It wasn't in the US. I would never eat raw chicken raised on factories in the US. OTOH if I knew the origins of the animal and I knew that it was raised in good conditions and freshly killed I would have no problems eating raw chicken again.
"I submit to you that both of those people are lying to cover their asses. Both of them have continually lied to advance their own agenda. Both of them feel no moral or ethical obligation to their citizens and that both of them are on a religious jihad to kill the infidels."
"And I'd agree."
Now you are contradicting yourself. You said that you did trust and believe bush.
Anyway this is going nowhere. You are convinced that Saddam had WMDs just before the war. There is no evidence for this, none have been found, he never used them, nobody ever saw them, no traces of them exist anywhere and yet you believe it nevertheless. To you it's a matter of faith like a belief in god. You don't need evidence you just believe. There is nothing anybody can say to you that would change your mind.
If you are evil enough to shoot women and children in the back then you don't me to justify your actions.
" can imagine you being herded into the gas chamber shouting, "At least they don't control the Internet!""
In this day and age I can certainly see many scenarios that involve me being shepherded into a gas chamber. It's sad but history seems to be repeating itself. I do not think however it will be MS or Bill Gates who will lead me to the chambers, Bill Gates seems content to simply control information and does not seem too interested in keeping concentration camps. Bush and Ashcroft on the other hand seem to have established numerous concentration camps all across the world.
As you have pointed out there are consequenses to eating things your body was not designed to eat. Obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer are a few examples.
"So wait a second. You reject the fact that Saddam ever had weapons of mass destruction? "
Of course not. We gave him WMDs ourselves during the iran iraq war. He used them against the Iranians and the Kurds. The UN security council drafted a resolution to condemn Iraq for using chemical weapons against civilians but the Reagan Administration vetoed it.
"Or you're saying they were all destroyed 10 years ago? "
They were all destroyed or have decayed to the point of being mostly harmless.
"and there's no reason to believe they were all destroyed."
There is plenty of reason to believe this. There are documents, there are dump sites, there are eye witnesses. You choose to ignore that evidence and pretend that it does not exist.
"I assume you mean Iraq, not UN? Here's evidence that Iraq had WMDs:"
Once gain see my post above about the presence of WMDs in Iraq during the past 20 years. I do not dispute that they had them in 1991.
"As for whether Iraq had WMD in quantity to threaten the US. Well, they certainly had the quantity to threaten the US, as any quantity of WMD is enough to threaten the US. I don't think they were an actual threat, though, because they didn't have the ability to deploy those WMD on the US."
This is truly twisted logic. If you claim that that a teaspoon of chemical agents is a bone fide threat to the United States then my house should be bombed by the United States. Surely I can mix together enough Amonia and Bleach or make up some mustard gas in a bucket right?
"Without evidence that the weapons were destroyed, I'm going to assume they still existed. My evidence is right here."
Once again there is plenty of evidence that the weapons were destroyed. Maybe not a 100% but mostly. Also please note that your link does not prove the existance of WMDs in Iraq just before the war. Nor does it prove that Iraq was about to use these weapons against the United States. It simply points to a series of UN resolutions which are not conclusive of anything. As I said before the US drafted a resolution to condemn Iraq which was blocked by the US. the UN security council drafts resolutions all day long which does not prove anything.
"But this isn't a political discussion anyway. This is a question of facts and evidence."
And yet you continue to believe that WMDs exist despite the fact that nobody can find them. This is like people believing in God even though no evidence exists for his existance. Surely a pre-war inspection team, a post war inspection team and during the war military inspections would have found something. Some storage tank, some maufacturing plant, some barrels with residue, some eyewitness. Besides if he had them he would have used them.
"But when it comes down to a question of trusting the former Iraqi regime and the current Bush one, I'll take Bush. "
You limitation is in thinking that those are your only choices. You somehow think that Either Bush is telling the truth or Saddam is. I submit to you that both of those people are lying to cover their asses. Both of them have continually lied to advance their own agenda. Both of them feel no moral or ethical obligation to their citizens and that both of them are on a religious jihad to kill the infidels.
