Top 40 Myths (or lies) about War and Terrorism

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Sandman


I'm playing down the threat of such weapon not because I'm an arse, but because they are, at best, merely equivalent to 'conventional' weapons, and usually a lot less effective.

The military effectiveness of BC weapons (nukes are completely different) is grossly overstated, which is where their political power comes from, and how the 'danger' of such weapons was used to trick people into accepting war.

I have to disagree. While military applications of both are overstated, if targeted against a civilian population...They can be quite devistating if used effectively.

[Sandman]

I have to disagree. While military applications of both are overstated, if targeted against a civilian population...They can be quite devistating if used effectively.

Bombers, artillery and guys with guns are also quite devastating if used effectively against civilians. You'd need to use a huge number of gas shells on a town to raise the concentration of gas to lethal levels, and that's assuming that the inhabitants don't have gas masks and nerve gas antidotes. If it's hot or windy, then using gas is going to even more of gamble. You will capture the town relatively intact, I suppose, which is one of the strong points of gas.

[Agathon]

I have to laugh at the pro-Bush people. They have now resorted to saying things like, "the left can't prove that WMD's don't exist".

Sorry fellas, we on the left don't have to prove anything. Those who promoted or supported the war need to provide adequate proof for their case - if they can't it follows that they acted in ignorance.

I suppose Tacitus was right that "Crime once exposed has no refuge but audacity."

Originally posted by Velociryx
It’d be interesting to reverse it, and simply ask the Bush supporters questions, such as:

1) Was the Bush administration determined to go to war with Iraq from 9/11 onward? Yes or no?

Yes. Otherwise how do you explain their pathetic performances at the UN and the dumbass dossier of doom (cribbed from an 11 year old thesis). Anyone with the remotest flickering of intelligence knew that all this was a fig leaf. Add to that, that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and co. have wanted this for years and it goes back further.

2) Did the Bush administration adequately demonstrate evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq as the basis for the war? If yes, then where are they and why have they not been discovered yet?

No. They presented no arguments, they presented NOTHING... and they wanted to destroy Iraq, those criminals...

3) Did Saddam try to buy Uranium from Niger, or not? If not, then why the lie?

This claim is quite simply unproven. Not one shred of evidence has been provided for it.

4) Are the aluminum tubes purchased even capable to be used for nuclear stuff, or no?

Simply put, no. I heard they were for making rockets.

5) What evidence is there that Syria and/or Iran are now the guardians of Saddam’s stockpile of weapons?

None has been presented.

6) How is the CIA responsible for administration misrepresentation of reports?

Simple, they aren't.

7) How do you rectify the contradiction between the “6-months and Saddam can build a nuke� with the IAEA’s contention that no such report exists?

You can't. The IAEA has vehemently denied this claim.

8) Where is the evidence of a continual Saddam/Al Qaeda link?

There isn't any. There was a bunch of supposedly Al Quaeda connected bandits fighting the Kurds in the North. But there is no evidence that these people were connected to terrorism, or that they were anything more than an anti-Kurdish militia

9) Will the US leave Iraq if a democratically elected government orders them to?

Can't tell/

10) How is the word “terrorist� or “terrorist supporter� defined by the administration, and why are the Saudis not on that list?

I haven't heard any of them define it.

11) Is Al Qaeda crippled? If so, why are there reports circulating of their continuing activity?

Because they are still active.

12) With the “new security� procedures in place, and the Department of Homeland Defense, are we, as a nation, significantly more prepared and protected against future attacks?

No idea.

14) Was there, or was there not a detailed plan for rebuilding Iraq after the shooting stopped, and if so, why isn’t it being followed?

Either there was and it isn't working, or being followed; or there wasn't. No other conclusions are consistent with the evidence.

15) Have we succeeded in keeping the peace in iraq? Did we guard important historical sites? How many Iraqi civilians died in the war?

No. Apparently not. 5-10000.

Come on all you Bushies, stop making yourselves look like total clowns and admit you have no case. Don't try to turn it around on people like Sava, he doesn't have to provide evidence that the claims are untrue, it is sufficient that they are unsupported to make his case.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sandman
(nukes are completely different)

How so? They engender the same amount of irrational hysteria that irritates you when it stems from BC weapons. Remember firebombing Japanese cities killed more people than were killed in the atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki yet those two cities are the ones that get the press.

And now for something completely different:

Sorry fellas, we on the left don't have to prove anything.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2590265.stm

[Agathon]

Come on you righties!!!

Show us the colour of your evidence.

Or bow your heads in disgrace.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

And now for something completely different:

Sorry fellas, we on the left don't have to prove anything.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2590265.stm

Bwahahahahahahaha



Not the old, "Saddam must provide us with access to his non-existent weapons" again.

All that proves is that the UN had reason to reinstate the inspections (every sane person agreed with that). Presumably, if the inspections had been allowed to continue, they would have come up with what the US has.

i.e. nothing.



The right were wrong, and the left were right,
the case for war was full of ****e.

And all those who were fighting mad,
should realize that they've been had.

[Chemical Ollie]

You don't have to be a leftist to smell the BS and lies leading to the war.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Olaf HÃ¥rfagre
You don't have to be a leftist to smell the BS and lies leading to the war.

