It is so sad to see people who are so blinded by their bias. You realize that no one was ever able to confirm that story of what you call a "nuke" in Alaska? You are willing to believe the fearmongering of Korean news outlets and Al Jazeera, but you don't trust US news?

Frankly... are you on crack? This is akin to 9/11 conspiracy theories. They can't keep people INSIDE the white house and the CIA quiet, and the can't keep the NYT from publishing stories, but they had a total press blackout on a story of a North Korean "nuke" hitting Alaska.

Iraq manufactured their own Sarin and Mustard gas, so the "made in the USA" stuff is a lie, too. We didn't face US hardware when we invaded in the gulf war, we faced Russian, French, and Chinese hardware. You know, those peace-loving countries that were still inking deals with someone like Hussein a month before we invaded the second time.

I guess it makes no difference that the US finally washed their hands of him once he got bad enough. It's much more morally correct to keep right on swapping spit with him. I'm sure we're all in on it, Deference. Be careful, we might inform on you. When the last person you know refuses to believe you, you'll know that you're the only one left...

It is so sad to see people who are so blinded by their bias. - Bakerstreet

I'm guessing that's why you stay away from mirrors.

Good to have you aboard the S. S. Bad Ship Deference, it's been a while.

You realize that no one was ever able to confirm that story of what you call a "nuke" in Alaska?

As Doc pointed out, it was a missile - not a nuke that was reported.

I've given a source - the Korea Times. Keep in mind that is the South Korean Times which is obviously extremely concerned about their next door neighbor's armament. So much so that (as their story reveals) the South Korean National Assembly sent out an "oversea delegation to five countries [regarding] the North Korean nuclear crisis...and gave a report on [the] region's current showdown over nuclear weapons and missiles."

This led to former Japanese foreign minister Tara Nakayama to comment; ""the last piece of a missile warhead fired by North Korea was found in Alaska." He cited his source a United States document. Why would the Japanese be concerned about the U.S. getting burnt? Not only have they helped support our currency against inflation by buying our bonds but it also means North Korean missiles could reach Japan as well. So they've a highly vested interest in our well being.

"The South Korea legislators used the claim to note that Washington and Tokyo have "underrated Pyongyang's missile capabilities," according to the newspaper. "

Link

What's really classic is this bit concerning the document Nakayama-San referred to also contained within this article:

"Air Force Lt. Col. Rick Lehner, spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency, said the report probably referred to a three-stage missile tested by North Korea in 1998."

Wow. Even further back. Great.

The Drudge Report has listed this as a developing story. The stalwart Conservative website FreeRepublic also picked up the story. Independent media outlets all over the 'net are reporting the story. But I've not heard a whisper of it from any U.S. mainstream media.

You are willing to believe the fearmongering of Korean news outlets and Al Jazeera, but you don't trust US news?

S. Korea is an ally in the war in Iraq. They were a part of the 'coalition of the willing' deploying over 3,000 troops to Iraq in '03. Maybe you feel threatened by the freedom of their press and that is why you attack them?

Link

Al-Jazeera has been more critical of the U.S. in the volumes of information they have to give regarding things developing in their own backyard - I'm certain you wish they also would be silent so as not to disturb Americans with prima facie reporting.

One of the major points alluded to in my article was the lack of diversity of reporting within the U.S. media. It's not that I don't trust the American media, it's just that I find a more complete story sans spin and rhetoric by examining it from many angles.

I find the S. Korean assembly report and Japanese official's remarks to be particularly newsworthy and to have heard nothing from U.S. media is a red flag of failure to me -the consumer. I don't want to hear about the latest white female gone missing nor do I want to hear about Michael Jackson's latest nose job or Britney or Jolie's latest baby. Save that shit for Entertainment Tonight - get me some real fucking news.

Then we get the endless commentary - forget substance - we are granted a milquetoast token attack from Colmes to Hannity or Olberman's latest jab at O'Reilly - fuck that. I'm not rooting for a sports team, I want something substantive and in-depth. I want the truth.

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! - Jack Nicholson

Out of the few hours a day I have for personal time, I can drain two hours of it simply filling in the gaps of a story headlined by Fox, the NYT, or whomever and then compare / contrast it to the fashion and substance found from foreign and independent media so that I can make a slightly informed decision about what is actually going on. I've found so many times that missing some of the more delicate angles of a story can cause an incorrect impression for the media consumer.

Don't you also support a more complete and thus accurate record of current events so Americans can make the best informed decisions possible?