"But that doesn't mean there were no WMD in the first place. And it doesn't mean they were all destroyed when they were supposed to be."
Where are they? If he had them how come he didn't use them? What happened to all the places that were used to manufacture and store them? What happened to all the vehicles that were used to transport them? What happened to all the people who worked in those places?
Here I'll ask even a harder question.
Why is our intelligence and Military so inept? If Saddam had WMDs how is it that we did not know where they were? Why was the Military waging a war against an enemy armed with chemical and biological weapons (and maybe even nuclear ones) without knowing where these weapon
It would be much worse. Your ability to find information relevant to you on the internet would be taken away. MS would have total control over what information you are allowed to see and how you are allowed to see it. MS would control the very thing that separates you from the animals, the ability to pass information from one person to next and from one generation to next.
Kill a few million people, you are evil. Destroy the very thing that defines humanity, you are beyond evil.
The human body was not designed to eat wheat or rice. Go ahead I dare you to eat a handful of wheat or a handful or rice from raw from the plant. Even if you managed to soak the wheat kernels and ate them you could not eat more then a 1/4 cup before being stuffed to the gills.
OTOH you can eat ten times that amount of wheat every day if it's in the form of bread or pasta.
If you want to eat food that your body was designed for go on a raw food diet. That's the way your body was designed to eat.
"but the fact he's arguing that Saddam has had them in the apparently recent past and that this was and is a serious issue does not make him a blind Bush supporter or war-mongerer."
His insistance on this fact despite the lack of any evidence does make him deluded though. Rational people don't believe in things that are not supported by evidence. Iraq has had at least a decade of scrutiny by the US and the UN. We overflew them daily during both the Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr administrations. We monitored all their communications, we spied on them with sattelites and with human intelligence. There was a pre-war inspection regime by the UN and a post war combing over the country by the US.
After all that not one shred of evidence exists that UN had any WMDs let alone anything in quantity to threaten the US.
Why shouldn't Anthony's belief be challanged? Why shouldn't I presume that the only reason he believes this fact is because he unconditionally believes what this administration tells him? He has not even attempted to bother pointing to any evidence for his viewpoint whatsoever.
Most liberterians I know are rational people. They don't believe in things without evidence. They certainly have a healthy distrust of the govt and are well aware of the tendency of governments to lie and delude the populace. I have a very hard time believing that Anthony is a liberterian. He simply does not talk one. He does talk like a republican though.
"They had a program. They (clearly) don't have a program any more."
When did they have a program. Was this program ever producing a threat to the United States?
"If I knew this I certainly wouldn't be telling you."
You are not alone. Nobody else seems to know either. Not the UN inspectors and not the US inspectors. Maybe that's because they don't exist. It seems silly to claim that something exists when there is no evidence for it don't you think?
"Of course they were lying."
I am glad we agree on this. Taking a country to war on a presime of lies is a pretty evil offence in my book. If we could impeach a president for lying about his cock you'd think we can impeach one for lying about war don't you think?
"I see no mention of "written records" of the destruction of the WMD."
If you recall the UN inspection regime collected thousands of docouments and turned them over to the US, UN, Russia and a handful of other countries. Many of these documents dealt with the destruction of WMDs. It did not however account for 100% of the known WMDs which the iraqis claimed were destroyed but somehow lost the documentation. Thus another round of inspections were put in place which was abruptly ended when the US told the inspectors to get out lest they get killed by our bombs.
All this was widely reported by the US news media as well as international press. I am shocked that you are ignorant of them.
