Discussion in 'Oceania Discussion Boards' started by The Gatherer, Jul 10, 2003.
For those of you that are against racism, this thread will be of interest.
Gath, you didn't actually get the treatment you're alleging. You posted a dubious link, and you were called up on it.
So Ender_Sai, aren't RSA's held to the higher standards that Mods / Managers / Admins are?!?
How did you get that, Gath? All I said was that he's an RSA, not a Mod... It's a titular thing, nothing more...
Ender_Sai, I have posted THREE more links to different sources. As I might have said earlier, of all people, I assumed you - with a Masters in International Relations, would have known the part that Marshall Green played in South East Asia.
But it doesn't mean that what you're saying about Hawk is accurate. Greene, to the best of my purile and Latin-infused knowledge, was pretty much the man behind Sukarno's coup, sure. He was State's main man in SE Asia, and I know there's talk of him being involved in the Whitlam coup, but that's not really my area of interest. What I do know is that the man is linked to a massacre of 1,000,000 Communists in Indonesia, in some capacity..
All this does not necessarily make you right and Hawk wrong. What I'm saying is that you're saying one thing of Hawk which isn't accurate.
So even YOU do know about Marshall Green, and knowingly defend HawkNC who bashed my initial source, even though you knew the contents to be accurate?!?!?
So, if I read some Star Wars related material on some obscure website named theforce.net, does that make it dubious becuase it is not from starwars.com?
Hawk said something from one site that is at best, dubious isn't compelling evidence. And I agree. There's no way to establish it's validity or it's link to the Central Intelligence Agency.
Ender_Sai, HawkNC immediately bashed it only because he does not know his history, and never heard of Marshall Green.
If you do know about Marshall Green as you say, then you know that the contents of that site are accurate, therefore not dubious.
I agree with him on the validity; it's like saying the Warren Commission was unbiased and accurate. There would be better sources out there on Green. Though I don't know enough about the Whitlam connection to comment. I know about Green and Indonesia, and Asia in general.
Look, Ma, No Latin!
DAMN IT!, you beat me to the Warren Report analogy!
Gath, don't take what Hawk said to heart...if you even have one...because this argument is completely and utterly baseless. Hawk just made a comment that he thought that the documents on this site looked pretty dubious. It was just his opinion. Hell, you post your opinion enough on the boards. Let other people do similar...
Drop it, man. This argument that you continue to push is just so pathetically sad.
Not to mention quite off topic...
Can't we all just be friends...
Yeah, what Deto said.
Damn straight, Hawk
[MrT]I pity the fool, soul or sukkkkkkka who goes up agaisnt HawkNC and then goes home cryin' to his momma when he loses![/MrT]
I wholeheartedly concur
So in effect, you all want a group hug?!
Well, I can't speak for everyone else here, but...
Why would the CIA have given two hoots about Whitlam being in power of a small, insignifigant but for it's western culture country such as Australia?
Despite being a Labor Rightist, Whitlam is still a lefty poster boy, and they love the idea that America is controlling people's destinies from afar, despite the absolute absense of motive. If you read through these, you'll see that the person alleging the link is also talking about the Illuminati like they exist.
Wow, PoT... another person who shouts there mouth off without doing any research. Congratulations, welcome to that club!
The CIA were concerned about Whitlam, becuase he threatened to pull out of Pine Gap, a major strategic listening post for the USA.
I'd heard he actually worshiped Mao, Lenin, and Satan, and needed to be stopped!
PoT, HawkNC, et al. - if you have not researched this subject, which is quite obvious, then I guess I was right to also doubt your opinions on the Aborigine issues.
How so? All I did was question the legitimacy of that particular source, which I maintain was completely valid given the amateur nature of the site it was hosted on. Nothing more, nothing less.
In other words, you are trying to save face.
You've lost me. I'm trying to save face by restating exactly what I said in the first place?