[Ayelbourne]

Let me say first that I think Hussein will do a Ted Bundy at this point and jerk every chain he can get hold of.

That being said, my question is this: if today he admitted having possessed weapons of mass destruction and having had ties to Al Qaeda, would you believe him?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Let me say first that I think Hussein will do a Ted Bundy at this point and jerk every chain he can get hold of.

That being said, my question is this: if today he admitted having possessed weapons of mass destruction and having had ties to Al Qaeda, would you believe him?

Only if sodium pentothal was involved.

[thunderous_funker]

Don't tell me they forgot to read him his Miranda rights.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Don't tell me they forgot to read him his Miranda rights.

I thought they were going to stop doing that? I mean, for everyone (in America)?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Don't tell me they forgot to read him his Miranda rights.

I think he'd look very cute.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
I thought they were going to stop doing that? I mean, for everyone (in America)?

Oj, oj, oj - I just realised I almost derailed my own thread three posts in... whoops!

[version]

Saddam is pretty much innocent on quite a few things, and if not, then at leat not fully to blame.

The infamous Hallabja massacre, was probably done by the Iranians, and not Saddam.

There never were any ties between Saddam, and Al-Qaeeda, just a convenience for the Bush Admin to demonise Iraq even further, and justify whatever the US wants to do.

Even Saddam's capture has all the hallmarks of being staged, very convenient for the Bush elections, teh uS probably knew where he was all along, and made sure he would be 'captured' at the right moment. It's the same with Bin Laden, British Forces had found him in some cave in Afghanista, yet just as the British troops were to go in, a command from the US Army told them to halt. |Hmmm, wonder why? To keep their evil Al-Qaeeda spectre still in the public domain.

here's the links to Saddam not being responsible for some of the things we like to associate with him.

P.s. When will we see Bush, Rummie, Cheney, et al on trial? they are the puppeteers in all of this, their hands covered in blood, yet why aren't they on trial?


http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=2434

[version]

Here's snippet from just one of the aritlces, taken from the New York Times, and written by an ex-CIA person.


"
MECHANICSBURG, Pa. - It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas. "

[version]

Seems to me that the tragedy was the result of a battle between two nations. Isn't this similar to how the US wages war? If the US can use whatever new weapons it devises, then surely they have no right to be telling, or judging what other nations use for defence.

[Ayelbourne]

Well, there's a whole lot of threads in there and a lot of issues that have already bogged down neighboring threads to this one...

... but you haven't answered the question I posed: do you believe Hussein's denials, and would you believe him if he admitted these charges (WMD, Al Qaeda ties)?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Well, there's a whole lot of threads in there and a lot of issues that have already bogged down neighboring threads to this one...

... but you haven't answered the question I posed: do you believe Hussein's denials, and would you believe him if he admitted these charges (WMD, Al Qaeda ties)?

I did answer the question - albeit jokingly.

No, I wouldn't trust him. He has every incentive to lie, manipulate, mislead, deceive, and attempt to implicate others (guilty or innocent). However, he is not going to be giving press conferences. He's going to be spending his time alone talking to professional interrogators. And while I was joking about truth serum, they probably will get some useful intelligence from him. But I wouldn't take anything from him at face value.

Note, by the way I am talking here about his interrogation. This is separate from the trial, where he will have lawyers and all the other due process protections (or so I hope). But first he is going to be squeezed a bit for the private benefit of the intelligence services.

[version]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Well, there's a whole lot of threads in there and a lot of issues that have already bogged down neighboring threads to this one...

... but you haven't answered the question I posed: do you believe Hussein's denials, and would you believe him if he admitted these charges (WMD, Al Qaeda ties)?

Sorry my friend. I would believe him, I personally don't think he's a liar, he's many things, but there's too been too much fud from anti-Iraq sides that I don't believe a word of the US admin.

If the US Army is saying that Saddam has been co-operating so far, and given them various tis, such as those that led to the arrest today of 2 senior wanted figures, then I find it hard to then hear how the Bush Admin are also sayign he is being un co-operative when it comes to WMD, Al-Qaeeda.
Sounds like to me that since he's not saying what the US wants to hear, then he must be lying. Not very fair.