Clintons actions in Somalia and Bosnia (and haiti which you did not mention) were very different. First of all they came with the blessing and co-operation of the UN and NATO. Secondly they were humaniterian wars from the get go. They also enjoyed worldwide approval if not support. The notable exception to wordwide approval was the republicans in the US who objected. Finally all those actions ended up with the US leaving the country and turning the reconstruction over to the UN with a minimal NATO military presense. In the case of Kosovo the rulers were handed over to the international courts to be tried. Also we did not hold tens of thousands of foreign fighters in concentration camps by calling them "illegal combatants". Finally we did not take over the natural resources of any of those countries once the war was over. Currently all the oil wells in Iraq are under the control of the US military. They will be divvied up amongst the "coalition of the willing" with the vast majority going to US companies.
The differences between Clinton's execution and Bushs's is night and day.
"I don't know. I don't care. I wasn't talking about the program. I was talking about the WMD (that stands for weapons of mass destruction, note the lack of the word program)."
How did they get the WMDs without a program to manufacture them? WHere did they store the WMDs? How were they planning on deploying the WMDs?
"I never said anything about an attack on America being imminent either. Way to jump to conclusions."
George Bush said that and so did Dick Cheny and Colin Powell. Apparently you think they were lying.
In case you don't trust that source here is a few more on the same topic. http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1220712.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3118462.s tm http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200309/FOR 20 030918c.shtml
There were weapons inspections going on until a few days before the bombing started. Iraq was co-operating by and large. Sure it may not have benn 100% co-operation but there is no dispute that the inspection was free to travel anywhere including the palaces.
"had made public its support of terrorism against one of our allies (Israel) was, in my opinion, enough reason to overthrow Saddam. To say nothing of his continual human rights violations: genocide, political executions, etc.."
If those were the reasons for going to war then Bush should have made that clear. He should have said simply that we will invade, bomb, and occupy any nation that threatens israel and/or violates human rights, or practices genocide or political executions. I don't remember anybody arguing before the war that those were the reasons.
Now that the big lie WMDs has been exposed the republicans have retroactively made th war about protecting israel and punishing saddam for human rights violations.
I for one do not think that the US military should be used to invade and occupy countries that threaten Israel. Israel has over 200 nukes and is the fourth or fifth most powerful military in the world. It has modern armaments, missiles and jets and has enough capacity to kill all the human beings on this planet many times over. They do not need us to fight wars for them. We already give them 5 to 10 billion dollars a year we don't need to fight wars for them too.
I am however in favor of the US military attacking and occupying all nations in which genocide, human rights violations and political executions are routine. Whether or not they have oil.
If GW told me that we were going to war to end human rights violations and genocide all over the world he has my 100% support.
Hussein (and the rest of the world) knew full well that george bush wanted to bomb iraq. He knew deterrence was not a factor.
If he wanted to deter he would have said that he had them and threatened to use them against israel. Instead he said he didn't have them and let the weapons inspections in the country and pretty much let them go whereever they wanted.
Once the attack started he had several days to use them before Bagdad was lit up by bombs. He still did not use them or even threaten to use them.
Where is the program? The factories? the trucks used to transport them? The storage facilities? The scientists? The laborers and the janitors? The guards and soldiers? Where is the paperwork that must have existed to produce WMDs in sufficient quantity to ender the lives of all Americans.
Since an attack on America was imminent by Iraq they must have not only had tons of WMDs but also means to transporting them to the US so where are the missiles or ships? I don't think they were planning to attack the US with a bucket full of mustard gas were they? Where are the atomizers? the catalysts? Where are the other chemicals to stabilize and refine biological agents? Where are the growing tanks for all the biological agents? Were they being incubated in a thermos or a yogurt maker?
They were dumped into the ground or stored in barrels.
"How do you know they were destroyed?"
There are written records of the destruction. There are also residues in the places where they dumped them.
"Where are the remains of them?"
There are detectable amounts left in the dumping grounds. The UN inspection team has documented them.
"They disintegrated into nothing without so much as a trace of their existence or evidence of their destruction. Interesting theory."
No not quite that way. Over time they do disintegrate into mostly harmless chemicals but as I said there is plenty of evidence that they were destroyed. Not only documents but eye witnesses and such. Many top Iraqi officials have been captured and "interrogated" in cuba, kuwait, quatar, and israel. Some of those were interviewed by the UN inspection team before the war when they were not being "pressured" during "interrogation".
