Anyways i am not here to start a flame fight over a thread that (as i said) i am neutral about. There are threads i will engage in silly rhetoric over but not this one. There are too many unknowns still and discussing about 'newbies' and such types of logical progression is a waste of time for me.
However as to your answers (the ones that had nothing with newbies and other 'tricks' Freepers who have been on FR for years use) i think you have some rather good points. The three points you gave were quite enlightening. I just wish you went straight to them instead of flexing feeble muscle about your veteran status on FR during the 'Clinton impeachment era.' That was weak.
And just because i am several months old on FR (and several more as a lurker) does not mean Freepers like yourself should equate that with what you refer to as 'politically frozen attitudes' (your words). If i did have 'politically frozen attitudes' i would nto have inquired in the first place ......but rushed ahead and spouted forth how sure i am on the matter (and maybe given unrequested 'info' on Freepers, like lets say i was a 'veteran of the Clinton impeachment era')
However again thanks for your answers ....but you could have still given them to me without telling me of your impeachment battlescars and how i must have 'politically frozen attitudes.' I needed the answers not the lecture!
As for the links on your profile (you told me i could get good info on this topic) thanks a bunch. Another Freeper had actually used private Freepmail to link me to more such sources, and i have to admit there is stuff that shows what happened in OKC is very fishy and there is a coverup. Thus thanks for the links.
However you also said the following when telling me to go look at the links: If you are serious about being interested dig up some of the articles on my profile. Unfortunately the owner of this forum agrees with your views and may be intending to remove this info. Let me say this FlameFront, i have no views on this subject apart from the fact i think there is a coverup that happened. However i do not know what the coverup is on. And that is why i posted the questions. I do not know what Jim Robinson's views are, and chances are i would not even care to know (no harm intended). Thus saying my views correlate with his is a non-starter, and it would be prudent to target your vitriol towards someone who deserves it! I was merely asking a question, and yet you somehow feel led to chastise me for asking! And what is funny this is a topic that concerns me as much as you do (that there is a coverup involving the lives of Americans). Use your bullets well Flamefront ...against those deserving of them.
To. Triple: When i said there were 'several holes to this theory' i was not saying it was a silly! All i said is there were some parts that did not make comprehensive sense to me ...and that is why i went ahead and asked for answers (thankfully some Freepers Freepmailed them to me ...but others decided that they would also give me a 'lecture' on their old war wounds on FR ...not you by the way). Anyways i am still debating on this topic. I think there is a coverup, but i am trying to define (to the best of my ability plus the links various freepers have either posted or freepmailed to me) what that coverup is about.
"I thinkt hat there is some basis to this theiry, but the reason it has not been emphasised is due to the fcat there are no facts and the linkages to Iraq are at best nebulous" - Spetznaz
Why do you think there is basis to this theory, if you think there are no facts or strong links to Iraq?
If you don't answer, I won't know where to begin. (and It will confirm that you are disingenuous)
Regards for now,