No but you'd have to have the nose of a bloodhound to distinguish between that and the rest of the bull that the right comes out with. I say we cut them some slack and only mock them on alternate days.

[Barley]

To some of you offering some of the more rediculous responses and making light of the subject (though admittedly its a farce)

Just Remeber.........

Approximately 10-20 allied soldiers are dying each week because of the reasons we went into Iraq (justified or not, my opinion is not).

I imagine they will stay there for years to come as the Americans are not going to hand over to the UN and for go their 'Liberation Divident - i.e. money from oil to pay for the operation which initially cast $100bil and is costing a further $bil a week).

Iraq is going to be the Northern Ireland of the 21st century, we will never unite the opposing sides and factions, whatever interim goverment / solution is found it will always leave a minority out in the cold who will take up arms to continue their struggle.

[DinoDoc]

Agathon: Why do you care about the status of the weapons? If they found barrels of the stuff later tonight, would that substantively change your position one iota on the justification for war? Hell you were the one that showed me a very good article (which I agreed with BTW) claiming that even if Iraq had banned weapons, it wasn't reason enough to go to war.

The link I posted was meant to counter the idiotic assertion you seem to be putting forth that Iraq never had WMD to begin with.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Agathon: Why do you care about the status of the weapons? If they found barrels of the stuff later tonight, would that substantively change your position one iota on the justification for war? Hell you were the one that showed me a very good article (which I agreed with BTW) claiming that even if Iraq had banned weapons, it wasn't reason enough to go to war.

Yes, but I fail to see how this invalidates my argument. I'm not defending my position, I'm picking holes in the pro-war position and there's no logical restriction on where one can to pick holes. In fact the more the merrier as far as I'm concerned.

The link I posted was meant to counter the idiotic assertion you seem to be putting forth that Iraq never had WMD to begin with.

I never said that. Of course they had some... once.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon
I never said that. Of course they had some... once.

Then they could have accounted for the fate of those weapons to the UN and been done with the matter. Instead they chose to play games and suffered the consequences.

I'm picking holes in the pro-war position and there's no logical restriction on where one can to pick holes.

By arguing the way you have been, you accept their premise that the weapons were reason enough to go to war.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Then they could have accounted for the fate of those weapons to the UN and been done with the matter. Instead they chose to play games and suffered the consequences.

Ever heard of proportionality of response?

Ever considered that the figures the UN inspectors were going by could have been wrong? In fact it seems they were since nothing has been found.

What if the government was convinced that your business had assets that you didn't have? You couldn't very well declare them, could you? Would it be right for the IRS on that basis alone to confiscate your property?

[Pekka]

Facts, lies.. sure.. but how do you look at the facts is a different story. You see what you want to see. From the other extreme to the other. The trick is how to do the middle and be reasonable enough. I have said many times that I'm not a fan of W, but I'm not a hater either.
I believe his intentions are good. But how does that saying go 'good intentions pave the road to hell'?

Anyway, you can process the information given by media in so many ways. I can write almost all of those 40 things in light, that looks good for W. It is very opiniated IMO.

About notes and plans.. so what? Everyone has plans, even against their own buddy nations. It was a bit shocking to see the info some years back how the US has planned to attack us if the time ever comes, and where the 2 nukes would fly. And we're not nuclear nation, and it was against US own rules. But so what? Everyone has plans. The most stupid thing IMO is not to be prepared, and not to have all options ready if situations heats too fast and everybody left their brains somewhere. It's better to have all options ready, even the ones against the rules. Like the situation where friends spy on each other. You don't like it when you hear about it, but it's a fact and everyone does it.
For example we're not supposed to have spies at all, and we don't even have an agency having spies.
But I visited spy museum, and it had a map where we had our spies in the last few decades, and they were everywhere. So what's the point? Everyone does everything. They are the unwritten rules.

The public don't know it because they don't need to know about it. This goes for every single plan that has anything to do with national security. Sometimes these notes and plans are leaked, but I don't see why people are shocked by them or disgusted. That's the way it goes, either accept it or don't, but no one should be surprised.

About people cooperating with the US intel, it's very hard to tell what information is real, what is up to date info, what is 100% correct. There are lots of people trying to mess up with the US intel for their own reasons.
Some want to use the US, give them wrong biased info on their enemies (doesn't have to be military... political.. who ever is that you don't like) and make it seem bad for the US and that there is a conflict of interest right there.
You can't always confirm it.
THere are people who want to tell outright lies, feed wrong information for the sake of their own security. They can back their lies with official documents and proof, provided from their own agencies. How can you tell the difference? You can't always confirm it with your own eyes.

But what ever happens, and what ever info you have, you always have to make a decision. In the case of the US, they ALWAYS has to make a decision. I bet that if they had bad intelligence, they'd be attacking every single country every other day because of the faulty information.

So, the point is, even when there is a failure somewhere, it doesn't mean it wasn't based on good effort and work and the right methods of getting and processing the data you have at hand.

[Odin]

The righties are so full of BS they can't even admit they were duped. Good digging, Sava!

Fez in 3, 2, 1...