Iraq manufactured their own Sarin and Mustard gas, so the "made in the USA" stuff is a lie, too. - Bakerstreet

Yeah, well, you didn't have much to say about that when Resident JU Blogger Sean Conners gave his testimony back in March 20th 2006.

Remember?

That was when Conners detailed his conversation with Marine Dustin Harmer. You commented once on that blog and gave not one word in contest to the assertations he served.

" One slight problem...they all had a stamp on them...each and every tube full of Ricin, Mustard Gas and all those nasty things everyone has been talkin bout for years now. The stamp was simple, but incriminating. They were all property of the USA."

Link Weapons of Mass Destruction Found in Iraq! Really! One slight problem tho'...

Link The comments (Yours included)

You also did not contest the Rummie / Hussein meetings wherein food, financial aide and, yes, WMD's where provided for Iraq to assist against Iran which Conners mentioned in the comments and I have linked to in the above article.

Are you now revoking that silence with some contradictory links?

No. You aren't.



P.S. Was that jab about crack your way of asking me if I could get some for you? 'Cause I've got this friend in Iraq with a mobile weapons lab and he can make you some sh*t that will get you sooo laid back...you know they really have them over there - true believer.

"As Doc pointed out, it was a missile - not a nuke that was reported."

Yeah, that's why I was concerned that you kept characterizing it as a nuke...

"Here's the skivvy on the N. Korean nuke that hit U.S. soil.

...

"I've given a source - the Korea Times. Keep in mind that is the South Korean Times which is obviously extremely concerned about their next door neighbor's armament. "

Again... pfft. Their "neighbor" can hit them with 50 year old lawn darts. The reason South Korea hypes North Korea's capabilities is that they are scared to death with our other military obligations that we are going to desert them. Japan is sick of them lobbing missiles over their country, so it's pretty obvious why both would latch onto whatever inflammatory, yet spurious, material they can get their hands on.

It is in their interest to keep the American public as frightened of North Korea as possible.

"Out of the few hours a day I have for personal time, I can drain two hours of it simply filling in the gaps of a story headlined by Fox, the NYT, or whomever and then compare / contrast it to the fashion and substance found from foreign and independent media so that I can make a slightly informed decision about what is actually going on. I've found so many times that missing some of the more delicate angles of a story can cause an incorrect impression for the media consumer.

Yep, and the fact that you'd admit that in public tells me you've lost the ability of self-reflection. You call that being discerning, when all it is is a bias against the American press, and the ability to blindly swallow inflammatory rhetoric from news services that are more willing to push this drek.

How utterly arrogant of you to think that I don't see this stuff. I see it, I weigh it, and I discard it with the rest of the junk. If you think GB wouldn't have LOVED a little extra oomph to his 'axis of evil' speech you're nuts. The idea he's let a 1998 North Korean missle attack on US soil slide by is deranged.

The idea that the government can completely black out the American media about a North Korean missile hitting US soil, and yet they can't silence them about ANYTHING ELSE is beyond deranged.

Re: S. Conn1, I didn't and don't believe it, frankly. All these tall tales rely on a big government conspiracy where people are told they can't say something, and only one brave soul ever does. This in a government where NOTHING is kept secret from the press.

You swallow one story from one guy, and you say I am not sceptical enough? Doesn't that seem the least bit twisted to you? After all you are the one swallowing anything you can get, no matter who says it, without anything extra to back it up.

Don't play it like I am gullible, you are the one who'll believe anything as long as it fits with your view of the world. I expect a little more than "I knew a guy who said", and that goes for spooky North Korean missiles hitting Alaska too.

It really boggles the mind. What really bugs me is how you take totally deranged sentences and spit them as if people can't possible refute them. Do you REALLY think I haven't see this junk before. Do you REALLY think that I have somehow avoided seeing Alex Jones, of "9/11 was a big government conspiracy" fame has hawking this stuff forever? When I have his crap thrown in my face by kooks like you almost weekly?

You aren't handing me my ass, bud. You are openly admitting that you have swallowed the most wacko conspiracy theorist stuff hook, line, and sinker, and then you say I am not sceptical enough. That's the whole "info wars" schtick. You swallow the most fringe paranoia you can find without any need for reliable evidence, because anyone "reliable" is in on it.

Hell, the fact that no one reliable believes it PROVES that it must be true. Welcome to flying saucer land, deference, welcome to Roswell. Guess what, I'm in on it too. That's why I am running blocker for your big "truth" fest here. If anyone wants to question how much I read and how wide I spread my net for information, that's great. I can say one thing, though, you'll NEVER catch me being brainwashed by infowars.com, thank God.

