Wow, you verified my post perfectly. Obviously one who does not agree with you is categorically wrong. What was I thinking?
Of course, you seem to overlook jimmac's misspelling as some great indicator of possession of knowledge.
None of this changes the fact that you have very little to offer or gain here due to your claimed supreme knowledge and anecdotal evidence to suggest your supreme knowledge.
I went round and round with him, it is like talking to a brick.
I think he is a big computer with a boatload of canned responses.
"Does not compute... GWB lied... GWB lied ... I have read intelligence reports... Unable to reason,,, much too superior to reason ... does not compute...
I'm thinking that the only reason he hangs out here is because he would be quickly and expertly vaporized by the real masters of this hypothesized "political know-it-all" forum located in some secluded patch of the web. He simply could not "hang" there with any sense of credibility (for his esteemed knowledge and experience amounts to something paltry amongst that forum's regulars), hence there is little joy to be had for him. So he comes here to browbeat on some meager Apple forum goers, who's expertise lie among things "Apple", not politics. Not surprisingly, this results in him promptly bringing up issues such as "insecurity", which he is quite likely projecting from himself. So he can't hang with the big boys at the uber politics forum, but he can't get his point across at an Apple Outsider forum, either (beyond a notion of verbal chest thumping accompanied by chants of, "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right!" Pity.
I'm thinking that the only reason he hangs out here is because he would be quickly and expertly vaporized by the real masters of this hypothesized "political know-it-all" forum located in some secluded patch of the web. He simply could not "hang" there with any sense of credibility (for his esteemed knowledge and experience amounts to something paltry amongst that forum's regulars), hence there is little joy to be had for him. So he comes here to browbeat on some meager Apple forum goers, who's expertise lie among things "Apple", not politics. Not surprisingly, this results in him promptly bringing up issues such as "insecurity", which he is quite likely projecting from himself. So he can't hang with the big boys at the uber politics forum, but he can't get his point across at an Apple Outsider forum, either (beyond a notion of verbal chest thumping accompanied by chants of, "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right!" Pity.
I question his almighty expertise, altogether.
He is a first class pontificating, self appointed expert, boob. IMO.
True, the simpler explanation is that he really doesn't know all that much more than the rest of us, and most of it is just empty posturing to suggest an image of unchallengable credibility.
True, the simpler explanation is that he really doesn't know all that much more than the rest of us, and most of it is just empty posturing to suggest an image of unchallengable credibility.
I forgot to mention that jimmac is kinda like his sidekick.
I gotta come up with some clever name for them....hmmm
Sorry NaplesX, but giant quotes his sources. Research something if you believe he's wrong. Don't ask him to prove himself wrong. That's juvenile.
Listen folks, you shouldn't take giant's word for it when he gives it. You should assume he's wrong and prove he's wrong, but back it up with something. If you can't it's because he's right, not because he's 'elitist' or some crap like that.
NaplesX, if you're serious about your challenge, I recommend you look up an old thread about Bush lying. Giant started the thread and it was locked, then a new one started and probably locked again. It's got all the info you need and don't want to see.
You know Giant's right. When you bring up something he doesn't want to admit it's like you're speaking a different language. I call that denial.
I have one last thing for you to consider:
You have watched CSI, Right?
You know how in an investigation of any given crime, it often comes down to very miniscule peaces of evidence. Look at the current peterson trial.
Evidence of said crime is not always the "smoking gun" but sometimes just the smoke. Maybe it is a partial fingerprint or a fiber from a jacket or duct tape residue that places the criminal at the scene and convicts him.
If, as you say, only a huge pile of rockets and a boatload of VX or some WMD, convinces you war was justified, you are going against the whole justice system that has served us well in this country.
I have presented you evidence, even pictures of viles of bio/chem materials ceased from an Iraqi scientist working under SH. I have referred you to the kay report that states they found missiles clearly out of the mandated range. It also states they found plans and parts for centrifuges used for nuclear material production.
