Hans Blix is a Liar - Page 4

[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>Try again, you got it bass-ackwards there.

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdome of heaven.

</strong><hr></blockquote>Yeah that's what I meant

[quote] <strong>However, God has NOTHING against rich men and it does not hurt your chances for heaven. That is not the point at all. </strong> <hr></blockquote>

and then your reading that follows is the typical kind of equivocation that makes people think that all Christians are hypocrits

Its actually hallarious: right after the quote by Jesus which explicitly says that it is easier for a camel etc etc you say that God sees nothing in rich people . . . . . HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

foolin yerself boy <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:

Maybe you didn't mean it that way, which would be a big relief, but it didn't read like that. I want to confirm that one way or the other.<hr></blockquote>

too bad you didn't get a confirmation one way or the other.

[quote]Outsider:
Forget it. It's no use arguing with a sophist
<hr></blockquote>
actually, I'm a card-carrying contemporary pyrrhonist. But how would you know that? You apparently would prefer sounding educated to being educated.

[quote]Utter crapola. And you wonder why people like Scott come along and point out that you're anti-American and that fuels your stance more than any real principles.<hr></blockquote>

So what you seem to be saying is that support of representative democratic reforms in the US are anti-american. Amazing. So now being american means supporting limitations on democracy? Go read How Democratic is the American Constitution by Dahl and we'll talk.

[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>actually, I'm a card-carrying contemporary pyrrhonist. But how would you know that? You apparently would prefer sounding educated to being educated.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Ha! Ha ha hooooooo! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> You are hardly that. You lap up every bit of tripe that supports your position, uncritically. I've even tried to get you to be critical of your own information. You are the anti-pyrrhonist. Your self perception is obviously off too.

[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>

So what you seem to be saying is that support of representative democratic reforms in the US are anti-american. Amazing. So now being american means supporting limitations on democracy? Go read How Democratic is the American Constitution by Dahl and we'll talk.

[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, exactly! And we should burn flag burners, women, hippies and so-called liberals just for the hel of it! I'm so glad you jumped to the correct conclusion by my words. It's rare indeed to find someone someone so clairvoyant and yet so impossibly melodramatic. Where would we be without someone like giant, I ask? I shudder to think of the world we would live in without someone to attack the fundamental building blocks of the most free and liberal nation on Earth, only to hide behind his own innuendo, attacking those who attempt to read between the lines of his otherwise inane banter! Shame on all of you who see his words to be those of a man fearful of being exposed as anything less than prinicples, or logic even! for those who defy the infinite wisdom of this true giant, surely they desreve to have outlandish assumptions and conclusions heaped upon their words, for if he manages to say nothing in the actual verbs and nouns of his procse, and yet mean something he's not quite willing to say with a straight face, then surely everyone works in these charmed ways.

In conclusion, what the hell did all of that drivel you wrote mean? I simply cannot understand where you came from and how you there.

[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>


Ha! Ha ha hooooooo! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> You are hardly that. You lap up every bit of tripe that supports your position, uncritically. I've even tried to get you to be critical of your own information. You are the anti-pyrrhonist. Your self perception is obviously off too.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Scott, Scott, Scott,

Isn't this a definition of you? You pretend to be a skeptic when it suits you or you want to draw attention to your self. But when it comes to politics you ride the party line.

[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>Yes, exactly! And we should burn flag burners, women, hippies and so-called liberals just for the hel of it! I'm so glad you jumped to the correct conclusion by my words. It's rare indeed to find someone someone so clairvoyant and yet so impossibly melodramatic. Where would we be without someone like giant, I ask? I shudder to think of the world we would live in without someone to attack the fundamental building blocks of the most free and liberal nation on Earth, only to hide behind his own innuendo, attacking those who attempt to read between the lines of his otherwise inane banter! Shame on all of you who see his words to be those of a man fearful of being exposed as anything less than prinicples, or logic even! for those who defy the infinite wisdom of this true giant, surely they desreve to have outlandish assumptions and conclusions heaped upon their words, for if he manages to say nothing in the actual verbs and nouns of his procse, and yet mean something he's not quite willing to say with a straight face, then surely everyone works in these charmed ways.

In conclusion, what the hell did all of that drivel you wrote mean? I simply cannot understand where you came from and how you there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hate hippies! Burn em all! We's un- edgumicated dont no mor'n what teh good lord put n r heds, golly.

[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>

Scott, Scott, Scott,

Isn't this a definition of you? You pretend to be a skeptic when it suits you or you want to draw attention to your self. But when it comes to politics you ride the party line.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, you got the number to that party line? Sweet...

[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>


Ha! Ha ha hooooooo! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> You are hardly that. You lap up every bit of tripe that supports your position, uncritically. I've even tried to get you to be critical of your own information. You are the anti-pyrrhonist. Your self perception is obviously off too.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Interesting. My job is a lot easier since I've already had to point out how wrong you always are. I can just copy from an old post:
[quote]- You stated that ritter was bribed by 'Iraq.' When it was pointed out that the money was from an individual for a film, you then stated that the film was not yet made. Of course, In Shifting Sands was made and is a well-known documentary.

