Everyone agrees with me that there were WMD. There's just invalid qualifications such as "there were WMD, but they don't count because Saddam forgot to list them", or "yeah, but they dated to the first Gulf War" or "yeah, they existed but they were hard to launch (the "unmaintained" argument) or the most preposterous one where someone said that the WMD were not WMD at all WMD because they were found in ones and twos.
"If the right-wing echo chamber repeats it a million times, does that count as evidence?"
I have no idea. I stay away from Rush Limbaugh and the right wing. It's a lot more interesting to hear what the left wing says about the facts of Iraq's (former) WMD threat:
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
""He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002"
That's just a couple. There are plenty more where this came from.
"Hans Blix said they didn't have them. Scott Ried said they didn't have them"
In the months prior to the US invasion, Blix's reports detailed new discoveries of prohibited WMD components. As for Scott Reid, I've never heard of him. His name made me think of Scott Ritter, who was paid large sums of money to lie about Saddam not having any WMD. Who is Reid?
There's a junk science fad on right now. I expect to be modded down severely for pointing out that the global warming idea is not supported by evidence, and it is a wonderful example of assumptions driving the data-collection.
"It hasn't actually been proven, so it's not entirely...."
All the evidence supports it, and none contradicts it: it's a very strong explanatory framework. It's been pretty much proven. It is disingenous to use shades of the definition of "theory" to get around that evolution in the common meaning is fact. And yes, those who refuse to "abandon ideas" that have long since been proven false do not deserve any sort of respect for doing this. It is not very justifiable.
Actually, more than 500 have been found (each one being of the type the inspectors were looking for prior to the US invasion, each one specifically prohibited by the various agreements and resolutions in the wake of the first Gulf War, each one containing the prohibited WMD materials, each one still dangerous even if degraded and partially diminished over time, each one that was supposed to have been declared and logged prior to the US invasion...and each one proving "No WMD in Iraq" as a complete lie). Given the facts, it should be 100% who believe this.
As if this isn't confusing enough already, in a few days we'll see a slashdot item: "Backslash: Backlash Against British Encryption Law Against British Law". It might generate some backlash too.
"Joe Blow unlocks his uncrypted files for them, ensure nothing bad will happen to his kids, such as them being forced to perform sex acts on the chief of police."
With such a surname, this might be a problem that everyone in this family might run into.
There was kind of a cumulative effect going on, with Saddam Hussen funding much international terrorism, firing on patrols hundreds of times (cease fire? WHAT cease fire?), other significant violations of the cease fire, the extremely large numbers of deaths due to starvation because Saddam blocked food shipments, and Iraq's strong support for Al Qaeda and similar groups.
"I'm sorry I guess I misunderstood the part where Israel was sitting on its side of the border minding its own business and hezbollah came across and kill 8 soldiers and kidnapped 2 more. If thats not "unprovoked" then what is?"
To these antisemites, Jews provoke such reactions just by being alive. To them, there is no such thing as a Jewish victim.
"but every government in South America would be blaming the Jews for "holding them down" not to mention all of the other ills of their society. I don't know why it would be any different"
...and Hugo Chavez, who blames Jews for all the evils of the last 2000 years, would be rallying the South American nations to kill all the South American Jews...ahem "eliminate the Zionist entity occupying Brasil".
"The Spanish regained the Iberian peninsula, to drive away the Moorish emperors. Under the Moorish, everybody was free to exercise his religious beliefs"
Not at all. The Moors had the typical punishment for non-Muslims (to encourage them to convert), and Muslim religious dictates (such as diet) were forced on non-Muslims as well as Muslims. It was a typical colonial government in that the subjects chafed under colonial rule and could not wait to kick the invaders out.
"Then the Spanish came..."
They did not "come". They were the indiginous people. The Moors were the invaders, not the Spanish. Yes, the Spanish were even less tolerant to religious freedom when they won their land back, but this does not change the fact that the Moors (governing under Muslim law) were not tolerant either. One outrageously unjust system being even worse than another outrageously unjust system does not make the less-bad one "good", and it is entirely untrue that under the Moors that "everybody was free to exercise his religious beliefs".