Anyhoo, we've heard so much from the US on Saddam having WMD, and these tenuous links to Al-Qaeeda, that it beggers belief that we still haven't seen one single piece of evidence to back up these claims, and now they're relying on Saddam to just come clean.
SO basically it sounds like the US had no clue before, made it all up, and created the pre-text for invasion.

I believe him, he's a broken man now, his sons killed, country invaded, he's on his last legs, and so far has co-operated with the US.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
... but you haven't answered the question I posed: do you believe Hussein's denials, and would you believe him if he admitted these charges (WMD, Al Qaeda ties)?

Since those two points are the only things that would retroactively justify the invasion in many eyes...

-s*

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I did answer the question - albeit jokingly.

I'm sorry, Simey, I was addressing version's post and didn't make that clear - but thanks for expanding on the subject anyway!

[thunderous_funker]

considering that Saddam will probably not being holding any press conferences any time soon, version does raise important questions about "intelligence" that the US will release as information gathered from Saddam's torture...um..I mean interrogation at the hands of our Jordanian or Egyptian friends.

Its not hard for me to imagine a scenario where statements very beneficial to US interests get released to the public and attributed to Saddam.

I can see the headlines:

"Saddam reveals massive plot; gloats he would have won 'if not for you meddling kids'"

I hate feeling that cynical about my government, but I can't help it. I can't think of any administration that has demonstrated a more deep and ideological committment to the concept of The Noble Lie than the current one. If they think its best for Americans to simply believe something, they will most certainly say it--evidence or no evidence.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I hate feeling that cynical about my government, but I can't help it. I can't think of any administration that has demonstrated a more deep and ideological committment to the concept of The Noble Lie than the current one. If they think its best for Americans to simply believe something, they will most certainly say it--evidence or no evidence.

that's funny, I felt the same thing when the Clintons were President.

On topic:

No. I don't think I could believe anything from the fella. Anything he says is going to require a great deal of investigation. Kinda the way the libs feel about anything Bush says.

[Sherwin]

Saddam ain't gonna be mentioning the WMDs until he thinks he can use that information as a bargaining tool to get himself a nice comfy cell rather than a noose.
If he thinks he can wing a deal with the info he has, he'll try to.

The whole thing over where (and by whom) he'll be tried will be geared up to get this information out of him. They know he ain't gonna give it until he's assured prison rather than death. So you'll see a lot of screwing about with the US trying to stage the proceedings to their advantage whilst trying to avoid the appearance of them running the show.

Sit back, watch the play unfold.

[slow moe]

How stupid would it be of Saddam's subordinates to tell him where they're hiding everything when he was the most wanted man in the world?

Use your brain people.

[macvillage.net]

note, bush said there were ties to Al Qaeda...

But he *never* stated that they could be proved, or would ever be proved. He made a point at several press confrences to make that very clear.

WMD is another story.

But the Al Qaeda ties, he made clear early on would never be proven.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by version:
Sorry my friend. I would believe him, I personally don't think he's a liar, he's many things, but there's too been too much fud from anti-Iraq sides that I don't believe a word of the US admin.

I'm with Version. Saddam and his administration have always been the epitome of honesty if nothing else. If you don't believe me, just ask this guy:


"Lying is forbidden in Iraq. President Saddam Hussein will tolerate nothing but truthfulness as he is a man of great honor and integrity. Everyone is encouraged to speak freely of the truths evidenced in their eyes and hearts."
100% true quote from Saeed al-Sahaf, Iraqi Minister of Information (currently on administrative leave).

[nate_02]

I don't think Saddam would tell the truth.

[Spliffdaddy]

I love it.

Just as I thought.

The hatred of Dubya runs so deep that peaceniks would take Saddam's word over that of the President of the United States.

I think that nicely sums up the mentality of the opposition.

Thanks, guys!

