Posted on 04/12/2002 5:21:54 PM PDT by Republican_Strategist
The Federal Government, including our Vice Presidant is ataffed and ready to funtion in an underground bunker....three (3) states have already begun the distribution of Potassium Iodate/Iodide, Digital Angel is sounding wondeful to everyone who is scared to death of terrorism.
These are not "good times."
Don't judge too harshly!
Your unfounded claims that the 'magic bullet' theory has never been refuted is ludicrous. - Feel free to cite your sources for this incredible belief.
It was a functioning military rifle that shot bullets in a straight line. That's all it had to do.
Incredible admission of your blind attitude! -- Thanks
The scope was found misaligned *later*, after it had been dropped behind some boxes and handled by various people. There is no evidence it was misaligned at the time of the shooting. Anyway, it was possible to use the rifle's iron sights even with the scope mounted.
It was initialy installed improperly, according to the WC report.
And, you deliberatly ignore the time factor of an inherently 'slow' action, that made the 'magic bullet' a necessary fiction.
-----------------
--- Can you tell me why you want to deny this reality?
I don't deny reality, that seems to be your job. To accept reality you first have to find out what it is. You won't get it by just reading all the crap that his been written about this case. People would be utterly shocked to find out how much of what they think they know about the JFK case has simply been made up at some point by some author.
Please then, 'shock' us. -- Cite your sources, prove the 'myths' you allege. --- Better men than you have tried, - Posner for instance, and been utterly discredited.
The Federal Government, including our Vice President is staffed and ready to function in an underground bunker....three (3) states have already begun the distribution of Potassium Iodate/Iodide, Digital Angel is sounding wonderful to everyone who is scared to death of terrorism.
These are not "good times."
Don't judge too harshly, Free Republic members, and remind yourselves that we came into being here because of our open mindedness and passion for our nation!
(Had to repost this..sorry..the typos were so bad...you'de think I came from Arkansas!)
It was a functioning military rifle that shot bullets in a straight line. That's all it had to do.
Incredible admission of your blind attitude! -- Thanks
Huh? It's an "admission" that the rifle could shoot bullets. Anything else you are seeing in that statement is your own imagination, which is apparently quite healthy.
The scope was found misaligned *later*, after it had been dropped behind some boxes and handled by various people. There is no evidence it was misaligned at the time of the shooting. Anyway, it was possible to use the rifle's iron sights even with the scope mounted.
It was initialy installed improperly, according to the WC report.
Cite please.
And, you deliberatly ignore the time factor of an inherently 'slow' action, that made the 'magic bullet' a necessary fiction.
I haven't deliberately ignored anything. This supposed "slow action" is one of the things you haven't bothered to explain. Do so and I'll answer it. But the single bullet theory has nothing to do with any "slow action".
-----------------
--- Can you tell me why you want to deny this reality?
I don't deny reality, that seems to be your job. To accept reality you first have to find out what it is. You won't get it by just reading all the crap that his been written about this case. People would be utterly shocked to find out how much of what they think they know about the JFK case has simply been made up at some point by some author.
Please then, 'shock' us. -- Cite your sources, prove the 'myths' you allege. --- Better men than you have tried, - Posner for instance, and been utterly discredited.
Posner, or anything else, is not discredited simply because some conspiracy theorists don't like what he said. I will gladly back up what I say. When you cite something, like this "slow action", then I'll back up my response.
I'm not a "WC devotee". Shall I just call you a commie and debate in your style?
It isn't rationalization, it's the fact. Look at the pictures. Try here
Their [Carcanos rifles] characteristics are well known, and Oswalds, in particular, was a piece of junk incapable of performing as the Warren Report claimed. - That is an established fact, which you blindly deny in your loony way.
No, it's a myth. The established fact is just the opposite. The myths are much more known than the facts and that's why most people think there was a conspiracy. #149
Even the warren report admits the problems with oswalds rifle, & its inability to perform as needed without a 'magic bullet' scenario.
-- The magic bullet is the myth. You believe in magic.
------------------------------
Your unfounded claims that the 'magic bullet' theory has never been refuted -- [and claims that oswalds rifle was therefore NOT a 'piece of junk', #149. ], - are ludicrous.