The facts are out there. You choose to ignore them or not believe them. That is your option I guess but just because you ignore facts that does not mean they don't exist.
The FSF would like nothing better then to have the GPL be invalidated completely. It would mean that all EULAS are invalid. Like you said the GPL is just another EULA.
Imagine a world in which EULAs are not worth the paper they are written on. RMS would grin from ear to ear.
The beauty of the GPL is that it uses copyright low itself to threaten EULAS. You can't take down the GPL without taking down the foundations of all software licences and even copyright itself.
You have no idea the exact location where the picture was taken. It was clearly taken outside, most likely it was from the sidewalk as the persno was walking.
"The company policy very clearly states that no employee is allowed to take photos of areas unaccessable to the general public"
The image in the picture is accessable to anybody walking down the same sidewalk.
"If caught, the film will be confiscated and it is grounds for immediate termination."
The film was not confiscated so this clause of the contract clearly does not apply.
"Hey, guess what happened. He got sacked."
Yes because he worked for an evil petty company who thinks so little of their employees that they will fire them for the flimsiest of reasons. God help you if you work for MS and show up late for work one day or wear the wrong clothes or say the wrong thing. Clearly MS will fire any employee for whatever minor offense their supervisor wants to pick out of the employye handbook or the contract.
I guess you would not expect any better from a company known for their lies and sleazy behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
It wasn't in the US. I would never eat raw chicken raised on factories in the US. OTOH if I knew the origins of the animal and I knew that it was raised in good conditions and freshly killed I would have no problems eating raw chicken again.
"I submit to you that both of those people are lying to cover their asses. Both of them have continually lied to advance their own agenda. Both of them feel no moral or ethical obligation to their citizens and that both of them are on a religious jihad to kill the infidels."
"And I'd agree."
Now you are contradicting yourself. You said that you did trust and believe bush.
Anyway this is going nowhere. You are convinced that Saddam had WMDs just before the war. There is no evidence for this, none have been found, he never used them, nobody ever saw them, no traces of them exist anywhere and yet you believe it nevertheless. To you it's a matter of faith like a belief in god. You don't need evidence you just believe. There is nothing anybody can say to you that would change your mind.
If you are evil enough to shoot women and children in the back then you don't me to justify your actions.
" can imagine you being herded into the gas chamber shouting, "At least they don't control the Internet!""
In this day and age I can certainly see many scenarios that involve me being shepherded into a gas chamber. It's sad but history seems to be repeating itself. I do not think however it will be MS or Bill Gates who will lead me to the chambers, Bill Gates seems content to simply control information and does not seem too interested in keeping concentration camps. Bush and Ashcroft on the other hand seem to have established numerous concentration camps all across the world.
I have eaten raw beef before and raw chicken and fish too. No big deal I felt fine. I eat sushi quite a bit come to think of it.
As you have pointed out there are consequenses to eating things your body was not designed to eat. Obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer are a few examples.
"So wait a second. You reject the fact that Saddam ever had weapons of mass destruction? "
Of course not. We gave him WMDs ourselves during the iran iraq war. He used them against the Iranians and the Kurds. The UN security council drafted a resolution to condemn Iraq for using chemical weapons against civilians but the Reagan Administration vetoed it.
"Or you're saying they were all destroyed 10 years ago? "
They were all destroyed or have decayed to the point of being mostly harmless.
"and there's no reason to believe they were all destroyed."
There is plenty of reason to believe this. There are documents, there are dump sites, there are eye witnesses. You choose to ignore that evidence and pretend that it does not exist.
"I assume you mean Iraq, not UN? Here's evidence that Iraq had WMDs:"
Once gain see my post above about the presence of WMDs in Iraq during the past 20 years. I do not dispute that they had them in 1991.
"As for whether Iraq had WMD in quantity to threaten the US. Well, they certainly had the quantity to threaten the US, as any quantity of WMD is enough to threaten the US. I don't think they were an actual threat, though, because they didn't have the ability to deploy those WMD on the US."
