Originally posted by no1marauderMarauder: "Ivanhoe's preferred explanation for the Kennedy assassination is that the military or the CIA or somebody in he government shot Kennedy because he was going to withdraw from Vietnam. .... "
IvanhoeWorld is a truly strange place to be. The discussion he is referencing is here: http://www.chessatwork.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=51024&page=12
Ivanhoe's preferred explanation for the Kennedy assassination is that the military or the CIA or somebody in he government shot Kennedy because he was going to withdraw from Vietnam. I po ...[text shortened]... Ivanhoe, but that remains the truth no matter how many RFLMSO or whatever crap he writes.
Your Straw Men are on the streets again ..... Man, they are now even dressed up for Halloween .....
The way you manage to twist someone's words is really amazing. I will not undertake any attempts to correct you. It is an utter and complete waist of time because you would produce yet again numerous Straw Men and other fallacies ..... it's a never ending story with you, marauder. Have fun.
Originally posted by ivanhoeWell, let's see; from page 11 of that thread in answer to the question why JFK would warrant a conspiracy to kill him, you stated:
Marauder: "Ivanhoe's preferred explanation for the Kennedy assassination is that the military or the CIA or somebody in he government shot Kennedy because he was going to withdraw from Vietnam. .... "
Your Straw Men are on the streets again ..... Man, they are now even dressed up for Halloween .....
The way you manage to twist someone's words is reall ...[text shortened]... Straw Men and other fallacies ..... it's a never ending story with you, marauder. Have fun.
He became a threat because he wanted to drastically change the US foreign policy during the Cold War. He wanted to retreat the troops from Nam and sign a peace treaty with the Communist Sowjet Union.
On page 12, you stated that Robert Kennedy was killed for the same reason.
"Straw Man"????? PFFT!!!
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderIf you read carefully, I did NOT state that JFK was killed for merely wanting to withdraw the troops from Nam. Withdrawing the troops was merely an aspect and a result of his broader intended foreign policy of making peace with the Communist USSR and ending the Cold War by signing a peace treaty with them.
Well, let's see; from page 11 of that thread in answer to the question why JFK would warrant a conspiracy to kill him, you stated:
He became a threat because he wanted to drastically change the US foreign policy during the Cold War. He wanted to retreat the troops from Nam and sign a peace treaty with the Communist Sowjet Union.
On ...[text shortened]... ated that Robert Kennedy was killed for the same reason.
"Straw Man"????? PFFT!!!
Marauder: "... and then you state that Robert Kennedy was killed for the same reason"
Sure marauder, however not for your Straw Man reason, but for wanting to end the Cold War and making peace with the Communists of which the withdrawal from Nam was just a small part. He wanted to continue the foreign policy, which was intended to be implemented by his brother, the President, and for which he was killed while he was in office. They killed Robert Kennedy for the same reason but before he had a chance to become President.
That's why your "rebuttal" of my position with the remark that Nixon didn't get killed for "withdrawing" (ha ha) the US forces from Nam is such a ridiculous remark. You simply do not understand my position, or you refuse to understand it for "debating" reasons, and you turn it into one of your Straw Men.
Read it again and you'll see your Straw Man waving both hands !
Originally posted by ivanhoeLet's ignore the semantics for a second and just reflect on the fact that you are claiming that the US government assassinated their own president and then managed to cover it up for 40 years.
If you read carefully, I did NOT state that JFK was killed for merely wanting to withdraw the troops from Nam. Withdrawing the troops was merely an aspect and a result of his broader intended foreign policy of making peace with the Communist USSR and ending the Cold War by signing a peace treaty with them.
Marauder: "... and then you state that Ro ...[text shortened]... your Straw Men.
Read it again and you'll see your Straw Man waving both hands !
Originally posted by ivanhoeYour statement is nonsensical. "Signing a peace treaty with the Soviet Union" was an impossibility since the US wasn't at war with them. And Nixon followed a policy of detente with the USSR and Red China, so the mysterious "they" would have had the same "reason" to assassinate Nixon as "they" did to assassinate JFK and RFK.
