• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Afghan Facts and Fiction?

A web comic that also matches my thoughts: xkcd - A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language.

conspiracy_theories.png
 
author=Koenigsegg link=topic=70803/post-674500#msg674500 date=1202955122

So if you want them to use reputable, unbiased sources, could we use fewer government sites?

No offense, but it really doesn't matter what type of "official" sources we use when dealing with these types ...

Once upon a time they were the first to quote "United Nations" peace-loving links, statistics, & sources to justify their left leaning views --- these days they'd even refute the UN references we could provide regarding the legalities and timelines of operations within Afghanistan with a "the UN is a pawn of the US Government and George W" comment. That always seems to be the way with them ... just dismiss any credible and official source of information as "US controlled & operated" ... unless, of course, it happens to be agreeing with their POV.

Regardless, I'd wager that the UN is a whole lot more credible than the left/communist/socialist blog sites and source links they like to use as their "sources."
 
ArmyVern (Female type) said:
Regardless, I'd wager that the UN is a whole lot more credible than the left/communist/socialist blog sites and source links they like to use as their "sources."

Uhm Vern,

I call BS on that statement....I have links and proof...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy)#UN_takeover_of_the_USA.3B_internment_camps

dileas

tess
 
I wont lose any sleep over these people. I rest comfortably with the fact that they are pretty much limited to their internet ramblings and masturbatorily agreeing with eachother without any real political support.
 
No offense

None taken.  You are correct.  You have a lot more knowledge and experience with this sort of thing than I do, and I see that my comment was made out of ignorance.  Good intentions in my eyes, but ignorance as to the other party.

And of course, "once upon a time" being, what?  6-7 years ago? haha
Ah...how things change.  IQ scores may be going up, but Intelligence seems to be going the other way.
 
the 48th regulator said:
Uhm Vern,

I call BS on that statement....I have links and proof...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy)#UN_takeover_of_the_USA.3B_internment_camps

dileas

tess

:rofl:

Excellent & very credible source mongering there Tess!! I'd vote for you!!

Perhaps you should start a thread where we can all pose as ultra-liberal wingnuts --- hence any more visitors like this ... could quote you & I as a credible source !! Imagine that!!  >:D

 
NFLD Sapper said:
Is it me or has troll season come real early this year  ???
Its really really cold out west. They probably don't have anything better to do then sit inside and keep warm and post inflammatory messages on army.ca.
 
Koenigsegg said:
None taken.  You are correct.  You have a lot more knowledge and experience with this sort of thing than I do, and I see that my comment was made out of ignorance.  Good intentions in my eyes, but ignorance as to the other party.

And of course, "once upon a time" being, what?  6-7 years ago? haha
Ah...how things change.  IQ scores may be going up, but Intelligence seems to be going the other way.

My only ultra-left-wing experience & knowledge is that I've been around long enough to see them call something a "credible source" one day ... then write the very same source off the next as "incredulous" because it doesn't back whatever their claim is regarding one of their current crises-du-jour.

Seems to me that the UN is a perfectly fine source for them to quote when dealing with QOL issues for Canada's native populace, but all of a sudden is "a pawn of Uncle Sam" when someone else uses it as a source to point out fallacies with their "Afghanistan" arguments to them.
 
Thucydides said:
Both Communism and Fascism are subsets of the political philosophy of Socialism (and there are lots of threads right here in Canadian Politics about these very topics)

That has always confused me - 'Fascism' politically belongs on the left hand of the spectrum, yet most generally accepted reference material produced by the academics (and many self-proclaimed SME's) places it on the far right with militant groups.  It supports the adage 'a lie will be accepted as the truth if it is repeated enough times".

 
CDN Aviator said:
Now...lets see your sources that the US was planning an invasion 3 years prior to 9/11.........

That's funny, there actually are websites out there with 'evidence' of this.

The incredibly believable 'World Socilaist Web Site'...
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml

A keen individual named Paul Thompson who looks like he based all of his reporting on newspaper articles...
http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/main/AAafghanwar.html

The infamous WHAT REALLY HAPPENED web page that broke the story on ... nothing important.  Another tin-foil-hat type...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/preplanned.html

Of course some credible sites like BBC reported a US plan to invade Afghanistan before 9/11, but it was part of other ongoing political issues...  nothing like a conspiracy theorist to draw a straight line to connect unrelated issues...

