Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]
Re: Are they all liars? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2446647 -

Can you prove he lied?

That Iraq had WMD? Are you serious?

Perhaps you could back that up with a link?

Why not answer for us now? What proof would you need to accept WMD arn't there?

the moon was the location you brought up, as well as Nessie and your hero.

No, I wasn't quoting from a past thread. I was adding an explanation of why you still wouldn't accept there were no WMD if the planet earth was excavated to the depth of a mile. Do you have another explanation?

Here's a thought experiment for you. Elvis lives with the Loch Ness monster. Can you prove he doesn't? Or is it up to me to prove he does? (Try and think through how this relates to Bush's ludicrous claims about WMD)

it can be quite easy to show when someone lies

Agreed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are they all liars? [Re: Xlea321]
    #2446697 -

You all are forgetting that the burden of proof, pursuant to the cease fire agreement, was on Hussein to prove he didn't have them. His violation of that agreement was enough to assume that he still had them.

It's not so easy to prove lies. You have to prove knowledge of the falsity of their claims


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are they all liars? [Re: afoaf]
    #2446779 -

Actually afoaf, Powell and Rice said in February of 2001 not 2000 that Saddam was not a threat. Not even to his neighbors.






--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month: Wild Things- Another Colored Ink Drawing (A.C.I.D.)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are they all liars? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2447078 -

Easy there luvdem...I didn't say anything about you. I was making a comment about a comment, nothing more. :smile:

Try not to be so touchy, eh?

Quote:

Interesting. So will we be seeing this from you when people actually make unprovable claims or will you be saving that just for those from the opposite side of the political fence? You will of course show me where I actually claimed the weapons do still exist?



I was talking about Bush, not you. I don't expect you to prove anything. Bush on the other hand...he has made a claim and used it to fight a war. So far his claim lays groundless...


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are they all liars? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #2447356 -

You all are forgetting that the burden of proof, pursuant to the cease fire agreement

No, all the ceasefire said was Saddam had to "accept the terms" of the ceasefire. It said absolutely nothing like "If you can't prove you've enforced every term in this document we go to war again 12 years from now". That's a very important legal point.

It was up to the UN to decide what they wanted to do if they didn't think Saddam was following UN resolution 687.

His violation of that agreement was enough to assume that he still had them.

That's why the UN sent weapons inspectors in. To find out whether he had them or not.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are they all liars? [Re: Learyfan]
    #2447370 -

Thanks for the correction.

luvdem: is that a liberacchi action figure?!


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are they all liars? [Re: afoaf]
    #2447641 -

afoaf said:
Thanks for the correction.

luvdem: is that a liberacchi action figure?!


Elvis.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are they all liars? [Re: Xlea321]
    #2447669 -

"All the cease fire said was Saddam had to accept the terms of the cease fire" Huh? Iraq should have been invaded the first time he interfered with the inspectors. The first time.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are they all liars? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #2447963 -

zappaisgod writes:

Huh? Iraq should have been invaded the first time he interfered with the inspectors. The first time.

You don't get it. In Lefty Loony land, to "accept" the terms of a ceasefire agreement is to let one of your generals sign the paper, then use the paper to wipe your ass with your left hand and forget all about it.

The only thing that matters is that the paper was signed. You never have to actually do any of the things that paper details. Just sign. That's it, that's all.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are they all liars? [Re: Phred]
    #2448071 -

Oy, I am such an ass.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are they all liars? [Re: Xlea321]
    #2448179 -

Alex123 said:
Why not answer for us now? What proof would you need to accept WMD arn't there?



The presence of the WMD's only indicates a lack of proper intelligence. My belief that it was due to a lack of proper intelligence is conjecture, just as your belief is that it's a lie. Why do you keep dodging the issue? Oh, hah, wait, I see why, its Alex. I'm sorry I thought I was responding to a rational logical member of the board. Carry on with your conjecture, invective, question-dodging and imminent thread derailment!
Quote:
Here's a thought experiment for you. Elvis lives with the Loch Ness monster. Can you prove he doesn't? Or is it up to me to prove he does? (Try and think through how this relates to Bush's ludicrous claims about WMD)



You are confusing the presence of the WMD's with a LIE by the Adminstration. If you were a prosecuting attorney and you prosecuted a man for murder, and DNA evidence later exculpated him, are you a liar, or are you just going on the best intelligence you had available at the time? Not that I think their is any chance in hell that you'll actually answer this question, unless it's with a non sequitor or another question.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are they all liars? [Re: Phred]
    #2448255 -

Hey Pinky - just what is your take on the statements made in 2001 by Powell and Rice where both of them stated categorically that Iraq had been effectively contained and had no active wmd programs?

How is it intelligence changes so quickly?


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are they all liars? [Re: GazzBut]
    #2448977 -

Why is the car behind you at night always a cop when you're carrying?


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are they all liars? [Re: GazzBut]
    #2449347 -

GazzBut asks:

How is it intelligence changes so quickly?

Because that's the nature of intelligence.

How many people suspected the extent of Libya's WMD program? None. How many people suspected North Korea was ignoring the deal Clinton was so proud of? None. How many people anticipated the fall of the Berlin wall and the virtual overnight breakup of the USSR? None. How many people suspected that Hitler was so far behind on the development of a nuclear bomb? None.

How many people suspected the astonishing level of corruption and UN incompetence in the administration of the Oil for Food Program? None. Well, a few, but no one listened, because it was the UN after all.

I don't get your point in asking this question.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are they all liars? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #2449977 -

"All the cease fire said was Saddam had to accept the terms of the cease fire" Huh? Iraq should have been invaded the first time he interfered with the inspectors. The first time.

