| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"JTEM" |
| Date: |
01 Jun 2004 06:53:21 AM |
| Object: |
Fun Stuff |
Well, if you like taking apart propaganda...
So everyone's heard the stories about Ollie North.
Right?
How the guy needed a $14,000.00 security system
to protect himself from Osama Bin Laden.
Right?
And everyone is denouncing this as "Urban Legend."
Right?
Check this out:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.htm
The accuracy of this site is appalling! Seriously. It's
well below even a Bush economic claim.
For example...
"Although North had been granted limited immunity for his
testimony, he was later convicted of criminal charges
related to Iran-Contra activities (a conviction that was
eventually overturned on the grounds that witnesses had
been influenced by his immunized testimony)."
North was granted immunity in exchange for his testimony.
They had no choice. It's was the only way to get around the
5th amendment.
Anyhow, he perjured himself.
He cut a deal where he would get immunity in exchange for
testify against the administration, then he didn't testify. Instead
he perjured himself. He lied. He invented a fantasy story and
delivered it as SWORN testimony.
He was charged & convicted for that perjury.
He appealed on the grounds that he was granted immunity.
A Republican appointed "Activist Judge" let him off on those
grounds.
Another example...
Bin Laden's "Break" from the Afghan "Freedom Fighters" was
supposed to have already taken place by 1988. This places
that "Break" at the time of the first Bush war, 1990/1991.
If there was a "Break," why on earth did we have to invade
Afghanistan just to get Bin Laden?
It's not that there was a "Break," it's that they always were
anti-western, anti-American. Yes, even as the Republicans
were shipping them billions of dollars in aid, and helping to
train them.
No "Break."
.
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Fun Stuff |
01 Jun 2004 12:31:58 PM |
|
|
Great Lord "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>, braving the raging storm,
scaled the mighty crag called alt.atheism on Tue, 1 Jun 2004 07:53:21
-0400 and screamed this to the uncaring Gods.
Well, if you like taking apart propaganda...
So everyone's heard the stories about Ollie North.
Right?
How the guy needed a $14,000.00 security system
to protect himself from Osama Bin Laden.
Right?
That was his claim, yes.
Check this out:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.htm
The accuracy of this site is appalling! Seriously. It's
well below even a Bush economic claim.
For example...
"Although North had been granted limited immunity for his
testimony, he was later convicted of criminal charges
related to Iran-Contra activities (a conviction that was
eventually overturned on the grounds that witnesses had
been influenced by his immunized testimony)."
North was granted immunity in exchange for his testimony.
They had no choice. It's was the only way to get around the
5th amendment.
Anyhow, he perjured himself.
He cut a deal where he would get immunity in exchange for
testify against the administration, then he didn't testify. Instead
he perjured himself. He lied. He invented a fantasy story and
delivered it as SWORN testimony.
He was charged & convicted for that perjury.
He appealed on the grounds that he was granted immunity.
A Republican appointed "Activist Judge" let him off on those
grounds.
No, he was released because the trial had used portions of his
testimony, given under immunity, to convict him. That violated the
law.
If you made a deal to testify about a drug deal under a promise of
immunity, and then were charged in part on the basis of that
testimony, the case would be thrown out as well.
Another example...
Bin Laden's "Break" from the Afghan "Freedom Fighters" was
supposed to have already taken place by 1988. This places
that "Break" at the time of the first Bush war, 1990/1991.
If there was a "Break," why on earth did we have to invade
Afghanistan just to get Bin Laden?
He broke with the main force to join with the extremist Taliban and
their allies. After the Soviet occupation ended, the freedom fighters
immediately went back to warring with each other over who would rule
Afghanistan. The Taliban won, as we all know.
It's not that there was a "Break," it's that they always were
anti-western, anti-American. Yes, even as the Republicans
were shipping them billions of dollars in aid, and helping to
train them.
When? During the Soviet war? Yes. We helped all the mujahadeen. It
gave our main Cold War foe hell with minimal involvement by American
forces.
No "Break."
*sigh* Your ignorance continues to amaze me.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Fun Stuff |
01 Jun 2004 06:53:01 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" wrote
Great Lord "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>,
No, he was released because the trial had used portions of his
testimony, given under immunity, to convict him. That violated the
law.
Ollie North was tried & convicted of perjury. By all means, don't
take my word on it. Do a google search yourself.
Ollie North was given immunity in exchange for his testimony before
congress. He perjured himself in that SWORN testimony. He cut a
deal, raised his right hand and swore to tell the truth, then he lied.
If you made a deal to testify about a drug deal under a promise of
immunity, and then were charged in part on the basis of that
testimony, the case would be thrown out as well.
You're making this ***** up as you go along. I'm speaking of the man's
perjury conviction. The man was convicted of perjury.
Bin Laden's "Break" from the Afghan "Freedom Fighters" was
supposed to have already taken place by 1988. This places
that "Break" at the time of the first Bush war, 1990/1991.
If there was a "Break," why on earth did we have to invade
Afghanistan just to get Bin Laden?
He broke with the main force to join with the extremist Taliban
and their allies.
The Taliban was the main force. There was no "Break." Bin Laden
and the Taliban were always anti-western, anti-American and the
Republicans couldn't have been more pleased with that. They
viewed their extremism as a useful means of promoting opposition
to the Soviets.... and to hell with the consequences.
It's not that there was a "Break," it's that they always were
anti-western, anti-American. Yes, even as the Republicans
were shipping them billions of dollars in aid, and helping to
train them.
When? During the Soviet war? Yes.
I know. They were *Always* anti-American.
We helped all the mujahadeen.
Without concern for the long-term consequences... not unlike
the situation in Iraq.
It gave our main Cold War foe hell with minimal
involvement by American forces.
It gave the American people 9/11.
Hindsight isn't supposed to be a gift. Even an idiot can look
back after 20 years and see the mistakes for what they were.
3,000 dead Americans makes for a clear picture.
What's your excuse?
*sigh* Your ignorance continues to amaze me.
Visit the WTC lately?
You're not ignorant if you defend this insanity, you're guilty.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