No, I was not godwin'ing you by implying you were a southern racist. I was using the southern Black situation as a comparison to show that treatment of Jews and other non-Muslims under Islamic law (and the rule of the old Arab Empire) was inhuman, demeaning, and not justifiable in any way).
What's different with the Bible situation is that, with the Q'uran, you had the guy who wrote the book directly founding an empire and running it the way it should be (according to him). This empire followed his decrees into relatively recent historic times. In other words, the well-documented historic legacy of Muhammad's own oppressive Arab empire leaves little doubt as to how Muhammad wanted his own book he wrote to be interpreted.
That's a lot more justification for fundamentalist brutality: a one-two punch.
"Anyone who calls for the extermination of the Jewish people is just as bad and deserves no less than what happened to Germany at the end of the war, and after."
The Iranian president has a lot of defenders here on Slashdot. Much of the defense I've seen on this item rests on the idea that "he only wants to MOVE Israel, not wipe it out". To those who think that there is a big difference:
1) Do you doubt for an instant that if the Israelis refused to budge, that the ones appointed by Iran to "cleanse the area" would not hesitate to kill those who insisted on staying in their home (i.e. most Israelis)?
2) Iran's supposedly nice and peaceful "We just want them to move" (imagine George Carlins sarcastic smooth voice using this in a joke!) intentions are belied by seeing Iranian foreign policy in action: they fund terrorists that mainly kill Jewish civilians. Often, these groups kill Jews no matter where they are (even outside of Israel).
Slashdot Mirror
"The fricking CIA say no WMDs. End of story"
"End of story" only if the story ends 2 years ago. The more more recent DoD report takes into account all of the findings.
Everyone agrees with me that there were WMD. There's just invalid qualifications such as "there were WMD, but they don't count because Saddam forgot to list them", or "yeah, but they dated to the first Gulf War" or "yeah, they existed but they were hard to launch (the "unmaintained" argument) or the most preposterous one where someone said that the WMD were not WMD at all WMD because they were found in ones and twos.
5 547.html
Not to completely rely on my "opponents" who end up destroying their own arguments, here's another link: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006/20060629_
I'm not to blame for your poor reading skills. Learn to use some of the link buttons and browser controls.
"If the right-wing echo chamber repeats it a million times, does that count as evidence?"
I have no idea. I stay away from Rush Limbaugh and the right wing. It's a lot more interesting to hear what the left wing says about the facts of Iraq's (former) WMD threat:
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
""He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002"
That's just a couple. There are plenty more where this came from.
"Hans Blix said they didn't have them. Scott Ried said they didn't have them"
In the months prior to the US invasion, Blix's reports detailed new discoveries of prohibited WMD components. As for Scott Reid, I've never heard of him. His name made me think of Scott Ritter, who was paid large sums of money to lie about Saddam not having any WMD. Who is Reid?
There's a junk science fad on right now. I expect to be modded down severely for pointing out that the global warming idea is not supported by evidence, and it is a wonderful example of assumptions driving the data-collection.
"It hasn't actually been proven, so it's not entirely ...."
All the evidence supports it, and none contradicts it: it's a very strong explanatory framework. It's been pretty much proven. It is disingenous to use shades of the definition of "theory" to get around that evolution in the common meaning is fact. And yes, those who refuse to "abandon ideas" that have long since been proven false do not deserve any sort of respect for doing this. It is not very justifiable.
"but 50% still believe we found WMDs in Iraq"
Actually, more than 500 have been found (each one being of the type the inspectors were looking for prior to the US invasion, each one specifically prohibited by the various agreements and resolutions in the wake of the first Gulf War, each one containing the prohibited WMD materials, each one still dangerous even if degraded and partially diminished over time, each one that was supposed to have been declared and logged prior to the US invasion...and each one proving "No WMD in Iraq" as a complete lie). Given the facts, it should be 100% who believe this.
"We don't believe in global warming"
That particular one, unlike the others, is junk "science".
"Ape evolved from man, not the other way around!"
The second report is rather objective.
Not enough soap opera games for that!