This is truly twisted logic. If you claim that that a teaspoon of chemical agents is a bone fide threat to the United States then my house should be bombed by the United States. Surely I can mix together enough Amonia and Bleach or make up some mustard gas in a bucket right?
"Without evidence that the weapons were destroyed, I'm going to assume they still existed. My evidence is right here."
Once again there is plenty of evidence that the weapons were destroyed. Maybe not a 100% but mostly. Also please note that your link does not prove the existance of WMDs in Iraq just before the war. Nor does it prove that Iraq was about to use these weapons against the United States. It simply points to a series of UN resolutions which are not conclusive of anything. As I said before the US drafted a resolution to condemn Iraq which was blocked by the US. the UN security council drafts resolutions all day long which does not prove anything.
"But this isn't a political discussion anyway. This is a question of facts and evidence."
And yet you continue to believe that WMDs exist despite the fact that nobody can find them. This is like people believing in God even though no evidence exists for his existance. Surely a pre-war inspection team, a post war inspection team and during the war military inspections would have found something. Some storage tank, some maufacturing plant, some barrels with residue, some eyewitness. Besides if he had them he would have used them.
"But when it comes down to a question of trusting the former Iraqi regime and the current Bush one, I'll take Bush. "
You limitation is in thinking that those are your only choices. You somehow think that Either Bush is telling the truth or Saddam is. I submit to you that both of those people are lying to cover their asses. Both of them have continually lied to advance their own agenda. Both of them feel no moral or ethical obligation to their citizens and that both of them are on a religious jihad to kill the infidels.
"But that doesn't mean there were no WMD in the first place. And it doesn't mean they were all destroyed when they were supposed to be."
Where are they? If he had them how come he didn't use them? What happened to all the places that were used to manufacture and store them? What happened to all the vehicles that were used to transport them? What happened to all the people who worked in those places?
Here I'll ask even a harder question.
Why is our intelligence and Military so inept? If Saddam had WMDs how is it that we did not know where they were? Why was the Military waging a war against an enemy armed with chemical and biological weapons (and maybe even nuclear ones) without knowing where these weapon
It would be much worse. Your ability to find information relevant to you on the internet would be taken away. MS would have total control over what information you are allowed to see and how you are allowed to see it. MS would control the very thing that separates you from the animals, the ability to pass information from one person to next and from one generation to next.
Kill a few million people, you are evil. Destroy the very thing that defines humanity, you are beyond evil.
The DNS registry worked great under the govt. When it was privatized it went to hell.
The human body was not designed to eat wheat or rice. Go ahead I dare you to eat a handful of wheat or a handful or rice from raw from the plant. Even if you managed to soak the wheat kernels and ate them you could not eat more then a 1/4 cup before being stuffed to the gills.
OTOH you can eat ten times that amount of wheat every day if it's in the form of bread or pasta.
If you want to eat food that your body was designed for go on a raw food diet. That's the way your body was designed to eat.
Flamebait?
Why doesn't slashdot just give up and put a -1 "I am a republican and people who disagree with me don't deserve to get read" moderation option.
"but the fact he's arguing that Saddam has had them in the apparently recent past and that this was and is a serious issue does not make him a blind Bush supporter or war-mongerer."
His insistance on this fact despite the lack of any evidence does make him deluded though. Rational people don't believe in things that are not supported by evidence. Iraq has had at least a decade of scrutiny by the US and the UN. We overflew them daily during both the Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr administrations. We monitored all their communications, we spied on them with sattelites and with human intelligence. There was a pre-war inspection regime by the UN and a post war combing over the country by the US.
After all that not one shred of evidence exists that UN had any WMDs let alone anything in quantity to threaten the US.
Why shouldn't Anthony's belief be challanged? Why shouldn't I presume that the only reason he believes this fact is because he unconditionally believes what this administration tells him? He has not even attempted to bother pointing to any evidence for his viewpoint whatsoever.