Those Kumho power plants that you cite in Bush's speech, and the ones built by the company Rumsfeld used to be with, aren't even due to come online until 2007 or so, so I kind of doubt they used them to make bombs. North Korea has its own uranium mines, and its nuclear program goes back to the 1980's.

You realize that you are proposing that every world nuclear agency, every mainstream news organization on almost every continent, etc., etc., are in on some big global conspiracy, and only folks like you and Alex Jones have the stones to say anything about this. How, totally, completely deranged. The fact that you could think all the NYT CIA leaks, all the bad press, etc., is just windowdressing.

They actually let people like you drive heavy machinery... it boggles the mind.

Evidence? How can I provide evidence to prove a negative? It's akin to asking me to prove that God doesn't exist. Go ahead and prove Santa Clause doesn't exist; since everyont believes he doesn't, it must be a big lie purpetrated by the media and their government cohorts.

You ask me to disprove something you can't prove; i.e. a "nuke" as you call it that hit Alaska. The fact that you can't pose any evidence of its existence pretty much negates that necessity. A single unsubstantiated report does not a missile make, unless you are a Roswell-style nutjob. Present real proof, and I'll be happy to change my mind. Oh, you can't though, because if the mainstream media admitted to it, that would mean it DIDN'T exist...

What else, oh, Rumsfeld's arming Korea with nukes? Because of what I stated above. North Korea mines their own uranium. They've had a nuclear program since the 1980s's. They announced their first nuclear bomb in 2003, only two years after Bush took office, less than a year after Bush announced the 95 million, and 4 years before the light water plants you mention will even be finished. If you are posing the idea that non-existant nuclear plants can make nuclear bombs in less than a year, well, heck, I wouldn't be surprised.

All the italics and emotes and "funny" stuff doesn't prove anything. You want to assume things with no proof are true, and then demand that people prove YOU wrong. There is substantially more proof of bigfoot than there is of your Alaska nuke, and I don't believe in bigfoot either. Show me real proof of either, and I will change my mind.

Lol. So, you want me to go back in time, and take a picture of the spot where the missile ISN'T? Like your paranoid, conspiracy theorist ilk, you demand that I prove the NONexistance of shadowy conspiracies that you haven't proved in the first place.

I did give you facts. There's no possible way that money Bush proposed sendeing to the Koreans in 2002 caused them to have a working nuclear bomb a year later. I presented you with the fact that they have their own uranium mines, and that they have had a nuclear program for decades.

I presented you with the fact that THE REACTORS YOU CITE WON'T EVEN BE ON LINE UNTIL 2007. Feel free to keep being a paranoid nutjob, but don't pretend you present "facts" by linking to Alex Jones' conspiracy cess pool.

Seeing as how I've many times regarded the 'nuke' as a 'missile' you'll have to forgive my slip.

Hey, how's old Rumsfield these days?

And did you ever get around to answering my question about the news sources you frequent?

No?

Oh.

Didn't want to inconvenience you.

Shucks, that wasn't your ace in the hole was it?

HEY GUY'S DEF FUCKED UP. HE SAID NUKE WHEN HE SAID MISSILE FIVE THOUSAND TIMES AND CALLED BAKERSTREET ON IT TWICE.

Thank you, please drive thru.

He's not afraid, because he knows that it is all a big conspiracy and that there really isn't any threat from North Korea. Why? Because they get together at their big trilateral commission meeting and decide what North Korea is going to do.

It isn't what he believes that annoys me as much as why he believes it. If the mainstream media takes a stand, and one fringe, loony outlet posts an unsubstantiated claim to the contrary, the loons MUST be right, because the MSM is working for their evil corporate overlords. Imagine having to live with that kind of perspective on the world, and what you'd end up believing.

In the name of scepticism, you've totally discarded the need for any proof before you swallow wierd conspiracy theories. You've basically said, "if everyone believes it, I wont" so the most reliable information is immediately discarded. Then you say "Whoever poses alternate information, however unsubstantiated, I'll believe that, since the opposite of the MSM's lies must be the truth".

Talk about a bleak way to live.

Little Whip, I would think you'd be the last person to make any jokes regarding race, but I understand you're in a great deal of physical discomfort at the moment so I'll simply address the few points you had without the usual verbal bitch-slap.

I've lost my ass too, laughing it off while reading some of the links you provide as proof of your claims.


One of the articles I linked to (which I believe is the one you are referring to) happened to be posted on Infowars but orginally came from prisonplanet and was written by Paul Joseph Watson - not Paul Jones if that's what you're asserting.

The article's sources included the Korea Times, the South Korean National Assembly, Swissinfo, The BBC, The ABB Company, MSNBC, USinfo.gov, and the State Department.

