|
Post by turbonium on Apr 4, 2007 3:12:05 GMT -4
A real carload can only mean a real carload of tourists. A real planeload can only mean a real planeload of Egyptians. And a real boatload can only mean a real boatload of Cubans.I never denied that it did. My point is that the real refugees don't necessarily have to die. There is virtually no chance none would die, as I'll explain below. In fact, we can find examples where ships have been sunk with little or no loss of life. U-81 sank a shipload of British sailors (HMS Ark Royal, one death out of over 1000 crew.) Consider the details for why only one person died.... Almost 15 hours after being torpedoed by a German submarine, the British aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal capsized and slipped under the water.
... she foundered in tow only a few miles from home."U-30 sank a shipload of civilians." (SS Athenia--a handful of deaths caused by the actual sinking--most killed were in a lifeboat that was run down by a "rescue" ship. Over 1000 passengers.) Boats carrying Cuban refugees wouldn't even have any lifeboats. "A 'friendly' mine sank a shipload of American troops." (SS President Coolidge, two deaths out of several thousand troops and sailors aboard). It sank along the shore... The USS President Coolidge is the largest accessible shipwreck in the world. To the diver this is a pinnacle in wreck diving, especially lying so close to the shore.The plan proposed sinking a shipload of Cubans enroute to Florida. But the Florida Strait is treacherous — a tough 90 miles to cover in any boat. With the Gulf Stream surging through along with the strong Florida Current, it’s usually windy with heavy swells. In hurricane season, the murderous storms seem to head right into it. Of course, there are plenty of sharks, too.No lifeboats, treacherous waters, nowhere near land. Sinking a boatload of Cubans in the Florida Strait - without any resulting casualties? Come on. This plan was a guaranteed death sentence. If even one person would survive, it would be considered a miracle!
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 4, 2007 3:43:37 GMT -4
I want to repeat an important point I had made in the previous discussion about Northwoods...
This plan would have resulted in the deaths of many Cubans and Americans. That is 100% certain.
Even if they chose only the "simulations" over the "real" events.
Because we still would have attacked Cuba, causing hundreds or thousands of deaths.
Isn't this still mass murder?
Sure it is. The people were manipulated into killing each other under false pretenses. But it's those who orchestrated the plan who are truly the murderers. They are just using others to be their "weapons".
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 4, 2007 12:51:01 GMT -4
From this statement, I consider the first, and most important, goal that must be reached within this plan, is that it must succeed in fooling the American people. [emphasis original]
What you consider is frankly irrelevant, as you have repeatedly demonstrated a severe political and conspiracist bias in your interpretation of the memo, and a clear willingness to twist the wording as much as required to support your predetermined conclusion. (For example, your ridiculous assertion that "blow up a ship in Guantanamo Bay" must mean "launch a successful attack using drone jet fighters that don't require pilots or ground crews.")
As I said earlier, without achieving that goal, they cannot create any justification for the US to attack Cuba - which was the entire purpose of Northwoods. [emphasis original]
Northwoods memo, page 8:
If deceiving the American public and the US military rank-and-file are of such paramount importance, why is this wave of national indignation characterized as "helpful," rather than "required?" I submit that your assertion that such deception must necessarily be an unstated requirement of the plan is unsupportable, and serves as additional evidence of your extreme lack of objectivity.
Suppose the Soviets suspected it was an inside job of the US government. Suspicions alone wouldn't be enough to cause a Soviet intervention. [emphasis original]
Even if they are quite sure it was all staged, they would need to provide solid evidence, in order to validate their accusations to the rest of the world. That would not be the easiest thing for them to accomplish.
On the other hand, suppose many Americans suspected it was an inside job (like 9/11!).
Begging the question that the September 11 attacks were staged by elements of the US Government.
That would still "justify" an attack on Cuba (or Iraq), as long as the military is onside (ie: fooled) - in adequate numbers.
Why do you believe that most members of the US military would have been fooled if most civilians hadn't been? Also, why do you believe that significant numbers of US service members would refuse to carry out lawful orders simply because they had doubts about the justification for the war in which they were involved?
So, even though the Soviets were a problem, they were really considered to be much more of a future concern. [emphasis original]
No. "World opinion" and the United Nations include the Soviet Union (which had a UN Security Council veto).
