I don't believe you contrived that to get a rise out of me. I believe you made the comment to get a rise out of Naam. You're just using the situation to spin things again.

I DO believe this latest comment is contrived to try to stop me "rising" to your inanities.

As I said before...I will respond whenever I want, and ignore whenever I want.

I suspect you will now say that THIS reply was also predictable. You are full of it, and not smart enough to realise that few, if any, in this forum are taken in by your pathetic spin and cleverer than thou BS.

If you want to take me on in a debate....then follow normal debate rules and have the debate adjudicated by someone who knows the normal debating rules (this is neccessary because you often follow an illogical argument or do not address the point)....otherwise...continue to post in your normal way, and continue to be critisised or ignored.

Did your mommy help you write that?

I'm happy to debate you or anyone else on this forum face to face over drinks at a bar down here on Samui. C'mon down! You can even bring a friend and try to gang up on me if you're worried. I'm a center-right American who has been living abroad for the past 15 years in several diff countries and continents. I've had more than enough practice over the years with people like you to handle anything you can bring to the table. If you don't believe me, prove me wrong. Don't worry, I'm very laid back and not at all violent. The only thing you really have to be scared about is explaining to all your left-nut buddies here how I'm not really such a bad guy and that we became friends.

MERRY CHRISTMAS! HAPPY HANUKKAH! Even have a nice Kwanza if that's what floats your boat.

Did my mommy help me? Is that the best you can do? Once again not addressing my comments directly and simply trying feebly to insult. You're hopeless.

Odd.

I wrote, "I agree. The pipeline route is the reason." in that post, but my words didn't appear. Upon editing, my words were there.

Never mind.

I agree. The pipeline route is the reason.

Quoted from the link below:

"The pipeline theory has continued to bounce around, showing up on every "progressive" Web site out there. It ran in the Syrian daily Tishrin on Nov. 29, from which it was picked up on Dec. 2 by Pakistan's Frontier Post. It may never die.

Why does the bombing-for-pipelines theory hold such appeal? For the same reason the supporting-the-Taliban-for-pipelines theory attracted so many: There's evidence that points in that direction. Unocal did want to build a pipeline through Afghanistan and did cozy up to the Taliban. Bush and Cheney do have ties to big oil. But theories like these are ridiculously reductionist. Their authors don't try to argue conclusions from evidence—they decide on conclusions first, then hunt for justification. Also, many thinkers are comfortable with the conditioned response that dates back to Ida Tarbell vs. Standard Oil: When in Doubt, Blame Oil First.

What's absurd about the pipeline theory is how thoroughly it discounts the obvious reason the United States set the bombers loose on Afghanistan: Terrorists headquartered in Afghanistan attacked America's financial and military centers, killing 4,000 people, and then took credit for it. Nope—must be the pipeline."

http://www.slate.com/id/2059487/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Then we have Michael Moore's version of the pipeline theory in his classic movie "Farenheit 9/11":

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1178920/posts

A brief excerpt of the link is quoted herewith.

______________________________________________________________

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “In 1997, while George W. Bush was governor of Texas, a delegation of Taliban leaders from Afghanistan flew to Houston to meet with Unocal executives to discuss the building of a pipeline through Afghanistan.”

* “A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan. A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas.” “Taleban in Texas for Talks on Gas Pipeline,” BBC News, December 4, 1997 (Sugarland is 22 miles outside Houston.)

* “The Taliban ministers and their advisers stayed in a five-star hotel and were chauffeured in a company minibus. Their only requests were to visit Houston's zoo, the NASA space centre and Omaha's Super Target discount store to buy stockings, toothpaste, combs and soap. [...] After a meal of specially prepared halal meat, rice and Coca-Cola, the hardline fundamentalists - who have banned women from working and girls from going to school - asked Mr. Miller about his Christmas tree.” Caroline Lees, “Oil Barons Court Taliban in Texas,” The Telegraph (London), December 14, 1997.

Many commentators have dissected this easily refuted false impression. The Taliban officials didn't meet with Governor Bush and the pipeline was a Clinton-era international project. Moore suggests a connection via geographic innuendo positing that anything that happens in Texas involves Bush. Alone, the allegation is merely stupid. But it is an important building block for Moore’s version of the Afghan pipeline conspiracy theory.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “And who got a Caspian Sea drilling contract the same day Unocal signed the pipeline deal? A company headed by a man named Dick Cheney, Halliburton.”

