Well if you keep being goofy, I will use another tactic called, ignoring people that waste my time.
Whatever. We're having a civilized discussion here, and I'm pointing out flaws in your reasoning. If you find that so threatening that you feel the need to add me to your ignore list, go ahead. No skin off my nose.
Quote:
I thought that we were discussing a topic, I did not realize this was "shifty debate tactics" 101.
We are, indeed, discussing a topic: you used a source, someone questioned it, you made a series of assumptions about that person's motives (and, granted, his criticism of the source wasn't exactly academic in scope), I called you on it, and now you're threatening to ignore me.
But listen, do whatever you need to. I'm not making you respond to me.
If *anything* major happens to just so happen to happen in October, I will be deeply suspicious.
You need to quite supposing. It gets you into trouble.
Someone who makes up situations and then responds to them in order to advance some argument about his opponent's motives really ought not make any claims about what is logical and what is not.
Cheers
Scott
I agree with the october thing.
The supposition was a question. I made it and asked you to respond. To which you avoided. We all make assumptions so please do not tell me I cannot.
He question one of a handful of links based only on the fact that it was "Fox" not based on wether it was true or not. He knows, as do you that I can come up with a plethora of links stating the same thing, from multiple sources.
How would I know where they are? But to believe that SH has no more little secrets buried in the sand, wrapped in plastic of in crates, is just "pie-in-the sky" or shoud I say "head-in-the-sand" thinking.
You know, I just thought of this, why not just make SH president of this country? He is such a trustworthy, up front and honest kind of guy?
ABB right?
Nappy, Nappy, Nappy........
Well using that logic I just know GWB lied about the reasons for starting this war.
And George is a crack smoking, DUI driving, C+ kind of guy.
And he's already president.
Trust me.
MANUFACTURING BETTER HAMBURGERS FOR A BETTER AMERICA!
I'm actually really glad to hear that. To be honest, I had expected OBL to be rolled out around Xmas after our invasion of Afghanistan.
Quote:
The supposition was a question. I made it and asked you to respond. To which you avoided. We all make assumptions so please do not tell me I cannot.
Of course I avoided a hypothetical situation in a debate. That's what you do. But in addition, my complaint was not so much that you raised a hypothetical and asked me to respond (although I don't remember it) so much as that you raised a hypothetical, predicted a response, and then claimed that that made-up response "proved" something.
Quote:
He question one of a handful of links based only on the fact that it was "Fox" not based on wether it was true or not. He knows, as do you that I can come up with a plethora of links stating the same thing, from multiple sources.
Nor have I contested this. As biased as Fox is, it is just as valuable of a source as is something from Alternet, Zmag, the Guardian, or the Black Commentator. We need the blatantly biased sources for the wider context, which we can then either consider or discard. The problem comes when someone only gets news from one source (not that I'm saying you do).
Quote:
Thanks for deflecting though.
You're welcome, although I don't know what this means.
The supposition was a question. I made it and asked you to respond. To which you avoided. We all make assumptions so please do not tell me I cannot.
He question one of a handful of links based only on the fact that it was "Fox" not based on wether it was true or not. He knows, as do you that I can come up with a plethora of links stating the same thing, from multiple sources.
Thanks for deflecting though.
Cheers
Me
Now, what are these links of yours supposed to be proving again? Cause the first one is about conventional weapons, the second and third were subsequently disproved link the fourth is about Iraq possibly showing UN inspectors where they buried the emptied rockets and shells as a matter of compliance, and the last is more convential weapons.
If your assertion is: Saddam had explosives and mines and guns and shit, and some of that stuff got buried for use during the occupation, well, I don't thiink that is in dispute.
Now, what are these links of yours supposed to be proving again? Cause the first one is about conventional weapons, the second and third were subsequently disproved link the fourth is about Iraq possibly showing UN inspectors where they buried the emptied rockets and shells as a matter of compliance, and the last is more convential weapons.
If your assertion is: Saddam had explosives and mines and guns and shit, and some of that stuff got buried for use during the occupation, well, I don't thiink that is in dispute.
But none of it has anything to do with WOMD.
Go back and read the thread and figure it out. One word:
Logic.
