Another U.N. story not getting any media or forum play....

[Busyman]

Exactly so, Hobbes.

That they should want to believe such things is a bit curious.

Documented fact: U.N. personnel are committing atrocities in the Congo.

Conclusion? Impossible-and even if it did happen, it's not the U.N.'s fault.


Conspiracy theory: A military transport plane remotely controlled by the CIA hit the Pentagon.

Conclusion? Just as I thought; it only stands to reason this is true, and everyone knows it; besides, who but the U.S. would do something so horrible?

Conspiracy theory: One of the planes on 9/11 was shot down in Pennsylvania and didn't conveniently crash in the woods.....

[lynx]

I will not plead guilty to unfairly painting Kofi Annan a rapist by proxy, as you accuse me of doing

I did not accuse you of this, I said you were unjustly accusing the U.N of inaction. Perhaps you should enrol in a remedial reading class.

my opinion that Annan and his cronies (please don't dispute me on this, for that is precisely what they are)

I can't dispute your opinion? Just exactly who do you think you are?

Documented fact: U.N. personnel are committing atrocities in the Congo.

Conclusion? Impossible-and even if it did happen, it's not the U.N.'s fault.

Once again, you attempt to twist the facts and conclusions.

I repeat that NO ONE HAS DENIED THE EVENTS THAT HAVE OCCURED IN THE CONGO. But that doesn't suit the ridiculous point of view that you are trying to promote, so you ignore it. Instead you continue with the preposterous idea that the U.N. senior personel neither care nor have any interest in the events. Why are you so insistent on this point, yet are unable to present even the smallest shred of evidence.

No doubt you will once again resort to producing undisputed evidence that attrocities have occured. Please try to stick to the point, your wanderings are getting a little tedious. To be any good at spreading untruths you have to remember how the untruths fit together. Your story is hanging in tatters.

[Biggles]

Conspiracy theory: One of the planes on 9/11 was shot down in Pennsylvania and didn't conveniently crash in the woods.....

To be fair, that would not be so much a conspiracy theory as simply providing the public with a palliative. If they could have shot all four planes down in time I think they would/should have. Moreover, whilst it would have been hard for the relatives to bear it would have been the right thing to do saving as it would have over 3000 lives.

A conspiracy, rather than simply drawing a veil over an unpleasant truth would be that somehow 9/11 was allowed. As I have said before, this credits Governments with more nous than they dispay in any other sphere of activity and consequently unlikely.

J2 I don't recall the person you mention - any relative of Billy or Leftism

Nevertheless, look on the bright side - if you have two wings you can fly in straight lines - those with only one are doomed to fly in circles.

[Busyman]

To be fair, that would not be so much a conspiracy theory as simply providing the public with a palliative. If they could have shot all four planes down in time I think they would/should have. Moreover, whilst it would have been hard for the relatives to bear it would have been the right thing to do saving as it would have over 3000 lives.

The government would never admit it though. We are a litigation nation. I too think it would have been the right thing to do.

Whoever shot the plane down was very good to make it crash in an unpopulated area.

[j2k4]

I did not accuse you of this, I said you were unjustly accusing the U.N of inaction. Perhaps you should enrol in a remedial reading class.

I haven't accused them of any such thing.

I have said that, as these types of things continue to come to light, we are expected to accept that Annan and his cronies are not responsible, and that by their act of instituting an "investigation", we are to be placated and soothed.

Now, my understanding of the way things work at the U.N. informs me that Kofi Annan is, indeed, the leader of the U.N., and, as such, is answerable for these offenses to an extent beyond merely "investigating" (as an in-house function, mind you), the matter.

The U.N. is not a country, last I looked, and if it cannot be held accountable by anyone, including it's members (I think the U.S. qualifies on that point), then what are we to do when things like this occur?

I can't dispute your opinion? Just exactly who do you think you are?

Oh...have I over-stepped?

Sorry.

Dispute as you will, sir.

BTW-I would be remiss if I didn't point out that you know who I am, Lynx; we've both been here quite some time.

I am also aware of who you are, though I am not sure you are aware of this.

Once again, you attempt to twist the facts and conclusions.

I repeat that NO ONE HAS DENIED THE EVENTS THAT HAVE OCCURED IN THE CONGO. But that doesn't suit the ridiculous point of view that you are trying to promote, so you ignore it. Instead you continue with the preposterous idea that the U.N. senior personel neither care nor have any interest in the events. Why are you so insistent on this point, yet are unable to present even the smallest shred of evidence.

I haven't said that you denied the relevent events, Lynx, though if one re-reads your initial postings in this thread, I think it fair to conclude that you left out any acknowledgement of same; I sensed you thought it a tactical omission for later utility, but felt it better to play along out of my (rapidly-waning) respect for your usual presentation.

I have not said senior U.N. personnel do not care, but I believe they think they are entitled to slide from under any blame whatsoever (as long as they investigate), and I feel this sense of privilege accrues to their knowledge that much of the world thinks in the same wishy-washy way you do.

