You see jimmac, I have debated giant in the past. His tactics are very similar to yours. He is a little better at it though. But like you he presents information and expects just because he quoted it, that after that it is now undisputed fact. If you question him or his facts he tries to marginalize you by touting his extensive reading/research prowess and knowledge, often following with a personal attack.
Well, I got sick of that and challenged him to a debate. I offered to read and research any list of publications and such, that he chooses. I did this to eliminate his pompous claim of lack of research.
He suggested that I research his entire AI comment history to pick up on the research he has done. He followed that retarded suggestion basically with "there is no possible way you can gain as much knowledge as me"
My offer still stands to him. But until he can step up I have no real desire to be baited into argument with him. I am here to debate with you and anyone else that has an honest opinion. We can all learn from this process.
And here I thought you said you didn't want to talk about these things with me anymore?
As a matter of fact I remember you saying " Good day " on another thread and coming right back. This makes it difficault to take you seriously.
I can tell that Giant is a very intelligent, well read, individual. Something you're not.
You attempt to win an argument by obfuscation and subterfuge.
These evasive tactics won't help you.
Also I might point out that you seem to be under attack from many sides here.
See any pattern? Hmmm?
People here with the exception of the resident, conservative, extremists aren't going for it NaplesX.
Ok sammi jo. .... First, I do not get my news from the former Gov of Texas or the "nanny media" (whatever that means). I am not a fan of the former Gov of Texas nor do I like his policies. I am well aware of past US policies and how they have affected our image in the World. I am also well aware that the invasion of Iraq was not to "liberate the Iraqi people".
HOWEVER ..IS Iraq better off without SH? That is all I am asking. In the long run it may be or it may not be. We dont know yet. BUT ...Iraq has a CHANCE at a fresh start. Yes, it is a biproduct of the real objectives of the US, but it is a chance for a better way.
I am far from right wing . I actually lean pretty far to the left. However, I am not so filled with hatred for Bush that I can not look objectively at all sides of this situation. Do you enjoy hearing that there has been another US soldier killed of a few more Iraqis blown up by a car bomb so you have more ammunition for your "Bush is failing" message? Bet ya do.....
Once again how did you make that leap? SH has ties to terrorism namely Palestinian terrorists. Saddam was a threat, because he had ties to terrorism. He had used WMD and was pursuing more WMDs. You are arguing degree here. His track record reveals the threat. The security of the middle east and much of the world was at risk from SH's irrational and murderous governing.
You're wrong.
Saddam has no illegal or illicit ties to terrorists. The links you provide have no relevance to U.S. Security which is the subject at hand. He gave money to the families of suicide bombers after the bombers were dead. The UN gives aid to those same families, is the UN supporting terrorism? No, obviously not.
Show us some proof that Saddam was pursuing more WMD. You can't. You want to believe it so you can justify your willingness and want to go to war. I'm sorry but that's not good enough. If it were as simple as you say, the people you're arguing against in this thread would be arguing in favor of a war against Iraq.
You're starstruck by the cowboy. That's unhealthy. You're scared of terrorism so you're willing to support killing innocents as long as it's in the name of killing potential threats. That's still a psychosis.
If Saddam's track record reveals the threat then his track record shows he's all talk and no threat.
Again, a lot of people and organizations donate money to the plight of the Palestinians. In your eyes should they all be targets of the United States' war on terror? If not, why not? If so, why?
Saddam has no illegal or illicit ties to terrorists. The links you provide have no relevance to U.S. Security which is the subject at hand. He gave money to the families of suicide bombers after the bombers were dead. The UN gives aid to those same families, is the UN supporting terrorism? No, obviously not.
I will agree with you that not everyone trying to help the Palestinians are supporting terrorism. However, Yassar and company are terrorists, they support terrorists. SH openly supported their efforts to kill. He himself encourages muslims to kill Americans and Jews. I just don't get why you would want to defend SH or YA or any of the terrorist groups over their.
Quote:
[i]Show us some proof that Saddam was pursuing more WMD. You can't. You want to believe it so you can justify your willingness and want to go to war. I'm sorry but that's not good enough. If it were as simple as you say, the people you're arguing against in this thread would be arguing in favor of a war against Iraq.[/B]
This is a speech given by someone that knows more than all here in AI combined, hundreds of times over. Dismiss it if you will.
[i]You're starstruck by the cowboy. That's unhealthy. You're scared of terrorism so you're willing to support killing innocents as long as it's in the name of killing potential threats. That's still a psychosis.[/B]
You tried this before. It failed then as now. This is a shallow attempt at marginalizing.
Quote:
[i]If Saddam's track record reveals the threat then his track record shows he's all talk and no threat.[/B]
He is all talk? tell that to the families of those gassed in his own country. How about the families of those hundreds of thousands he has tortured, raped, buried alive, dismembered and dipped in flesh eating acid. Tell that to Kuwait and Iran. Tell that to Israel.