Most liberterians I know are rational people. They don't believe in things without evidence. They certainly have a healthy distrust of the govt and are well aware of the tendency of governments to lie and delude the populace. I have a very hard time believing that Anthony is a liberterian. He simply does not talk one. He does talk like a republican though.
"They had a program. They (clearly) don't have a program any more."
When did they have a program. Was this program ever producing a threat to the United States?
"If I knew this I certainly wouldn't be telling you."
You are not alone. Nobody else seems to know either. Not the UN inspectors and not the US inspectors. Maybe that's because they don't exist. It seems silly to claim that something exists when there is no evidence for it don't you think?
"Of course they were lying."
I am glad we agree on this. Taking a country to war on a presime of lies is a pretty evil offence in my book. If we could impeach a president for lying about his cock you'd think we can impeach one for lying about war don't you think?
"It doesn't."
I am glad you admitted that.
"I see no mention of "written records" of the destruction of the WMD."
If you recall the UN inspection regime collected thousands of docouments and turned them over to the US, UN, Russia and a handful of other countries. Many of these documents dealt with the destruction of WMDs. It did not however account for 100% of the known WMDs which the iraqis claimed were destroyed but somehow lost the documentation. Thus another round of inspections were put in place which was abruptly ended when the US told the inspectors to get out lest they get killed by our bombs.
All this was widely reported by the US news media as well as international press. I am shocked that you are ignorant of them.
Clintons actions in Somalia and Bosnia (and haiti which you did not mention) were very different. First of all they came with the blessing and co-operation of the UN and NATO. Secondly they were humaniterian wars from the get go. They also enjoyed worldwide approval if not support. The notable exception to wordwide approval was the republicans in the US who objected. Finally all those actions ended up with the US leaving the country and turning the reconstruction over to the UN with a minimal NATO military presense. In the case of Kosovo the rulers were handed over to the international courts to be tried. Also we did not hold tens of thousands of foreign fighters in concentration camps by calling them "illegal combatants". Finally we did not take over the natural resources of any of those countries once the war was over. Currently all the oil wells in Iraq are under the control of the US military. They will be divvied up amongst the "coalition of the willing" with the vast majority going to US companies.
The differences between Clinton's execution and Bushs's is night and day.
"I don't know. I don't care. I wasn't talking about the program. I was talking about the WMD (that stands for weapons of mass destruction, note the lack of the word program)."
How did they get the WMDs without a program to manufacture them? WHere did they store the WMDs? How were they planning on deploying the WMDs?
"I never said anything about an attack on America being imminent either. Way to jump to conclusions."
George Bush said that and so did Dick Cheny and Colin Powell. Apparently you think they were lying.
In what way does the link you provide or the passage you quote prove that Saddam had/has weapons of mass destruction?
q /j ustify/2003/0918spin.htm
l s tm R 20 030918c.shtml
How is intelmessages.org somehow a world recognized authority on WMD? It seems like they don't even pretend to be a objective source.
Here is what Hans Blix the guy in charge of the weapons program had to say.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/ira
In case you don't trust that source here is a few more on the same topic.
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1220712.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3118462.
http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200309/FO
There were weapons inspections going on until a few days before the bombing started. Iraq was co-operating by and large. Sure it may not have benn 100% co-operation but there is no dispute that the inspection was free to travel anywhere including the palaces.
"had made public its support of terrorism against one of our allies (Israel) was, in my opinion, enough reason to overthrow Saddam. To say nothing of his continual human rights violations: genocide, political executions, etc.."
If those were the reasons for going to war then Bush should have made that clear. He should have said simply that we will invade, bomb, and occupy any nation that threatens israel and/or violates human rights, or practices genocide or political executions. I don't remember anybody arguing before the war that those were the reasons.
Now that the big lie WMDs has been exposed the republicans have retroactively made th war about protecting israel and punishing saddam for human rights violations.
