From my mail box. Read and make up your minds based on facts.

++++++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++=
Myths And Lies – by Jaffer Ali

Knowing things with metaphysical certainty when most
of the world is operating under carefully constructed
myths is painful. Why? Knowing things that others do not
fosters a sense of existential loneliness and makes polite
conversation about many important things all but impossible.

Let's take the story that is being shoved down our throats
by almost all media sources now; the Iranian election
"fraud" and subsequent unrest. The news is augmented by
proclamations from Obama, France's Sarkozy, Germany's
Merkel, and just about every politician in the UK. Oh, I
forgot to mention the US Congress voting 404 to 1 support-
ing the protesters.

We are being told that the elections were rigged, even
though western pollsters all had Ahmadinejad ahead by a
2 to 1 margin on election's eve. This matters not to our
government which continues to place politicians in press
conferences dutifully covered by a pliant press corps.

The meme proliferating is that Americans must stand with
the Iranian people to spread democracy. We have heard this
clarion call for democracy since 1916 when Woodrow Wilson
wanted to make the world safe for its flowering.

We heard the call again many times after 2000 when GW Bush
convinced conservatives that spreading democracy was
essential for keeping America safe. But there is a huge
problem that most people just flat out miss.

Democracy has never, I REPEAT NEVER been a real principle
animating our foreign policy. You see principles cannot be
selectively applied and still remain principles. Selective-
ly applied principles become rationalizations for policy.
A brief overview is in order to prove the democracy myth's
selective application.

Wilson's proclamations of democracy after WW I exempted
the Middle East from the fruits of its principles. Monarchs
were installed from one end of the Middle East to the
other. Europe, the UK and the United States helped to
install these oil monarchs. After WW II, liberation
movements to free former colonies were supported by various
governments, of course the notable exceptions again were
the kingdoms in the Middle East which sat upon those huge
oil reserves.

Fast forward to 1953 in Iran. The US sent in the CIA to
overthrow the democratically elected Mussadiq and the Shah
was reinstalled. The Shah was of course a monarch and
dictator of the highest order. Here, the principle of
democracy actively overthrown, by our government.

Algerian Islamists won elections and the military coup that
followed was supported by the US. Democracy overthrown and
only just supported by our government.

In Pakistan, the democratically elected President was over-
thrown in a coup by General Musharraf. Democracy once again
overthrown and not only supported by the United States, but
funded with billions of dollars in aid.

Egypt's President Mubarrak, a brutal dictator throws his
political opposition in jail routinely. His anti-democratic
record is manifest, yet he remains at the top of the list
in US aid and support. Democracy advocates jailed by our
puppet with not a word of support for democracy.

In 1990, the US made war against Iraq to roll back their
attack on another anti-democratic regime; Kuwait. After
winning the war, instead of supporting democracy, our
government reinstalled the monarchy. Democracy? Nakedly
absent here to any willing to look past the delusional
media reporting.

In Palestinian territories, the US insisted on HAMAS
participation in elections because polls showed that US
supported FATEH would win. HAMAS won in a surprise outcome
in closely monitored elections. What did our government do
after the election? Refuse to accept the democratic will
of the people and refuse to deal with the DEMOCRATICALLY
ELECTED HAMAS.

Did I mention the fact that Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi,
Dubai, and the rest of the oil emirates have little to
no democratic processes? No matter, they have oil and
oil trumps principles any time.

And now, our government feigns another interest in
democracy. This time it is Iran that is the target of our
hypocrisy. It is not hyperbole to suggest that selectively
applied principles must inevitably lead to hypocrisy. And
there is so much that only a concerted propaganda effort
can hide the reality from the public.

Politicians, the media and pundits are unanimous in saying
the election was rigged. They also promote the idea that
the demonstrations are spontaneous. They ignore evidence of
CIA tampering, reportedly giving $400 million to dissident
groups.

<a href=" http://www.daily. pk/world/ middle-east/ 10469-cia- has-distributed- 400-million- dollars-inside- iran-to-evoke- a-revolution- .html ">
CIA has Distributed 400 Million Dollars Inside Iran to Evoke a Revolution</a>

Plus the US has supported Jundallah, a thuggish, drug
peddling anti-Ahmadinejad group based in Pakistan. Once
again to subvert the true, democratic will of the Iranian
people. Yet the media continue to suggest that we must
support democracy. Who can be against democracy? It is
like being against apple pie. The media is well paid for
their aggressive promotion of hypocrisy.

