WMD Mega-Thread

[Coronach]

Faustulus-

True enough re: Occam's razor. A pity, though, that I was not talking about the question of why we haven't found them, but why we keep having "finds," then retractions. This is very much not the same issue.

Also, as to why we haven't found them thus far? Sure..."they're not there" is very simple indeed. However, it ignores several key pieces of circumstantial evidence, and a whole host of prior data (like several thousand gassed Kurds). Occam's razor is the simplest explainatition for all of the data. And even though it is admirable for its parsimony, it is not always correct.

Quite nearly as simple and more in line with the (admittedly) circumstantial case is "they're very well hidden, or dumped."

One way or the other, we'll eventually see.

Mike

 

[DonQatU]

Coronach,

A pity, though, that I was not talking about the question of why we haven't found them, but why we keep having "finds," then retractions. This is very much not the same issue.

Oh..... it's VERY MUCH THE SAME ISSUE! They are STILL imbedded journalists. Our are you saying they're free to report all they see? I think they're free to report all they're fed.

There are NEVER retractions of false reports.

Did you ever hear a retraction of the "Baby Incubator" story in GWI?!!!!


http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3589/us-iraq-lie.html

Don

 

[Coronach]

Don-

Reread my post, Faustulus' response, and my rebuttal. We are not talking about the same thing. The failure to find 'WMD' is related to, but not logically the same as, a tendency for journalists to publicize false positives. If you cannot see the difference, well...I'm perfectly willing to decalre you the 'winner' in this debate to save everyone else time and bandwidth.

As to whether or not they're free to report everything they see, I'm sure they're not, and they have said as much- operational security, etc. However, if you're trying to suggest that they are now just spewing what the gov't wants them to spew, I'd suggest that you're off base. I'd also advise you to consider my original point- if you are running a disinformation campaign, how does putting out false reports, which are later easily proven false, help you in your ultimate goal of...of...whatever the Illuminati are doing?

Mike

 

[SkunkApe]

"...if you are running a disinformation campaign, how does putting out false reports, which are later easily proven false, help you in your ultimate goal of...of...whatever the Illuminati are doing?" -coronach

coronach,

The reason for doing this is to create the general impression that WMDs are being found all over Iraq. The embedded journalists release the original story with great fanfare. When the eventual retraction comes, its back page news. The lasting impression is that we have found WMDs. Just look at the the beliefs of the intelligent people in this one thread alone. People actually believe that WMDs were discovered in Iraq. Heck, there was even one person who still believed the baby-incubator story.


The question is not if Hussein ever had WMDs, its obvious that he did prior to 1991. The question is whether he had them in 2003. And so far, there is no proof of that.

A larger question should be, "why can't Iraq have WMDs?" We have WMDs, Israel has WMDs, North Korea even brags about its WMDs. Don't nation states have a right to defend themselves? The attack of Kuwait doesn't seem to be an answer, as the U.S. has attacked many more countries recently than has Iraq. In 1981, Israel flew jets to Iraq and destroyed its nuclear facility. The countries were not at war. What was the U.S. response? If Iraq had bombed Israel's nuclear facilities, what would be the U.S. response? Is there a double standard here? Why?

 

[DonQatU]

Excellent post Skunkape!

And coronach, I don't remember mentioning anything about the "Illuminati" in any of my posts. I really don't know why you are trying to attribute comments about the "Illuminati" to me. UNLESS you are trying to discredit my comments about the Office of Special Plans.

You might want to do a little research on the OSP. You don't need a tinfoil hat to recognize they specialize in doctoring intell to suite their agenda.

Sorry, no conspiracy, just a purposeful agenda!

Don

 

[Drjones]

A larger question should be, "why can't Iraq have WMDs?" We have WMDs, Israel has WMDs, North Korea even brags about its WMDs.

You can honestly, seriously, with a straight face tell me that you have no problem with countries like Iraq and Syria having WMD, but you DO have a prob with the US having them?

As an analogy, you have no problem with criminals owning guns?