[Arkham_c]

Just put me in a room with him, some jumper cables, a car battery, and my dremel tool, and I'll get the truth out of him.

[rjenkinson]

Originally posted by Arkham_c:
Just put me in a room with him, some jumper cables, a car battery, and my dremel tool, and I'll get the truth out of him.

blood is not truth.

-r.

[swrate]

Being sceptical I would have doubts about any info,
whatever the side.

Even though The President/administration of US have means and easier conditions, they dont have more moral immunity then the ex president of Iraq, imo,

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by rjenkinson:
blood is not truth.

-r.

It's a lot easier to deal with, it seems.

-s*

[christ]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
...take Saddam's word over that of the President of the United States...

So when is Dubya scheduled for the pentathol? The torture^H^H^H^H^H^H^H interrogation?

I would tend toward believing stuff extracted under torture by professionals over public statements by politicians.

Not that I condone what would be done.

If the situations were similiar (ie both in power in their respective countries, neither having an election coming up) then, on balance, although I hate to admit it, Bush might just shade it. Just.

[theolein]

Isn't it a bit early to get into this kind of conjecture? I can imagine that the US administration is well aware of international scrutiny (especially with respect to the Arab world) with regards to Saddam's treatment and future trial and will avoid doing or saying things that could backfire on them. While we're all making our statements on our particular preferences for his treatment, I'm sure that those who have him know very well that his treatment is a particularly sensitive matter, although I can see, obviously, that his capture will be used, even if only in an indirect manner, for political capital in the 2004 elections (Bush would be crazy not to use Saddam's capture for campaign purposes, although up until now he has been decidedly low key about it, but that's probably better like that)

[OreoCookie]

Personally, I would tend to believe what Hussein says after a while, when he has accomodated to his new situation. I wouldn't take anything for granted, that's for sure.

He's got nothing to loose, face it. He lost ‘his' country, his wealth, his pride, his power, his family.

But what I certainly don't believe is that the US would tell us, that would render any information obtained from him useless.

So same old marketing stuff.

[ebuddy]

Wow, Version is a lot like Ayatollah only with opposite viewpoint. What's the deal with the hatred thing man? Seriously, did Uncle Sam steal your Radio Flyer or something? Let me see if I get this straight; Bush is a liar, Saddam tells the truth. Wow. That's all I can say. wow. You shouldn't hate your country so much just by virtue of who is running it. That shows serious lack of insight. BTW, did you know that Clinton, Albright, and Clark are wanted people? Did you know that they also have been convicted of International Crimes against humanity? Are you in favor of them going before a trial? No? I didn't think so. Hypocrisy has neither boundaries nor shame!

Fact; WMD will be found. There were many (one in particular and we'll hear of him soon) who was very involved in Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical weaponry and is privy to much of it's whereabouts. He would say nothing if not given asylum elsewhere or guaranteed Saddam's capture or death. He will now speak.

Fact; Al Queda and Saddam are connected and proof will be established that Iraq was involved in training Al Queda and dedicating resources both in the form of camps, weaponry, and finance.

Fact; The vast majority of Iraqi's are thankful for our occupation as without it we would not have uprooted their tyrant. They are glad we're there and would like us to stay to see it through. They feel more secure now than ever before. They look towards a brighter tomorrow and they know primarily who is at fault for their freedom.

In short, it doesn't matter what Saddam says or doesn't say. As long as he's in custody, others will speak out now that were in fear prior. There are no interesting points made by Version other than his hatred for this country.

In one breath, criticism abounds regarding the lack of intell and how inept we are at gaining, using, and following through on intelligence and in another breath we're so gifted that we toy with these major dictators. We get to plan when to find them and when to pick them up. The ol' Ace in the Hole theory.

A whole lot of people have dedicated their lives to bogus predictions made emotionally. They have staked their political career opposing this action and are getting proven wrong day by day. Then you get to see them squirm and try to wriggle their way out. WMD and Saddam's connection to Al Queda are no exception to the rule. Dean by the way, has waffled so many times he is in serious hot water right now and will only get deeper. You can't change your views every single day depending on events unfolding. Personally, I'm pleased to see this is the best the Dems have to offer. This will be a landslide. Hell, even Hillary praised the President.