This is all evidence. It seems you don't except it until the quantity is at a certain level, bucking the way our justice system works.
Sorry NaplesX, but giant quotes his sources. Research something if you believe he's wrong. Don't ask him to prove himself wrong. That's juvenile.
Listen folks, you shouldn't take giant's word for it when he gives it. You should assume he's wrong and prove he's wrong, but back it up with something. If you can't it's because he's right, not because he's 'elitist' or some crap like that.
NaplesX, if you're serious about your challenge, I recommend you look up an old thread about Bush lying. Giant started the thread and it was locked, then a new one started and probably locked again. It's got all the info you need and don't want to see.
I did not say he didn't. I also quote sources however I also make it clear when I am stating opinion.
Just because someone quotes something does not make it the end of the discussion. That is exactly what happens when arguing with these two. They will not except a rebuttal.
Giant and jimmac declare opinion as truth. It is very difficult to argue with that tactic being used. Not impossible but difficult. They eventually appear rigid and silly.
I think I was involved in at least one of those closed threads.
As far as my challenge. It stands. I want a complete list from the master. This way I can then debate him on his terms. and there will be no more deflecting. He thinks I am a mental midget, let him step up and prove it. Or he can continue to pontificate from his self made throne. There will always be that doubt because he wouldn't step up. i know what he is and most here that are reading do now also.
I have presented you evidence, even pictures of viles of bio/chem materials ceased from an Iraqi scientist working under SH. I have referred you to the kay report that states they found missiles clearly out of the mandated range. It also states they found plans and parts for centrifuges used for nuclear material production.
Let me explain something to you about Iraqi WMD:
Chemical: The only thing that it was physically possible for Iraq to have at the beginning of the war was mustard gas. Everything else degrades and there were no production facilities. This we knew before the war and at this point there is no question. All chemical weapons have been accounted for. If you look at the actual admin claims, they refer to one document, which was believed false at the time and, since military folks came forward in post-war Iraq, has found to have been a BS document in the first place.
Nuclear: The nuclear components found under the rosebush were FAR, FAR, FAR from a facility of any sort. Not only that, but the engineering documents were INCORRECT. Hell, I'm pretty sure that fact was even on slashdot. A nuclear facility is HUGE and Saddam was nowhere near doing anything nuclear. Here's where you can start on the reading list: Go to un.org and read the inspection reports. You will see that saddam's nuclear capabilities were destroyed long ago.
Combine this with the fact that we've got all sorts of foreign Iraq officials (including ones like General Amir al-Saadi who struggled to work with the US so they could get back to normal lives) talking about the whole situation and revealing that everything was destroyed shows that it's just not there. Sure, there may be small remnants, like a few barrels of viable mustard gas or a fridge somewhere with a couple vials of reference anthrax strains, but that doesn't equal massive weapons programs and all it does is reinforce the position of most intelligent people before the war: that saddam's WMD were dead and useless to him.
What the Kay report showed was intent to possibly restart a chemical program at some point. Well, no shit. But that certainly doesn't mean saddam had a big enough program for it to be a threat to the US or even Israel. And it is a HUGE stretch to just assume that saddam (well, really it would have been qusay) would have attacked or had the ability or, most importantly, had the INTENTION OR DESIRE to attack the US in 10, 20 or 30 years.
So you can spout off about whatever you want. I've been attacked for giving too much information. I've been attacked for being to hung up on facts. Well, go on and attack, because it doesn't change the fact that what I am posting is the reality of the situation.
If you want to read more, start my reading every one of the UN reports. I've done it, but I guess it somehow makes me elitist to be interesting in a topic enough to actually research it.
Please do not spout made up facts at me. As a matter of fact i have no desire to be baited by you anymore. My challenge to you still stands. Otherwise, don't bother throwing your arguments my way. We have all figured out your tactics
You know how in an investigation of any given crime, it often comes down to very miniscule peaces of evidence. Look at the current peterson trial.