 

[Drjones]

The reason for doing this is to create the general impression that WMDs are being found all over Iraq. The embedded journalists release the original story with great fanfare. When the eventual retraction comes, its back page news. The lasting impression is that we have found WMDs. Just look at the the beliefs of the intelligent people in this one thread alone. People actually believe that WMDs were discovered in Iraq. Heck, there was even one person who still believed the baby-incubator story.

Though you do raise a good point about the retraction being a back-page story, you make a HUGE assumption that the media is overwhelmingly pro-war, and would falsely report findings of WMD, thus further proving Bush and the pro-war side to be in the right.

I'd love to see you document THAT assertion.

One last bit:

If Iraq doesn't have WMD, and we haven't found even a *shred* of evidence, what do you make of the underground nuclear facility that was (falsely, I'm sure) uncovered?

Maybe you'd like to ask france about it, since they sold it to Iraq. (well, not really, since we all know iraq doesn't have WMD, and france isn't one of Iraq's biggest trade partners. )

 

[Drjones]

The question is not if Hussein ever had WMDs, its obvious that he did prior to 1991. The question is whether he had them in 2003. And so far, there is no proof of that.

You are wrong. He's had them AFTER 1991.

Since don keeps ignoring my questions, perhaps you can answer these for me:

-Why did the UN pass 14 resolutions pertaining to Iraq?

-What EXACTLY was the purpose of those 14 resolutions?

 

[DonQatU]

If Iraq doesn't have WMD, and we haven't found even a *shred* of evidence, what do you make of the underground nuclear facility that was (falsely, I'm sure) uncovered?

Where was this "underground nuclear facility" found?

You would surely think this would have been front page news!

You think there is some sort of cover-up going on, drjones?

Don

 

[LiquidTension]

Going a different direction here:

Ms. Dyer complains that the Bush administration is changing the definition of "WMD" to help their cause. I've got $50 that says she supports the "assault weapon" ban and the reclassification of new weapons under the term. This is based on the fact that the majority of people opposing the war are liberals and don't like Bush. I could be wrong, but I'd be really surprised So, changing the definition of things is wrong...but only if your opposition does it

 

[DonQatU]

Ms. Dyer complains that the Bush administration is changing the definition of "WMD" to help their cause. I've got $50 that says she supports the "assault weapon" ban and the reclassification of new weapons under the term.

Liquid Tension, didn't Dubbya himself state that HE would sign the "assault weapons" bill into law? I don't know Ms. Dyer's position on the "assault weapon ban", but George W. Bush has made HIS position on the "assault weapon ban" pretty darn clear!

Don

 

[Drjones]

Where was this "underground nuclear facility" found?

You would surely think this would have been front page news!

You think there is some sort of cover-up going on, drjones?

Don

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/news/s_128200.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32006

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31966

 

[SkunkApe]

Drjones,

I pity you if you've fallen to the point of using the U.N. as an argument for attacking Iraq.

The United States (and Israel) ignore the U.N. when they see fit, and embrace it when it benefits them. The Unites States leads the security council members (by a large margin) in vetoing U.N. resolutions. Israel has been in violation of U.N. resolutions over over thirty years. Should we attack Israel and set up a new government?



And did the U.N. sanction this invasion of Iraq?

 

[Drjones]

Liquid Tension, didn't Dubbya himself state that HE would sign the "assault weapons" bill into law? I don't know Ms. Dyer's position on the "assault weapon ban", but George W. Bush has made HIS position on the "assault weapon ban" pretty darn clear!

Ah, the beauty that is GWB.

He said he would sign a renewal.

That lies on the assumption that one will cross his desk.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030509-92627140.htm

Excerpts:

"The House in the past has taken a dim view of the assault-weapons ban," said Stuart Roy, spokesman for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Texas Republican. "I would say that the majority leader is pretty skeptical of reauthorizing it, as is the House as a whole."

House Republicans made voting to repeal the assault-weapons ban one of the first orders of business upon ascending to the majority in 1995. While the repeal passed the House 239-173, the Senate never took up the matter and the issue died.

Now it's likely that the law itself will be allowed to expire.