I for one do not think that the US military should be used to invade and occupy countries that threaten Israel. Israel has over 200 nukes and is the fourth or fifth most powerful military in the world. It has modern armaments, missiles and jets and has enough capacity to kill all the human beings on this planet many times over. They do not need us to fight wars for them. We already give them 5 to 10 billion dollars a year we don't need to fight wars for them too.
I am however in favor of the US military attacking and occupying all nations in which genocide, human rights violations and political executions are routine. Whether or not they have oil.
If GW told me that we were going to war to end human rights violations and genocide all over the world he has my 100% support.
Wow. I guess there is no real difference between clinton and bush then.
"Deterrence."
Hussein (and the rest of the world) knew full well that george bush wanted to bomb iraq. He knew deterrence was not a factor.
If he wanted to deter he would have said that he had them and threatened to use them against israel. Instead he said he didn't have them and let the weapons inspections in the country and pretty much let them go whereever they wanted.
Once the attack started he had several days to use them before Bagdad was lit up by bombs. He still did not use them or even threaten to use them.
He did not have have WMDs. Bush lied.
Where is the program? The factories? the trucks used to transport them? The storage facilities? The scientists? The laborers and the janitors? The guards and soldiers? Where is the paperwork that must have existed to produce WMDs in sufficient quantity to ender the lives of all Americans.
Since an attack on America was imminent by Iraq they must have not only had tons of WMDs but also means to transporting them to the US so where are the missiles or ships? I don't think they were planning to attack the US with a bucket full of mustard gas were they? Where are the atomizers? the catalysts? Where are the other chemicals to stabilize and refine biological agents? Where are the growing tanks for all the biological agents? Were they being incubated in a thermos or a yogurt maker?
"Where are they?"
They were dumped into the ground or stored in barrels.
"How do you know they were destroyed?"
There are written records of the destruction. There are also residues in the places where they dumped them.
"Where are the remains of them?"
There are detectable amounts left in the dumping grounds. The UN inspection team has documented them.
"They disintegrated into nothing without so much as a trace of their existence or evidence of their destruction. Interesting theory."
No not quite that way. Over time they do disintegrate into mostly harmless chemicals but as I said there is plenty of evidence that they were destroyed. Not only documents but eye witnesses and such. Many top Iraqi officials have been captured and "interrogated" in cuba, kuwait, quatar, and israel. Some of those were interviewed by the UN inspection team before the war when they were not being "pressured" during "interrogation".
The facts are out there. You choose to ignore them or not believe them. That is your option I guess but just because you ignore facts that does not mean they don't exist.
Funding SCO. It's like when the so called islamic charities fund terrorists.
The exact same thing. MS is funding SCO terrorism.
The FSF would like nothing better then to have the GPL be invalidated completely. It would mean that all EULAS are invalid. Like you said the GPL is just another EULA.
Imagine a world in which EULAs are not worth the paper they are written on. RMS would grin from ear to ear.
The beauty of the GPL is that it uses copyright low itself to threaten EULAS. You can't take down the GPL without taking down the foundations of all software licences and even copyright itself.
You have no idea the exact location where the picture was taken. It was clearly taken outside, most likely it was from the sidewalk as the persno was walking.
"The company policy very clearly states that no employee is allowed to take photos of areas unaccessable to the general public"
The image in the picture is accessable to anybody walking down the same sidewalk.
"If caught, the film will be confiscated and it is grounds for immediate termination."
The film was not confiscated so this clause of the contract clearly does not apply.
"Hey, guess what happened. He got sacked."
Yes because he worked for an evil petty company who thinks so little of their employees that they will fire them for the flimsiest of reasons. God help you if you work for MS and show up late for work one day or wear the wrong clothes or say the wrong thing. Clearly MS will fire any employee for whatever minor offense their supervisor wants to pick out of the employye handbook or the contract.
I guess you would not expect any better from a company known for their lies and sleazy behavior.
Of course they do. Just like I own the land that my house is on. Does that mean my neighborhood is a private campus?
The streets and sidewalks on the MS "campus" are public property. Please get informed.