MilitaryForums.co.uk

Get a hobby

Well well, this is interesting. A full answer will come, but first:

In reading over yochanan's post and generally shaking my head at the seemingly total incomprehension of facts, economics or world affairs, I started to wonder where he got all this from. Googled a couple of lines, got what I expected; various anti-war, socialist etc diatribes.

Then I googled the first part of this statement, because it seemed a little too coherent for our friend:

yochanan wrote:It is now obvious the invasion of Iraq had less to do with any threat from Saddam’s long-gone WMD program and certainly less to do to do with fighting International terrorism than it has to do with gaining control over Iraq’s hydrocarbon reserves and in doing so maintaining the U.S. dollar as the monopoly currency for the critical international oil market. Throughout 2004 statements by former administration insiders revealed that the Bush/Cheney administration entered into office with the intention of toppling Saddam Hussein. Indeed, the neoconservative strategy of installing a pro-U.S. government in Baghdad along with multiple U.S. military bases was partly designed to thwart further momentum within OPEC towards a "petroeuro." However, subsequent events show this strategy to be fundamentally flawed.

Candidly stated, ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ was a war designed to install a pro-U.S. puppet in Iraq, establish multiple U.S military bases, and to reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars while hoping to thwart further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency.

...and what did I find? Why, it bears a striking resemblence to this article from energybulletin.net. One might say identical, actually.

But I don't see any quotations? I don't see that cited anywhere? And what do you know; the FT article example is also part of that article. So not only is your patched-together argument totally incoherent, but it is also simply the (stolen) opinion of one commentator.

I will attempt to translate and address your post yochanan, but it might take a while, because clearly I have to go through it and work out which bits come from your own scrambled brain, laddie (NB: not "lady", because, you see, the spelling is different), and which bits you have ripped off from others to pass off as your own!

Stolen is such a strong word. I borrowed paragraphs from articles that I used to form my conclusions, that is not unusual, in fact it is the norm in internet posting. I could cite every paragraph I used text from, although I was not under the impression that was a requirement.

The information I used was just reaffirming opinions I already had, while adding facts that I was unaware of. Why bother rewriting what has already been written far more eloquently before? If militaryforums.co.uk has a requirement to cite everything one says, please point it out to me.

I would have thought it was obvious that a lot of what I posted was already widely published. So thanks for stating the obvious Sherlock.

But rather than worry about where I get my information from why not show us how it is wrong.

What about a couple chorus's of the Red Flag, I know some good words to sing along with it as well

Red Flag. Is that alluding to your belief that I am a communist by any chance? You would be wrong on that account Tab.

yochanan wrote:Stolen is such a strong word. I borrowed paragraphs from articles that I used to form my conclusions, that is not unusual, in fact it is the norm in internet posting. I could cite every paragraph I used text from, although I was not under the impression that was a requirement.

HA!

Yes, stolen is a strong word because it means stolen. What you did was plagiurise. You did not borrow paragraphs, you reproduced them in entirety. They also comprised 80% of your post. When one does that, one uses quotes or cites the original author. Otherwise, it is plagiarism. Squirm all you want, but you got caught, and it is bloody obvious.

By the way, plagiurism might be the norm in internet posting for you and yours but on this forum, people form their own opinions, and express them in their own way; where they quote others, they say so. The concept, in case you are wondering, is called intellectual honesty. For all your intellectual pretentions, I can guarantee you that plagiurism such as you just attempted would have you thrown out of even a primary school.

...and as for showing where it is wrong, well! First, outing you as a plagiurist would win any debate for me in any fora I have ever known. Second, the gall of demanding I show where you are wrong when that is what I have just spent a page doing, only for you to ignore the facts I demonstrated you got wrong, and ignore the misconceptions I demonstrated in your arguments, and simply move on to your next ramble! Do tell me; what's the point?

I might continue, but only because it amuses me. For today, I've laughed enough.

Mods can we please bin this prick?

One section of my post in regards to Iraq and Oil used paragraphs from the following sources:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e18424.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1006-03.htm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html
http://www.perfect.co.uk/2004/10/the-re ... ext-target
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=48652

But a correction you haven’t shown I was wrong anywhere, point it out to us, the opposite is true, you have been shown to be wrong, that I why you are making such a fuss about where I got my information from, if you could disprove it you would have.

Yawn.
Anyone watch the rugby?
I want to have Jonny Wilkinson's babies...

Ohh, and it is spelt plagiarist.

Hey yochanan love,
Why haven't you answered me yet?

Haven't you got studying to do instead of mucking about on the net?

BTW Darren says hello.

Regards
T_T

T_T

I thought you had to be female to be a Lesbian? That would rule me out.

And no lecture on Monday so I’ll have all the time to spend with you lovely lot.

Who is Darren BTW?

Yochanan

You will also Note the Site where you Stole Posts from to pass off as your own Carries a Copy Right I do hope you sought owner permission????

FAIR USE NOTICE:
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues of environmental and humanitarian significance. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

So, sue me. How about we get back to the subject though?

Or, we can continue with the plagiarism issue if you wish.

Didn’t the government plagiarise a document that it attempted to use to send you lot off to die? I would have thought that was far more serious than someone posting on an internet forum to be honest.

But instead why doesn’t the village idiot who has been shown to be wrong, and who can been shown to have a very active imagination when he responds, why doesn’t he/she show me where what I said is wrong? Try not to get so excited this time though, it seems to effect you spelling as well as your judgement.