Quote:
[i]Again, a lot of people and organizations donate money to the plight of the Palestinians. In your eyes should they all be targets of the United States' war on terror? If not, why not? If so, why? [/B]
Please stop this. You are being ridiculous. The people of palestine are not the enemy it is their leaders and the terrorists among them.
And it (essentially) says that they're religious zealots not money grubbing freaks. That article supports my point.
"Recruits are reassured by their organisation that their families will be looked after materially until they die, and there are charitable organisations that exist for this purpose."
The money is a persuasive bonus.
I was not saying they were "money grubbing freaks", you made that up. I was saying if you believe that 70 virgins await you in heaven (obviously religious implications here) and you're family will be taken care of after you are gone, by the benevolent SH, that these factors encourage them to do it.
Therefor. IMO Saddam was supporting terrorism. I may be wrong but I see something very evil about the whole setup.
You seem over-willing to give the murderer SH the benefit of the doubt.
I will agree with you that not everyone trying to help the Palestinians are supporting terrorism. However, Yassar and company are terrorists, they support terrorists. SH openly supported their efforts to kill. He himself encourages muslims to kill Americans and Jews. I just don't get why you would want to defend SH or YA or any of the terrorist groups over their.
You should understand it perfectly well. You're in this thread supporting the efforts of the U.S. to kill.
"knows more?" Is this the level you are operating on?
Are you even aware of the background of what you linked to or what it is he is even talking about?
It's a political statement defending the fact that the NIE was so dead wrong on just about every count.
To help you understand, take, for example, the section on chemical weapons:
Quote:
As early as 1994, all agencies assessed that Iraq could begin limited production of chemical agents almost immediately after UN sanctions, inspections and monitoring efforts were ended. By 1997, the Intelligence Community judged that Iraq was protecting a breakout capability to produce more weapons and agent quickly. We further assessed in 1997, that within months Iraq could restart full-scale production of sarin and that pre-Desert Storm agent production levels?including production of VX?could be achieved in two to three years. And so it was not a surprising story when all agencies judged in the NIE in 2002 that Baghdad possessed chemical weapons, had begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX and probably had at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents, much of it added in the last year.
Notice what he is saying here. The key part is "it was not a surprising story when all agencies judged in the NIE in 2002 that Baghdad possessed chemical weapons." Basically he's saying it was a mistake everyone made, and it was an honest mistake. Not true if you actually look at the intel. And note how he avoids actually coming out and explicitly saying they were all wrong, even though it's an implied premise of the statement.
Look also at this line: "Iraq could begin limited production of chemical agents almost immediately after UN sanctions, inspections and monitoring efforts were ended." Monitoring was to have gone on indefinitely with the same unhindered access as the inspection process. Tenet knows this, but he's making a political statement.
It's actually interesting that you linked to this, since it shows you quite clearly how political statements about intelligence are made. If you don't know the background you can dramatically misinterpret it, as you have done here.
Please stop this. You are being ridiculous. The people of palestine are not the enemy it is their leaders and the terrorists among them.
Let me spell this out for you. A lot of people, individuals and governments, send money directly to the families of suicide bombers. In your eyes should they all be targets of the United States' war on terror? If not, why not? If so, why?
Thy funny thing is that you don't bother to call someone on it when they go by the name, oh I dunno, "jimmac"? He doesn't help your cause in the slightest, with the remarks he chooses to inject into these discussions. By now, one would have expected either you or giant to at least told him to SDSTFU. He's like the little parrot that sits on a shoulder and caws when the "big boys" come out to do the heavy lifting.
Let me spell this out for you. A lot of people, individuals and governments, send money directly to the families of suicide bombers. In your eyes should they all be targets of the United States' war on terror? If not, why not? If so, why?
Sure, why not? Whatever. (sort of like how a life insurance company should pay-out whenever a policy holder commits suicide- again, whatever...) This is completely aside from the topic, though...
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
No.
You see jimmac, I have debated giant in the past. His tactics are very similar to yours. He is a little better at it though. But like you he presents information and expects just because he quoted it, that after that it is now undisputed fact. If you question him or his facts he tries to marginalize you by touting his extensive reading/research prowess and knowledge, often following with a personal attack.
Well, I got sick of that and challenged him to a debate. I offered to read and research any list of publications and such, that he chooses. I did this to eliminate his pompous claim of lack of research.
He suggested that I research his entire AI comment history to pick up on the research he has done. He followed that retarded suggestion basically with "there is no possible way you can gain as much knowledge as me"
My offer still stands to him. But until he can step up I have no real desire to be baited into argument with him. I am here to debate with you and anyone else that has an honest opinion. We can all learn from this process.
And here I thought you said you didn't want to talk about these things with me anymore?
