VisorCentral.com - Any WMD yet?

Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Any WMD yet? (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=34796)

Posted by BobbyMike on 07-12-2003 12:33 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT

Am I saying or implying it would??
I was merely posting a hypothetical scenario which would show me a bit if your thinking..
Its fine if you dont want to answer it, just say so..

I thought the answer was self-evident from my reponse.
Punish the guilty.
I was asking because I would like to know your reponse.

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT
I posted the question in my afternoon... I'm not old enough to require naps

I thought you were young enough to still require naptime

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick

Triangle man, triangle man
Triangle man hates particle man
They have a fight, triangle wins
Triangle man

You have a prosthetic forehead!
Look Here!!

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by Toby on 07-12-2003 02:39 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT
It wasnt ment as an analogy....

No, that one was an example, but it was about at the quality level of an earlier analogy, so I mentioned both.

quote:
I was just curious on the answer of this dilemma...

Then you should provide some better detail for your dilemma.

quote:
What would you choose, out of 100 people who are suspects, 90 of them are guilty.

Suspects of what? How do we know which ones are guilty? Guilty of what?

quote:
Would you give the death penalty to all of them just to be sure and avoid them killing more people?

Did they all kill someone? What were the circumstances of the killings? Are they all suspects of the exact same crime? Your example is severely lacking in detail, and seemingly a point.

Posted by Toby on 07-12-2003 02:45 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT
I was merely posting a hypothetical scenario which would show me a bit if your thinking..

Bah...I gave you a concrete example in an opportunity to do just that. You ignored it. Why exactly should anyone answer your more poorly formed query?

Posted by John Nowak on 07-14-2003 11:14 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT
without going into all the sense and nonsense that has been said in this thread I'll post my personal views:

-US needs to open its eyes and start to wonder why so many people hate them (hint: jealousy is not the correct answer)

One of the reasons is that people believe flagrant lies about the United States and its President.

For example, the United States government did not sell chemical weapons to Iraq at any time. Iraq purchased a large quantity of growth medium from a US company; growth medium is a commonly used substance in medical labs and only the quantity is suspicious. In conventional arms, Iraq was armed by the Soviet Union, China, and France. Even Great Britain sold nearly ten times as much arms to Iraq as United States companies did.

Furthermore, Bush never even said that Iraq attempted to buy uranium from Nigeria; he stated that the British government maintains that Iraq tried to buy uranium. Great Britain, incidentally, is standing on that claim.

So, why are America's critics so highly motivated to lie? What kind of mind does it take to claim the United States "armed" Iraq when two wars were spent destroying T-72s, and Mirages and capturing AK-47s? Is it the sort of mind whose concerns are worth addressing?

Posted by clulup on 07-17-2003 11:19 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike

If you weren't so gosh darned serious about this you would be laughable. Your assumption that Bush lied is your own. Having been in the military I know that intel can be wrong. Bush used that example once, and never again. He didn't use it when he was talking to Iraq, and the world, on the eve of the war. Your fixation on that piece of intel, which the British say was NOT based on the forged documents - is understandable because of your prior view on the war.

This is what you seem to be saying:

A man was spotted leaving his ex-wifes house covered in blood, wearing jeans, running shoes and a black tee shirt with a gun in hand, by a long time neighbor. She is found dead several hours later, killed by shots fired from a 9mm pistol. The ex-husband had been arrested and indicted several months prior to this for assaulting her (and had served time for man-slaughter after killing his brother in a fight). He had been overheard numerous times saying he was going to kill her (and others). The DA reports He had reportedly bought new pistol ammo in the same caliber several weeks before.
The ex-husband says he is innocent and refuses to allow police to search his farm. By the time they get the appropriate warrants (a week later) his registered 9mm pistol cannot be found, neither can a black tee shirt (he had been seen multiple times in the past by many witnesses wearing black tee shirts), nor his running shoes.
On the other hand, his prints were all over her house, he had no alibi for the time of the slaying, his car had been ticketed a block away during the time of murder, and most interestingly she had traces of his skin tissue under her nails. I won't mention the shallow grave with the 16 unidentified bodies found in his basement.
The DA issues a warrant for his arrest and he is killed in a gunfight with police.

Later it is found that the report of his buying 9mm ammo is wrong.

The DA is roasted by the press for unfairly hounding this poor defenseless citizen and causing his demise.

That's a nice story, however, it misses the point I made in the beginnig of this thread. In your story, the real question would be: Why did the police claim in an official statement that the suspect had tried to buy 9mm ammo, while actually knowing that this claim was false? That casts a strange light on the whole investigation, no? I don't blame the Bush administration for getting some information wrong, I blame them for using information they knew it was wrong (had every reason to believe it was wrong, had no reason to believe it was true).