I'm glad we captured Saddam. I'm glad we are succeeding in Iraq. I'm glad another country will enjoy the fruits of our toil and death as have we here. I think there is no better administration for handling the complex problems of today and wish their stay could be extended to 12 years. We now know they're getting 8.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Fact; WMD will be found. There were many (one in particular and we'll hear of him soon) who was very involved in Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical weaponry and is privy to much of it's whereabouts. He would say nothing if not given asylum elsewhere or guaranteed Saddam's capture or death. He will now speak.

Fact; Al Queda and Saddam are connected and proof will be established that Iraq was involved in training Al Queda and dedicating resources both in the form of camps, weaponry, and finance.

We will be waiting.

Oh, and expect this to come back at you at some point, just like spacefreak's nearly identical "WMD revelations" claim (that he was dumb enough date to mid-September).

-s*

[theolein]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Wow, Version is a lot like Ayatollah only with opposite viewpoint. What's the deal with the hatred thing man? ...

Fact; WMD will be found. ...
Fact; Al Queda and Saddam are connected ...
Fact; The vast majority of Iraqi's are thankful for our occupation as without it we would not have uprooted their tyrant. ...

I agree with you about version's particular habits, but I think he lives in Scotland, not the US.

As for the rest, see my post above about conjecture. Until anything is found or proven, it remains conjecture, and claiming that things will happen is really premature. And I think that most Iraqis would probably just like to get on with their lives probably. I can see good arguments for them being grateful for Saddam being overthrown and resentful about the occupation. I doubt it is simply a black and white issue of being either for or against whoever.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Wow, Version is a lot like Ayatollah only with opposite viewpoint.

Actually, I'd say you and version are exact opposites. Whilst he appears to be adamantly opposed to any mainstream rhetoric, you appear to lap up Bush-brand-propaganda wholesale.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Fact; WMD will be found....
Fact; Al Queda and Saddam are connected...

^ Great sig material.

[theolein]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Actually, I'd say you and version are exact opposites. Whilst he appears to be adamantly opposed to any mainstream rhetoric, you appear to lap up Bush-brand-propaganda wholesale.

Man, what the hell is wrong with you? He might be on the right wing side of things, but he is in no way as hate filled as the Ayatollah or Version, and I really would have thought you would be able to see that.

Christ, this place really is depressing. If you have an opinion that doesn't agree with the left wing, then you're one of the "hate filled conspiracy generating, Bush loving, conservative republican right wing", and if you have an opinion that doesn't agree with the right wing, then you're one of the "hate filled, conspiracy generating, Bush hating, Clinton loving, liberal democrat left wing".

Is it true that really no one is allowed to have their own opinion here, and that one signs an agreement on joining to blindly follow whatever party line they think is The One True Way™ ?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by theolein:
....he is in no way as hate filled as the Ayatollah or Version...

In your opinion maybe...

Originally posted by theolein:
Is it true that really no one is allowed to have their own opinion here..?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by theolein:
Man, what the hell is wrong with you? He might be on the right wing side of things, but he is in no way as hate filled as the Ayatollah or Version, and I really would have thought you would be able to see that.

I didn't say he was 'hate filled'. I said he and version held opinions at opposite ends of the spectrum. I didn't say there was anything wrong with that. It was an observation, not an attack.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Fact; WMD will be found. There were many (one in particular and we'll hear of him soon) who was very involved in Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical weaponry and is privy to much of it's whereabouts.

Could you give us a date on that like Moki did and with the disclaimer that you'll push for Bush to be impeached if they are not found?

-pete

[theolein]

Originally posted by eklipse:
I didn't say he was 'hate filled'. I said he and version held opinions at opposite ends of the spectrum. I didn't say there was anything wrong with that. It was an observation, not an attack.