Also, the JCS only mentioned a potential Soviet problem after a US attack on Cuba. That is, as a military ally coming to their defense in wartime. Not as a nation that saw through the trickery used to frame their ally. [emphasis original]
No. See previous.
The Soviets, in the bigger picture, were certainly the greatest concern of the US. But not within Northwoods, within their urgent time frame for its realization.[emphasis original]
There is no evidence for this.
[edit: typo and quoting]
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 4, 2007 15:50:35 GMT -4
Sinking a boatload of Cubans in the Florida Strait - without any resulting casualties?
Come on. This plan was a guaranteed death sentence. If even one person would survive, it would be considered a miracle! [emphasis original]
Please explain how sinking a boatload of Cuban refugees with no survivors and no witnesses would have made Castro look bad. Many Cubans were dying every month attempting to reach Florida in unseaworthy boats. Who would even notice if one boat didn't make it?
Yet again, in your zeal to proclaim the wickedness of the US government, you have simply assumed that the plan must have been to kill people, without considering whether doing so fits the objectives of the operation.
A much betterplan (again) would have been to have sunk a boat and rescued the survivors with a Coast Guard cutter or helicopter that just "happened" to witness the attack. This would have resulted in plenty of anti-Castro publicity.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 4, 2007 16:54:01 GMT -4
What you consider is frankly irrelevant, As are your opinions, spitfire. as you have repeatedly demonstrated a severe political and conspiracist bias in your interpretation of the memo, and a clear willingness to twist the wording as much as required to support your predetermined conclusion. (For example, your ridiculous assertion that "blow up a ship in Guantanamo Bay" must mean "launch a successful attack using drone jet fighters that don't require pilots or ground crews.") That accusation is hilarious, coming from someone who leaves all logic behind in his personal interpretation of the plans. If deceiving the American public and the US military rank-and-file are of such paramount importance, why is this wave of national indignation characterized as "helpful," rather than "required?" I obviously need to repeat myself. I said... If they can't justify an attack on Cuba to the American people (at least to a significant degree) - the people who must be motivated into taking up arms - the plan will be a complete failure. I submit that your assertion that such deception must necessarily be an unstated requirement of the plan is unsupportable, and serves as addtional evidence of your extreme lack of objectivity. I submit it is your assertion that is without merit. Please explain how an attack by the US can be justified and implemented without fooling enough Americans to go to war with Cuba? Do you think they would all go into war if they knew it was a staged event by their own government, trying to dupe them into risking their lives? On the other hand, suppose many Americans suspected it was an inside job (like 9/11!).Begging the question that the September 11 attacks were staged by elements of the US Government. No, you missed my point - that Americans do indeed suspect 9/11 was an inside job. That would still "justify" an attack on Cuba (or Iraq), as long as the military is onside (ie: fooled) - in adequate numbers.Why do you believe that most members of the US military would have been fooled if most civilians hadn't been? I never said that they would. But it is necessary to fool enough of the actual people who are going to war - or else there won't be a war! Also, why do you believe that significant numbers of US service members would refuse to carry out lawful orders simply because they had doubts about the justification for the war in which they were involved? Doubts are not the same as believing. If some service members have serious enough doubts, or are convinced it's unjustified, then they may well refuse to go to war with Cuba. But if it's not something they have serious doubts over, than probably they will go to war.
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 5, 2007 15:55:07 GMT -4
As are your opinions, spitfire.
Your concession that your own opinions are irrelevant is noted.
That accusation is hilarious, coming from someone who leaves all logic behind in his personal interpretation of the plans.
As usual, when your fantasy claims of a conspiracy are destroyed, you resort to name-calling. Please give some examples of where I've "left all logic behind."
I obviously need to repeat myself. I said...
If they can't justify an attack on Cuba to the American people (at least to a significant degree) - the people who must be motivated into taking up arms - the plan will be a complete failure. [emphasis original]
Begging the question that simply getting rid of Castro isn't a sufficient motivation.
I submit it is your assertion that is without merit. [emphasis original]
Again, argumentation with no evidence provided.
Please explain how an attack by the US can be justified and implemented without fooling enough Americans to go to war with Cuba? Do you think they would all go into war if they knew it was a staged event by their own government, trying to dupe them into risking their lives?
Again, you merely assume that the American people wouldn't have supported getting rid of Castro without being "duped" into an attack.