Regarding Iraq/Saddam/Bush your story is highly misleading. The question never was whether Saddam is guilty, a criminal, a killer, a monster, etc. The question was: does he still have WMD? Before the war, the answer of the Bush/Blair admistration alway was "Oh yes, absolutely, loads of them, he can use them within 45 minutes, we have proof, etc. ..." Now that they are there, all of this has suddenly evaporated.

Posted by clulup on 07-17-2003 11:33 AM:

technically correct

Rumsfelds remark, that Bush's Niger/Uranium statement was "technically correct", seems most funny to me. He must have meant "grammatically correct" which is indeed a lot when Bush is talking.

Posted by Toby on 07-17-2003 03:29 PM:

Re: technically correct

quote:
Originally posted by clulup
Rumsfelds remark, that Bush's Niger/Uranium statement was "technically correct", seems most funny to me. He must have meant "grammatically correct" which is indeed a lot when Bush is talking.

No, technically correct is accurate. Bushie's statement was that 'the British claim X'. That does not make it inaccurate if X is not true. It's only inaccurate if the British did not claim it at that time (catch being that apparently they did still claim it at that time). IOW, if clulup claims the world is flat, and I state that 'clulup claims the world is flat', and the world turns out to be more or less spherical, my statement is not inaccurate suddenly. That's why courts (at least here) ask for one to swear to tell 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth'. Those are three distinctly different things.

Posted by clulup on 07-17-2003 04:58 PM:

Re: Re: technically correct

quote:
Originally posted by Toby

No, technically correct is accurate. Bushie's statement was that 'the British claim X'. That does not make it inaccurate if X is not true. It's only inaccurate if the British did not claim it at that time (catch being that apparently they did still claim it at that time). IOW, if clulup claims the world is flat, and I state that 'clulup claims the world is flat', and the world turns out to be more or less spherical, my statement is not inaccurate suddenly. That's why courts (at least here) ask for one to swear to tell 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth'. Those are three distinctly different things.

Yeah, right, blaming the statement on the British (while knowing it was false) is a very nice way out. Technically correct, but nevertheless an attempt of manipulation. A cowardly attempt, too.

Also the excuse of the British was great: We actually DO have proof, however, sadly enough, we cannot share this proof with the Americans, let alone the rest of the world, because the proof is secret...

Posted by ToolkiT on 07-18-2003 02:02 AM:

Re: Re: technically correct

quote:
Originally posted by Toby

No, technically correct is accurate. Bushie's statement was that 'the British claim X'. That does not make it inaccurate if X is not true. It's only inaccurate if the British did not claim it at that time (catch being that apparently they did still claim it at that time). IOW, if clulup claims the world is flat, and I state that 'clulup claims the world is flat', and the world turns out to be more or less spherical, my statement is not inaccurate suddenly. That's why courts (at least here) ask for one to swear to tell 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth'. Those are three distinctly different things.

Ok it makes the statement technically correct, however it does not make the logic correct:
(statment Z: )The brits claim X , because of X we do Y.... if X isnt true Y will not become justified even if statement Z is technically correct...

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Posted by Toby on 07-18-2003 02:10 AM:

Re: Re: Re: technically correct

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT
Ok it makes the statement technically correct, however it does not make the logic correct:

There is nothing incorrect at all with the logic.

quote:
(statment Z: )The brits claim X , because of X we do Y.... if X isnt true Y will not become justified even if statement Z is technically correct...

That's what all the controversy is about, isn't it? Is X incorrect, and if it is, when would it have been known. The Brits still apparently maintain that it is correct (or they at least had information that led them to believe it was correct at that time).

Posted by ToolkiT on 07-18-2003 02:22 AM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: technically correct

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
The Brits still apparently maintain that it is correct (or they at least had information that led them to believe it was correct at that time).

the new statesman claims it has information Blair is a psycopath
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?clic...16&set_id=1

does that make it true??

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Posted by Toby on 07-18-2003 11:50 AM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: technically correct

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT
the new statesman claims it has information Blair is a psycopath
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?clic...16&set_id=1

does that make it true??

It makes it true that they claim it. Do you think they don't believe what they're saying?

Posted by ToolkiT on 07-20-2003 03:47 AM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: technically correct

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
It makes it true that they claim it. Do you think they don't believe what they're saying?

You are avoiding my point.
In your post you imply that you believe the britisch WMD theory..
My point is that even though technically correct it does not make it OK...

Direct questions:
-do you believe the british WMD theory?
-even without any proof?
-Is it ok to sway public opinion to start a war with false/incomplete information?
-Is using incorrect/incomplete information to start a war worse than using incorrect/incomplete information when questioned about your private/sex life?
-Shouldnt Bush be impeached too if it turns out he used incorrect data to sway the public into starting a war?