"It has zero chance," Mr. Roy said, adding that the Senate might try to fold the ban's reauthorization into a bill that the House supports, but that such a strategy is bound to fail.

"It's technically possible to do that, but just about on the verge of being impossible," Mr. Roy said.



Nice try...well, not really...

 

[Drjones]

I pity you if you've fallen to the point of using the U.N. as an argument for attacking Iraq.

Where did I state or even imply that?

You are trying to tell us all that saddam doesn't have WMD.

It seems the rest of the world begs to differ.

 

[DonQatU]

This from the World Net Daily article: "One report said the tunnels might contain weapons-grade plutonium, while unnamed sources have suggested the U.S. forces came upon known stocks of low-grade uranium and broke U.N. seals meant to control radioactive material."

drjones, so what did they find? Weapons-grade plutonium OR low-grade uranium? BIG DIFFERENCE!

Judging by the absolute silence and the way US forces left the Tuwaitha facility unsecured for looting, I'd guess the latter.

But your article DOES prove the value of reporting "false positives" (giving the impression that TONS of bad things are being uncovered) with no later retraction/clarification. In YOUR mind, they really did find weapons grade PLUTONIUM.

Don't you think World Net Daily would have had a follow-up article on this "weapons grade Plutonium" if that's what it actually was??!!

BUT.............. the silence is DEAFENING!

Another "false positive"!

Don

 

[Art Eatman]

DonQ, what was found was a high level of radioactivity in a previously unknown, uninspected basement facility.

One of the reasons the UN is a big joke is that every member uses it or ignores it, depending on the view of the member at the time. This doesn't mean that no good comes from the various humanitarian departments, although they could be done more efficiently and less expensively in a totally different sort of world-wide organization.

As far as WMD in Iraq, the archives at http:www.debka.com (.org?) have some interesting info. Since the Israelis live or die as a function of intel, I tend to have a bit of respect for what they say.

Art

 

[DonQatU]

"Ah, the beauty that is GWB. He said he would sign a (assault weapons ban) renewal.
That lies on the assumption that one will cross his desk."

drjones, based on YOUR idea of the "master plan", the President won't sign the assault weapons ban renewal. So should those who have pre-bans unload them quickly while they can still get a decent price for them?

I'm in the market, if that's the case!

Don

 

[DonQatU]

Art, I hope the Israelis don't rely on the accuracy of debka for their survival. If they do, they're done for!

It was debka that reported that thousands of soldiers from the PRC were pouring into Afghanistan to repel the Americans.

Don

 

[Drjones]

drjones, based on YOUR idea of the "master plan", the President won't sign the assault weapons ban renewal. So should those who have pre-bans unload them quickly while they can still get a decent price for them?

That's a fine looking straw man you have there!

First, I acknowledged the fact that he said he WOULD sign the bill.

IF it crosses his desk, which, according to a spokesman for House Majority Leader Tom Delay, it WILL NOT.

How, Don, can the president sign something that is never given to him?

Since Bush has proven his intelligence to those of us intelligent enough to realize it, he knows of the very strong possibility that the AWB won't even reach his desk.

I'd wager to say he probably doesn't even support it himself, but by SAYING he WOULD sign it, he gains support of the antis.

And when the bill doesn't even reach his desk (again, as he knows it probably won't) he doesn't lose our support.

Do you get it?

Brilliant political strategy...

 

[Drjones]

Re: WMD.


*SIGH*

I KNEW you would do that.

Don, think about this for a second:

Why would Iraq, which has some of the largest oil reserves on the PLANET, need a nuclear reactor?

In the words of one hair-brained liberal, "he wants to use cheap nuclear power to save all the oil possible to sell."

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

And Bill Gates clips coupons to save money.

The mere fact that iraq even HAS a nuclear reactor should set off all the alarms and red flags in the world.

But I suppose saddam supporters are blind to those.

 

[DonQatU]

I'd wager to say he probably doesn't even support it himself, but by SAYING he WOULD sign it, he gains support of the antis.

