Tunisia

[Bill Kelly]

So much for intelligent discussion about what I think is an important subject, one that I recognized as a Deep Political Event when it began and started a blog on the topic:

Now comes the part where you play the innocent victim. This is how it works. You state your case, but do not engage other explanations. You either ignore or misstate other arguments. And you resort to repeating your thesis over and over again. Finally, once your frustrated hopeful partners in debate become frustrated, you roll your eyes. What is the great Bill Kelly supposed to do when he is has to talk to idiots like these? Finally, you proclaim your expertise, which by the way is on full demo at your website.

Just seems like we just went through the same thing with someone else.

<a href="https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?10546-Martial-Law-Imminent-Arrival>Martial Law: Imminent Arrival"</a>

PS How does one make a hypertext link here. <a href=>

Without stating your case, you told me to Fook off.

I've stated my case, and I accept Maggie's statement that because she is against foreign intervention does not mean she supports dictators, but I also take that to mean she is against Russian, Chinese and Iranian intervention.

What other explanations do you want?
What arguments am I ignoring? If I have restated my thesis, then it has not been refuted. What's your thesis, all I know is that you responded to mine by saying Fook off.

My expertise is only that I have been following these events since they began, have read everything Maggie and others have sent me or referred to or posted, and will continue to do so, but am not convinced that the regional revolution that is now sweeping North Africa and the middle east is anything but what it appears to be - a popular democratic uprising the purpose of which is to overthrow unpopular dictators and install some semalance of democracy.

And I resent being called names by someone who doesn't know me.

BK

Bill, First I can apologize for calling you names.

I must say I have achieved a greater degree of clarity why I was so frustrated with your posts in this thread. I certainly am aware of your thesis after having read it so many times. But what I missed was an adequate response to challenging data. As much as you were able to state your thesis, I was looking forward to you sustaining your argument in the face of things that others have put forward.

The best example of how to sustain an argument was by a member of the DPF. Charles Drago put forward the thesis that the Chicago plot to kill Kennedy was in fact never meant to actually kill JFK. It served other purposes. He was strongly challenged, but considered the challenges and responded with specific points. He sustained his argument with energy and clarity. BTW I was moved from disagreeing to maybe agreeing his thesis.

With your thesis, I remain willing to be persuaded but have not seen you sustain your argument against challenges.

Well Lauren, I accept your apology and won't Fook Off and remain if people want to continue discussing these important topics. I apologize as well, for repeating my thesis, but it remains the same, though I have only been studying this situation for a relatively short time, while I am very familiar with the JFK assassination, which I no longer debate or argue about but develop new research on.

I am not interested in sustaining an argument, as Charles Drago is an expert at doing, but would rather come to a more accurate perspective of the fast developing revolutionary situations in many countries at once - with the primary focus on the situation in Syria at the moment, but that will be over soon and the revolution will move on to somewhere else shortly thereafter. So far over 20,000 people have been killed, and it appears to me that the final solution must include a new government that permits Russia to maintain its navy base and China its commerce, and Iran its influence, all of which should be included if the new post-Assad government is democratic and secular. The only thing I have been hearing about however is the undue influence of the CIA, NATO and other BS, when in fact, it is the refusal of the Assad government to relinquish its power that has destroyed the country, so far. Once Assad is gone, the new era can begin, and whether it is a democracy or an Islamic fascist state has yet to be determined, but my interest is to study the dynamics of the revolution and accurately describe it. Unlike the Castro revolution in Cuba, and the Communist revolutions in Russia and China, there is no one person who is leading these revolutions, so it really is a popular uprising. You can claim that it is the result of US stimulated propaganda and disinformation but I have not seen that yet, and I am very familiar with it and would like to document it if it is there. Because it is a leaderless revolution and one based on democratic idealogy, everyone is trying to co-opt it. The only thing that is certain is that Syria will not be the military police state it was under Assad.