I suppose this: "Whilst he appears to be adamantly opposed to any mainstream rhetoric, you appear to lap up Bush-brand-propaganda wholesale." strikes you as fair and balanced?

Ever think of actually asking someone where they're coming from figuratively, instead of just sniping away? (And before you say, yes I know that I have a long record of doing just that) I may not agree with his opinion, but I found that asking him about it and actually discussing it with him, as opposed to trying to drown him out, got me personally a lot further than the usual MacNN "I'm right and you're a dumb sh1t" attitude.

[theolein]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
In your opinion maybe...

Now wasn't that just hilarious...

::shakes head, bursts into tears, runs screaming home to mama::

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by theolein:
Now wasn't that just hilarious...

::shakes head, bursts into tears, runs screaming home to mama::

Somebody forgot to take a chill pill today....

[voodoo]

Originally posted by theolein:
Man, what the hell is wrong with you? He might be on the right wing side of things, but he is in no way as hate filled as the Ayatollah or Version, and I really would have thought you would be able to see that.

Christ, this place really is depressing. If you have an opinion that doesn't agree with the left wing, then you're one of the "hate filled conspiracy generating, Bush loving, conservative republican right wing", and if you have an opinion that doesn't agree with the right wing, then you're one of the "hate filled, conspiracy generating, Bush hating, Clinton loving, liberal democrat left wing".

Is it true that really no one is allowed to have their own opinion here, and that one signs an agreement on joining to blindly follow whatever party line they think is The One True Way™ ?

Hate filled?

Your posts are practically dripping with venom theolein. Hatred, anger, aggression.. So - look who's talking!

You are the advocate of killing people theolein. You want bastards hung in a rope. You want blood. You are full of hatred.

(I am shameless yes)

[theolein]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Somebody forgot to take a chill pill today....

I'm not usually gifted with loads of patience or tolerance, sadly, and I get irritated with sniping comments from the side that don't really have any content while I'm in the middle of a discussion. Sorry.

[theolein]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Hate filled?

Your posts are practically dripping with venom theolein. Hatred, anger, aggression.. So - look who's talking!

You are the advocate of killing people theolein. You want bastards hung in a rope. You want blood. You are full of hatred.

(I am shameless yes)

No, I dont advocate killing people (in the plural sense of the word), but I do think Saddam Hussein should be put to death. If you read my posting history, I very much doubt that you'd see a record of someone who advocated killing. In fact you'd probably see someone who is quite against the amount of killing and suffering that is going on in Iraq, be it innocent civillians, US soldiers or insurgents.

But I make an exception for saddam, and until now I really haven't seen any argument to make me change my mind apart from accusations of me being hate filled and wanting blood, apart from making you sick, that is.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by theolein:
I suppose this: "Whilst he appears to be adamantly opposed to any mainstream rhetoric, you appear to lap up Bush-brand-propaganda wholesale." strikes you as fair and balanced?

I don't work for FOX news.

Ever think of actually asking someone where they're coming from figuratively, instead of just sniping away? (And before you say, yes I know that I have a long record of doing just that) I may not agree with his opinion, but I found that asking him about it and actually discussing it with him, as opposed to trying to drown him out, got me personally a lot further than the usual MacNN "I'm right and you're a dumb sh1t" attitude.

You can read into my comment as much as you like - I don't believe it expresses an 'I'm right and you're a dumb sh1t attitude' - but that's just me. I stated my opinion, as I believe I am entitled to do - if anyone wishes to question it, that is their entitlement also.

Note: You were the one who branded The Ayatollah and version 'hate filled' - not me.

[ebuddy]

Actually, I'd say you and version are exact opposites. Whilst he appears to be adamantly opposed to any mainstream rhetoric, you appear to lap up Bush-brand-propaganda wholesale.

Opposed to mainstream rhetoric? I guess that depends on what you consider mainstream. Primarily, I read and view what a quagmire this has all become. Granted, mostly because there's a Presidential debate afoot and most of the opposing platform is critical of this administration with regard to Iraq. Generally, I talk to, view, and read from those involved in the action and formulate a view from that.