That isn't how UN ceasefires work. Never has been. The americans were perfectly aware of this. If you want to alter how ceasefires work you should go to the UN and campaign for a change in international law. It's no use agreeing to a UN resolution when it suits you, then throwing it out the window when it doesn't. That's neocon logic.

It's a process designed to stop lunatics launching wars of aggression whenever they feel like it. Unfortunately this time it didn't.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are they all liars? [Re: Phred]
    #2450704 -

My point dear pinky is that the intelligence agencies have been made a scapegoat by the government. If in 2001, it was the intelligence communities considered opinion that Iraq was effectively contained and disarmed which, in light of current knowledge seems to be an accurate assesment, how is it that in the space of 18 months we had arrived at such a dramatically different assesment?

When you look closer you find that alot of the so called intelligence was unverified hearsay. Im amazed you swallow this so easily.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are they all liars? [Re: Xlea321]
    #2451002 -

Right, and ".....if you don't we'll all hold our breath and until we turn blue" was the next clause


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are they all liars? [Re: GazzBut]
    #2451138 -

GazzBut writes:

If in 2001, it was the intelligence communities considered opinion that Iraq was effectively contained and disarmed which, in light of current knowledge seems to be an accurate assesment, how is it that in the space of 18 months we had arrived at such a dramatically different assesment?

The nature of intelligence is that it is not static. It is fluid. Further, raw intelligence often consists of contradictory reports. The stuff intelligence agents gather is often pretty closely-guarded secrets, you realize. Sometimes not all of the secret is ferreted out. Sometimes the intelligence gatherer is reporting not the secret, but the disinformation carefully designed to protect the secret.

Then of course, there is the analysis of the ambiguous, contradictory raw intelligence. It is commonplace for two experienced analysts to review the same data and arrive at opposite conclusions. This should not be any great revelation to you.

When you look closer you find that alot of the so called intelligence was unverified hearsay.

Well, duh! See above.

Im amazed you swallow this so easily.

I don't "swallow" anything. I merely recognize the fact (and demonstrate that fact with some famous examples) that intelligence is not infallible. To claim that someone who judges one interpretation of intelligence to be more likely than another is "lying" is to ignore the inherent nature of intelligence -- especially when just about every intelligence agency in the world agreed upon that interpretation.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are they all liars? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #2451166 -

Right, and ".....if you don't we'll all hold our breath and until we turn blue" was the next clause

Not really the point is it Z. Following your logic Iraq would have far more justification for launching war on Israel than the US had for invading Iraq - Israel has broken UN resolutions for decades.

It works the way it does for a reason.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Are they all liars? [Re: Phred]
    #2451270 -

Quote:
Further, raw intelligence often consists of contradictory reports.



Correct. Which is why by the time politicians are spouting intelligence as fact it is not too much to ask for it to actually be fact. So when Powell and Rice stand up and make such bold pronouncements the information has normally been CHECKED AND VERIFIED and isnt based merely on the word of an Iraqi dissenter who has his own agenda.

Quote:
Then of course, there is the analysis of the ambiguous, contradictory raw intelligence. It is commonplace for two experienced analysts to review the same data and arrive at opposite conclusions. This should not be any great revelation to you.





So you are saying that someone analysed the evidence in 2001, This analysis then lead to the pronouncements by Powell and Rice.
Then what happened? Somebody else analysed it a year later and decided that actually the very same evidence meant that Iraq were the greatest threat to world security since the nazis?
Or perhaps they came to this assumption based on the unverified reports from dissident Iraqis?
It has been widely reported that many people inside the intelligence community both in the uk and the us, felt very uneasy about how these weak reports were being spun by the politicians into incontrevertible fact. The UK resorted to rehashing old essays and inserting clauses such as the 45 minute claim which were not even backed up by any real intelligence.

Quote:
When you look closer you find that alot of the so called intelligence was unverified hearsay.

Well, duh! See above.




What I am saying is that of course some intelligence will be unverified but unverified intelligence shouldnt be passed off as hard fact. How do you think things would have gone if Tony and George had been a little more honest?
like "We think Saddam may have stockpiles of wmd because a few of the people who are now in exile and hate Saddam with a passion have said so, although we havent got a second source on that"
That was the truth. Instead we were treated to tedious emotive rhetoric day in day out designed to make you believe that our governments really knew that there were massive stockpiles of wmd inside Iraq.

Quote:
especially when just about every intelligence agency in the world agreed upon that interpretation.

pinky




Id love to see a source on that one.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Weapons of Minimum Destruction Ravus 949 6 08/23/04 01:55 PM
by retread
* Changing Your Mind and Hypocrisy Sclorch 643 13 07/15/04 11:13 AM
by Learyfan
* USA violates UN laws and other hypocrisy
( 1 2 all )		 Swami 2,063 29 11/01/05 08:51 PM
by Prosgeopax
* Libertarians, War & Consistent Application of Principles
( 1 2 all )		 Autonomous 3,260 27 10/06/03 11:26 AM
by EchoVortex
* US: 'Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction'
( 1 2 all )		 RonoS 1,969 33 05/10/03 11:15 AM
by whiterasta
* I smell hypocrisy!
( 1 2 all )		 luvdemshrooms 1,817 32 03/12/04 12:12 PM
by Anonymous
* Rumsfeld - liar or irresponsible?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Swami 2,765 42 05/11/04 07:15 PM
by Swami
* Joe Biden the liar
( 1 2 all )		 Chemy 4,271 24 08/30/08 12:13 AM
by Prisoner#1

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,447 topic views. 2 members, 62 guests and 27 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 18 queries.