What now? LOL, a lawyer for al qaida? Heh! Don't know Ron G. Manley. Heh, surely something better to defend terrorists with?
I actually had a post to yo yo about that, then I noticed the quotes from others, why I was hoping to find more info out on it before going one way or the other copy of the full article http://www.herald-sun.com/firstnews/37-662148.html reading it now
[/quote] You are wishing the expert I quoted didn't say what he said. I'm using his position based upon experience for a point and will continue to do so. And I note you still have nothing. I have a source, you have ... ?
Since your expert "Loftus" is such indisputable expert that everything he speculates in must be true, do you care to explain his other expert opinions and tell us if you believe it. "LOFTUS: Right, Aswat is believed to be the mastermind of all the bombings in London. JERRICK: On 7/7 and 7/21, this is the guy we think. LOFTUS: This is the guy, and what's really embarrassing is that the entire British police are out chasing him, and one wing of the British government, MI6 or the British Secret Service, has been hiding him. And this has been a real source of contention between the CIA, the Justice Department, and Britain. JERRICK: MI6 has been hiding him. Are you saying that he has been working for them? LOFTUS: Oh I'm not saying it. This is what the Muslim sheik said in an interview in a British newspaper back in 2001. JERRICK: So he's a double agent, or was? LOFTUS: He's a double agent. JERRICK: So he's working for the Brits to try to give them information about Al-Qaeda, but in reality he's still an Al-Qaeda operative. LOFTUS: Yeah. The CIA and the Israelis all accused MI6 of letting all these terrorists live in London not because they're getting Al-Qaeda information, but for appeasement. It was one of those you leave us alone, we leave you alone kind of things. " So Gtech do you believe that London bombings were work of MI6 agent because Loftus said so, before you answer I must mention this is from a FOX NEWS program on July 29. How about claims that Bin Laden was or is CIA asset and had a meeting with CIA in July 2001 in Dubai hospital? How about the articles in his web site about Bush-Nazi Link? or how about this form his web site: Loftus's article proves that Pollard was completely innocent of the major charges against him, namely that Pollard leaked the names of US spies behind the Iron Curtain. The second, and most controversial, part of the article explains why Pollard is still in prison if the Government knows he is innocent. Pollard gave Israel the 1984"blue book" listing Arab intelligence agents, including Usama Bin Laden. Pollard's file shows that, contrary to what Congress was told, US intelligence knew perfectly well that they were laundering money through Saudi Arabia to fund known terrorists in their drive to oust the Russians from Afghanistan. To protect themselves from charges of negligence, senior members of US intelligence covered up the Saudi-Al Qaeda connection right up to 9/11. Do you believe in all of this or do you chose and pick in the expert opinion?
LOL, I'm pointing out that even your expert does not state he has proof, or without a doubt, he assumes it is of which you continue to try to twist it is. He is making an assumption with his experience, of which you could assume but no you flat out state it is.
gworld, source your material. I might comment if you do. HRB, he's making an analysis based upon his expertise. But then I'm not going to defend him personally. I accept his position that there was VX. I have a source, you have ... ?
BTW, hrb, I'm waiting to post any further on yo's post. I want to see if you spot what I do. This would be one of those cases
I have a source as well, the source I actually gave you from your own expert of which in his expert opinion he believes it to be VX that still is far from proof it is VX is it not?
Well #1 the defense attorney's I don't put on credense into, #2 the article does go on, #3 it does not state where the experts came from for the most part. I did read the entire article and am trying to process it thus far, plus it does not mention it was not VX, but then again only 1 expert has stated he believed it to be so I don't see where it would need to say that. So far I have no real opinion on the article, I see some things I would like cleaned up a bit to believe it though.
GO TO HIS OWN WEB SITE. You said that he is indisputable expert but now it seems that you are saying when he says it "APPEARS" to be VX, he is an indisputable expert but his other opinions are not expert opinions and are disputable.
Gtech did I miss something else in the article, if I did please point it to me. I may have read something incorrectly, it does happen and I'm willing to admit it.
Right, it does not state where these "experts" are from when referring to the dashed comments "-". Yea, just a little cleaning will do that
to whom left me this, it looks like you're supporting what I said but then why did you give me red? lol, no hard feelings but thought it was funny.
As I posted before, my source is his own site: http://www.john-loftus.com His claim about congress 9/11 cover up from congress: http://www.john-loftus.com/pollard.asp Bush family Nazi connections: http://www.john-loftus.com/bushharriman.asp Different Bush, 9/11, Enron and Bin laden connections: http://www.john-loftus.com/enron1.asp Loftus claim that London bombing was the work of MI6 agent: http://www.infowars.com/articles/London_attack/mastermind_mi6_asset.htm Is your EXPERT right on all the above cases or ONLY when he claims that it "APPEARS" to be VX? It is interesting how you chose and pick the information and sometimes he is an indisputable expert while he is not an expert when it doesn't suit you.
I don't know if he is right on other cases. Do you? I've not argued them or read them. I do know that you haven't provided anything saying it wasn't VX. As I recall though, you considered it just mouthwash and hair dye. You didn't do a very good job defending the terrorists in that debate I never said he was an indisputable expert either. Why do you suggest I did, when you know I didn't? Maybe I should wait for someone else to call you on that. But, since you bolded your question, you are obviously right
Does this mean that your indisputable expert is not always right but only when you want him to be? I don't need to provide anything that says it wasn't VX, you are the one who have to provide a proof that it was VX. As I have mentioned many times before, you can not prove a negative. I think everybody can see that you have no proof, after all your searches you have come up with a word of questionable expert that even doesn't say that it was VX but it says it "APPEARS" to be VX. After all, it will be good for him if he says that it appears to be VX since it definitely meant couple of extra shows on Fox news and couple of extra pay checks.