--- Feel free to cite your sources for this incredible belief. - #202 -
How am I supposed to cite something to show what DIDN'T happen? You are really getting ridiculous now. If you want to claim the single bullet theory has been refuted then you need to cite the refutation. If you can't then nobody should take your claim seriously.
You made the initial ridiculous 'myth' claim about oswalds rifle, -at 149 above. -- Cite your 'established facts'. You haven't, and can't, -- because there are none.
Let me just pick one incident of superior research and intellectual genuis off the top of my boxed-in head:
I remember one night Michael was on one of his "religion is evil" rants. He was talking about how the gospels couldn't be true because, among other things, the state of Roman metallurgy hadn't developed to allow the fabrication of a javelin point which could penetrate the bone of the ribs and thus pierce Jesus' heart as John describes.
By that time I had learned to ignore Michael because he is one the few people I have ever known with that peculiar combination of stupidity and smugness which makes me angry. But, in a moment of weakness, I wandered through that thread and thought I would answer him.
In a few minutes I posted a link to a photograph of a recovered calcaneus of a victim of Roman crucifixion, with the metal transfixing nail still intact, penetrating both cortices. I asked him to comment on the state of "Roman metallurgy" implied by the photograph. As far as I can remember, he never did, which didn't surprise me.
He is the typical dilettante, in that he only impresses you in an area where you know little. The world is full of them.
I know little of JFK's murder, not enough to assess the veracity of Rivero on that subject. But a wise man once told me: "Pick an area where you DO know something, and evaluate the person in THAT area. His reliability there is a pretty good indicator of his reliability in those other areas."
If that methodology is sound then MR's criticisms of, say, the Warren Report are as reliable as his criticisms of the New Testament. There, I can say with some certainty, he is a barking idiot.
You should know this. That you force me to spell it out, is just more gameplaying BS on your part, to cover up being caught mythmaking on your initial 'myth' post.
Citation please!
You should know this. That you force me to spell it out, is just more gameplaying BS on your part, to cover up being caught mythmaking on your initial 'myth' post.
I don't know it because it is not true. I'm not playing games or making myths and you certainly didn't catch me at anything.
You are making the assertion, back it up! Show us where the WC did this. Also, you might try disgreeing with people without immediately resorting to questioning their persons and integrity. Your behavior on this thread, regardless of who is right, makes you look like a jerk.
I will answer your other latest post in more detail later. I have to pause in the fun for now. Among other tings, it is tax day and I have to get my extortion check off to Uncle Sam. I will return to it in a day or two.
Citation please!
The report itself admits an expert could not cycle the action fast enough to allow time for three hits. -- Read it.
You should know this. That you force me to spell it out, is just more gameplaying BS on your part, to cover up being caught mythmaking on your initial 'myth' post.
I don't know it because it is not true.
It is true. You are in denial.
I'm not playing games or making myths and you certainly didn't catch me at anything. You are making the assertion, back it up! Show us where the WC did this.
--- Nope, -- you made the original assertation that the WC report was right about oswalds rifle, -- and that I was stating a 'myth'. -- Which you cannot back up. Thus, your 'game' playing.
Also, you might try disgreeing with people without immediately resorting to questioning their persons and integrity. Your behavior on this thread, regardless of who is right, makes you look like a jerk.
-- Silly -- This is just more game playing. - You can't refute my logic, so you accuse me of making personal attacks. Makes you look like a jerk, not me.
I will answer your other latest post in more detail later. I have to pause in the fun for now. Among other tings, it is tax day and I have to get my extortion check off to Uncle Sam. I will return to it in a day or two.
Sure. - I bet. -- Thanks.
The Warren report could not correlate the filmed record of shots hitting JFK with the time necessary to operate oswalds rifles action. This made necessary the 'magic bullet' that hit the Gov after it hit JFK.
Citation please!The report itself admits an expert could not cycle the action fast enough to allow time for three hits. -- Read it.
A citation identifies the specific place in the report that supports your statement. Telling me "the report itself admits" it is not a citation. WHERE does it say this? Back it up.
