Discussion in 'Politics and Religion' started by justbill_redux, Jul 9, 2006.
Double ditto to both!
Perfectly clear, since the dateline of the article reads "Thursday, December 4, 1997 Published at 19:27 GMT"
And I agree that posters on message boards should generally be given the benefit of the doubt. When a post is ambiguous, I sometimes ask the poster to explain what he meant, rather than assuming I know what he meant. And when an obvious error could easily be a typo or a slip of the key, I will usually assume that's just what it is.
But when a poster makes the SAME misstatement of fact in multiple posts over multiple days, I tend to think that he really believes what he said, wrong though it may be.
Well, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that it was a mistake on his part since the article made it pretty clear that the meeting happened in the latter part of the 90's. I suppose he'll have to tell us what he MEANT to say.
How right you are. It is amazing what different elements of the press will try to sell those who will swallow it whole. Its very important to "chew" your "food" if you want to get some real information out of it, cross-check references, and like you said, read the "other side's stuff".
I've found that this section has expanded my knowledge greatly as well, since most people I encounter day to day don't want to discuss this stuff ad nauseum. I know I've learned things here I most likely wouldn't have unless I joined some other political forum, but I doubt they would appreciate my interest in the hobby on another forum. Besides, I'm sure I wouldn't find a group of characters as interesting as yourselves.
That's the whole problem with red and blue state press sources. They sell their product by playing to our presuppositions. If you don't want to become an empty headed drone, you have to get out and read the other side's stuff and see if you can find something balanced.
No, Dave, lamont obviously MEANT to say "the early 1990's." As he said earlier in post #9 of this thread:
Lamont's view of history is rather like Michael Moore's - twist the "facts" until they fit our pre-conceived notions and "prove" the point we are trying to make. Never mind that the Taliban didn't really come into existence until 1994 and didn't control Afghanistan until 1996 - and GWB didn't become Governor of Texas until 1994 - and that by 1996 GHWB was no longer president. (There was another guy in the White House by then - a Democrat, if I recall correctly.)
But, according to Lamont, the terms of GHWB as President and GWB as Governor and the reign of the Taliban all overlapped - in the early 1990's - duh!
And apprently, Dave, lamont's reading of the BBC article is a bit more expansive than yours. You find it interesting - he finds that it says all sorts of things like
Never mind that the article mentions Unocal and only Unocal - NOWHERE does it mention Halliburton, or Enron, or George HW Bush or George W Bush or any other "Republican honchos." I read it - twice - they're just not in there. Matter of fact, it doesn't even mention a "posh Houston hotel."
But that's okay - they MUST have all been there - together - everybody "knows" that!
Some people really should stop taking history lessons from propaganda flicks which masquerade as documentaries. Sheesh.
Nice link Lamont. I'm going to have to look into this further. Of course the article doesn't mention who was in attendance, but of course it would make sense Governor Bush might be there. Wouldn't look very good for him if he was, what with the Taliban's human rights record and all. Kinda like Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in the late 80's as he was using WMD against Iran.
One thing though...I assume you meant to say the late 1990's....Because there is no possible way it happened in the early 90's since the Taliban didn't emerge as a distinct group until 1994, and even then weren't in control of Afghanistan enough to be negotatiating gas deals until after 1996 when they controlled most of the country.
I agree with you on the Stone film.
One victims' group is immensely powerful.
Actually, I do know that it was Pakistan that recognized the Taliban in 1996 and asked them to protect truck convoys.
That gave this nefarious group its start towards an eventual takeover of Kabul.
I also know that George Bush the First had been routed by Bill Clinton four years earlier and Bubba was well on his way to destroying Bob Dole later that year.
But what most people don’t know is that representatives of the Taliban had been coming to Houston to discuss building an oil pipeline with executives from Unocal Corp., Halliburton Co. and Enron Corp.
It was during these visits that a Taliban rep attended a meeting at a posh Houston hotel along with some high and mighty Republican honchos and at which former President George Bush the First was present.
Incidentally, all of these visits by the Taliban to Texas took place in the early 1990’s, when George W. Bush was Governor of Texas.
The Taliban was welcome in Texas by Governor Dubya and his papa’s friends in the oil and gas industry.
These get togethers were not secret. No one hid their faces from the cameras. Taliban representatives were well known by those in the oil industry.
[Taliban in Texas for pipeline talks]
I'm betting he didn't have full creative control about this subject cause theres always some 9/11 victims group that has to be consulted with. That and or the two cops.
The movie contains no conspiracy theories.
It's the true account of Port Authority Police Officers Will Jimeno and John McLoughlin, who turned out to be the last two individuals pulled alive from the wreckage of the World Trade Center.
Stone does not delve into who carried out the attack or its political ramifications.
He just tells the story of Jimino and McLoughlin as it was.
Which is probably a first for Stone.
Stone has said he's just focusing on the story of the Port Authority cop, not getting involved in who did it or why, just the story of the cops who were rescued. At least that's what I read in an interview he did.
Paramount is a grand old studio.. conservative too. Anything Stone releases thru them had better be a class act.
Paramount Pictures. Nicholas Cage is cast as a Port Authority police officer who is rescued from one of the towers. I haven't read anything else about the plot so I don't know what Stone's take on it is.
Anyone know what studio is releasing that Stone movie?
Cause not all those studios will risk the flak from Stone disrespecting many with some wild conspiracy.
Anyone know if Oliver Stone's take on the World Trade Center will have similar accuracy to his previous efforts such as Nixon and JFK. I know I should read a book, but it's so much easier to just watch movies.
There's people that actually believe that crap?
You mean it was a documentary??? I thought it was the best piece of historical satire since Mel Brooks' History of the World: Part I
(Apologies to Mel ... I hope he's not a UG reader ... only kidding Mel, please don't sue me for defamation, it was a joke, just a joke . . . )
Maybe he got it from that brilliant and carefully researched documentary film, Farenheit 911. I seem to remember lots of meetings referenced in that noble bit of historical journalism.
He's got you there Lamont. There is no possible way anybody from the Taliban met with Bush Sr.
A slightly different view of Afghanistan:
PRESIDENT KARZAI: The U.S. role is critical here. Without the United States, Afghanistan would have not been a free country today. Without the United States, Afghanistan would have, even now, been ruled by al Qaeda and terrorism. Our children would not have been in school. There would have not been a democracy here. We would not have a Parliament. We would have not had a free press and all the other associated accomplishments with it. We would not have been traveling on asphalted roads from one point to other points of the country. So a lot has been achieved.
I was in a province in the northeastern part of the country the other day and I saw that within 20 kilometers there were three newly built schools and a faculty of engineering -- of agriculture coming up. Without the U.S. all of this achievement would have not been there.* Rather, we would have been living a very miserable life here.
--Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan, press conference, July 11, 2006
Separate names with a comma.