As a matter of fact I remember you saying " Good day " on another thread and coming right back. This makes it difficault to take you seriously.
I can tell that Giant is a very intelligent, well read, individual. Something you're not.
You attempt to win an argument by obfuscation and subterfuge.
These evasive tactics won't help you.
Also I might point out that you seem to be under attack from many sides here.
See any pattern? Hmmm?
People here with the exception of the resident, conservative, extremists aren't going for it NaplesX.
By the way you didn't eliminate anything.
HOWEVER ..IS Iraq better off without SH? That is all I am asking. In the long run it may be or it may not be. We dont know yet. BUT ...Iraq has a CHANCE at a fresh start. Yes, it is a biproduct of the real objectives of the US, but it is a chance for a better way.
I am far from right wing . I actually lean pretty far to the left. However, I am not so filled with hatred for Bush that I can not look objectively at all sides of this situation. Do you enjoy hearing that there has been another US soldier killed of a few more Iraqis blown up by a car bomb so you have more ammunition for your "Bush is failing" message? Bet ya do.....
These evasive tactics won't help you.
I am still standing here confronting the things I consider questionable. How am i being evasive?
Also I might point out that you seem to be under attack from many sides here.
You mean, you, giant and bunge?
See any pattern? Hmmm?
Sure do.
People here with the exception of the resident, conservative, extremists aren't going for it NaplesX.
?
By the way you didn't eliminate anything.
Please, fill me in, you lost me here.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I am still standing here confronting the things I consider questionable. How am i being ecasive?
You mean, you, giant and bunge
Sure do.
?
Please, fill me in, you last me here.
Huh?
Oh! Lost me here.
I was referring to your comment about Giant.
There's been many more besides bungie and Giant.
You're standing there ignoring the obvious.
So what are you doing? Are you going for the longest thread record or something?
Originally posted by jimmac
Huh?
Oh! Lost me here.
I was referring to your comment about Giant.
There's been many more besides bungie and Giant.
You're standing there ignoring the obvious.
So what are you doing? Are you going for the longest thread record or something?
This is going nowhere fast. I'll be waiting for some more debate. When you are ready.
Originally posted by NaplesX
So in answer to your question, IMO yes.
Well your opinion is farcical. They have too much to lose and too much at stake to worry about cash.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Once again how did you make that leap? SH has ties to terrorism namely Palestinian terrorists. Saddam was a threat, because he had ties to terrorism. He had used WMD and was pursuing more WMDs. You are arguing degree here. His track record reveals the threat. The security of the middle east and much of the world was at risk from SH's irrational and murderous governing.
You're wrong.
Saddam has no illegal or illicit ties to terrorists. The links you provide have no relevance to U.S. Security which is the subject at hand. He gave money to the families of suicide bombers after the bombers were dead. The UN gives aid to those same families, is the UN supporting terrorism? No, obviously not.
Show us some proof that Saddam was pursuing more WMD. You can't. You want to believe it so you can justify your willingness and want to go to war. I'm sorry but that's not good enough. If it were as simple as you say, the people you're arguing against in this thread would be arguing in favor of a war against Iraq.
You're starstruck by the cowboy. That's unhealthy. You're scared of terrorism so you're willing to support killing innocents as long as it's in the name of killing potential threats. That's still a psychosis.
If Saddam's track record reveals the threat then his track record shows he's all talk and no threat.
Again, a lot of people and organizations donate money to the plight of the Palestinians. In your eyes should they all be targets of the United States' war on terror? If not, why not? If so, why?
Originally posted by NaplesX
This is going nowhere fast. I'll be waiting for some more debate. When you are ready.
I've got a clue for you.....
You lost a long time ago.
Originally posted by bunge
Well your opinion is farcical. They have too much to lose and too much at stake to worry about cash.
Here is an article from BBC, about homicide bombers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...es/1249937.stm
Originally posted by NaplesX
Here is an article from BBC, about homicide bombers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...es/1249937.stm
Actually that's an article about suicide bombers.
And it (essentially) says that they're religious zealots not money grubbing freaks. That article supports my point.
Originally posted by bunge
Saddam has no illegal or illicit ties to terrorists. The links you provide have no relevance to U.S. Security which is the subject at hand. He gave money to the families of suicide bombers after the bombers were dead. The UN gives aid to those same families, is the UN supporting terrorism? No, obviously not.
I will agree with you that not everyone trying to help the Palestinians are supporting terrorism. However, Yassar and company are terrorists, they support terrorists. SH openly supported their efforts to kill. He himself encourages muslims to kill Americans and Jews. I just don't get why you would want to defend SH or YA or any of the terrorist groups over their.