No, you missed my point - that Americans do indeed suspect 9/11 was an inside job.
Your wording was ambiguous. About 1/3 of all Americans suspect some sort of government involvement in the September 11 attacks. About 1/3 of all Americans also believe in astrology, and about 1/3 believe that extraterrestrials have contacted the government.
I never said that they would. But it is necessary to fool enough of the actual people who are going to war - or else there won't be a war!
Yet again, begging the question. What is your evidence that there was any need to fool the American people or US servicemen?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 6, 2007 10:08:19 GMT -4
Please give some examples of where I've "left all logic behind." A good example is how you twist the two options for this plan: " to "Sink a boatload of Cubans...." (real or simulated) You've kept insisting that the "real" event does not mean casualties are anticipated, expected, counted on, or desired. Why? Well, you said - because they probably (or could) mean "sink a real boat", not "sink real Cubans". I pointed out that the plan describes it as a boat load, which can only mean a boatload of people (Cubans). Now you've got a new argument - that on previous occasions, sinking boatloads of people has (sometimes) resulted in very few, if any, casualties. Of course, there were good reasons why - lifeboats, adjacent to shore, etc. - casualties were minimal in those cases. But the Cubans wouldn't have lifeboats, or be near the shore, while their boat was sinking. They would all perish, in shark-infested, treacherous waters, miles away from the nearest shore. Begging the question that simply getting rid of Castro isn't a sufficient motivation. It wasn't sufficient motivation. We didn't go to war with Cuba. The Bay of Pigs fiasco shows how "motivated" the American people were...not. Again, you merely assume that the American people wouldn't have supported getting rid of Castro without being "duped" into an attack. First of all, don't mistake the purpose of the Northwoods plan - justifying a US military attack against Cuba - with the intended goal of the botched BoPigs invasion - to depose Castro. And supporting the deposing of Castro, as I said, led to nothing but the muddled BoPigs - with a bunch of Cuban exiles under CIA directives. No, you missed my point - that Americans do indeed suspect 9/11 was an inside job. Your wording was ambiguous. About 1/3 of all Americans suspect some sort of government involvement in the September 11 attacks. Count me among this 1/3 of all Americans, obviously. About 1/3 of all Americans also believe in astrology, and about 1/3 believe that extraterrestrials have contacted the government. And of the remaining 2/3, which 1/3 would those who support the official 9/11 story be in? I'm thinking it may be the aliens group, but I could be wrong.... Yet again, begging the question. What is your evidence that there was any need to fool the American people or US servicemen? If there was no need to, then we could have attacked Cuba. And we should have attacked Cuba. The JCS wanted to attack Cuba. So then, what stopped them?
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 9, 2007 13:57:29 GMT -4
You've kept insisting that the "real" event does not mean casualties are anticipated, expected, counted on, or desired. Why? Well, you said - because they probably (or could) mean "sink a real boat", not "sink real Cubans". I pointed out that the plan describes it as a boatload, which can only mean a boatload of people (Cubans). [emphasis original] No, I said that friendly casualties were not necessarily intended. I have explained several times how this might have been accomplished. Also, you have made no allowance for the possible careless use of language by the writers of the memo. Now you've got a new argument - that on previous occasions, sinking boatloads of people has (sometimes) resulted in very few, if any, casualties.
Of course, there were good reasons why - lifeboats, adjacent to shore, etc. - casualties were minimal in those cases. My point is that "sink" does not necessarily equal "kill." You attempted to improperly equate "sink a boatload" with "shoot down a planeload." But the Cubans wouldn't have lifeboats, or be near the shore, while their boat was sinking. They would all perish, in shark-infested, treacherous waters, miles away from the nearest shore. The Coast Guard was patrolling the area looking for refugees. A helicopter or amphibian could have rescued them, or at least dropped them life rafts to use until a cutter arrived. Also, you have failed to answer my question--how does sinking a boatload of refugees with no survivors and no witnesses make Castro look bad? To reiterate, with all the Cubans trying and failing to make the crossing to Florida, who would even notice? It wasn't sufficient motivation. We didn't go to war with Cuba. Affirmed consequent. Even if strong domestic support for military action was necessary for an invasion of Cuba, it wouldn't have been sufficient. The Bay of Pigs fiasco shows how "motivated" the American people were...not. No. International politics was the deciding factor--not concerns over American public opinion. From historyofcuba.com: Please explain what American public opinion has to do with the above. Count me among this 1/3 of all Americans, obviously.Yes, we know--you've never met a conspiracy theory you didn't like. And of the remaining 2/3, which 1/3 would those who support the official 9/11 story be in? I'm thinking it may be the aliens group, but I could be wrong....Typical attempt to belittle those who disagree with you, rather than provide any real evidence for your position. My point was merely that an idea's being widely held doesn't make it correct. If there was no need to, then we could have attacked Cuba.Again, this is an affirmed consequent. And we should have attacked Cuba. The JCS wanted to attack Cuba. So then, what stopped them? [emphasis original]The threat of war with the Soviet Union, and the threat of international condemnation. See above.