As if this isn't confusing enough already, in a few days we'll see a slashdot item: "Backslash: Backlash Against British Encryption Law Against British Law". It might generate some backlash too.
...and it could have been a worse example: Joe Bleauxkaapz
Regardless, I know as soon as I get one, I'll have it filled within 8 months.
"Joe Blow unlocks his uncrypted files for them, ensure nothing bad will happen to his kids, such as them being forced to perform sex acts on the chief of police."
With such a surname, this might be a problem that everyone in this family might run into.
I suppose it makes coding in APL (without documentation) a crime.
There was kind of a cumulative effect going on, with Saddam Hussen funding much international terrorism, firing on patrols hundreds of times (cease fire? WHAT cease fire?), other significant violations of the cease fire, the extremely large numbers of deaths due to starvation because Saddam blocked food shipments, and Iraq's strong support for Al Qaeda and similar groups.
"I'm sorry I guess I misunderstood the part where Israel was sitting on its side of the border minding its own business and hezbollah came across and kill 8 soldiers and kidnapped 2 more. If thats not "unprovoked" then what is?"
To these antisemites, Jews provoke such reactions just by being alive. To them, there is no such thing as a Jewish victim.
"but every government in South America would be blaming the Jews for "holding them down" not to mention all of the other ills of their society. I don't know why it would be any different"
...and Hugo Chavez, who blames Jews for all the evils of the last 2000 years, would be rallying the South American nations to kill all the South American Jews...ahem "eliminate the Zionist entity occupying Brasil".
"The Spanish regained the Iberian peninsula, to drive away the Moorish emperors. Under the Moorish, everybody was free to exercise his religious beliefs"
Not at all. The Moors had the typical punishment for non-Muslims (to encourage them to convert), and Muslim religious dictates (such as diet) were forced on non-Muslims as well as Muslims. It was a typical colonial government in that the subjects chafed under colonial rule and could not wait to kick the invaders out.
"Then the Spanish came..."
They did not "come". They were the indiginous people. The Moors were the invaders, not the Spanish. Yes, the Spanish were even less tolerant to religious freedom when they won their land back, but this does not change the fact that the Moors (governing under Muslim law) were not tolerant either. One outrageously unjust system being even worse than another outrageously unjust system does not make the less-bad one "good", and it is entirely untrue that under the Moors that "everybody was free to exercise his religious beliefs".
"I assume this would be the WMDs that the government has categorically said that it turns out that Iraq didn't have"
Actually, they have found hundreds of them.
"I am an atheist. This means I believe in one less god then you."
You have just declared your religion. I have yet to declare mine. For all I know, I could have several gods.
No, I was not godwin'ing you by implying you were a southern racist. I was using the southern Black situation as a comparison to show that treatment of Jews and other non-Muslims under Islamic law (and the rule of the old Arab Empire) was inhuman, demeaning, and not justifiable in any way).
What's different with the Bible situation is that, with the Q'uran, you had the guy who wrote the book directly founding an empire and running it the way it should be (according to him). This empire followed his decrees into relatively recent historic times. In other words, the well-documented historic legacy of Muhammad's own oppressive Arab empire leaves little doubt as to how Muhammad wanted his own book he wrote to be interpreted.
That's a lot more justification for fundamentalist brutality: a one-two punch.
"Anyone who calls for the extermination of the Jewish people is just as bad and deserves no less than what happened to Germany at the end of the war, and after."
The Iranian president has a lot of defenders here on Slashdot. Much of the defense I've seen on this item rests on the idea that "he only wants to MOVE Israel, not wipe it out". To those who think that there is a big difference:
1) Do you doubt for an instant that if the Israelis refused to budge, that the ones appointed by Iran to "cleanse the area" would not hesitate to kill those who insisted on staying in their home (i.e. most Israelis)?
2) Iran's supposedly nice and peaceful "We just want them to move" (imagine George Carlins sarcastic smooth voice using this in a joke!) intentions are belied by seeing Iranian foreign policy in action: they fund terrorists that mainly kill Jewish civilians. Often, these groups kill Jews no matter where they are (even outside of Israel).