Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dr. mabuse
X-factor, you quote someone that we don't know his real name nor do we know if he even really even is a doctor, who quotes a MSNBC(!?) source that names no one in particular and that is the strongest argument you've got?
|
Don't trust the MSNBC source? Ok, the National Review (hardly a liberal rag) says its sources say the same thing and cites several subsources both inside the US government and through their own independent investigation.
http://www.nationalreview.com/interr...0511030759.asp
The idea that Bin Laden was dead from typhoid was floated in 2006, but shot down within days by pretty much every major news outlet. All of whom asserted that their sources believed Bin Laden was alive.
Quote:
My source was a 27 year company man (among others) and I'll trust him over your MSNBC any day.
|
So, you're going to dismiss out-of-hand NBC News (an established news organization with a 50+ year track record and reporters in daily contact with the White House, the Pentagon, NSC, etc) but you're personal, completely anecdotal source is unimpeachable, despite being completely unverifiable?
But set the source questions aside. Lets say he does need dialysis every 5 days. That would mean in the two years between Sept 11 and the date TR gave in the first post, that he survived roughly 146 dialysis procedures...the same procedure you said has killed patients that "surely were younger and stronger"? Moreover, he survived all 146 of these procedures, presumably, in conditions that were not exactly hospital quality.
Which is more likely?
a) that he did infact survive all of those procedures (not to mention avoiding infection) or
b) that any health ailments he may or may not have are not that dire
***
Secondly, I have no doubt that if the QPs thought I was here just to agitate or clown around that they'd have booted my ass (and been right to do it). I'm discussing the subject because I find it interesting and I enjoy a good debate the same way a shooter likes going to the range. It keeps the skills up. I post at this site because I've worked with SF men, I like them, and I know they're sharp guys. They're unique in that they combine a lot of theoretical knowledge with an equal amount of practical experience and so, I find, they make for very well-thought out points of view. I know talking through issues with them (whether we agree or not) will help keep me sharp and then I can serve this country all the better.
Lastly, I'm not making my case (in this thread or any other) based on my job or any secret data. I'm making it based solely on publically available information and my best reasoning. I've got no problem with anyone who wants to disagree and I'll be the first to tell you that no one here really knows the answer. But I'd appreciate it if we could leave the snide "if you're really DoD" nonsense out of it.