I'm not saying he started the war without reason, I'm merely saying he misinformed the public to get his goals..
If he would have taken a different angel and used the massacres and crimes to mankind as a reason to start the war, we wouldnt have had a french veto, a unilateral attack and more hate against the americans (note: I do NOT hate americans in care you want to read more into this...I merely disagree.. but disagreeing nowadays gets you labeled 'unamerican' anyway :/)

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Posted by BobbyMike on 07-20-2003 02:18 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: technically correct

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT

...I merely disagree.. but disagreeing nowadays gets you labeled 'unamerican' anyway :/)

or maybe just non-american in your case?

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by Toby on 07-20-2003 03:35 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: technically correct

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT
You are avoiding my point.

No, you are just not grasping mine.

quote:
In your post you imply that you believe the britisch WMD theory..

Not at all. I'm saying that _they_ still supposedly believe it.

quote:
My point is that even though technically correct it does not make it OK...

And my point is that one cannot pass judgement on past decisions with hindsight information.

quote:
Direct questions:

*sigh* If only you actually answered such questions, I might be more inclined to return the courtesy.

quote:
-do you believe the british WMD theory?

Irrelevant to the point.

quote:
-even without any proof?

Decisions at that level seldom have concrete proof. Intelligence Estimates are usually as solid as it gets.

quote:
-Is it ok to sway public opinion to start a war with false/incomplete information?

This depends on whether one knows how false or incomplete it is at the time. Again, that's the whole crux of the controversy. Who knew what and when.

quote:
-Is using incorrect/incomplete information to start a war worse than using incorrect/incomplete information when questioned about your private/sex life?

Is starting a war because you believe a person is evil and a potential threat worse than starting wars or dropping bombs because you wish to draw attention away from your private/sex life?

quote:
-Shouldnt Bush be impeached too if it turns out he used incorrect data to sway the public into starting a war?

Again, it depends on when/if he knew it was incorrect.

quote:
I'm not saying he started the war without reason, I'm merely saying he misinformed the public to get his goals..

*shrug* I see no reason to believe this.

quote:
If he would have taken a different angel and used the massacres and crimes to mankind as a reason to start the war, we wouldnt have had a french veto, a unilateral attack and more hate against the americans

Yes, which would explain why such action was never taken before.

quote:
(note: I do NOT hate americans in care you want to read more into this...I merely disagree.. but disagreeing nowadays gets you labeled 'unamerican' anyway :/)

Whatever.

Posted by clulup on 07-21-2003 08:19 AM:

Quote of the Day

A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.

Saul Bellow

Posted by Toby on 07-21-2003 11:03 AM:

One would think time in the mountains would reduce passive-aggressivity

quote:
Originally posted by clulup
A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.

Saul Bellow

The real question is why you need the illusion so badly.

Posted by clulup on 07-21-2003 01:29 PM:

Re: One would think time in the mountains would reduce passive-aggressivity

quote:
Originally posted by Toby One would think time in the mountains would reduce passive-aggressivity
[/B]

Indeed, spending time the mountains is a great experience, it gives you an even more clear picture of the world, it let's you separate fact from fiction, right from wrong. It is really a pitty you cannot share this experience with me

.

It does not come as a surprise to me that Bush and Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, are such great buddies. Berlusconi is certainly the worst scum a Western European country had as a leader for the past thirty years. E.g. he lately only escaped conviction for bribing judges during his highly dubious rise to industrial and media power because his party managed to pass a law granting immunity for the prime minister. Certainly a friend to be proud of.

Posted by Toby on 07-21-2003 02:31 PM:

Re: Re: One would think time in the mountains would reduce passive-aggressivity

quote:
Originally posted by clulup
Indeed, spending time the mountains is a great experience, it gives you an even more clear picture of the world, it let's you separate fact from fiction, right from wrong. It is really a pitty you cannot share this experience with me . [...]

When such an experience leaves one believing that a world leader is simultaneously an idiotic, incompetent buffoon, and yet a diabolical mastermind capable of fooling and manipulating hundreds of millions of people, I'd say I'm glad I'm not sharing that particular experience. Perhaps you went too high and you weren't getting enough oxygen.

Posted by manu on 07-21-2003 03:02 PM:

Try google for your answers...

Just for a laugh.....

1) Go on to Internet Explorer <www.google.com>

2) search for the following, but don't press the "Return" button:
"weapons of mass destruction"

3) Click on the button "I'm feeling lucky", not the "Google search"

4) Read the message that appears, it looks like a normal error message but it's not!!

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:34 PM.

Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page