's actions (although they did NOT declare war) which nevertheless led to a defacto war that lasted about four years. In Congress (largely made of framers of the Constitution), only Hamilton criticized Jefferson, but not for using force, but for not using enough force. Hamilton also expressed doubts about Jefferson's strict interpretation of the war powers of the President. He felt that since Tripoli had already declared war, there was no need for Congress to do so. And these were the framers of our Constitution, leveller. Jefferson embroiled the nation in a war BEFORE congressional assent was given ... in any form. The reality is that he sent his forces out to provoke a war, even if none existed because he understood what you folks don't ... that war was the answer. The reality is that the situation at that time is not too dissimilar to our situation now and the actions of Bush are not all that different from those of Jefferson and Madison.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   20:17:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#202. To: BeAChooser (#200) (Edited)

from CNN, from MSNBC, from CBS, from CSPAN, from ABC, from Washington Post, from USATODAY, from Boston Globe, from Associated Press, from AFP, from Reuters.

If you include those in your list, the answer is as different as night and day. Which is why you deliberately didn't include them. And if you are claiming that all of them are lying to you about what happened in Jordan and what those terrorists said on live Jordanian TV and in court, then I'm afraid most people are going to think you are a bit paranoid.

I told you that I did not include some BECAUSE I needed to check into parent company, ownership. And I also told you that media ownership is controlled by approx 6 families, who held questionable AmericaFirst loyalties. What I implied to you was that even after I double-checked ownership, I doubted there would be that much of a difference between any of them in their primary loyalty persuations. They'd likely all be pro-Israel and therefore all be pro Iraq War because that war was for Israel's benefit. There I spelled it out for you. Kapeesh?

Also, may I remind you that you included blogs with newspapers and magazines and even within that "variety" I found a pattern of right wing echo chamber.

scrapper2  posted on  2007-04-04   20:42:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (203 - 394) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]