* On October 27, 1997, both Unocal and Halliburton issued press releases about their energy work in Turkmenistan. “Halliburton Energy Services has been providing a variety of services in Turkmenistan for the past five years.” Press Release, “Halliburton Alliance Awarded Integrated Service Contract Offshore Caspian Sea In Turkmenistan,” October 27, 1997. http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/19...nws_102797.jsp; “ASHGABAT, Turkmenistan, Oct. 27, 1997 - Six international companies and the Government of Turkmenistan formed Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) in formal signing ceremonies here Saturday.” Press Release, “Consortium Formed to Build Central Asia Gas Pipeline,” October 27, 1997.

The deals were not signed on the same day, and one had nothing to do with the other. Halliburton was not part of CentGas consortium. If there was a quid pro quo one of the CentGas companies would have got the Caspian Sea project. The Halliburton project was only a $30 million services contract, no big deal. Companies like Halliburton, and most every big company is involved in the Caspian Sea, sign Caspian Sea contracts almost every week for one or another purpose among the five countries which share the sea’s shoreline. An analogy - if, hypothetically, Unocal signed a deal with Texas to explore Gulf of Mexico oil deposits that wouldn’t in the slightest have any connection to a contemporaneous and hypothetical Halliburton contract to fix existing oil rigs near El Paso.

Interestingly Moore’s notes omit a hyperlink to the Unocal press release though he supplies one to the Halliburton press release. The Unocal release is here. The reason why Moore does not hyperlink may be to discourage examination of his touted authority because Fahrenheit 9/11 next says...

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Enron stood to benefit from the pipeline.

This is false, and the Unocal press release is the proof itself. It states:

"The CentGas consortium will initially include the following companies, either directly or through affiliates: Unocal Corporation, 46.5 percent; Delta Oil Company Limited (Saudi Arabia), 15 percent; the Government of Turkmenistan, 7 percent; Indonesia Petroleum, LTD. (INPEX) (Japan), 6.5 percent; ITOCHU Oil Exploration Co., Ltd. (CIECO) (Japan), 6.5 percent; Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co., Ltd. (Korea), 5 percent; and the Crescent Group (Pakistan), 3.5 percent. RAO Gazprom (Russia) has indicated an interest in signing the consortium agreements formalizing a 10 percent share in the project in the near future.

Enron is not mentioned (nor is Halliburton). What's Moore's proof?:

* Dr. Zaher Wahab of Afghanistan, a professor in the US speaking at International Human Rights Day event, “explained that Delta, Unocal as well as Russian, Pakistani and Japanese oil and gas companies have signed agreements with the Turkmenistan government, immediately north of Afghanistan, which has the fourth largest gas reserve in the world. Agreements also have been signed with the Taliban, allowing these oil and gas giants to pump Turkmenistan gas and oil through western Afghanistan to Pakistan, from which it then will be shipped all over the world. The energy consortium Enron plans to be one of the builders of the pipeline.” Elaine Kelly, “Northwest Groups Discuss Afghan, Iranian and Turkish Rights Violations,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 31, 1997.

Moore's proof that “Enron stood to benefit” from the pipeline is one reporter's recounting of remarks by a Professor of Education at Clark University in Oregon speaking at a public forum in Portland six months before the Unocal press release. That is Moore’s total evidence.

I've searched media and industry newsletters and can find never any mention that Enron had anything to do with the CentGas project, or any other pipeline dream of transiting Afghanistan. It’s possible Enron expressed an interest at some point, but I doubt it. Not only by reason of my research, but by the fact Moore's diligent research could not dig up anything but this Professor of Education's comments. If Moore’s could find Dr. Wahab’s obscure comment, surely he could find more substantial evidence if any existed. Negotiations for international pipeline deals are not such secret matters, and discussed in trade publications and media in detail, and related for the purpose of informing stockholders. Indeed, if Enron had an inkling of involvement they would probably have exaggerated it, as was their custom, in pursuit of making it appear their books were backed by any asset, real or fictive.

Additionally, the Professor of Education isn't talking about the same pipeline plan. Centgas was to transport gas southwest to the Indus River heartland of Pakistan for domestic use. Dr. Wahab is speaking about a different idea, bringing gas south to the desolate Pakistani Arabian Sea harbor of Gwadar for export, probably to East Asian markets. It’s an theory drawn on a map among many other theoretical pipeline routes.

I don't fault the hducation professor. He could not have foreseen his one sentence comment in 1997 would be used as "evidence" of a bogus claim in a controversial movie seven years later, and wasn’t speaking as an expert on the subject

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Kenneth Lay of Enron was Bush’s number one campaign contributor.