This thread title is "Those elusive WMD in Iraq?" I was arguing that if SH hid and buried conventional weapons, hid weapons from the UN, that there is no reason to think there is not more hid or buried.
I think that encapsulates what I was trying to point out. Logic.
Now, what are these links of yours supposed to be proving again? Cause the first one is about conventional weapons, the second and third were subsequently disproved link the fourth is about Iraq possibly showing UN inspectors where they buried the emptied rockets and shells as a matter of compliance, and the last is more convential weapons.
If your assertion is: Saddam had explosives and mines and guns and shit, and some of that stuff got buried for use during the occupation, well, I don't thiink that is in dispute.
But none of it has anything to do with WOMD.
I also know that the shells that were thought to have nerve agent did not. But it does prove that SH has had the same "hide weapons in the sand" mentality for a long while.
Go back and read the thread and figure it out. One word:
Logic.
This thread title is "Those elusive WMD in Iraq?" I was arguing that if SH hid and buried conventional weapons, hid weapons from the UN, that there is no reason to think there is not more hid or buried.
I think that encapsulates what I was trying to point out. Logic.
Ok but they've been looking for them for how many years?
If they're that hard to find they couldn't have been that much of a threat.
So far no WOMD or program in progress to back them up.
Ok but they've been looking for them for how many years?
If they're that hard to find they couldn't have been that much of a threat.
So far no WOMD or program in progress to back them up.
Sorry but it doesn't look good for your case.
Ok here let me demonstrate:
Take a penny or dime. Hide it in your house, I mean good. When your significant other gets home, ask them to find it. You played this when you were little right? Chances are they can't. They could hunt for days and not find it if you hid it good.
They can claim it never existed all they want. But you know where it is. And if you want to be sneaky you can actually misguide them and move it around when they are not looking. They may never find it.
Take a penny or dime. Hide it in your house, I mean good. When your significant other gets home, ask them to find it. You played this when you were little right? Chances are they can't. They could hunt for days and not find it if you hid it good.
They can claim it never existed all they want. But you know where it is. And if you want to be sneaky you can actually misguide them and move it around when they are not looking. They may never find it.
I think you get the point right?
The more accurate analogy might to to hide it in the back yard. To which I ask this: Do I get to use keyhole satellite photography to help me?
This thread title is "Those elusive WMD in Iraq?" I was arguing that if SH hid and buried conventional weapons, hid weapons from the UN, that there is no reason to think there is not more hid or buried. [/B]
There are physical limitations to what could have been produced and what would currently be viable.
We now have hundreds of people from within the former programs verifying what all of the information demonstrated.
All of the information from chalabi's defectors that looked out of place before the war has been demonstrated to be false.
We have an extremely comprehensive understanding of the decision-making and intelligence vetting processes within the bush administration in the lead up to the war.
This isn't a matter of 'finding' weapons.
I've often asked, before and after the war, exactly what the WMD believers think we could possibly find anywhere. I have yet to see a bushie provide a realistic answer that takes into account the physical limitations of being on planet earth.
He called into question your source, Fox News, which is unabashedly right wing. That's fine. That's a typical debate tactic (questioning the source).
Yeah that would have worked just fine if he only had one source! Fine disregard that source completely but how can you simply ignore the other ones? I don't understand.
Yeah that would have worked just fine if he only had one source! Fine disregard that source completely but how can you simply ignore the other ones? I don't understand.
Because those shells were already proven to be chemical free. They weren't WMD and never had been. I can't believe people will rely on sources they know are 100% inaccurate.
Iraq knew an invasion was coming for AT LEAST 3-4 months. (Much more time depending on how much access it had to the various staffs of the White House, Senate, and House.)
Why is it not VERY LIKELY that if there were WMD, that they would have destroyed/given away what they had? The UN was under the impression that Iraq had not come clean until very late in the game. Why is the existence of WMD suddenly some sort of conspiracy by the Bush administration? (Other than opportunisitc Monday-morning quaterbacking?)
Because those shells were already proven to be chemical free. They weren't WMD and never had been. I can't believe people will rely on sources they know are 100% inaccurate.
Once again you are only reading what you want and taking it all out of context. I was pointing out the policy of burying weapons. I know that those weapons were later found to have NO NERVE AGENT. The story I quoted was the original story about the find.