Evidence of said crime is not always the "smoking gun" but sometimes just the smoke. Maybe it is a partial fingerprint or a fiber from a jacket or duct tape residue that places the criminal at the scene and convicts him.
If, as you say, only a huge pile of rockets and a boatload of VX or some WMD, convinces you war was justified, you are going against the whole justice system that has served us well in this country.
I have presented you evidence, even pictures of viles of bio/chem materials ceased from an Iraqi scientist working under SH. I have referred you to the kay report that states they found missiles clearly out of the mandated range. It also states they found plans and parts for centrifuges used for nuclear material production.
This is all evidence. It seems you don't except it until the quantity is at a certain level, bucking the way our justice system works.
Yes except one vital clue. If they're so hard to find it stretches crediablity to believe that he could have gotten rid of large stock piles so efficiently. Certainly not enough to pose a threat to us. Once again the inference was a threat to the US. Enough to warrent war.
And then there's the deployment issue........
I'm sorry but it just doesn't add up.
Even on your show they would say : " There's just not enough evidence ".
You see in the matter of going to war and this being a direct threat to us the quantity does matter. That's the question at hand if you'll recall.
That's why the " real " experts keep saying " no smoking gun " because in this instance that's what they need.
By the way unless those missiles ( and how come we didn't hear about that on the news ) were ICBMs it wouldn't matter.
This isn't a local crime you see on " Cops " or " CSI ". And certainly the same rules don't apply.
So that's where you get your superior sleuthing ability? From TV shows?
Please do not spout made up facts at me. As a matter of fact i have no desire to be baited by you anymore. My challenge to you still stands. Otherwise, don't bother throwing your arguments my way. We have all figured out your tactics
Thank you.
Who's " we "? The conservative elite on this board?
I refer you to my other posts to answer those claims. Read them carefully. I took the time to word them so they were concise, therefor be polite enough to read them carefully.
Naples, here's why you are a) not equipt to understand the Kay report and b) not really doing the research
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
"New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN."
Let me direct your attention to this:
Quote:
In addition to the doubts about the botulinum B, several outside experts questioned the significance of Kay's claim that he uncovered covert "new research" in Iraq on such potential biowarfare agents as brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, and "continuing work" on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to U.N. inspectors.
CCHF, as the hemorrhagic-fever virus is known, is common in Iraq. The World Health Organization reports that the disease, which can cause intense bleeding and death, is "endemic in many countries in Africa, Europe and Asia." There is no evidence that Iraq or anyone else has weaponized it.
"There are public-health reasons to work with it in that part of the world," Franz said. "I wouldn't find it alarming that they're working on that."
Brucella, which chiefly affects livestock, is also endemic to Iraq. U.S. military scientists weaponized the bacteria during the Cold War but did not consider it effective because it is slow-acting and can be treated with antibiotics. U.N. inspectors never found evidence that Iraq worked on brucella as a weapon.
Aflatoxin causes vomiting and other incapacitating symptoms, but is rarely lethal in humans. The fungal toxin is chiefly known for causing liver cancer. Iraq produced aflatoxin as a weapon in the 1980s, but Zilinskas said it's never been clear why.
"It's not particularly toxic, and its primary effects are long term," he said. "My feeling to this day is that it was a scam that the scientists put over on the decisionmakers, because it's easy to produce and the decisionmakers wouldn't know it is useless as a biological weapon."
Saddam's regime also sought to weaponize ricin, which can be highly lethal if inhaled, but ended the program in 1990 after field tests failed to kill animals, according to U.N. reports.
"They gave up using ricin as a weapon," Franz said. "That was the right decision, in my opinion." Because it is so difficult to produce the proper powdered form for aerosol distribution, he said, "You almost need to be hit by a brick of it to kill you."
Comments
Originally posted by jimmac
Pointless I suppose because he lost the argument.
A long time ago......
Umm, I didn't say WHO was drinking that lemonade....