So, drjones, you think the President is lying for political advantage?!!

Don

 

[DonQatU]

drjones, are you claiming the Iraqis had a working nuclear reactor when we attacked? How the heck did those clever buggers hide that from our overhead reconnaissance assets?!!

Don

 

[DRC]

Truly amazing...

DrJones,

It surprises me that you continue this debate. Why? Becasue it is obvious that Don is going to report the same positive negatives and then retract them at his leisure

I liked the question regarding the radio activity found in the secret underground lab. A question that no one has even addressed is what reason there would there be for anything radioactive in a secret underground facility, in a country without a nuclear facility? Were they baking cookies? Working on building the worlds finest microwave oven? Or just fancying the idea of a great tanning booth? Typically people with no harmful intent do not keep radioactive material in their basement or at least not around here that I'm aware of, regardless of "how radio active it is" Early on once our troops were in Bagdad there was a sealed room where radio active levels were so high they couldn't send anyone in until it had been cleared. So as I've asked what did they need the radio active material for? It surely wasn't a biproduct or waste product from nuclear power production.

Skunkape said:

"...The lasting impression is that we have found WMDs. Just look at the the beliefs of the intelligent people in this one thread alone. People actually believe that WMDs were discovered in Iraq. Heck, there was even one person who still believed the baby-incubator story."

Hmmm. I consider myself an intelligent person and yet I can't think of an instance where I've believed anything other than the facts of the matter. I'm smart enough to know that many things are not being reported for security reasons and I'm okay with that. I figure that the folks incharge of the operation probably have a little more intelligence on the subject, as well as training, than I do. So instead of being an armchair General "out of the loop" I'll defer to the real Generals' expertise in the matter. After all they are the ones fighting the war and they are there to see these things first hand. All we get are the video feeds and limited at that.

Don,

"drjones, are you claiming the Iraqis had a working nuclear reactor when we attacked?..."

Maybe my eyes screwed up while I was reading but I don't recall seeing DrJones state anything of the kind. BUT in all fairness think about your question. What produces nuclear and radioactive material? If you don't have a facility ones self but have the material then one must have access to a facility that produces said material. If one hasn't a facility in which to use radio active materials to produce power then what would its function be? Hair removal?

I'm confused here. Examples;

If I have an assault rifle at home and it's legal for me to own and I store it propperly, some one could still say I have no need for it and shouldn't have it. But I might compete with others at matches and never do anything with it to break the laws regulating the use of firearms.

If I have a basement full of radioactive material (high grade or low grade) mere exposure to this could cause sickness and or death to me and anyone that came in contact with it and perhaps beyond. Not to mention, it wouldn't be legal for me to own it in that capacity.

Saddam had the same stipulations put on him. He could own whatever weapons fell within the confines of the resolutions set by the U.N. to protect himself and his "country" (read-regime) but elected to work outside of those confines.

And finally:

"So, drjones, you think the President is lying for political advantage?!!"

(Snicker...) If I know you're not going to do something, but say that I'll go along with it if you do this is called "calling a bluff." It's not a lie, it's a "bet". I'm betting you're not going to do something and in the case of the president he's got enough sources to tell him who will and won't back a proposal so his "bets" are pretty secure. Instead of saying "I will veto a proposal on this" and turning the ball over to the opposition for political fire, you find out who supports and who doesn't. Once you know there's no backing for the proposal call them on it and you gain credibility when the opposition can't afford to pass the proposal, much like CFR.

This is politics and believe it or not it's played every day of the week in D.C.; Dub's just doing it better than they ever thought he could and he's got several good people around him to help him through it as well. Imagine politics in politics, perish the thought.

Take care folks,

DRC

 

[faustulus]

Coronach,

I wasn't so much as replying to your post as simply taking your suggestion of using the simpilist method and applying it to the topic of the thread. I can do without your condesention.

It does not ignore past data. I simply stated that the reason we cannont find WMD is they are not there. Including all data we have that is logically the simplist explanation.

It is, however, foremost a logic principle. And like what Einstein said about mathmatics and reality probably applies here.