[i]Show us some proof that Saddam was pursuing more WMD. You can't. You want to believe it so you can justify your willingness and want to go to war. I'm sorry but that's not good enough. If it were as simple as you say, the people you're arguing against in this thread would be arguing in favor of a war against Iraq.[/B]
This is a speech given by someone that knows more than all here in AI combined, hundreds of times over. Dismiss it if you will.
http://www.odci.gov/nic/speeches_DCIstatement.html
[i]You're starstruck by the cowboy. That's unhealthy. You're scared of terrorism so you're willing to support killing innocents as long as it's in the name of killing potential threats. That's still a psychosis.[/B]
You tried this before. It failed then as now. This is a shallow attempt at marginalizing.
[i]If Saddam's track record reveals the threat then his track record shows he's all talk and no threat.[/B]
He is all talk? tell that to the families of those gassed in his own country. How about the families of those hundreds of thousands he has tortured, raped, buried alive, dismembered and dipped in flesh eating acid. Tell that to Kuwait and Iran. Tell that to Israel.
[i]Again, a lot of people and organizations donate money to the plight of the Palestinians. In your eyes should they all be targets of the United States' war on terror? If not, why not? If so, why? [/B]
Please stop this. You are being ridiculous. The people of palestine are not the enemy it is their leaders and the terrorists among them.
Originally posted by bunge
Actually that's an article about suicide bombers.
And it (essentially) says that they're religious zealots not money grubbing freaks. That article supports my point.
"Recruits are reassured by their organisation that their families will be looked after materially until they die, and there are charitable organisations that exist for this purpose."
The money is a persuasive bonus.
I was not saying they were "money grubbing freaks", you made that up. I was saying if you believe that 70 virgins await you in heaven (obviously religious implications here) and you're family will be taken care of after you are gone, by the benevolent SH, that these factors encourage them to do it.
Therefor. IMO Saddam was supporting terrorism. I may be wrong but I see something very evil about the whole setup.
You seem over-willing to give the murderer SH the benefit of the doubt.
Originally posted by NaplesX
The money is a persuasive bonus.
That's not blood money.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I will agree with you that not everyone trying to help the Palestinians are supporting terrorism. However, Yassar and company are terrorists, they support terrorists. SH openly supported their efforts to kill. He himself encourages muslims to kill Americans and Jews. I just don't get why you would want to defend SH or YA or any of the terrorist groups over their.
You should understand it perfectly well. You're in this thread supporting the efforts of the U.S. to kill.
Originally posted by NaplesX
This is a speech given by someone that knows more than all here in AI combined, hundreds of times over. Dismiss it if you will.
http://www.odci.gov/nic/speeches_DCIstatement.html
"knows more?" Is this the level you are operating on?
Are you even aware of the background of what you linked to or what it is he is even talking about?
It's a political statement defending the fact that the NIE was so dead wrong on just about every count.
To help you understand, take, for example, the section on chemical weapons:
As early as 1994, all agencies assessed that Iraq could begin limited production of chemical agents almost immediately after UN sanctions, inspections and monitoring efforts were ended. By 1997, the Intelligence Community judged that Iraq was protecting a breakout capability to produce more weapons and agent quickly. We further assessed in 1997, that within months Iraq could restart full-scale production of sarin and that pre-Desert Storm agent production levels?including production of VX?could be achieved in two to three years. And so it was not a surprising story when all agencies judged in the NIE in 2002 that Baghdad possessed chemical weapons, had begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX and probably had at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents, much of it added in the last year.
Notice what he is saying here. The key part is "it was not a surprising story when all agencies judged in the NIE in 2002 that Baghdad possessed chemical weapons." Basically he's saying it was a mistake everyone made, and it was an honest mistake. Not true if you actually look at the intel. And note how he avoids actually coming out and explicitly saying they were all wrong, even though it's an implied premise of the statement.
Look also at this line: "Iraq could begin limited production of chemical agents almost immediately after UN sanctions, inspections and monitoring efforts were ended." Monitoring was to have gone on indefinitely with the same unhindered access as the inspection process. Tenet knows this, but he's making a political statement.
It's actually interesting that you linked to this, since it shows you quite clearly how political statements about intelligence are made. If you don't know the background you can dramatically misinterpret it, as you have done here.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Give it up jimmac, giant, and bunge! You guys lost. NaplesX won. Case closed. You are just looping over and over like a broken record by now.
I hope you're being as sarcastic as you sound, but I think you're serious.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Please stop this. You are being ridiculous. The people of palestine are not the enemy it is their leaders and the terrorists among them.
Let me spell this out for you. A lot of people, individuals and governments, send money directly to the families of suicide bombers. In your eyes should they all be targets of the United States' war on terror? If not, why not? If so, why?
Originally posted by bunge
Let me spell this out for you. A lot of people, individuals and governments, send money directly to the families of suicide bombers. In your eyes should they all be targets of the United States' war on terror? If not, why not? If so, why?
Sure, why not?