We will leave it for another day to determine whether
media pundits are stupid and ignorant of democratic
principles selectivity applied. But from this point
forward, when you hear any politician use lofty ideals
of democracy for the foundation of policy, please hold
them to those principles across the board. You will soon
find out that their rhetoric falls far short of meaningful
principle.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --
Jaffer Ali writes on media, ethics and politics.
He wrote Palestine:A Chronicle of Passion and Politics
and Corporate Soul.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --
++++++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ ++++++++

Your hatred for the west has taking a new shape

@Topic

Perharps I should point it out to you that a man with 3 sons loves one more than others, although he raised them all, but he still loves one more than the others. It would be naturally assumed that he should love them all equally, but no, he loves one more than the other. So also is a mothers love, she gave birth to them all,  but one of  them is loved more than the others.

I think the problem most of us have, is that we see nations as one big entity, maybe if we start narrowing it down to its smallest unit - the individual, as scientist break down compositions to there smallest particle - atom, in other to undertand it better, then and only then we would have a better picture.

The west is not perfect, but you can equally say the same of every other nation.

Afam its a constant struggle in an individual, that fight for perfection, if it would ever be attained is another thing, but one thing is for sure, let all men of goodwill speak out when they see injustice, that is our call to life, that is the only way we would draw closer to our destination.

But dont ask me if we would ever get there, who can tell kwanu, when the distance is unimaginable, not to say immeasurable.

yeswecan:

Your hatred for the west has taking a new shape   

Typical response from a complete idiot.

Unlike you that hate people or nations based on religion and ethnicity I do not hate the West but will always speak out against any injustice I see in this world.

Of course when we run out of ideas or when we cannot challenge positions based on facts and logic we begin to see ghosts and create all sorts of distractions.

So what are the myths and lies? Why the ''WEST''.
Did germany install the shah? Was it france who ''allegedly'' distributed $400 millon?
Sure the u.s might not be perfect but she and other nations have spoken what they saw. And from all indications the iranian elections were far from ''free and fair''.

Tudór:

So what are the myths and lies? Why the ''WEST''.
Did germany install the shah? Was it france who ''allegedly'' distributed $400 millon?
Sure the u.s might not be perfect but she and other nations have spoken what they saw. And from all indications the iranian elections were far from ''free and fair''.

Hmm, that's a good point. Please, feel free to use US, UK and all the countries in the West that preach about democracy but do not really like it when the outcome don't favor their stooges or preferred candidates.

The problem I personally see here is that these so called "facts" are opinion of one person. Apart from his views, what is there to support these points as "facts". Where are the links showing support for each and every one of these facts?

It is easy to put together views, in this case you see, views that appeared to be emotional and politically flawed. On top of that, this appears to be one of those long chain email doing the round on the net.

Not to be accused of diversion, if am to present a theisis in this manner, and them claim it is a fact, how long before someone rip into them? To put things into perspective, even the BNP have all these kind of "facts" (which in actual truth is far from it) which are nothing but propaganda. In this case so far, there appear to be similarities.

Provide something to substantiate, establish or at least confirm these facts.

PS
Am busy, so can't be bothered doing your own leg work for you to check if these thing are truly facts like the author and you are claiming.

The same joke that goes around trying to challenge positions has finally decided to abandon his stock in trade because he cannot fault the statements and opinions presented by the author.

I guess this man has seen all the evidence that proves that Iran is developing nuclear weapon and that in fact the last election in Iran was rigged.

You see how we make complete fools of ourselves on public discussion boards.

How hard is it to actually debate without resulting to Patronizing or looking through your nose. All I have asked is to show your points are true like you claimed. How hard is that?

You accused people of distraction, yet here you are bring in diversion yourself - making false accusation at me. I have never claimed they are developing nuclear weapon or the election was rigged. Please provide the proofs.

It is in your eyes only, and only your eyes that you think so, but let us not digress. Provide evidence to support your facts is all am asking. I won't even asked if your original post was presented as "the view of the author" and "you are supporting it". However, to claim they are facts, surely it won't be hard to prove these?

PS
1+1 = 2 is a fact. This is recognised and can be proved. This is a debate and as such, expect things to be challenged.

ElRazur:

How hard is it to actually debate without resulting to Patronizing or looking through your nose. All I have asked is to show your points are true like you claimed. How hard is that?

You accused people of distraction, yet here you are bring in diversion yourself - making false accusation at me. I have never claimed they are developing nuclear weapon or the election was rigged. Please provide the proofs.