- You argue in support of a war with iraq because they have WMD, then you argue that they don't until we prove they do.

- You argue that Iraq has violated 1441, even though the Security Council disagrees and states clearly that paragraph 8 does not apply to no fly zones.

- You state that afghans lead a much better and safer life than under taliban rule, even though every human rights organization and the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan disagree fully [and Karzai only controls a very small section of the country. The rest is run by warlords.]

- I just saw you correcting yourself in the other thread after you for some reason believed some mass e.mail contending that some oil companies 'don't buy middle east oil.' Why you believed something in the first place that was so obviously false eludes me.

<hr></blockquote>

Oh well. I guess you'll just keep spouting off BS anyway. I guess the fact that I pointed out how wrong you are makes me anti-american and anti-semetic, too, right scott? That seems to be just about the only thing you can type anymore.

[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:

someone to attack the fundamental building blocks of the most free and liberal nation on Earth<hr></blockquote>

Funny that you read the title of a book and think you know what it is about. Didn't anyone tell you not to judge a book by its cover?

Even funnier that you haven't heard of that book, considering its standing in academia.

Looks like you never bothered to find out what those fundamental building blocks were. Oh well. You must be among the 83% of Americans that didn't realize there wasn't an Iraqi hijacker in 9/11.

[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>

Keep trying, you will find that proof you need. </strong><hr></blockquote>

<a href="http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/afgh-m10.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/afgh-m10.shtml</a>

10 second search found this, too busy to look right now

[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>Funny that you read the title of a book and think you know what it is about. Didn't anyone tell you not to judge a book by its cover?</strong><hr></blockquote>

You're the only one talking about the book. I was not addressing the book, I was addressing your dumb assumptions and erroneous conclusions about what I think.

[quote]<strong>Even funnier that you haven't heard of that book, considering its standing in academia.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I have heard of the book, and I repeat that I was not talking about the book. I think you're trying to sound snooty, but my Ivy League education wouldtend to contradict your implication.

[quote]<strong>Looks like you never bothered to find out what those fundamental building blocks were. Oh well. You must be among the 83% of Americans that didn't realize there wasn't an Iraqi hijacker in 9/11.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Nope. I'm well aware of all the facts, thankyouverymuch. I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere to try to talk down to someone.

I'm still trying to understand how we went from, "democracy isn't all it's cracked up to be," to somehow construing that I said that being American means supporting "limitations" in our freedoms, to condescnding me as being ignorant when I wasn't even talking about your little academic "blankie." I mean, I've thrown little comments here and there, but I can't put how you managed to consrue them in asuch an incoherent way. If it makes you feel better, you can tell me I'm just sooo... bourgeois.

Hmmmmm....LOOKS like Fire Side Chat.

SMELLS.....like Fire Side Chat...


SOUNDS....like Fire Side Chat.


But no, it's AppleOutsider.
At least, that's what they tell me.

BuonRotto, you're just sooooo bourgeois.

Don't ask me why, but just saying that made me realize how absurd all of this is, including (maybe especially) me. I think I need to take a break from this stuff. It's really making me cranky. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>It's really making me cranky. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

It's not just you, other people have said the same thing.

Just a side note to everyone, I don't take or mean anything personally. I'd gladly have a beer with any one of you, even if it meant a heated discussion about the finer points of Saddam's chemical weapons etiquette.

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>

It's not just you, other people have said the same thing.

Just a side note to everyone, I don't take or mean anything personally. I'd gladly have a beer with any one of you, even if it meant a heated discussion about the finer points of Saddam's chemical weapons etiquette.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think we all should take a month off from the whole war issue. It would be good for us.

Beer anyone?

Fellows

[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>[blah][blah][blah][blah][blah]Beer[blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Beer....

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>

The wrong BLAH BLAH BLAH

Beer....</strong><hr></blockquote>

You are wrong bunge! What are you a fool? The real question if you knew anything is What kind of beer!

Fellows

Hey giant you gonna start a "Hans Blix is lying to start a war" thread? After all he's now reporting that Iraq can't account for all of his biological weapons and that they may very well have them now. He must be full of it because you already proved that it's impossible for Iraq to have them.

Someone needs to rush you to the Security Counsel.

[fun mode on]

It took 11 years for scientists to perfect...

BLIX FLAKES!!!

Fortified with 14 essential UN vitamins!

Enough bran to blow out the most stubborn of Colins!

Each box comes with 1 mystery WMD prize! Don't believe us? Buy a box and find out!

[extreme closeup of old man with mouthful of cereal] ...Now that's a flakey, flakey snack!

[fun mode off]

[quote]Originally posted by Randycat99:
<strong>[fun mode on]

It took 11 years for scientists to perfect...