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 12, 2007 14:48:23 GMT -4
Let's recap, now that several of your claims have been conclusively refuted. I also have several direct questions for you, turbonium, which I specifically request that you answer.
First, the claim that a US government organization would deliberately plan to murder its own citizens is clearly an extraordinary claim, and thus requires extraordinary proof.
Question 1: Please comment on your understanding of this concept.
Second, in order to qualify as extraordinary proof on its own, the Northwoods memo must unequivocally and unambiguously call for deliberate murders. Any unrefuted demonstration of equivocation or ambiguity in any point destroys any claim that that particular point qualifies as extraordinary proof.
Question 2: Please comment on your understanding of this concept.
Third, even granting for the sake of argument that an invasion of Cuba would have been morally unjustified, legally, starting an unjust war is not equivalent to murder or treason, and the perpetrators of such a war would not have faced the legal jeopardy attendant to those crimes . Therefore, you cannot use your claims of moral equivalence between deliberate murder and unjust war to attempt to lower your burden of extraordinary proof.
Question 3: Please comment on your understanding of this concept.
Fourth, you have made several demonstrably incorrect or absurd claims in an attempt to cover your numerous lapses in logic. Specifically, you claimed that the "blow up a ship in Guantanamo Bay" scenario must necessarily have involved an attack by fake MiGs, in order to blame Cuba, and that such a plan must necessarily have involved destroying the ship in question with her crew aboard, in order to eliminate potential witnesses. When I pointed out that fake MiGs would have required numerous witnesses, you claimed that drone MiGs would have been used, and that said drones would not have required pilots or ground crews.
Question 4: Please explain why you claimed this--was it merely gross ignorance on your part, or simply that you are so desperate to proclaim the existence of conspiracies that you will say anything required to attempt to keep your theories on life support? In either case, please explain why anyone should take you at all seriously, especially in view of your track record of making such absurd claims.
Fifth, the memo clearly states that it is "preliminary," and "for planning purposes."
Question 5: In light of the above, please explain why you assume that each plan was equally well developed, that there was no careless use of language involved, and that the Joint Chiefs of Staff must have known that they were approving a plan that contemplated real friendly casualties.
Sixth, you have claimed that the primary yet unstated purpose of the plans must necessarily have been to fool the American people, yet this is mentioned nowhere, other than one reference to "fake" casualties' creating a "helpful wave of national indignation."
Question 6: Please explain why, if this is a requirement, it is merely characterized as "helpful," rather than "necessary." Also, please explain why, if fake casualties were seen as sufficient to create such a "helpful wave," that real casualties would have been considered necessary in any scenario. Finally, I have provided evidence that American public opinion was not a major concern of the Kennedy administration at the time. I specifically request that you provide some real evidence that it was, or withdraw the claim.
Question 7: I renew my question: what good would sinking a boatload of Cuban refugees with no witnesses and no survivors do? Would not arranging for numerous witnesses and survivors be a much better way to make Castro look bad? Also who would even notice that a boatload of dead refugees were gone, when so many were dying in unsuccessful attempts to reach Florida?
Question 8: You have, on this and several other subjects, made numerous demonstrably false claims. Please explain why you never acknowledge or take responsibility for such claims, and why, in view of this, anyone should take you seriously or continue to debate you.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 21, 2007 7:22:23 GMT -4
First, the claim that a US government organization would deliberately plan to murder its own citizens is clearly an extraordinary claim, and thus requires extraordinary proof.