It is in your eyes only, and only your eyes that you think so, but let us not digress. Provide evidence to support your facts is all am asking. I won't even asked if your original post was presented as "the view of the author" and "you are supporting it". However, to claim they are facts, surely it won't be hard to prove these?

PS
1+1 = 2 is a fact. This is recognised and can be proved. This is a debate and as such, expect things to be challenged.

Ok, wait for me to provide the facts that you will agree with. Just hang in there, ok?

More diversion, only in this case coupled with an evasion mechanism.

You do not have to provide me with "something I agree with" all I am asking is for you to prove that what you took from a likely chain email and presenting on the forum as "facts" are actually facts!

So here is some of the things I feel concerned about. In Jaffer's article, he used a very biased source to show that CIA [or the west] have interfered in the internal affairs. Here is the said article below.

http://www.daily.pk/world/middle-east/10469-cia-has-distributed-400-million-dollars-inside-iran-to-evoke-a-revolution-.html

Not only is this coming from a guy who showed no proof what so ever to back up his claim [In a telephone interview by the way] - I.e The Former Pakistani Army General Mirza Aslam Beig. But he even called Iran's president to congratulate him on his re-election. On top of that, this guy have been in several controversials in the past, that personally, I would take what he is saying with a pinch of salt. Here is a link to read about him. I guess he must really be credible in your eyes and that of the author [See below]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirza_Aslam_Beg#Controversies



He's been known to play politics when he was in the army, how much more when he is not even in the army. Or to simply put, he appeared to be doing the same thing with his comments. Something your author or you failed to look up on, but instead present it as "Facts".


Now this sort of things you come around here to present as facts. Men nah wah o. And when questioned, you result to insult or avoid the whole question all together.

Personally, I think my view of you Afam is that you would present anything as fact [without even checking] to back up your position. And when challenged other wise, you result to adhomen tactics etc.

ElRazur:

More diversion, only in this case coupled with an evasion mechanism.

You do not have to provide me with "something I agree with" all I am asking is for you to prove that what you took from a likely chain email and presenting on the forum as "facts" are actually facts!

You want facts that the US

supported a military takeover of a democratically elected government in Pakistan?

Fast forward to 1953 in Iran. The US sent in the CIA to
overthrow the democratically elected Mussadiq and the Shah
was reinstalled. The Shah was of course a monarch and
dictator of the highest order. Here, the principle of
democracy actively overthrown, by our government.

refused to acknowledge the landslide HAMAS recorded in Palestine?

supports Mubarak of Egypt in spite of his anti- democratic actions and policies?

supports the leadership in Saudi Arabia even though it is not a democracy?

We should at least learn to give ourselves a break in life lest we make complete nonsense of ourselves all in a bid to argue on a forum.

Address the issues raised by the author if you have any reasonable thing to put down.

The writer has put down common knowledge stuff just to prevent people from being carried away with the hypocrisy of the US.

ElRazur:

Personally, I think my view of you Afam is that you would present anything as fact [without even checking] to back up your position. And when challenged other wise, you result to adhomen tactics etc.

Your view means absolutely nothing. In fact the only reason we are exchanging posts on a forum is because it is a forum. Outside this forum you don't stand a chance because you are an empty barrel.

I won't as much as have any view of you because that would amount to a complete waste of time and thought process as you do not deserve any.

I see that you have reduced your insults on people you disagreed with, what happened? I remember warning you that insulting people that disagree with you will only lead to your destruction on this forum, I am happy you have realized this sooner rather than later.

Dude. You presented your posts as facts. Yet with a simple scrutiny, one can see that they are not facts but a mixed of history, emotionally charged view and what appears to be "baseless facts". The point is your post and that of the author is far from the fact like you are trying to present it. Or do you not accept this?

Afam:

Your view means absolutely nothing. In fact the only reason we are exchanging posts on a forum is because it is a forum. Outside this forum you don't stand a chance because you are an empty barrel.

I won't as much as have any view of you because that would amount to a complete waste of time and thought process as you do not deserve any.

I have heard it all before from you Afam. Your superior logic etc. Or to simply put, another diversion on your part.

All of a sudden, I became a waste of time and thought process after I showed your "Facts" to be far from "Facts"? Coincidence? I would let those reading to make their own mind up.

I see that you have reduced your insults on people you disagreed with, what happened? I remember warning you that insulting people that disagree with you will only lead to your destruction on this forum, I am happy you have realized this sooner rather than later.

More diversion. Please stick to the topic at hand. How hard is that?