BLIX FLAKES!!!

Fortified with 14 essential UN vitamins!

Enough bran to blow out the most stubborn of Colins!

Each box comes with 1 mystery WMD prize! Don't believe us? Buy a box and find out!

[extreme closeup of old man with mouthful of cereal] ...Now that's a flakey, flakey snack!

[fun mode off] </strong><hr></blockquote>

And I just asked Powerdoc if he was drinking that french wine in another thread.

LOL

Fellows

Thank you, thank you! I'll be here all week! Tip your waitresses!

[quote]Originally posted by Randycat99:
<strong>Thank you, thank you! I'll be here all week! Tip your waitresses!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Great Work.... Hey? What can you do with "Captain Crunch" ?

That one I have to hear

Fellows

Wasn't there a rabbit of sorts associated with Trix cereal? I guess you could alternately have a commemorative "Blix Trix" cereal box!

I'll have to think a little more about one for the Cap'n. Nothing comes to mind at the moment.

[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>
Hey, you got the number to that party line? Sweet...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes it's Scott's own line : 1-800-MEME


<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[quote]Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah:
<strong>

But it just occurred to me that we can't really hold it against Saddam that he doesn't really have a democratic mandate to govern his country.

After all, neither does George Bush. More people voted for Al Gore than they did Bush in the last American election, if I remember right.

He got less votes.

More people wanted the other guy.

So obviously, democracy's not all it's cracked up to be.

God bless, and best of luck with your war,

Hassan

[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: Hassan i Sabbah ]</strong><hr></blockquote>


No, democracy is not all it's cracked up to be. So why you here?

Whoa... it's been a while since I last posted.

Holy thread hijack! This thread seems to have gone way off topic.

Back to the original topic of the drones, Iraq is showing what it believes to be the drones that Colin Powell mentioned.

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16626-2003Mar12.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16626-2003Mar12.html</a>

Summary: It's practically a model plane, with a 5 mile range limit, well under the UN regulated 93 mile range.

Of course, they could be lying... but I think SDW001's original accusation that Blix is a liar might have been a bit harsh?

[quote]Originally posted by jutus:
<strong>....but I think SDW001's original accusation that Blix is a liar might have been a bit harsh?</strong><hr></blockquote>

A bit harsh? No, it was just reactionary jibberish.

It was a lie of omission in the oral testimony that's for sure.

I think my original speculation was correct. Blix didn't want to give the US the sound bite. Had be been on TeeVee saying, "Anthrax cannot be accounted for, cluster bomb that can deliver chem/bio weapons, drone that US said he had that could deliver chem/bio weapons" it would have knocked the legs out from under the French.

But the Puppet of Paris would never do that. He'd be out of a job one way or the other.

[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>It was a lie of omission in the oral testimony that's for sure.

I think my original speculation was correct. Blix didn't want to give the US the sound bite. Had be been on TeeVee saying, "Anthrax cannot be accounted for, cluster bomb that can deliver chem/bio weapons, drone that US said he had that could deliver chem/bio weapons" it would have knocked the legs out from under the French.

But the Puppet of Paris would never do that. He'd be out of a job one way or the other.</strong><hr></blockquote>


God you're so on top of things!

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>He just got on Swedish TV and said the leaders at the emergency summit appeared "divided".

Whether or not you agree with war, there can be no case made that they appeared divided. They were anything BUT divided.

Blix has revealed himself to be nothing more than a political tool.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Plus he was on MTV shooting his mouth off about "unilateral" US actions. On things unrelated to terrorism, WOMD and Iraq. He mentioned Kyoto. Is Blix a weapons inspector or running for office?

[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>
Is Blix a weapons inspector or running for office?</strong><hr></blockquote>

For the interview, he was just a well informed citizen.

That was a terrible interview with Blix...he came off sounding like a prat.

I wish I hadn't read that. I've always liked the guy.

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
He was making a political statement...You call that impartial?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think he's entitled to a political position in this. He's hired by the U.N., and the U.N. Charter does have guidelines for conduct which include, for all practical purposes, avoiding war whenever possible.

If the U.N. Charter is rewritten to read 'go to war whenever possible', I imagine we'll have some talking head spouting off about how Resolution 1441 was broken before it were even written.

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>

That's just so wrong, bunge. His job is not to avoid war at all costs. His job is to DETERMINE IF IRAQ IS TOTALLY COOPERATING. We all know it hasn't. He shouldn't make a political statement at this delicate stage.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I definitely see your point, I just mean that he was hired by people that are trying to avoid war.

It's definitely not his call, but what he says outside of his job definitely isn't indicative of his job either. Were he to have made these statements in front of the Security Council, it'd be a mistake. In an interview, I don't think it holds much weight.

What about the Illumanati (sp)? Sirrius the dog star, the number 23, the symbols on the dollar bill, etc? Isn't George W in that "club" too?