If you read carefully, I did NOT state that JFK was killed for merely wanting to withdraw the troops from Nam. Withdrawing the troops was merely an aspect and a result of his broader intended foreign policy of making peace with the Communist USSR and ending the Cold War by signing a peace treaty with them.
Marauder: "... and then you state that Ro ...[text shortened]... your Straw Men.
Read it again and you'll see your Straw Man waving both hands !
Originally posted by scottishinnzOf course the moment Shrub prevented pictures of the returning coffins from being taken, the comparison was there.
Apparently, October is due to be the US's bloodiest month since Jan 2005.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6065050.stm
He has admitted that comparisons with the Vietnam War might not be too far off the mark.
2 edits
Originally posted by XanthosNZWho said the US government did it ? I never claimed such a thing. Who is the "US government" ?
Let's ignore the semantics for a second and just reflect on the fact that you are claiming that the US government assassinated their own president and then managed to cover it up for 40 years.
... and by the way, "they" did not manage to cover it up. It is all in the open, but nobody seems to care.
There is a confession on tape by James Files and much much more ...
Please, check out this site:
JFK Murder Solved.
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/index1.htm
The truth is sometimes hard to believe. "They" couln't possibly have been lying to us all the time, now could they ? Sure "they" could !
The truth is out there in the open, but people chose to believe the Warren report, the most laughable report ever written.
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauder"Marauder: "Signing a peace treaty with the Soviet Union" was an impossibility since the US wasn't at war with them."
Your statement is nonsensical. "Signing a peace treaty with the Soviet Union" was an impossibility since the US wasn't at war with them. And Nixon followed a policy of detente with the USSR and Red China, so the mysterious "they" would have had the same "reason" to assassinate Nixon as "they" did to assassinate JFK and RFK.
Oh, please marauder, stop your formal semantic gymnastics.
Marauder: "And Nixon followed a policy of detente with the USSR and Red China, ... "
Nixon and Kissinger had a complete different foreign policy from the one JFK and his brother intended. (Just remember the "Christmas bombings" on Hanoi and Haiphong, during the Paris "peace"-talks.)
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe "Christmas bombings" would have been perfectly consistent with the idea of "graduated response" that JFK believed in. This is the same person who campaigned for the Presidency claiming a non-existent "missile gap" when the US had a superiority of at least 5:1 over the Soviets. And the same person who wrote about the dangers of "appeasement" to the Soviets. Your romantic ideas about JFK are contrary to the facts.
[b]"Marauder: "Signing a peace treaty with the Soviet Union" was an impossibility since the US wasn't at war with them."
Oh, please marauder, stop your formal semantic gymnastics.
Marauder: "And Nixon followed a policy of detente with the USSR and Red China, ... "
Nixon and Kissinger had a complete different foreign policy from the one J ...[text shortened]... mber the "Christmas bombings" on Hanoi and Haiphong, during the Paris "peace"-talks.)[/b]
5 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderAs I stated JFK and his brother intended to dramatically change the US's foreign policy.
The "Christmas bombings" would have been perfectly consistent with the idea of "graduated response" that JFK believed in. This is the same person who campaigned for the Presidency claiming a non-existent "missile gap" when the US had a superiority of at least 5:1 over the Soviets. And the same person who wrote about the dangers of "appeasement" to the Soviets. Your romantic ideas about JFK are contrary to the facts.
The "Cristmas bombings", straightforward terror bombings of the populations of Hanoi, Haiphong and other places, during, mind you, "peace"-talks, would not have fitted in the new US foreign policy, JFK and his brother intended to implement.
2 edits
Originally posted by treetalkYou really believe that I need someone to do my fighting for me boy? I surely wouldn't need it from some candy assed punk from a group of Islands whose only claim to fame prior to the Lord of the Rings trilogy was the land of the Kiwi fruit. Go talk to some trees and piss off now OK punk!
You'd let others do your fighting for you ... figures ...