Insofar as I have expressed disgust at Annan's handling of the various and sundry scandals (I'm sure you'd prefer another word), I have never presented it as any other than my own opinion, which you now propose I validate by offering up some undefinable proof?

I offered Ms. Malkin's column up as an opinion with which I agreed; I wasn't aware expressing an opinion on this board required any proof, and frankly, I can't remember anyone being berated (as I am, here) over such an obvious and willful misinterpretation of a post.

No doubt you will once again resort to producing undisputed evidence that attrocities have occured. Please try to stick to the point, your wanderings are getting a little tedious. To be any good at spreading untruths you have to remember how the untruths fit together. Your story is hanging in tatters.

I would think that if I stopped "...once again resort(ing) to producing undisputed evidence that attrocities have occured...", then you would have reason to carp, Lynx.

I must say, I find your pique, as well as your tone, to be entirely atypical of your normally excellent demeanor, style and ability.

[vidcc]

To the accountability I think that the question should be if the investigation finds specific evidence against the actual persons concerned and then nothing is done then I would say that heads at the top need to roll. ...the buck always stops at the top...
But here is where the difficulty comes in. Identification of the actual individuals and bringing them to justice. It is not good enough to say that "U.N." personnel did it and charge the whole U.N.
The U.N. should not be the ones to punish these sex crimes, however they should be bringing their full weight down on the country of residence of any that have evidence against them to bring them to trial.

[j2k4]

J2 I don't recall the person you mention - any relative of Billy or Leftism

myfiles3000 was a bit before your time, I think.

I don't believe he was related to either Billy or Leftism, though they may have shared some course-work somewhere back down the line.

myfiles had genuine ability (which I didn't mind granting him), no matter that he was a bit misguided.

I can actually say that I miss him; we developed a rapport after our initial clashing, and found much common ground.

This never really happened with Lefty, or 1234; Billy and I got on fine, too, after a while, as long as we stayed off issues.

I'm quite sure Hobbes remembers him, also Clocker-I'd bet that Lynx remembers him as well.

We went round about the war in Iraq, right as it begun; lots of fun-wish you'd been about the place just then-you'd have enjoyed the bloodshed, I think.

[j2k4]

To the accountability I think that the question should be if the investigation finds specific evidence against the actual persons concerned and then nothing is done then I would say that heads at the top need to roll. ...the buck always stops at the top...

The inclusion of the word "buck" implies that there is blame to be shared; indeed, "bucks" are usually "passed", and this would occur whether or not there is evidence of direct responsibility, vid.

Pick your "heads need to roll" version, or the "buck always stops..."; either one can only work in the absense of the other.

Thank you.

[lynx]

J2, when an opinion is presented which attacks others it is usual to offer backup evidence to support the claims; if not the presented opinion is worthless. The original article was an overt but unsubstantiated attack on the integrity of the U.N., thinly disguised behind a dubious concern for those affected by the sex scandal. You clearly aligned yourself with the article and it's intent with your opening comments, not least "Does this reflect on Kofi Annan at all?"

Since then, when asked to provide some backup to your opinion you have attempted to deflect, divert and disseminate from the original. Since it is your own opinion you are being asked to support, yet repeatedly fail to do so, I can only assume that you feel as I do, namely that the opinion has no merit.

I hope you feel comfortable in Ms Malkin's foul swamp of innuendo and half-truths, I didn't think someone clearly capable of honest thinking could abide such a cess-pit. I'll leave you to it, but feel free to holler should you need any help getting out.

edit: typo, I know how you like to pick up on these as another way of diversion.

[j2k4]

J2, when an opinion is presented which attacks others it is usual to offer backup evidence to support the claims; if not the presented opinion is worthless. The original article was an overt but unsubstantiated attack on the integrity of the U.N., thinly disguised behind a dubious concern for those affected by the sex scandal. You clearly aligned yourself with the article and it's intent with your opening comments, not least "Does this reflect on Kofi Annan at all?"

Since then, when asked to provide some backup to your opinion you have attempted to deflect, divert and disseminate from the original. Since it is your own opinion you are being asked to support, yet repeatedly fail to do so, I can only assume that you feel as I do, namely that the opinion has no merit.

I hope you feel comfortable in Ms Malkin's foul swamp of innuendo and half-truths, I didn't think someone clearly capable of honest thinking could abide such a cess-pit. I'll leave you to it, but feel free to holler should you need any help getting out.

edit: typo, I know how you like to pick up on these as another way of diversion.

Alright, Lynx-only because it's you.

As precisely as you can:

1 What unmerited claims are being made, by Ms. Malkin or myself?

2 What is it exactly that you require proof of?

3 What issues are wanting substantiation?

I am off for the moment to engage in a bit of capitalist consumption; I will tend to your response as soon as is humanly possible.