Jesus on a stick you are dumb.

No no the prognosis is far worse. Rather than mere dumbness the subject is now prey to terminal delusions that might be signs of an imminent nervous breakdown.
Now that evidence that the war he so assiduously supported was a criminal abortion all along is flooding in daily he is faced with a brain storming dilemma.
He could start to admit that he was wrong to have supported the war to begin with but the ego is too strong and the preening vanity of his personality on which he relied for his self image now finding itself under threat is throttling the life out of him. So in a desperate attempt to escape he is now trying to pretend that there was no invasion to begin with hence rendering any support he might have given it at the time now null, void and non existent.

The ploy of course wont work and soon only the strait jacket and the strongest meds rammed like branding iron up his jacksy stand any chance of saving him and the nation in his mind over which he presides.

Fasten the air locks Scotty with ondelette in his condition we are now entering into pure "The Madness Of King George" territory.

Photo of LondonLad doing as prefaced in the subject title:

At sig and below:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3151/2499631073_bab3dc4377.jpg?v=0

After reading Lad's post, I withdraw my comment that odelette is dumb. It was just a reaction, and it is not the case I would hope.

It is true that all men go blind to the plain truth staring them in the eyes when a cherished position fails them, and "fixing" Afghanistan is certainly a failed position. So, I can see that ondelette would deny that the USA ever invaded and tell me that he does not care if a billion hits on goolge say otherwise.

So, I should have said: "Jesus, Joseph, and Mary you are deluded!"

Is that 'google hits' analogy not unlike the analogy one might make due to the number of 'hits' on Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons? If google and George say it's true then it must be true?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMStCHtUNeY

I tell you, the war mongers at Unclaimed Territory sure are hoot. The entire world knows that the USA invaded Afghanistan after 9-11, but they deny it. What a bunch of kooks.

And I quote the top two of those million hits to ondelette --- no response from the proffffeeessssorrr.

Well, other than chaos theory says that we could not have invaded.

Blah!

I agree with what you're saying (technically) but look at the facts: hundreds of perimeter columns of steel and 40 interior columns of steel placed at the centre of each tower.All of these bolted into place by steel bolts. To believe that either of these towers collapsed due to fire you have to believe that all of these columns and all of these bolts failed in a sequence which precisely mimics a demolition wave which travels down a high rise building in this exact sequence to prevent the sides of the building from bulging because that would make it topple. And then there's the speed at which they came down. The exact speed dictated by Newton's law of gravity: the speed at which an object (regardless of mass) falls through air. All objects fall with the same acceleration - 10 m/s/s. A pancake collapse is completely different and would take 96 seconds, not 10. Only buildings that are blown up fall at free fall speed: only God could make a case that this was not a demolition and God is silent on the subject so far. I'll leave you with the wise and perceptive words of Tom Friedman in his book 'Attitudes and Longitudes'.

‘…I watched live on CNN as the Twin Towers imploded and collapsed onto the streets of Manhattan’.

Its OK bro I'm with you all the way. I was just trying to suppose the exacting level of proof that might be required if 9/11 was a pure mathematical problem. In such a theoretical case it might be required to prove beyond any doubt that a steel framed building could never fall suddenly at free fall due to fire and damage alone.

Incredible as it seems I don't think that that perfectly reasonable proposition could actually be proved beyond all measure of doubt. Perhaps that's one for the logic section of a philosophy department down the corridor rather than the maths one.

Incidentally I was in Oxford last year. They have a short road called Logic Lane. It's a cul de sac.

I suggest again that you look at the definitions of hypothesis and theorem.

I suggest again that you look at the definitions of hypothesis and theorem.

And I suggest that rather than suggest what I should do you tell me whether Fermat's Theorem was, as in ondelette's term to describe theorems in general, an "indisputable truth" before Wiles proved it or only after he had done so.

It has been known as Fermat's Last Theorem for close to 400 years. That's because there was a lot of speculation that he might actually have had a proof for it. Recently, it's been pretty much established that he could not have, but the name remains. In standard mathematical terminology it should have been known as Fermat's Conjecture, and should now be known as Wiles' Theorem. But that doesn't always happen. Nobody calls it Perelman's theorem, either, it's still called the Poincaré Conjecture, even though it is now a theorem, and it was proven by Perelman.

I'm sorry if the mathematical community has confused you with the name of this theorem, but, so it goes.

I'm sorry if the mathematical community has confused you with the name of this theorem, but, so it goes.

Look don't come all the false apologetic avoidance prevarication routine with me. Just answer this straight question. Does a theorem, any fucking theorem, become an "indisputable truth" only after its proved or was it also an "indisputable truth" before it was proved. Its just plain illogical that something is an "indisputable truth" before its been proven yes? Or to put it another way if a theorem is already an "indisputable truth" what the fuck point would there be in finding a proof for it which by definition if it was already an "indisputable truth" wouldn't fucking need one?

Now my bloody question is clear enough so damned well answer it and do no other thing.