* Mr. Lay, also a friend to former President George Bush, was the top campaign contributor to Mr. Bush’s 2000 presidential election.” Jerry Seper, “Colossal Collapse: Enron Bankruptcy Scandal Carves a Wide Swath,” The Washington Times, January 13, 2002; “Although Enron is George W. Bush’s No. 1 career donor, the president also is heavily indebted to the professional firms that aided and abetted the greatest bankruptcy and shareholder meltdown in U.S. history.” Texans for Public Justice, “Bush Is Indebted To Enron’s Professional Abettors, Too,” January 17, 2002 http://www.tpj.org/page_view.jsp?pageid=255

Might be true but irrelevant for the Afghan story. If Enron had been involved with CentGas, its ties to Clinton administration figures would be relevant. But Enron was not involved with CentGas. Moore’s invocation of the criminal Enron enterprise is merely to incite the viewer of his film.

Now, if Bush had significant ties to Unocal that would be a little firmer support for Moore’s conspiracy theory. I gather there is no record of significant ties between Bush and Unocal because Moore would surely jump on those. Instead he invokes Enron.

_____________________________________________________

.....and the dissection of Moore' statements continue ad nauseum.

So...yep, it must have been the pipeline we were after.

Actually the "pipeline requests" were around long before 9/11

As for Moore.....Lets not even discuss the idiot

Actually the "pipeline requests" were around long before 9/11

As for Moore.....Lets not even discuss the idiot

They began during the Clinton administration, as I recall.

Even an idiot can be useful, at times.

They began during the Clinton administration, as I recall.

Actually during Bush Sr's time.....No surprise there eh?

It was during the 80's when they first set their sights on a Afghan pipeline

Also during the time that the CIA pumped billions into training Islamic extremists called freedom fighters .

Funny that it was to fight the Russians who had the same idea. Later the Russians left & fighters remained.

Boy has that one bit us TPTB in the behind eh?

Did my mommy help me? Is that the best you can do? Once again not addressing my comments directly and simply trying feebly to insult. You're hopeless.

Hmmmm. You make a comment about a debate, I reply with an invite to a debate, then you say I'm not addressing your comments. Talk about hopeless.

Where is your reply to my question why NATO is in Afghanistan? Do you really believe that the oil companies are the only ones who stand to make a profit or have a better life if Afghanistan is stabilized and becomes a normal country? (btw - please stop using petroleum products if you dislike oil companies. I bet you can't for one day).

If a pipeline comes about as a result of the war, what's so bad about that? Here are some maps of the hundreds of gas & oil pipelines in various countries. They seem to be doing all right. (full list here: http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/world_oi...pipelines.html)

Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea Pipelines

Germany, Netherlands and Czech Republic Pipelines

United Kingdom and Ireland Pipelines

North America Pipelines

Pretty much everyone stands to profit or have a better life from a stable Afghanistan - except the Taliban & al Qaeda. In our home countries people are allowed to go to school, go to work, save money, enjoy life, travel, buy things. Why can't the people of Afghanistan have the same opportunities? Or should they be happy living in homes made of mud brick, having their men shot for shaving or women shot for not covering up and trying to work/go to school? An oil pipeline is probably in the future plans for Afghanistan. So are electricity plants, bridges, roads, highways, schools, shopping centers (Tesco AND Walmart!), sport stadiums, 7-11s, Snickers, Coca-Cola, Sony TVs, broadband Internet, McDonalds, KFC, cell phone companies, etc, etc all making money for foreign corporations and their local partners in addition to creating jobs for locals so they can join the modern world. Many of you will scoff at some of the things I listed but would NEVER trade them for what the Afghans have today.

I think it is the hight of arrogance for any country to try to impose it's own values on another country. I may not agree with the way the Taliban ran their country, but it is their country, with their own set of values.

It is Western opinion that education should be available for women and women should not have to wear a burkha and that men should be able to shave. Western OPINION.

Burkhas and shaving were quoted amongst the reasons America should go in to Afghanistan.

I'm not sure that I agree with that.

Kohee, have you read the book: Confessions of an economic hitman?

You do not even have to buy the book as it is available as a torrent.

But please buy the book to support.

After reading that one I have another suggestion for a book to read which hopefully opens your eyes and your mind.

I think it is the hight of arrogance for any country to try to impose it's own values on another country. I may not agree with the way the Taliban ran their country, but it is their country, with their own set of values.

It is Western opinion that education should be available for women and women should not have to wear a burkha and that men should be able to shave. Western OPINION.

Burkhas and shaving were quoted amongst the reasons America should go in to Afghanistan.

In some countries it's OK to marry off your female children to old men. If it's arrogant to believe that's wrong, then call me arrogant. Wait, several of you already have.

