Shaneckham
Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2011
- Messages
- 337
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Conspiracy thread
- Thread starter ajt09
- Start date
- Replies 100
- Views 7K
you wrote
jeremy clarkson driving a vespa on top gear does not equate to tank groups being easily able to fight and travel right across vietnam, and therefore not a great point to argue a conspiracy theory on
What?
yeah but i never denied getting my sources from a quick wiki or Google search, nor did i deny it was simple tap of ctrl A+T.
yes, that is what i wanted to say.
you didnt, Mike did.
when did i say anything about you jumping to ANY particular conclusions, i simply stated that a lot of the points you brought forth seemed like you were jumping to conclusions.
the point is tanks were perfectly capable... i never said the ideal tool for the job... obviously they were able, they wouldnt have even been shipped out if there wasn't a perfectly good use for them. that in itself is evidence enough that they were capable and useful... **** if they weren't, why would the Vietnamese use them too if they knew that the terrain wasn't suitable... because the terrain and environment is suitable... and yes, like i said... suitable doesn't mean ideal.
lastly, no need for "*****" etc and language when that point in my arguement was clearly the joke.
i should have maybe used a winky face... but i had no idea that perhaps the two people responding to my opinion (which is all it is really, and no need to get your thongs all twiste up over...) were so narrow minded, blinkered, and utterly (and to exercise my right to free speech as GodCubed clearly has above) ******* stupid that they wouldn't get understand this little side joke to an otherwise serious and opinionated post on a conspiracy thread...
hey, if you two dont want to join in the fun and contribute conspiracies you may believe in... why dont you go start your own thread... may i suggest a title ? "Boring skeptics who shut down any possibility of the events that occur on this planet as being more than black and white and refuse to believe that maybe not everything is the way it seems."
open your eyes "son", to the very obvious... that others have opinions and yours is not always the superior. You know the proof behind these facts just as much as i do. Because i doubt you were there.
yes, that is what i wanted to say.
you didnt, Mike did.
when did i say anything about you jumping to ANY particular conclusions, i simply stated that a lot of the points you brought forth seemed like you were jumping to conclusions.
the point is tanks were perfectly capable... i never said the ideal tool for the job... obviously they were able, they wouldnt have even been shipped out if there wasn't a perfectly good use for them. that in itself is evidence enough that they were capable and useful... **** if they weren't, why would the Vietnamese use them too if they knew that the terrain wasn't suitable... because the terrain and environment is suitable... and yes, like i said... suitable doesn't mean ideal.
lastly, no need for "*****" etc and language when that point in my arguement was clearly the joke.
i should have maybe used a winky face... but i had no idea that perhaps the two people responding to my opinion (which is all it is really, and no need to get your thongs all twiste up over...) were so narrow minded, blinkered, and utterly (and to exercise my right to free speech as GodCubed clearly has above) ******* stupid that they wouldn't get understand this little side joke to an otherwise serious and opinionated post on a conspiracy thread...
hey, if you two dont want to join in the fun and contribute conspiracies you may believe in... why dont you go start your own thread... may i suggest a title ? "Boring skeptics who shut down any possibility of the events that occur on this planet as being more than black and white and refuse to believe that maybe not everything is the way it seems."
open your eyes "son", to the very obvious... that others have opinions and yours is not always the superior. You know the proof behind these facts just as much as i do. Because i doubt you were there.
if that point was a joke, then much like the rest of your arguments it was seriously **** poor
next
---------- Post added at 09:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 PM ----------
suprised no one has brought perhaps the ultimate conspiracy theory: Who shot JFK?
It's generally the way that when you suggest evidence, and when it's disproved, STILL carry on with the same argument, is when people start getting frustrated.
"Boring skeptics who shut down any possibility of the events that occur on this planet as being more than black and white and refuse to believe that maybe not everything is the way it seems."