ElRazur:

All of a sudden, I became a waste of time and thought process after I showed your "Facts" to be far from "Facts"? Coincidence? I would let those reading to make their own mind up.

The content in bold refers, this is the only reasonable thing you have put down on this forum.

So, let those reading make up their minds and stop wasting space on this forum.

It seems a lot of people have kicked you out of their discussions of late that you are dwelling on this one as if your life depended on it.

I am still interested to find out if there are proofs of massive irregularities to warrant these well co-ordinated protests.

If all losers in elections were able to muster enough media support to motivate their followers into protesting, and that taken as proof of irregularities, there will never be said to be fair electiosn anywhere in the world.

JustGood:

I am still interested to find out if there are proofs of massive irregularities to warrant these well co-ordinated protests.

If all losers in elections were able to muster enough media support to motivate their followers into protesting, and that taken as proof of irregularities, there will never be said to be fair electiosn anywhere in the world.

GBAM!

Afam:

The content in bold refers, this is the only reasonable thing you have put down on this forum.

So, let those reading make up their minds and stop wasting space on this forum.

It seems a lot of people have kicked you out of their discussions of late that you are dwelling on this one as if your life depended on it.

More diversion. It adds nothing to the topic at hand.

Allow me to draw you back to the topic, before it get lost in the sea of bickering only you seem to be making.

You are yet to provide and solid, let alone conclusive proof that what you posted are complete facts like you appear to be presenting. The article used by your author is flawed and baseless. There wasn't a single proof to show that CIA plundered money to destabilize iran  as at the time the article was written.

The article that your author used was flawed in the sense that, the interview with the general was done over the phone and not a single proof was showed. Further more, most sources reported the story with inverted commas. [Inverted commas are used in news print when story is not confirmed or no solid proof to the content being discussed]. Yet you and your author hardly did any own leg work to check this out - the very basis of journalism.

Finally, the general that made the comment is a well known controversial figure in many ways. Read the link I posted about him. This to many reading put his position of credibility [if he ever had one] into question.

Yet how can all of this form some of the basis of your article you are presenting as facts? And that is just one by a simply method of scrutiny.


Let me level with you here. Hypocrisy and Politics go hand in hand, it is not a new thing am afraid. Here is one classic example. US have been the biggest ally of Israel both politically and militarily. I mean, we all know how the US-Israel relations are. Recently, Israel sold military UAVs [Unmanned aerial vehicles] to China even though US objected to this and threatened to pull all the plugs of support militarily. As this sort of sale put the US forces at potential risk etc. Despite the US given reassurance, it was later discovered that the UAV was sold to china. On top of that, it is widely reported that Israel have given technical-know-how to aid china in developing one of their fighter jets.

The point I am making is that regardless of what, nations are not perfect and as such hypocrisy or double standards would exist.

JustGood:

I am still interested to find out if there are proofs of massive irregularities to warrant these well co-ordinated protests.

If all losers in elections were able to muster enough media support to motivate their followers into protesting, and that taken as proof of irregularities, there will never be said to be fair electiosn anywhere in the world.

I agree with you. However, there have been several question raised. . . .For example the actual case of Votes made, more than the numbers of eligible voters or those holding a vote card etc.

On the grand scale of things, it is a difficult one to say the election is fair or not. My stance is to look at the whole thing and ask question. Something a few people confuses with taking a side.

As for the coordinated protest, I suppose one can conclude that people over there there have their own mind and intelligent enough to stage a protest. Also let us not forget that these sort of protest is not entirely new to them.

ElRazur:

Finally, the general that made the comment is a well known controversial figure in many ways. Read the link I posted about him. This to many reading put his position of credibility [if he ever had one] into question.

Thanks but I will not read any link you posted. You have zero credibility so talking about the credibility of the general is ridiculous.

ElRazur:

Let me level with you here. Hypocrisy and Politics go hand in hand, it is not a new thing am afraid. Here is one classic example. US have been the biggest ally of Israel both politically and militarily. I mean, we all know how the US-Israel relations are. Recently, Israel sold military UAVs [Unmanned aerial vehicles] to China even though US objected to this and threatened to pull all the plugs of support militarily. As this sort of sale put the US forces at potential risk etc. Despite the US given reassurance, it was later discovered that the UAV was sold to china. On top of that, it is widely reported that Israel have given technical-know-how to aid china in developing one of their fighter jets.

China ke? What was the topic again? I thought you wanted us to stay on the topic even when you are ready to bring in China and even Venezuela. Na wah for Nigerians.

