A little factual issue...
I call Buck Revell a "stooge," and Hakki claims in the next post that I refer to him as
>> a "respected" law-enforcement pro <<
If you want to debate the issue, please attempt at least the appearance of honesty.
Thanks.
-Chip ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hakki Alacakaptan" <nucleus at superonline.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 4:54 PM Subject: RE: Osama, September 11, London, Illuminati
> || -----Original Message-----
> || From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> || [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Chip Berlet
>
> || Hi,
> ||
> || Basket weaving is fun, but I have actually worked as an
> || investigator on lawsuits
> || that exposed covert operations.
> (...)
> || Hakki wants us to believe that the Pan Am 103 Lockerbie
> || terrorist attack that
> || brought down the jetliner was part of a U.S. government
> || operation. Part of his
> || "proof" is the claim that former FBI stooge Buck Revell (who I
> || have written
> || about in very negative terms) knew about the bombing and took
> || his son off the
> || plane. This is not only a hoax claim, but has been litigated. See:
> || http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2000-07-06/news.html
>
> I'm glad you're interested in baskets because the appeals for the Lockerbie
> case are coming up.
> Chip hopes that nobody has read or understood what I wrote so that he can
> flummox them into thinking that Buck revell, whom he presents as a
> "respected" law-enforcement pro wasn't Oliver North's hatchet man. Chip
> would like everyone to forget I mentioned an Interfor report.
>
> ||
> || Hakki want's us to believe that the Berlin disco bombing was a
> || Mossad operation
> || when the Berlin court just ruled it was a Libyan operation.
> ||
>
> Which proves what? You want to tell me OJ was innocent too?
>
> || The basic paradigm is that a handful of evil individuals
> || conspire to cause these
> || events.
>
> That is what you would like to believe. You are continuously spouting out
> stock answers to simplistic arguments that you are projecting on imaginary
> opponents, whereas they are telling you something totally other.
> Conspiracies of evil individuals is a simplification that you can no doubt
> easily grasp, but it has nothing to do with what I said. Notice this thread:
> You started this because you _imagined_ I had proposed a conspiracy theory,
> whereas I have only pointed to a set of improbable circumstances without
> offering any sort of explanation. It was enough to immediately set off your
> knee-jerk.
>