I want you to address my previous point about the plan as a whole being a plan of murder.
The goal of the plan was to justify an attack on Cuba. FACT.
Innocent people, manipulated into a war against other innocent people. FACT.
A war where many innocent Americans and Cubans end up dead. FACT.
A plan which will result in the murder of innocent Americans and Cubans. FACT.
So, is this a deliberate plan to murder Americans?
It's certainly a plan which inevitably results in the murder of Americans.
Either way, it's still murder. And the government would be guilty of murder.
If I gun down ten people, it's deliberate murder. If I fool ten people into shooting each other, it's still deliberate murder.
In the first example I kill them myself. In the second example, they kill themselves for me.
And I'd be just as guilty of murder in either case.
Are you going to suggest that the planners of Northwoods would not have the blood of innocent Americans on their hands?
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 21, 2007 16:02:50 GMT -4
I want you to address my previous point about the plan as a whole being a plan of murder.
I want you to answer my questions, which were posed over a week ago. This is yet another of your red-herring attempts to change the subject because you are unable or unwilling to tackle problematic questions.
Further, I have addressed this issue, in my third point above, and in previous posts.
I decline to respond to your ideological rantings point-by-point; I will merely summarize my previous comments.
First, whether starting a war, unjust or otherwise, is equivalent to murder, is at best debatable.
Second, whether an attack on Cuba would have been unjust is at best debatable. You have previously made the absurd claim that Cuba posed no threat to US national security, and shown a tendency to grossly oversimplify the issues involved, so your opinion on this point carries little weight.
Finally, even granting for the sake of argument that an attack on Cuba would have been morally equivalent to murder, legally it would not have been, and therefore the "conspirators" would not have faced execution or lengthy prison terms. Therefore, you may not use your allegation of equivalence to attempt to lower your burden of extraordinary proof.
Now, kindly answer the questions from my previous post. I decline to respond to any additional posts of yours on the subject of Northwoods/Mongoose until you do so.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 25, 2007 3:39:25 GMT -4
First, the claim that a US government organization would deliberately plan to murder its own citizens is clearly an extraordinary claim, and thus requires extraordinary proof. Question 1: Please comment on your understanding of this concept. It's a catchphrase popularized by Carl Sagan, which you inevitably bring up in vain attempts at refuting my position. The phrase itself is a logical fallacy. Do "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? No. "Extraordinary " is an entirely subjective descriptor. It cannot be quantified. While a specific claim can generally be considered "extraordinary", despite any means of quantifying it, there is no validity to the term "extraordinary" in determining what constitutes proof. For example, one can simply reject any claim on the grounds that the proof is not "extraordinary" enough, in their personal opinion. "Extraordinary " - beyond what is ordinary or usual; highly unusual or exceptional or remarkable. A claim that a government would deliberately plan to murder its own citizens is not unusual. In fact, it's commonly been claimed by millions of citizens - in England, in China, in the USSR, in Germany, Zimbabwe, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Poland, Japan, and many other countries - including the US. Not only claims of planning murders, but claims of committing murders, many of which have been proven to be true throughout history. Numerous documented cases can be cited just over the last century. Democide - The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.One site has compiled statistics which estimate 20th century democides total about 262 million people... www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTMAs for claims specifically regarding the US government, Second, in order to qualify as extraordinary proof on its own, the Northwoods memo must unequivocally and unambiguously call for deliberate murders. Any unrefuted demonstration of equivocation or ambiguity in any point destroys any claim that that particular point qualifies as extraordinary proof. Question 2: Please comment on your understanding of this concept. As I said, the phrase is entirely subjective. You've illustrated this point in the above, with what you personally believe must "qualify as extraordinary proof". What factors are used to determine whether or not proof is "extraordinary"? All claims (whether deemed "extraordinary" or not) must meet the same standards of proof. I could claim my neighbor was killed by the psycho-escapee I recognized from seeing his mug shot on the 6 o'clock news. Or, I could claim my neighbor was killed by Condi Rice. The second claim is much more "extraordinary" than the first claim, we can all agree. But that doesn't mean I need less proof to substantiate the first claim, simply because it isn't considered "extraordinary", like the second claim is. In both cases, the same standards of proof must be applied. Third, even granting for the sake of argument that an invasion of