Afam:

Thanks but I will not read any link you posted. You have zero credibility so talking about the credibility of the general is ridiculous.

This is not about me. This is about the sources that form part of the basis of you so called facts. Let us focus on that shall we?

1. He's given solidarity with Osama being laden.

2. He's taken sides where and when he is not supposed to.

3. He plays politics as an Army officer - Something that goes against what they army represents.

4. He's been involved with scandals that have to deal with misuse of public money.

5. He was in support of selling nuclear arm to Iran. Soley to undermine the US. This he made a statement about when he as the chief of army staff. [Clearly this shows he's got issue with the US]

6. He was mentioned in the death of a prominent scientist.

etc.

I don't know about you, but his statement of "CIA spent 400 million dollars to destabilize Iran" seem to check well with his profile and previous history. You do not base your "facts" on someone who appears to have a history of making controversial statement, and even to make matters worse he [the general] never provided and proof to back his claim up. Journalism is about fact, what ever this article is. . . It is far from facts.

China ke? What was the topic again? I thought you wanted us to stay on the topic even when you are ready to bring in China and even Venezuela. Na wah for Nigerians.

And this is you claiming I am an empty barrel? Interesting.

You topic had a title highlighting Hypocrisy, You post content tried to draw a picture of hypocrisy etc. I gave you an example to illustrate my point of how politics and hypocrisy goes hand in hand, and that it happens even between nations that are staunch supporters of each other. And that, hypocrisy is nothing new in between nations of the world regardless of ideology etc. How this is not relevant to the topic at hand is beyond me.


PS
Do not read what I post. I personally refuse to bathe in the sauna of ignorance you see.

ElRazur:

This is not about me. This is about the sources that form part of the basis of you so called facts. Let us focus on that shall we?

1. He's given solidarity with Osama being laden.

Let's have proof. In any case assuming that is true is giving solidarity to Osama a crime?

ElRazur:

2. He's taken sides where and when he is not supposed to.

This is the most open ended and pointless statement I have read on this forum this year.

ElRazur:

3. He plays politics as an Army officer - Something that goes against what they army represents.

Part of the hypocrisy that the topic was based on. The US supported and partnered with his boss (the former Pakistani military president) that overthrew a democratically elected government so what's your point?

ElRazur:

4. He's been involved with scandals that have to deal with misuse of public money.

Proof please. I have not asked for links to online journals, just proof or evidence.

ElRazur:

5. He was in support of selling nuclear arm to Iran. Soley to undermine the US. This he made a statement about when he as the chief of army staff. [Clearly this shows he's got issue with the US]

Let's have the proof. Again, what is wrong in supporting that? A lot of people who believe in fair play and justice support same. That you have probably sold your soul to the US is your own problem not mine or that of the general.

ElRazur:

6. He was mentioned in the death of a prominent scientist.

Being mentioned does not prove anything. Bush claimed Saddam had WMDs before he invaded Iraq. Any proof?

ElRazur:

I don't know about you, but his statement of "CIA spent 400 million dollars to destabilize Iran" seem to check well with his profile and previous history. You do not base your "facts" on someone who appears to have a history of making controversial statement, and even to make matters worse he [the general] never provided and proof to back his claim up. Journalism is about fact, what ever this article is. . . It is far from facts.

The general did not provide any proof to back up his claim just as you have not provided any proof to back up yours. Sounds familiar?

ElRazur:

And this is you claiming I am an empty barrel? Interesting.

You topic had a title highlighting Hypocrisy, You post content tried to draw a picture of hypocrisy etc. I gave you an example to illustrate my point of how politics and hypocrisy goes hand in hand, and that it happens even between nations that are staunch supporters of each other. And that, hypocrisy is nothing new in between nations of the world regardless of ideology etc. How this is not relevant to the topic at hand is beyond me.

Leave the diversions out of this. Are you saying you agree with the writer that the US is being hypocritical? Yes or no? I don tire to read all these irrelevant issues you bring up just to confuse people.

You hare asking for proof when you said this:

Afam said

Thanks but I will not read any link you posted. You have zero credibility so talking about the credibility of the general is ridiculous.

Jesus wept.

On top of that I have provided where my views where taken from already. Are you even reading this thread? It is starting to dawn that you are nit-picking now to be honest.

Leave the diversions out of this. Are you saying you agree with the writer that the US is being hypocritical? Yes or no? I don tire to read all these irrelevant issues you bring up just to confuse people.

What diversion? Staying on topic is diversion?? Again, Jesus wept. But in the same breathe and sentence, you all of a sudden see the point I am making about hypocrisy and politics going hand in hand?