Are suggesting that because they were found not to be WMD's that SH and Co. did not conceal other weapons in the sand and all over?
The story I quoted was the original story about the find.
I don't think anyone is arguing that Iraq didn't bury some things in the sand, but the articles you quote support the idea that we can find them just as much as they support the idea that Iraq buried WMD.
I don't think anyone is arguing that Iraq didn't bury some things in the sand, but the articles you quote support the idea that we can find them just as much as they support the idea that Iraq buried WMD.
Ok look, I figured that you could determine that the article backed my claim that Iraq DID bury weapons. I also knew that you and almost anyone here knows that those weapons were later found to not be WMD's. Did I overestimate your intelligence or comprehension ability?
I don't think anyone is arguing that Iraq didn't bury some things in the sand, but the articles you quote support the idea that we can find them just as much as they support the idea that Iraq buried WMD.
I asked this before, but explain to me why you thin that SH would overtly store banned WMD, when his policy was total deception even with non banned conventional weapons?
I asked this before, but explain to me why you thin that SH would overtly store banned WMD, when his policy was total deception even with non banned conventional weapons?
I don't think SH would overtly store banned WMD, and I'm not surprised he used total deception with regards to non-banned conventional weapons. His next door neighbor, Iran, would have been all too happy to attack if they knew Saddam no longer had WMD and that his legal conventional weapons stocks were too small to protect the nation.
Yo right-wingers: Saddam HAD to lie to defend his country. The world HAD to believe he could defend himself or Iran would have run the country over. Why do you think the U.S.S.R. lied about the number of nuclear missles they had? To fool the U.S.A. Saddam had to lie to keep Iran at bay.
Yo right-wingers: If Saddam had enough WMD to justify an attack and overthrow of the government, how could he covertly bury them in such a short amount of time?
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well if you keep being goofy, I will use another tactic called, ignoring people that waste my time.
Whatever. We're having a civilized discussion here, and I'm pointing out flaws in your reasoning. If you find that so threatening that you feel the need to add me to your ignore list, go ahead. No skin off my nose.
I thought that we were discussing a topic, I did not realize this was "shifty debate tactics" 101.
We are, indeed, discussing a topic: you used a source, someone questioned it, you made a series of assumptions about that person's motives (and, granted, his criticism of the source wasn't exactly academic in scope), I called you on it, and now you're threatening to ignore me.
But listen, do whatever you need to. I'm not making you respond to me.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
If *anything* major happens to just so happen to happen in October, I will be deeply suspicious.
You need to quite supposing. It gets you into trouble.
Someone who makes up situations and then responds to them in order to advance some argument about his opponent's motives really ought not make any claims about what is logical and what is not.
Cheers
Scott
I agree with the october thing.
The supposition was a question. I made it and asked you to respond. To which you avoided. We all make assumptions so please do not tell me I cannot.
He question one of a handful of links based only on the fact that it was "Fox" not based on wether it was true or not. He knows, as do you that I can come up with a plethora of links stating the same thing, from multiple sources.
Thanks for deflecting though.
Cheers
Me
Originally posted by NaplesX
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy...
How would I know where they are? But to believe that SH has no more little secrets buried in the sand, wrapped in plastic of in crates, is just "pie-in-the sky" or shoud I say "head-in-the-sand" thinking.
You know, I just thought of this, why not just make SH president of this country? He is such a trustworthy, up front and honest kind of guy?
ABB right?
Nappy, Nappy, Nappy........
Well using that logic I just know GWB lied about the reasons for starting this war.
And George is a crack smoking, DUI driving, C+ kind of guy.
And he's already president.
Trust me.
MANUFACTURING BETTER HAMBURGERS FOR A BETTER AMERICA!
Originally posted by NaplesX
I agree with the october thing.
I'm actually really glad to hear that. To be honest, I had expected OBL to be rolled out around Xmas after our invasion of Afghanistan.
The supposition was a question. I made it and asked you to respond. To which you avoided. We all make assumptions so please do not tell me I cannot.
Of course I avoided a hypothetical situation in a debate. That's what you do. But in addition, my complaint was not so much that you raised a hypothetical and asked me to respond (although I don't remember it) so much as that you raised a hypothetical, predicted a response, and then claimed that that made-up response "proved" something.