Edit - I see JaneBella is gone now... nevermind...

 
Oh!! There's that world "socialist" mentioned again!! That means it's a truely "credible" (& primary) source for them to use!!  :)
 
ArmyVern (Female type) said:
Oh!! There's that world "socialist" mentioned again!! That means it's a truely "credible" (& primary) source for them to use!!  :) 

With 'socialist' somehow translating as 'unimpeachable source of information'...
 
The USA initiated 85 yes-or-no votes in the UN general assembly in 2003;

- the arab league voted against the US position in 88.7% of the time,

-the ASEAN members voted against the US position 84.5% of the time,

- the islamic conference members voted against the US position 84.1% of the time,

- the African members voted against the US position 83.8% of the time,

-the non-aligned movement members voted against the US position 82.% of the time,

-European Union members voted against the US position 54.5% of the time.

Sounds like the the USA is really running the show at the good old United Nations. Shove that in a lefties face when he makes the claim that the UN is the US's lap-dog and watch the hate-filled ad hominem attacks fly!
 
Harbinger said:
The USA initiated 85 yes-or-no votes in the UN general assembly in 2003;

- the arab league voted against the US position in 88.7% of the time,

-the ASEAN members voted against the US position 84.5% of the time,

- the islamic conference members voted against the US position 84.1% of the time,

- the African members voted against the US position 83.8% of the time,

-the non-aligned movement members voted against the US position 82.% of the time,

-European Union members voted against the US position 54.5% of the time.

Sounds like the the USA is really running the show at the good old United Nations. Shove that in a lefties face when he makes the claim that the UN is the US's lap-dog and watch the hate-filled ad hominem attacks fly!

But, the kicker is -- that if you quoted those statistics from the UN (you should cite sources for stats such as this BTW), they'd (the left) would write them off as being unreliable because they come from "the UN --- a pawn of the U.S." Quite simply ironic isn't it? Those stats must be LIES!!!
 
Greymatters said:
That has always confused me - 'Fascism' politically belongs on the left hand of the spectrum, yet most generally accepted reference material produced by the academics (and many self-proclaimed SME's) places it on the far right with militant groups.  It supports the adage 'a lie will be accepted as the truth if it is repeated enough times".

Too true. the source of the "Fascism/National Socialism is right wing" trope is the Soviet Union, which spread the theme as part of the "Popular Front" strategy of 1934-39 to build an alliance against Italy and Germany. Rather remarkably, the USSR and Comintern suddenly saw Fascism and National Socialism in an entirely new light with the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Minds were changed again in 1941 (with a Tokarev 9mm, if necessary).
 
The troll in the castle has been defeated, and we've all said the same stuff a gazillion times.  Is this thread going to keep up one side of a debate for much longer?  If so, I'll grab a new torch, cuz this ones burning down to my hand, and I'd like to trade up for a lighter pitchfork.
 
Thucydides said:
Too true. the source of the "Fascism/National Socialism is right wing" trope is the Soviet Union, which spread the theme as part of the "Popular Front" strategy of 1934-39 to build an alliance against Italy and Germany. Rather remarkably, the USSR and Comintern suddenly saw Fascism and National Socialism in an entirely new light with the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Minds were changed again in 1941 (with a Tokarev 9mm, if necessary). 

I recall that bit of propoganda, but dont see how the fiction was maintained up to present.
Can you keep going up to present, or is there a source on this I can read to save you typing?
 
ArmyVern (Female type) said:
Just google her username ladies & gents and you'll see exactly how loopy her ravings against YOU, the soldier actually are ...  ::)

No story here. Just more left-wing ultra-lunacy anti-soldier (and anti-LEO) rants.

Do enjoy your googling ... I highly recommend it.  ;)

Took your advice Vern, very entertaining indeed. A plethora of socialist left wing sites filled with the usual suspects (rabble was conspicuously missing though) ??? In fact one sight I tried to find her comedy act notified me that I was banned, when in fact until today I  had never even heard of the site let alone visited it! ;D
 
Back
Top