Originally posted by Randycat99
Of course, you seem to overlook jimmac's misspelling as some great indicator of possession of knowledge.
None of this changes the fact that you have very little to offer or gain here due to your claimed supreme knowledge and anecdotal evidence to suggest your supreme knowledge.
I went round and round with him, it is like talking to a brick.
I think he is a big computer with a boatload of canned responses.
"Does not compute... GWB lied... GWB lied ... I have read intelligence reports... Unable to reason,,, much too superior to reason ... does not compute...
Originally posted by Randycat99
I'm thinking that the only reason he hangs out here is because he would be quickly and expertly vaporized by the real masters of this hypothesized "political know-it-all" forum located in some secluded patch of the web. He simply could not "hang" there with any sense of credibility (for his esteemed knowledge and experience amounts to something paltry amongst that forum's regulars), hence there is little joy to be had for him. So he comes here to browbeat on some meager Apple forum goers, who's expertise lie among things "Apple", not politics. Not surprisingly, this results in him promptly bringing up issues such as "insecurity", which he is quite likely projecting from himself. So he can't hang with the big boys at the uber politics forum, but he can't get his point across at an Apple Outsider forum, either (beyond a notion of verbal chest thumping accompanied by chants of, "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right!" Pity.
I question his almighty expertise, altogether.
He is a first class pontificating, self appointed expert, boob. IMO.
Originally posted by Randycat99
True, the simpler explanation is that he really doesn't know all that much more than the rest of us, and most of it is just empty posturing to suggest an image of unchallengable credibility.
I forgot to mention that jimmac is kinda like his sidekick.
I gotta come up with some clever name for them....hmmm
Originally posted by NaplesX
The offer stands giant.
I made a challenge and you dismissed it.
As jimmac would say "End of story!"
Yup! End of story........NO WOMD FOUND!
You know Giant's right. When you bring up something he doesn't want to admit it's like you're speaking a different language. I call that denial.
Originally posted by NaplesX
The offer stands giant.
I made a challenge and you dismissed it.
Sorry NaplesX, but giant quotes his sources. Research something if you believe he's wrong. Don't ask him to prove himself wrong. That's juvenile.
Listen folks, you shouldn't take giant's word for it when he gives it. You should assume he's wrong and prove he's wrong, but back it up with something. If you can't it's because he's right, not because he's 'elitist' or some crap like that.
NaplesX, if you're serious about your challenge, I recommend you look up an old thread about Bush lying. Giant started the thread and it was locked, then a new one started and probably locked again. It's got all the info you need and don't want to see.
Originally posted by jimmac
Yup! End of story........NO WOMD FOUND!
You know Giant's right. When you bring up something he doesn't want to admit it's like you're speaking a different language. I call that denial.
I have one last thing for you to consider:
You have watched CSI, Right?
You know how in an investigation of any given crime, it often comes down to very miniscule peaces of evidence. Look at the current peterson trial.
Evidence of said crime is not always the "smoking gun" but sometimes just the smoke. Maybe it is a partial fingerprint or a fiber from a jacket or duct tape residue that places the criminal at the scene and convicts him.
If, as you say, only a huge pile of rockets and a boatload of VX or some WMD, convinces you war was justified, you are going against the whole justice system that has served us well in this country.
I have presented you evidence, even pictures of viles of bio/chem materials ceased from an Iraqi scientist working under SH. I have referred you to the kay report that states they found missiles clearly out of the mandated range. It also states they found plans and parts for centrifuges used for nuclear material production.
This is all evidence. It seems you don't except it until the quantity is at a certain level, bucking the way our justice system works.
Originally posted by bunge
Sorry NaplesX, but giant quotes his sources. Research something if you believe he's wrong. Don't ask him to prove himself wrong. That's juvenile.
Listen folks, you shouldn't take giant's word for it when he gives it. You should assume he's wrong and prove he's wrong, but back it up with something. If you can't it's because he's right, not because he's 'elitist' or some crap like that.