It is strange how for the since the start of this discussion, you are yet to answer a single question posed at you. However, it seems you want answer to your question. Again read the thread and try to fully understand where am coming from, and perhaps you would see the need not to ask me questions that most would see that I have dealt with already.


PS
Here are my points before we lose it again.

Here is the link used by your author to present his "facts"
http://www.daily.pk/world/middle-east/10469-cia-has-distributed-400-million-dollars-inside-iran-to-evoke-a-revolution-.html

The news print shows that it wasnt confirmed or proved. So on that basis alone, your presentation of the article as fact is inaccurate.

Here is a link I raised my point from questioning the credibility of the General.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirza_Aslam_Beg#Controversies

There are further links in that link that shows where the stories where taken from. If a controversial man who haven't provided any facts or proof to back up his claim form the part basis of your "facts", then it at least shows how you are approaching this debate at hand. . . . Very emotionally charged just like the author.

ElRazur:


PS
Here are my points before we lose it again.

Here is the link used by your author to present his "facts"
http://www.daily.pk/world/middle-east/10469-cia-has-distributed-400-million-dollars-inside-iran-to-evoke-a-revolution-.html

The news print shows that it wasnt confirmed or proved. So on that basis alone, your presentation of the article as fact is inaccurate.

Here is a link I raised my point from questioning the credibility of the General.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirza_Aslam_Beg#Controversies

There are further links in that link that shows where the stories where taken from. If a controversial man who haven't provided any facts or proof to back up his claim form the part basis of your "facts", then it at least shows how you are approaching this debate at hand. . . . Very emotionally charged just like the author.

Wonderful. Wikipedia is the proof? So, all the noise you have been making boils down to a public encyclopedia that is editable by the general public?

You need help.

ElRazur:

1+1 = 2 is a fact. This is recognised and can be proved.

Wrong Wrong Wrong.  Excuse me this is just a diversion to prove the point that in Algebra 1 + 1 = 1

In other words

True + True = True

1 + 0 = 0

True + False = False

0 + 1 = 0

False + True = False

0 + 0 = 0

False + False = False

Look ElRazur all am trying to let you know is that what is true and what is not, sometimes depends on what angle your looking at it from. 

And if logic is something we should follow in this argument ElRazur your fact says your wrong.

Afam:

Wonderful. Wikipedia is the proof? So, all the noise you have been making boils down to a public encyclopedia that is editable by the general public?

You need help.

As usual you presented another evasive move. Wiki gives an over view of all the stories, all the actual link is right there in the wiki for all to see. This I mentioned before.

I suppose for the purpose of this debate some one must have edited those information to discredit his credibility right? I won't be dragged into accuracies of wiki here, but it should be noted that it is no longer "editable by anyone" and are subject to checks.

You also appeared to have avoided answering the questions directed at you.  How come the basis of your fact is based on unconfirmed and unverified reports? Surely a statement no longer becomes a fact at this stage

ElRazur:

As usual you presented another evasive move. Wiki gives an over view of all the stories, all the actual link is right there in the wiki for all to see. This I mentioned before.

I suppose for the purpose of this debate some one must have edited those information to discredit his credibility right? I won't be dragged into accuracies of wiki here, but it should be noted that it is no longer "editable by anyone" and are subject to checks.

You also appeared to have avoided answering the questions directed at you.  How come the basis of your fact is based on unconfirmed and unverified reports? Surely a statement no longer becomes a fact at this stage

I like the content in bold.

If I have to answer all the questions you put down I may not finish until the next presidential election especially when you have very dangerous mindsets that I am not in the least interesting in relating with.

Your defense of wikipedia as a source of your facts is really troubling. Goes to show you don't understand the whole essence of controlling information.

More irrelevant stuff from you.

Please answer the questions directed at you.

ElRazur:

More irrelevant stuff from you.

Please answer the question directed at you.

This is what happens when you think and act like a bully. You think you have any right to dictate to anyone or to address only what catches your fancy?

I can smell the frustration in unsuccessful attempt at trying to confuse people.

I like people that use their brains to think, not just swallowing one propaganda after another.

What was the question again?

More diversion and irrelevant post.
Your previous statement acknowledges that you haven't answered any of the questions posed at you so far. Questions that actually addresses the issues at hand, instead of the constant bickering you are making. You then turn around to ask me what questions again. Nice logic.

Time would tell if you can rise to the occassion and challenge those questions directed at you. So far, you clearly ain't up to the task at hand.