It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
There comes a point in time where, one decides that the person whom they debate is sorely lacking in information, behind the times, wilfully intent on either dismissing the facts previously laid out before them or not interested in seeking same. at one time, I would have spent days, weeks, months, educating those lacking foresight and knowledge in that which is widely known from sources. I no longer do that as I have come to understand the psyche of those who just do not wish to advance their knowledge beyond that which they wish to believe.
Call it what you will, but the fact that I have had to advise you of the contents in Blix's reports, the same being at a minimum 18 months old, tells me that you have not availed yourself of such information. Whether by design or incapability, I care not, for along with that, goes a one-track mind and a propensity to forget that which you do not want to know. Hence I have no interest in repetition, particularly with the advent of infomation at the fingertips and the mass attraction educational program that is the internet.
As with those who stood steadfast with Nixon in Watergate, Oliver North in Iran-contra, your truth is years away when the issue will be cold, and the secrecy act comes head to head with the statute of limitations. By then who will really care, or admit they were taken in by rhetoric? History teaches us one thing; when a nation or world is divided so on an issue, the side opposing the direction taken, was indeed correct.
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Yes weirdo, I do come to learn quickly the views of others. Particularly on a discussion board, that should be no surprise. And in this thread I have come to know that you have not availed yourself of the pertinent information and facts given your statements. Had you wanted to quote Blix’s information you would not have made the claims you did earlier, for you would have been familiar with information within his reports which do not support your arguments.