How did you feel about Western countries stopping the Serbs from committing an actual genocide against the Bosnians back in the 90's? At the time, one of my Russian colleagues defended Milosevic with the same argument as you put forth above basically saying, "It's his (Milosevic's) country. He can do whatever he wants to his people. It is none of the West's business". I asked him one whether he thinks that included slaughtering his own people and he replied yes. Then I asked if he thought it was OK that Stalin and subsequent soviet leaders sent tens of millions of Russians to the gulag to slave away until they died. I don't recall he had an answer for that one. I'm sure he wouldn't have complained if the West had been able to do something about that.

Kohee, have you read the book: Confessions of an economic hitman?

You do not even have to buy the book as it is available as a torrent.

But please buy the book to support.

After reading that one I have another suggestion for a book to read which hopefully opens your eyes and your mind.

I'll check into it.

I think it is the hight of arrogance for any country to try to impose it's own values on another country. I may not agree with the way the Taliban ran their country, but it is their country, with their own set of values.

It is Western opinion that education should be available for women and women should not have to wear a burkha and that men should be able to shave. Western OPINION.

Burkhas and shaving were quoted amongst the reasons America should go in to Afghanistan.

In some countries it's OK to marry off your female children to old men. If it's arrogant to believe that's wrong, then call me arrogant. Wait, several of you already have.

How did you feel about Western countries stopping the Serbs from committing an actual genocide against the Bosnians back in the 90's? At the time, one of my Russian colleagues defended Milosevic with the same argument as you put forth above basically saying, "It's his (Milosevic's) country. He can do whatever he wants to his people. It is none of the West's business". I asked him one whether he thinks that included slaughtering his own people and he replied yes. Then I asked if he thought it was OK that Stalin and subsequent soviet leaders sent tens of millions of Russians to the gulag to slave away until they died. I don't recall he had an answer for that one. I'm sure he wouldn't have complained if the West had been able to do something about that.

There is a difference between intervening because some men can't shave, and genocide. There is a greater imperative, in OUR moral code, to prevent genocide: No man is an island entire of itself. Nonetheless, it is still interfering with their own morals and ethics. Genocide is not a belief or moral code: it is an attack on a race or ethnic group. When the interfering involves stipulating what morals and ethics a country should adopt, then we are actually demanding, at the point of a gun, that they follow our beliefs.

There's no difference between going to Afghanistan and telling women they can take off their burkhas, and going to Afghanistan and dictating what religion they should practice.

"....In some countries it's OK to marry off your female children to old men. If it's arrogant to believe that's wrong, then call me arrogant...."

It's not arrogant to believe it's wrong. It IS arrogant to demand a sovereign nation change it's practices, especially by invading and killing those that disagree with you.

Suggest, by all means, but ultimately it is their belief.

Israel, too, has restrictive laws based on religion that they impose on the citizens. I don't see the US doing anything about that.

For example, they restrict freedom of expression in a law (very strictly enforced) that prohibits non-Jews from attempting to convert Jews away from Judaism. Even Messianic Jews, that are Jewish, can not preach to other Jews to convert them to a belief in Jesus as the Messiah.

Israel, too, has restrictive laws based on religion that they impose on the citizens. I don't see the US doing anything about that.

For example, they restrict freedom of expression in a law (very strictly enforced) that prohibits non-Jews from attempting to convert Jews away from Judaism. Even Messianic Jews, that are Jewish, can not preach to other Jews to convert them to a belief in Jesus as the Messiah.

The Islamic religion is the same, with the penalty being death to a convert to another religion. In Saudi Arabia it is against the law to bring a Bible into the Kingdom.

You said this in an earlier post..."Burkhas and shaving were quoted amongst the reasons America should go in to Afghanistan."

I thought you said the pipeline was the reason we went to war. I do wish you would make up your mind.

i suggest we look at the bigger picture and that is not western morals, rather power. knowlege is power hence they keep the women out of school and uneducated. Why else would they want to keep the women ignorant ? the taliban by many accounts have misinterpeted the koran which does not require women to be submissive and held ignorant.

Kohee, have you read the book: Confessions of an economic hitman?

You do not even have to buy the book as it is available as a torrent.

But please buy the book to support.

After reading that one I have another suggestion for a book to read which hopefully opens your eyes and your mind.

I've downloaded it.

Here are a couple reviews:

Amazon.com says: Confessions of an Economic Hit Man is an extraordinary and gripping tale of intrigue and dark machinations. Think John Le Carré, except it's a true story.