NaplesX, if you're serious about your challenge, I recommend you look up an old thread about Bush lying. Giant started the thread and it was locked, then a new one started and probably locked again. It's got all the info you need and don't want to see.
I did not say he didn't. I also quote sources however I also make it clear when I am stating opinion.
Just because someone quotes something does not make it the end of the discussion. That is exactly what happens when arguing with these two. They will not except a rebuttal.
Giant and jimmac declare opinion as truth. It is very difficult to argue with that tactic being used. Not impossible but difficult. They eventually appear rigid and silly.
I think I was involved in at least one of those closed threads.
As far as my challenge. It stands. I want a complete list from the master. This way I can then debate him on his terms. and there will be no more deflecting. He thinks I am a mental midget, let him step up and prove it. Or he can continue to pontificate from his self made throne. There will always be that doubt because he wouldn't step up. i know what he is and most here that are reading do now also.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I have presented you evidence, even pictures of viles of bio/chem materials ceased from an Iraqi scientist working under SH. I have referred you to the kay report that states they found missiles clearly out of the mandated range. It also states they found plans and parts for centrifuges used for nuclear material production.
Let me explain something to you about Iraqi WMD:
Chemical: The only thing that it was physically possible for Iraq to have at the beginning of the war was mustard gas. Everything else degrades and there were no production facilities. This we knew before the war and at this point there is no question. All chemical weapons have been accounted for. If you look at the actual admin claims, they refer to one document, which was believed false at the time and, since military folks came forward in post-war Iraq, has found to have been a BS document in the first place.
Nuclear: The nuclear components found under the rosebush were FAR, FAR, FAR from a facility of any sort. Not only that, but the engineering documents were INCORRECT. Hell, I'm pretty sure that fact was even on slashdot. A nuclear facility is HUGE and Saddam was nowhere near doing anything nuclear. Here's where you can start on the reading list: Go to un.org and read the inspection reports. You will see that saddam's nuclear capabilities were destroyed long ago.
Combine this with the fact that we've got all sorts of foreign Iraq officials (including ones like General Amir al-Saadi who struggled to work with the US so they could get back to normal lives) talking about the whole situation and revealing that everything was destroyed shows that it's just not there. Sure, there may be small remnants, like a few barrels of viable mustard gas or a fridge somewhere with a couple vials of reference anthrax strains, but that doesn't equal massive weapons programs and all it does is reinforce the position of most intelligent people before the war: that saddam's WMD were dead and useless to him.
What the Kay report showed was intent to possibly restart a chemical program at some point. Well, no shit. But that certainly doesn't mean saddam had a big enough program for it to be a threat to the US or even Israel. And it is a HUGE stretch to just assume that saddam (well, really it would have been qusay) would have attacked or had the ability or, most importantly, had the INTENTION OR DESIRE to attack the US in 10, 20 or 30 years.
So you can spout off about whatever you want. I've been attacked for giving too much information. I've been attacked for being to hung up on facts. Well, go on and attack, because it doesn't change the fact that what I am posting is the reality of the situation.
If you want to read more, start my reading every one of the UN reports. I've done it, but I guess it somehow makes me elitist to be interesting in a topic enough to actually research it.
Thank you.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Please do not spout made up facts at me.
Classic.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I have one last thing for you to consider:
You have watched CSI, Right?
You know how in an investigation of any given crime, it often comes down to very miniscule peaces of evidence. Look at the current peterson trial.
Evidence of said crime is not always the "smoking gun" but sometimes just the smoke. Maybe it is a partial fingerprint or a fiber from a jacket or duct tape residue that places the criminal at the scene and convicts him.
If, as you say, only a huge pile of rockets and a boatload of VX or some WMD, convinces you war was justified, you are going against the whole justice system that has served us well in this country.
I have presented you evidence, even pictures of viles of bio/chem materials ceased from an Iraqi scientist working under SH. I have referred you to the kay report that states they found missiles clearly out of the mandated range. It also states they found plans and parts for centrifuges used for nuclear material production.