He question one of a handful of links based only on the fact that it was "Fox" not based on wether it was true or not. He knows, as do you that I can come up with a plethora of links stating the same thing, from multiple sources.
Nor have I contested this. As biased as Fox is, it is just as valuable of a source as is something from Alternet, Zmag, the Guardian, or the Black Commentator. We need the blatantly biased sources for the wider context, which we can then either consider or discard. The problem comes when someone only gets news from one source (not that I'm saying you do).
Thanks for deflecting though.
You're welcome, although I don't know what this means.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by NaplesX
I agree with the october thing.
The supposition was a question. I made it and asked you to respond. To which you avoided. We all make assumptions so please do not tell me I cannot.
He question one of a handful of links based only on the fact that it was "Fox" not based on wether it was true or not. He knows, as do you that I can come up with a plethora of links stating the same thing, from multiple sources.
Thanks for deflecting though.
Cheers
Me
Now, what are these links of yours supposed to be proving again? Cause the first one is about conventional weapons, the second and third were subsequently disproved link the fourth is about Iraq possibly showing UN inspectors where they buried the emptied rockets and shells as a matter of compliance, and the last is more convential weapons.
If your assertion is: Saddam had explosives and mines and guns and shit, and some of that stuff got buried for use during the occupation, well, I don't thiink that is in dispute.
But none of it has anything to do with WOMD.
Originally posted by addabox
Now, what are these links of yours supposed to be proving again? Cause the first one is about conventional weapons, the second and third were subsequently disproved link the fourth is about Iraq possibly showing UN inspectors where they buried the emptied rockets and shells as a matter of compliance, and the last is more convential weapons.
If your assertion is: Saddam had explosives and mines and guns and shit, and some of that stuff got buried for use during the occupation, well, I don't thiink that is in dispute.
But none of it has anything to do with WOMD.
Go back and read the thread and figure it out. One word:
Logic.
This thread title is "Those elusive WMD in Iraq?" I was arguing that if SH hid and buried conventional weapons, hid weapons from the UN, that there is no reason to think there is not more hid or buried.
I think that encapsulates what I was trying to point out. Logic.
Originally posted by addabox
Now, what are these links of yours supposed to be proving again? Cause the first one is about conventional weapons, the second and third were subsequently disproved link the fourth is about Iraq possibly showing UN inspectors where they buried the emptied rockets and shells as a matter of compliance, and the last is more convential weapons.
If your assertion is: Saddam had explosives and mines and guns and shit, and some of that stuff got buried for use during the occupation, well, I don't thiink that is in dispute.
But none of it has anything to do with WOMD.
I also know that the shells that were thought to have nerve agent did not. But it does prove that SH has had the same "hide weapons in the sand" mentality for a long while.
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/inspections/
To me this proves the deception and hiding thing pretty handily.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Go back and read the thread and figure it out. One word:
Logic.
This thread title is "Those elusive WMD in Iraq?" I was arguing that if SH hid and buried conventional weapons, hid weapons from the UN, that there is no reason to think there is not more hid or buried.
I think that encapsulates what I was trying to point out. Logic.
Ok but they've been looking for them for how many years?
If they're that hard to find they couldn't have been that much of a threat.
So far no WOMD or program in progress to back them up.
Sorry but it doesn't look good for your case.
Originally posted by jimmac
Ok but they've been looking for them for how many years?
If they're that hard to find they couldn't have been that much of a threat.
So far no WOMD or program in progress to back them up.
Sorry but it doesn't look good for your case.
Ok here let me demonstrate:
Take a penny or dime. Hide it in your house, I mean good. When your significant other gets home, ask them to find it. You played this when you were little right? Chances are they can't. They could hunt for days and not find it if you hid it good.
They can claim it never existed all they want. But you know where it is. And if you want to be sneaky you can actually misguide them and move it around when they are not looking. They may never find it.
I think you get the point right?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Ok here let me demonstrate:
Take a penny or dime. Hide it in your house, I mean good. When your significant other gets home, ask them to find it. You played this when you were little right? Chances are they can't. They could hunt for days and not find it if you hid it good.
They can claim it never existed all they want. But you know where it is. And if you want to be sneaky you can actually misguide them and move it around when they are not looking. They may never find it.