Oh, and I really hate that line. You call sceptics arrogant, you're the one with the self-belief that everyone around you perceives something in a lesser way than you. Mike and GodCubed are two of the most balanced people I know, and I'm sure are capable of weighing up evidence and making a valued decision. You say we see everything in black & white. Lets flip it, you're the one who gives into your own human psychological curiosity in conspiracy theories. People naturally like to believe there's something bigger at play, and they like to think that they're superior to others for being able to see through the lies the rest of us sheep are told, even when the evidence against you is overwhelming.
If you want to debate, then suggest reasonable points to argue over. There's generally a reason why as soon as your points have been countered, conspiracy theorists will always resort to insulting the opposition's intelligence and not allowing themselves to be countered. Because then they'd lose the argument. Can you not see that? I guess you're the blind one, then.
Maybe not, but you can't expect people to lend any credibility to your argument if that is the case.
Then it isn't a conspiracy in the first place...
I didn't say you did say I was jumping to 'particular' conclusions, but you sure as **** implied I had jumped to SOME conclusions at very least. None of the things I said were jumping to conclusions, simply stating well-known facts.
The tanks were sent out there because of a number of reasons.
1) In the early stages the Americans were far too naive about tank use, and thought they could use them everywhere.
2) They were necessary for the large swathes of Vietnam that weren't urban areas.
3) There is almost always a need for heavy armour in a campaign.
The Vietnamese used them in the areas where they were applicable, not in urban areas if they could help it. But we're not arguing over the effectiveness of tanks in the Vietnam war as a whole, we're arguing their effectiveness in cities, something which would prevent them from moving the length of Vietnam, and there is no doubt they're close to useless in a city.
Lol. You can't shoot with one hand and stroke with the other. Hypocrite.
Again, massive hypocrisy. You just claimed it was a joke, and then one sentence later you claim it is a "conspiracy you believe in"!
Or perhaps "Thread for people who can tell that a tank won't work very well when it's boxed in on three sides"?
Get a dictionary and look up 'fact', please.
Bored now. Someone say something.
Something with more substance than a particularly watery blancmange, before anyone comes up with a hilarious 'joke' again.
Actually, Lee Harvey Oswald didn't disagree with anything JFK said, he was just mentally unstable.
Oh, and in answer to the question, almost certainly LHO.
Actually, Lee Harvey Oswald didn't disagree with anything JFK said, he was just mentally unstable.
Oh, and in answer to the question, almost certainly LHO.
i always thought the cuban conspiracy wasnt too far fetched, given the CIA tried the same with Castro
Because you're suggesting based on NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE. And even when you come up with something, and then it's disproved, you still carry on with it. Because the amazing thing about conspiracies is, even when you have no evidence it equals evidence for your theory!
The theories are wrapped up in a paradox, created by human fabrication and supported by twisted logic. And even when someone who dares counter all of that, they just encounter hostility and attempts to dismiss them as being inferior and refuse the opportunity for a counter, so you put yourself in a stronger position. Great basis for an argument you've got there. A mix of an unsolvable paradox, human fabrication, twisted logic and having to resort to diminish your opponent rather than argue you over the points of the debate.
There's a reason people arguing against you generally don't have to resort to natural human defence mechanisms in their arguments: Because they actually have points to counter you with. Doesn't that scream something out at you? Sure does for me, and I'm apparently blind and see everything in black and white!
Lol, pwnd.
Ride The Walrus
A pretty cool guy.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,216
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
Well, he would be now...
Why would he? He would be 122 years old (I think?) doesn't necessarily mean he would be dead now.
This man is literally crazy and/or retarded. Claims by opening a PDF file in Photoshop he can see the different layers of Obama's released Birth Certificate and compares the 'scandal' to Nero burning Rome "for fun" and the French Revolution (Yes, really)
[video=youtube;3g30VCl_cgk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g30VCl_cgk&feature=player_embedded[/video]
[video=youtube;3g30VCl_cgk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g30VCl_cgk&feature=player_embedded[/video]
Ride The Walrus
A pretty cool guy.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,216
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
The oldest ever living person was 122, the chances Hitler would still be alive now..