You seem to think you are never required to back up anything you say. If I make a claim and you disagree I'm supposed to cite. If you make a claim and I disagree, I'm supposed to cite my disagreement. It doesn't work that way. You've initiated several claims. Back them up. My disagreeing with you does not absolve you of that responsibility. Nothing is true because you say so.
On this particular point, as on the others, you are wrong. The report says no such thing. Since you have been negligent in supporting your claims I will have to do some work for you, hence my need to take longer than I'd like.
The shooting scenario is not in conflict with the Zapruder film. The report actually uses the film to establish the time frame! (Chapter 3, page 97)
The report establishes a minimum cycle time between shots of 2.3 seconds. (Chapter 4, page 194)
There were about 5 seconds between the back shot and the head shot. (Chapter 3, page 117)
Even assuming 3 shots and 3 hits, with the back shot first and the head shot last (the most restrictive scenario) there is just enough time to get it done. The timing clock doesn't start until the first shot is fired.
Your assertion that the report "admits an expert could not cycle the action fast enough to allow time for three hits" is absolutely false.
The idea that the single bullet theory is some artificial construct forced upon the commission by the timing is also false. The ballistic, trajectory and medical evidence all suggest that a single bullet caused all the wounds except for the head wound and that evidence is cited in the report. Since it is apparent that you aren't familiar with what is in the report I will provide citations and links to those sections as I have time.
You haven't used logic. You are apparently unfamiliar with it. Refuting you is a simple matter of looking up the information and citing it, it's not even a challenge. You're clueless. I don't just accuse you of making personal attacks, that's practically all you've done and everyone reading this thread can see it. Your whole style of argument has been to make unfounded declarations and then attack anyone who disputes them. I believe you've been suspended before for such behavior. I guess some people need more than one lesson.
That doesn't stop me from knowing that I can do it. I found out that my son could have fired those shots when he was fifteen years old. The fun thing is standing by the "sniper's nest" and listening to the old time Texas people who look out the window [the one next to it because the nest has glass partitions around it] and realize what an easy shot it was. Oswald should have used a scoped pistol. He could have fired twice as many shots.
New world order: George Bush's speech, 6 Mar 1991George Bush Presidential Library
March 6, 1991 (extracts). This speech has often been cited as the administration’s principal policy statement on the postwar order in the Middle East. ... Tonight I come to this House to speak about the world – the world after war.
The recent challenge could not have been clearer. Saddam Hussein was the villain, Kuwait the victim. To the aid of this small country came nations from North America and Europe, from Asia and South America, from Africa and the Arab world, all united against aggression.
Our uncommon coalition must now work in common purpose to forge a future that should never again be held hostage to the darker side of human nature.
Tonight in Iraq, Saddam walks amidst ruin. His war machine is crushed. His ability to threaten mass destruction is itself destroyed. His people have been lied to, denied the truth. And when his defeated legions come home, all Iraqis will see and feel the havoc he has wrought. And this I promise you: for all that Saddam has done to his own people, to the Kuwaitis, and to the entire world, Saddam and those around him are accountable.
All of us grieve for the victims of war, for the people of Kuwait and the suffering that scars the soul of that proud nation. We grieve for all our fallen soldiers and their families, for all the innocents caught up in this conflict. And, yes, we grieve for the people of Iraq, a people who have never been our enemy. My hope is that one day we will once again welcome them as friends into the community of nations.
Our commitment to peace in the Middle East does not end with the liberation of Kuwait. So tonight let me outline four key challenges to be met.
First, we must work together to create shared security arrangements in the region. Our friends and allies in the Middle East recognise that they will bear the bulk of the responsibility for regional security. But we want them to know that just as we stood with them to repel aggression, so now America stands ready to work with them to secure the peace.
This does not mean stationing US ground forces on the Arabian Peninsula, but it does mean American participation in joint exercises involving both air and ground forces. It means maintaining a capable US naval presence in the region, just as we have for over 40 years. Let it be clear: our vital national interests depend on a stable and secure Gulf.
Second, we must act to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the missiles used to deliver them. It would be tragic if the nations of the Middle East and Persian Gulf were now, in the wake of war, to embark on a new arms race. Iraq requires special vigilance. Until Iraq convinces the world of its peaceful intentions – that its leaders will not use new revenues to re-arm and rebuild its menacing war machine – Iraq must not have access to the instruments of war.