I think you get the point right?
The more accurate analogy might to to hide it in the back yard. To which I ask this: Do I get to use keyhole satellite photography to help me?
Originally posted by NaplesX
This thread title is "Those elusive WMD in Iraq?" I was arguing that if SH hid and buried conventional weapons, hid weapons from the UN, that there is no reason to think there is not more hid or buried. [/B]
There are physical limitations to what could have been produced and what would currently be viable.
We now have hundreds of people from within the former programs verifying what all of the information demonstrated.
All of the information from chalabi's defectors that looked out of place before the war has been demonstrated to be false.
We have an extremely comprehensive understanding of the decision-making and intelligence vetting processes within the bush administration in the lead up to the war.
This isn't a matter of 'finding' weapons.
I've often asked, before and after the war, exactly what the WMD believers think we could possibly find anywhere. I have yet to see a bushie provide a realistic answer that takes into account the physical limitations of being on planet earth.
He called into question your source, Fox News, which is unabashedly right wing. That's fine. That's a typical debate tactic (questioning the source).
Yeah that would have worked just fine if he only had one source! Fine disregard that source completely but how can you simply ignore the other ones? I don't understand.
Originally posted by SilentEchoes
Yeah that would have worked just fine if he only had one source! Fine disregard that source completely but how can you simply ignore the other ones? I don't understand.
Because those shells were already proven to be chemical free. They weren't WMD and never had been. I can't believe people will rely on sources they know are 100% inaccurate.
From one week later: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3407853.stm
Iraq knew an invasion was coming for AT LEAST 3-4 months. (Much more time depending on how much access it had to the various staffs of the White House, Senate, and House.)
Why is it not VERY LIKELY that if there were WMD, that they would have destroyed/given away what they had? The UN was under the impression that Iraq had not come clean until very late in the game. Why is the existence of WMD suddenly some sort of conspiracy by the Bush administration? (Other than opportunisitc Monday-morning quaterbacking?)
Originally posted by bunge
Because those shells were already proven to be chemical free. They weren't WMD and never had been. I can't believe people will rely on sources they know are 100% inaccurate.
From one week later: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3407853.stm
You arguing piece of...
Once again you are only reading what you want and taking it all out of context. I was pointing out the policy of burying weapons. I know that those weapons were later found to have NO NERVE AGENT. The story I quoted was the original story about the find.
Are suggesting that because they were found not to be WMD's that SH and Co. did not conceal other weapons in the sand and all over?
Originally posted by NaplesX
The story I quoted was the original story about the find.
I don't think anyone is arguing that Iraq didn't bury some things in the sand, but the articles you quote support the idea that we can find them just as much as they support the idea that Iraq buried WMD.
Originally posted by bunge
I don't think anyone is arguing that Iraq didn't bury some things in the sand, but the articles you quote support the idea that we can find them just as much as they support the idea that Iraq buried WMD.
Ok look, I figured that you could determine that the article backed my claim that Iraq DID bury weapons. I also knew that you and almost anyone here knows that those weapons were later found to not be WMD's. Did I overestimate your intelligence or comprehension ability?
Originally posted by bunge
I don't think anyone is arguing that Iraq didn't bury some things in the sand, but the articles you quote support the idea that we can find them just as much as they support the idea that Iraq buried WMD.
I asked this before, but explain to me why you thin that SH would overtly store banned WMD, when his policy was total deception even with non banned conventional weapons?
Originally posted by NaplesX
I asked this before, but explain to me why you thin that SH would overtly store banned WMD, when his policy was total deception even with non banned conventional weapons?
I don't think SH would overtly store banned WMD, and I'm not surprised he used total deception with regards to non-banned conventional weapons. His next door neighbor, Iran, would have been all too happy to attack if they knew Saddam no longer had WMD and that his legal conventional weapons stocks were too small to protect the nation.
Yo right-wingers: Saddam HAD to lie to defend his country. The world HAD to believe he could defend himself or Iran would have run the country over. Why do you think the U.S.S.R. lied about the number of nuclear missles they had? To fool the U.S.A. Saddam had to lie to keep Iran at bay.
Yo right-wingers: If Saddam had enough WMD to justify an attack and overthrow of the government, how could he covertly bury them in such a short amount of time?