This is all evidence. It seems you don't except it until the quantity is at a certain level, bucking the way our justice system works.
Yes except one vital clue. If they're so hard to find it stretches crediablity to believe that he could have gotten rid of large stock piles so efficiently. Certainly not enough to pose a threat to us. Once again the inference was a threat to the US. Enough to warrent war.
And then there's the deployment issue........
I'm sorry but it just doesn't add up.
Even on your show they would say : " There's just not enough evidence ".
You see in the matter of going to war and this being a direct threat to us the quantity does matter. That's the question at hand if you'll recall.
That's why the " real " experts keep saying " no smoking gun " because in this instance that's what they need.
By the way unless those missiles ( and how come we didn't hear about that on the news ) were ICBMs it wouldn't matter.
This isn't a local crime you see on " Cops " or " CSI ". And certainly the same rules don't apply.
So that's where you get your superior sleuthing ability? From TV shows?
Fabulous.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Please do not spout made up facts at me. As a matter of fact i have no desire to be baited by you anymore. My challenge to you still stands. Otherwise, don't bother throwing your arguments my way. We have all figured out your tactics
Thank you.
Who's " we "? The conservative elite on this board?
If we identified ourselves as Humanity we'd all look like idiots now...
My only mind expanding thought right now...
Originally posted by Artman @_@
The lables "Conservative","Liberal", "Right-Wing", "Left-Wing", "Muslim","Christian","Jew"...et al...
If we identified ourselves as Humanity we'd all look like idiots now...
My only mind expanding thought right now...
WOW!
I refer you to my other posts to answer those claims. Read them carefully. I took the time to word them so they were concise, therefor be polite enough to read them carefully.
And what is with the use of those annoying icons?
Originally posted by jimmac
WOW!
I agree. with that wholeheartedly. Order of importance = human > family > country > personal affiliations.
if we referred to ourselves that way we WOULD have to look at things differently.
Originally posted by NaplesX
"New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN."
Let me direct your attention to this:
In addition to the doubts about the botulinum B, several outside experts questioned the significance of Kay's claim that he uncovered covert "new research" in Iraq on such potential biowarfare agents as brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, and "continuing work" on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to U.N. inspectors.
CCHF, as the hemorrhagic-fever virus is known, is common in Iraq. The World Health Organization reports that the disease, which can cause intense bleeding and death, is "endemic in many countries in Africa, Europe and Asia." There is no evidence that Iraq or anyone else has weaponized it.
"There are public-health reasons to work with it in that part of the world," Franz said. "I wouldn't find it alarming that they're working on that."
Brucella, which chiefly affects livestock, is also endemic to Iraq. U.S. military scientists weaponized the bacteria during the Cold War but did not consider it effective because it is slow-acting and can be treated with antibiotics. U.N. inspectors never found evidence that Iraq worked on brucella as a weapon.
Aflatoxin causes vomiting and other incapacitating symptoms, but is rarely lethal in humans. The fungal toxin is chiefly known for causing liver cancer. Iraq produced aflatoxin as a weapon in the 1980s, but Zilinskas said it's never been clear why.
"It's not particularly toxic, and its primary effects are long term," he said. "My feeling to this day is that it was a scam that the scientists put over on the decisionmakers, because it's easy to produce and the decisionmakers wouldn't know it is useless as a biological weapon."
Saddam's regime also sought to weaponize ricin, which can be highly lethal if inhaled, but ended the program in 1990 after field tests failed to kill animals, according to U.N. reports.
"They gave up using ricin as a weapon," Franz said. "That was the right decision, in my opinion." Because it is so difficult to produce the proper powdered form for aerosol distribution, he said, "You almost need to be hit by a brick of it to kill you."
http://www.concordmonitor.com/storie...ian_2003.shtml
How about you actually bother to understand what it is you are posting before you post it?