And third, we must work to create new opportunities for peace and stability in the Middle East. On the night I announced Operation Desert Storm, I expressed my hope that out of the horrors of war might come new momentum for peace. We have learned in the modern age geography cannot guarantee security and security does not come from military power alone.
All of us know the depth of bitterness that has made the dispute between Israel and its neighbours so painful and intractable. Yet, in the conflict just concluded, Israel and many of the Arab states have for the first time found themselves confronting the same aggressor. By now, it should be plain to all parties that peacemaking in the Middle East requires compromise. At the same time, peace brings real benefits to everyone. We must do all that we can to close the gap between Israel and the Arab states – and between Israelis and Palestinians. The tactics of terror lead nowhere. There can be no substitute for diplomacy.
A comprehensive peace must be grounded in United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and the principle of territory for peace. This principle must be elaborated to provide for Israel’s security and recognition, and at the same time for legitimate Palestinian political rights. Anything else would fail the twin tests of fairness and security. The time has come to put an end to Arab-Israeli conflict.
The war with Iraq is over. The quest for solutions to the problem in Lebanon, in the Arab-Israeli dispute, and in the Gulf must go forward with new vigour and determination. And I guarantee you: no one will work harder for a stable peace in the region than we will.
Fourth, we must foster economic development for the sake of peace and progress. The Persian Gulf and Middle East form a region rich in natural resources with a wealth of untapped human potential. Resources once squandered on military might must be redirected to more peaceful ends. We are already addressing the immediate economic consequences of Iraq’s aggression. Now the challenge is to reach higher – to foster economic freedom and prosperity for all people of the region.
By meeting these four challenges, we can build a framework for peace. I’ve asked Secretary of State Baker to go to the Middle East to begin the process. He will go to listen, to probe, to offer suggestions, and to advance the search for peace and stability. I have also asked him to raise the plight of the hostages held in Lebanon. We have not forgotten them, and we will not forget them.
To all the challenges that confront this region of the world, there is no single solution, no solely American answer. But we can make a difference. America will work tirelessly as a catalyst for positive change.
But we cannot lead a new world abroad if, at home, it’s politics as usual on American defense and diplomacy. It’s time to turn away from the temptation to protect unneeded weapons systems and obsolete bases. It’s time to put an end to micro-management of foreign and security assistance programs, micro-management that humiliates our friends and allies and hamstrings our diplomacy. It’s time to rise above the parochial and the pork barrel, to do what is necessary, what’s right and what will enable this nation to play the leadership role required of us.
The consequences of the conflict in the Gulf reach far beyond the confines of the Middle East. Twice before in this century, an entire world was convulsed by war. Twice this century, out of the horrors of war hope emerged for enduring peace. Twice before, those hopes proved to be a distant dream, beyond the grasp of man.
Until now, the world we’ve known has been a world divided – a world of barbed wire and concrete block, conflict and cold war.
Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of anew world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a "world order" in which "the principles of justice and fair play ... protect the weak against the strong ..." A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfil the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.
The Gulf war put this new world to its first test, and, my fellow Americans, we passed that test.
For the sake of our principles, for the sake of the Kuwaiti people, we stood our ground. Because the world would not look the other way, Ambassador [Saud Nasir] al-Sabah, to-night, Kuwait is free.
Tonight as our troops begin to come home, let us recognise that the hard work of freedom still calls us forward. We’ve learned the hard lessons of history. The victory over Iraq was not waged as "a war to end all wars." Even the new world order cannot guarantee an era of perpetual peace. But enduring peace must be our mission ...
"......... As part of the National Archives, the library holdings will be accessible to scholars and students from around the world. They will write the history of one of the most exciting periods in world politics-the demise of communism and what has been termed the creation of a "new world order." These facilities and programs will afford national and international scholars the opportunity to assemble for study, research and conferences......"
IIRC, he was banned shortly after 9-11 for posting a theory that the attacks were part of a U.S. government conspiracy to enact "anti-terrorism" laws.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.