Truth be told, there may be something to the ol' Ace in the Hole theory. I'm torn whether to believe we toyed with Saddam and wonder if we're toying with Osama as well. I believe we already know most of the truth. It's quite possible it's being fed to us in smaller morsels because we all know how preoccupied America is and how forgetful it has become. That I'm not sure of however. Either way, it does not mean the accusations lodged against Saddam are false. Version and I are very different in how we approach and deliver our views. I'm generally a lot more diplomatic than Version. Version is calling our President a liar and believes our President should be treated worse than Saddam. (or at least in the same manner as Saddam).

I'm quite different than Version. I don't agree with everything this President has said and done. In fact, many conservatives don't. What we know is what the opposition may do and frankly that concerns us more.

I don't hear moderation from Version. I hear hatred, very directed, and extremely vehement. You may also foster some of that hatred which may explain your empathy. I'm not opposed to debating arguments, but when you start off with "When will Bush be brought before an International Court?!" There's just no foundation for reasonable banter. I don't believe Clinton, Clark, and Albright should be brought before an International Court either and I opposed much of their policy. I will defend my country and it's leadership. It used to be referred to as Patriotic, now a bad word and is now called Nationalist. This does not mean I blindly believe in anything. In fact, I do believe our actions abroad smell of New World Order. They have for much of our history. An ideal of which I'm fundamentally opposed. Read Clinton's speeches in Germany prior to our Green Light for action in Yugoslavia. Clearly bent on Global intentions. I do however see that this is the natural progression whether I like it or not. Which system would I rather my daughters grow up in? I think you know.

Theolein; I agree my points made as "facts" are currently, purely speculative.

Spheric, I will personally post a new thread of apologies if my speculation is inaccurate. I suspect nothing short of actually touching the nukes themselves would satisfy the harshest critics and that I'm afraid I can't do. Suffice it to say the evidence will satisfy at least 80% of the World Community. Does this meet your criteria?

Will you also be equally subject to retroactive critique? Let me answer that for you. yes.

I'll make no specific dates. I agree, this would be a little foolish. I suspect (but cannot predict w/ reasonable accuracy) the evidence will be presented within the next six months. A good offense would draw the opposition all the way to the left side of the field and throw a quick drop to the right. This would effectively occur *approximately between June and August.

[theolein]

Originally posted by eklipse:
I don't work for FOX news.

Well, in that case, perhaps you should apply, since that was a quote from your very own post further up.

You can read into my comment as much as you like - I don't believe it expresses an 'I'm right and you're a dumb sh1t attitude' - but that's just me. I stated my opinion, as I believe I am entitled to do - if anyone wishes to question it, that is their entitlement also.

Note: You were the one who branded The Ayatollah and version 'hate filled' - not me.

You're right. I am the one who branded those two, and you're definitely entitled to your own opinion, and I apologise if I gave you the opinion that you aren't, and I should point out that you made the statements above relating to Version and ebuddy and I got upset because I found ebuddy to be quite an amiable person even if I don't agree with most of what he posts, and simply insulting him got my goat, so to speak.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by eklipse:
....if anyone wishes to question it, that is their entitlement also.

See above post by ebuddy.

There is more than one way to evoke a response, theo.

Good post ebuddy.

[theolein]

Originally posted by eklipse:
See above post by ebuddy.

There is more than one way to evoke a response, theo.

Good post ebuddy.

That is exactly what I was referring to, the fact that ebuddy seems able to personally explain his position, and that to brand him wasn't right.

I've already apologised because you were right about me branding the Ayatollah and version, but I might add that I made a serious attempt to ellicit a normal response from the Ayatollah, and almost seemed to be getting somewhere, and that provided me with feedback that an alternative to the usual MacNN infighting was well worth the try.

But don't let me stop you.

[vmarks]

With regard to:



I have but one thing to say:

all hail the hypno-toad!

Theo, you and I have disagreed many a time, but I thank you for calling things as you see them, plainly and succinctly.