From Publishers Weekly: Despite the claim that his work left him wracked with guilt, the artless prose is emotionally flat and generally comes across as a personal crisis of conscience blown up to monstrous proportions, casting Perkins as a victim not only of his own neuroses over class and money but of dark forces beyond his control. His claim to have assisted the House of Saud in strengthening its ties to American power brokers may be timely enough to attract some attention, but the yarn he spins is ultimately unconvincing, except perhaps to conspiracy buffs.

It should be fun.

Israel, too, has restrictive laws based on religion that they impose on the citizens. I don't see the US doing anything about that.

For example, they restrict freedom of expression in a law (very strictly enforced) that prohibits non-Jews from attempting to convert Jews away from Judaism. Even Messianic Jews, that are Jewish, can not preach to other Jews to convert them to a belief in Jesus as the Messiah.

The Islamic religion is the same, with the penalty being death to a convert to another religion. In Saudi Arabia it is against the law to bring a Bible into the Kingdom.

You said this in an earlier post..."Burkhas and shaving were quoted amongst the reasons America should go in to Afghanistan."

I thought you said the pipeline was the reason we went to war. I do wish you would make up your mind.

"AMONGST THE REASONS". I do wish you would read and comprehend.

Condolences to his family on Christmas Day.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BO0F820091226

One has to wonder why the govt has chosen to move National Guardsmen to Iraq & Afghanistan.

Aside from it being a mis-use of our States National guard, These are part time soldiers & are ill equipped both mentally & physically to be placed in such a situation. Most work regular jobs at department stores etc & train a few weeks per year.....Yet it continues.

Sorry posted wrong pic.......

what the news is reporting is that there is a new video released on xmas day.

But agree it is not proof that he is alive.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091225/ap_on_...aptured_soldier

Condolences to his family on Christmas Day.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BO0F820091226

One has to wonder why the govt has chosen to move National Guardsmen to Iraq & Afghanistan.

Aside from it being a mis-use of our States National guard, These are part time soldiers & are ill equipped both mentally & physically to be placed in such a situation. Most work regular jobs at department stores etc & train a few weeks per year.....Yet it continues.

It's the same with the Territorial Army in the UK. They're part-timers who are being shipped out to fight.

It's the same with the Territorial Army in the UK. They're part-timers who are being shipped out to fight.

It has caused a stir here among a few States now.

I think it was New Hampshire that recently demanded Obama

return their national guard.

They cite the 10th amendment I believe

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

They state the intent of the National Guard is wrongfully being used in a Federal skirmish.

That the National Guard should be reserved for the

States themselves & only can they be called upon by the President in a fully declared war.

Every state has its own Guard that serves under that Governor of that state as Commander-in-Chief.

The National Guard is the first line of defense within our borders and falls under command of the President only during wars or national emergencies. This process of transferring the power of command from the State to Washington is called federalization.

Israel, too, has restrictive laws based on religion that they impose on the citizens. I don't see the US doing anything about that.

For example, they restrict freedom of expression in a law (very strictly enforced) that prohibits non-Jews from attempting to convert Jews away from Judaism. Even Messianic Jews, that are Jewish, can not preach to other Jews to convert them to a belief in Jesus as the Messiah.

The Islamic religion is the same, with the penalty being death to a convert to another religion. In Saudi Arabia it is against the law to bring a Bible into the Kingdom.

You said this in an earlier post..."Burkhas and shaving were quoted amongst the reasons America should go in to Afghanistan."

I thought you said the pipeline was the reason we went to war. I do wish you would make up your mind.

"AMONGST THE REASONS". I do wish you would read and comprehend.

You made this rather emphatic statement in a post on 26 December 2009 at 06:22:19.

"Odd.

I wrote, "I agree. The pipeline route is the reason." in that post, but my words didn't appear. Upon editing, my words were there.

Never mind.

I agree. The pipeline route is the reason."

I see little equivocation in your statement that... "The pipeline route is the reason."

Now you are throwing in the Beard/Burka conspiracy. Next will it be the alignment of the stars conspiracy?

My comprehension isn't the problem. Your reasoning skills leave a lot to be desired, however.

You may now choose to ignore me any time you wish.

There is a definite pattern emerging here.

There is a definite pattern emerging here.

all it takes is a tiny crack for the light to shine in ........

Keep looking

Pipelines as a reason?

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/busin...lineistan/16848

Pipelines as a reason?

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/busin...lineistan/16848

Pipelineistan :D

This is what the site says about itself:

"Born in May 2007, Environmental Graffiti is an eclectic mix of the most bizarre, funny and interesting environmental news on the planet. We search the vast realms of the internet on behalf of all environmentalists who don’t take themselves too seriously and compile it into a daily blog. Surf and enjoy!"

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/about...-and-our-vision

We could also call it Pipegate.

So do you deny or confirm?