Cuba would have been morally unjustified, legally, starting an unjust war is not equivalent to murder or treason, and the perpetrators of such a war would not have faced the legal jeopardy attendant to those crimes . Therefore, you cannot use your claims of moral equivalence between deliberate murder and unjust war to attempt to lower your burden of extraordinary proof. Question 3: Please comment on your understanding of this concept. You claim that "starting an unjust war is not equivalent to murder or treason". I believe it certainly is equivalent to murder and treason. The determining factor is - who is directly responsible for the killing of innocent people? Pharmaceutical corporations and individual executives have been accused of genocide and crimes of war before the International Criminal Court in The Hague.www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/06/23/pharmaceutical_corporations_accused_of_genocide_before_icc_in_the_hague.htmI gave you an example that pointed out how someone manipulating innocent people into killing each other makes one just as guilty of murder if they were all killed directly by one's own hand. I'll ask you again... Would the planners of Northwoods have the blood of innocent Americans on their hands if they had achieved their goal?Fourth, you have made several demonstrably incorrect or absurd claims in an attempt to cover your numerous lapses in logic. Specifically, you claimed that the "blow up a ship in Guantanamo Bay" scenario must necessarily have involved an attack by fake MiGs, in order to blame Cuba, and that such a plan must necessarily have involved destroying the ship in question with her crew aboard, in order to eliminate potential witnesses. When I pointed out that fake MiGs would have required numerous witnesses, you claimed that drone MiGs would have been used, and that said drones would not have required pilots or ground crews. Question 4: Please explain why you claimed this--was it merely gross ignorance on your part, or simply that you are so desperate to proclaim the existence of conspiracies that you will say anything required to attempt to keep your theories on life support? In either case, please explain why anyone should take you at all seriously, especially in view of your track record of making such absurd claims. Nonsense. The plan called for blowing up a US ship in Guan. Bay. The staged MiG attack was only one scenario I suggested, not the only alternative possible. They never mentioned how they would blow up the ship, so you don't know any more than I do what method was intended. Fifth, the memo clearly states that it is "preliminary," and "for planning purposes." Question 5: In light of the above, please explain why you assume that each plan was equally well developed, that there was no careless use of language involved, and that the Joint Chiefs of Staff must have known that they were approving a plan that contemplated real friendly casualties. I assume they knew the difference between a real or simulated sinking of a boatload of Cubans. And how blowing up a US ship differs from blowing up a drone (unmanned) ship. Sixth, you have claimed that the primary yet unstated purpose of the plans must necessarily have been to fool the American people, yet this is mentioned nowhere, other than one reference to "fake" casualties' creating a "helpful wave of national indignation." Northwoods was intended as a classic false flag operation, creating a "justification" for war. That requires rallying American citizens and troops. Such false flag ops have been staged many times in the past, since recorded history. Hitler fooled Germans into a sense of outrage against Poland and Jews by staging false flag ops. Question 6: Please explain why, if this is a requirement, it is merely characterized as "helpful," rather than "necessary." Also, please explain why, if fake casualties were seen as sufficient to create such a "helpful wave," that real casualties would have been considered necessary in any scenario. Finally, I have provided evidence that American public opinion was not a major concern of the Kennedy administration at the time. I specifically request that you provide some real evidence that it was, or withdraw the claim.[/quote] "Helpful" to one suggested event does not mean it wasn't necessary in the overall plan.(to deceive the public). It certainly was required that America saw a war with Cuba as justified. Question 7: I renew my question: what good would sinking a boatload of Cuban refugees with no witnesses and no survivors do? Would not arranging for numerous witnesses and survivors be a much better way to make Castro look bad? Also who would even notice that a boatload of dead refugees were gone, when so many were dying in unsuccessful attempts to reach Florida? Survivors could be a risk, if they disputed the official story. Much safer to "invent" a survivor or two, who corroborate the claim of a Cuban attack on their boat. Like the "incubator babies" actress they hired before Gulf War I. Question 8: You have, on this and several other subjects, made numerous demonstrably false claims. Please explain why you never acknowledge or take responsibility for such claims, and why, in view of this, anyone should take you seriously or continue to debate you. I haven't made numerous false claims on this subject. If any are proven to be false, I will acknowledge them as such. But you need to actually substantiate them as false, not as a personal viewpoint you consider as factual.
|
|