A lovely swath of diverse and credible sources. The article happened to be placed at infowars which has it's share of loony crap - but you don't see me pushing for the Aryan nations, or tax scams, or whatever seemed interesting enough for you to look at. I've never tried to blame anything on 'Jews' (though I remember you attempting to smear me by calling me antisemitic once simply because I did not believe in the mass-murder of Muslims like you advocated - remember? Do I need to give you the link to your own blog?)

I apologize for reneging on the verbal bitch slap btw, but you bring it on yourself.

The variety of news sources is important and provides a broader view allowing one to see the bigger picture more clearly. That was my main complaint expressed within my article, the N. Korean missile (Missile Def! Think Missile!) story was simply a good launching point.

Bakerstreet. You've tried embarresingly and desperately enough to make me look like some conspiracy kook and have continually attempted to speak for me.

Your post #16 being the latest and lamest attempt. At the heart of the post is this bit of slander from you:

In the name of scepticism, you've totally discarded the need for any proof before you swallow wierd conspiracy theories. You've basically said, "if everyone believes it, I wont" so the most reliable information is immediately discarded. Then you say "Whoever poses alternate information, however unsubstantiated, I'll believe that, since the opposite of the MSM's lies must be the truth".

- Bakerstreet

You are such a concrete individual Bakerstreet. Everything is binary code for you. Anything can boil down to black and white, good or bad, this or that.

Not everyone operates that way Bakerstreet. I don't.

I don't believe as you operate. I don't think "MSM wrong so anything but must be right."

I've contiually attempted to give you the message that looking at many different sources instead of locking oneself only into one or very few creates a distorted and incomplete view.

You are the one who seemingly picks just one or two media outlets to digest then you staunchly defend your analysis of them.

I've asked you twice now for a listing of your regular media sources.

You've failed to disclose and I would venture to guess it is becuase you realize it would only be more ammunition for me.

'nuff said folks

NEXT!

When you list places like prisonplanet and infowars as 'credible sources' it kinda smears the rest, dontcha think? - Lil' Whip

I already answered to that in post #20, lines 4 through 9. Good try resurrecting the dead.

It just goes to show that you're so gullible you'll read and believe anything.

Sure, good try at tar - and - feathering in corroboration with Bakerstreet. Tag-teams rely upon good partners.

I've provided sources, you've offered nothing but slander and name calling. Are you still smarting from the last time?

Or hungry for more?

Bitchslap me all you like, I enjoy that sort of thing, remember?
- Lil' tired Whip

Yes, I do.

I'd say 'touche'' but there is a difference between a masochist and a glutton for punishment. Maybe you would be most prepared to give us the difference in answer. Or is that a ball-gag in your mouth?



And I'll make all the jokes I want about race, m'dear, because I've been on both sides of the track in regards to those sorts of things. - Lil' Whip

Yeah, I hear you on that.


Of course it would, because if I say alternative sources, you'll call me a liar. If I say mainstream sources, you'll call me brainwashed. - Bakerstreet

Once again, good stab in the dark, but far from the mark.

I'll explain.

If you'd listed your sources, I'd have commended you for your honesty and the public at large would call it as they see it.

If not, I'd call it as it were - a failure of confidence and / or an admission that you also seek as many diverse sources as I do - squarely placing us in the same boat corresponding with my point within the article - a diverse selection of sources grants one the advantage in understanding the broader and more correct picture.

The end.

Guess which option you picked?

Wanna' try again?

"...you are a loon." - Bakerstreet

That remark is on par with LW's claim I'm somehow anti-semitic. Baseless name-calling when one doesn't agree and has nothing else with which to attack the opponent is desperation to a tee. I'm just the messenger, if you don't like the message - take it up with the source(s) to which I defer.

I understand you're having trouble with that. Seeing as to how some of those sources include at least three different nations; America, S.Korea, Japan; several independent media outlets, one American Energy Corporation and even freakin' MSNBC - hardly fringe media but hey, you can simply right them off as 'liberal media'... - the list goes on.

As I mentioned, I don't think anyone is given the full picture via these outlets - and that is why one must vigilantely consult many different sources as I've mentioned for the nth time.

"...you are a loon." - Bakerstreet

yes, I re-quoted you. It's such a wonderful prompt.

I wanted to remind you that you have spent ten posts on this 'loon' in this thread alone.
Who is crazier, the alleged madman or the one that argues with him?

Not that you've done much actual arguing.



It isn't worth my time to spoonfeed the nuts, but I DARE you too. - bakerstreet

Do you Double-Dog dare me, bakerstreet? yeah, you're lower-case, now.