( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

On Mon, 17 May 2004 18:08:44 -0400, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
So if a bad guy lives in California, then the California government supports
him? Is that your logic here?

It seems better logic than to claim that if a bad guy lives in
California, then the North Korean gov't must be supporting him.

If the Kurds were Saddam's enemies, and Al Zaqwari was living &
operating there, then it seems likely that he was one of Saddam's
enemies too.

Is that too logical and consistent for you?

DSK

Enemy of Saddam? Seems like you've stretched that one a little far.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

____m___~¿Ô___m____ wrote in message ...
wrote:

More information that has no place to verify it.... How much time do you
spend making this stuff up?

There is a place in Naples that offers, Palm Reading, Astrology, Tarot cards
read, Tea leaves, The bumps on your head analized, Curses cast on your
enemies. The list goes on and on, This must be the source of info.

Just a guess...

I think they offer swamp buggy rides too.

Oh, no! According to NOYB, there are nothing in Naples but affluent,
well-healed people. No swamp people, no poor people, and no swamp
buggies. Just oppulence!

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

On Mon, 17 May 2004 21:29:18 -0400, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
So it would not be possible for a bad guy to live in California and be supported
by someone living in Kansas?

Sure.

But OTOH if you invaded Kansas and killed 10,000+ Kansans because of it,
then you had better be damned sure of the facts... unlike NOBBY... and
Bush & Cheney & Rumsfeld, for that matter. If you tortured 100s of
Kansans (or ordered others to do so) because of it, you'd be considered
a war criminal and definitely part of the problem rather than part of
the solution.

isn't it funny how we're one year into a major war, and the Bush/Cheney
cheerleaders have nothing to offer but maybes and future
investigation... and one 20+ year old artillery shell with sarin gas.

DSK

Your logic took a leap I couldn't follow. I'm not saying it's bad, I just
couldn't follow the leap.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

John H wrote:
Your logic took a leap I couldn't follow. I'm not saying it's bad, I just
couldn't follow the leap.

Doesn't look good, it was all broken into easily followed baby steps.
Are you taking lessons from Nobby in "Ignoring The Obvious 101" (not
recognized by most BSME curriculae)?

DSK

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
John H wrote:
Your logic took a leap I couldn't follow. I'm not saying it's bad, I
just
couldn't follow the leap.

Doesn't look good, it was all broken into easily followed baby steps.
Are you taking lessons from Nobby in "Ignoring The Obvious 101"

What I *did* learn in my engineering program was to approach every problem
the same way:

Problem
Knowns
Unknowns
Assumptions
Proof
Solution

Problem: Did Saddam have WMD and was he working with al Qaeda?
Knowns: He once had WMD and used 'em on his own people. Every intelligence
agency in the World said he still had 'em. Saddam paid terrorists to blow
themselves up in order to kill Israelis. Saddam gave sanctuary to
terrorists (such as Abu Nidal). Saddam had intelligence agents working
closely with members of Ansar-al-Islam in northeastern Iraq.
Unknowns: Where'd he hide the WMD's?
Assumptions: Buried them in the desert like those airplanes we found. Sent
'em to Syria for safe-keeping.
Proof: Mustard gas shell recently discovered. Sarin gas shell recently
discovered. Chemical attack attempted against Jordan and organized by al
Zarqawi...who is an al Qaeda terrorist living in Iraq now...and before the
war.
Solution: Send a guy named Duerhoff into Iraq and find the WMD's we know are
there or in Syria. Kill the terrorist groups operating in Iraq...since it's
likely they have their hands on the WMD's now.

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

Doesn't look good, it was all broken into easily followed baby steps.
Are you taking lessons from Nobby in "Ignoring The Obvious 101"

NOYB wrote:
What I *did* learn in my engineering program was to approach every problem
the same way:

Problem
Knowns
Unknowns
Assumptions
Proof
Solution

Sounds like fairly good methodology. Where have you gone wrong?


Problem: Did Saddam have WMD and was he working with al Qaeda?

Here's the first thing wrong with your methodology- you are trying to
work out two problems at once. Bzzt...

Knowns: He once had WMD and used 'em on his own people.

Agreed.

... Every intelligence
agency in the World said he still had 'em.

Except for the ones who said that he had most likely disposed of them.

Here's the second place you're going wrong... ignoring obvious and
readily available data. Even Dick Cheney agrees that he was given intel
data showing that Saddam's WMD programs were either feeble or
nonexistent... he just ignored the data...

In other words, you are letting ideology trump observable facts. Leads
to bad results every time. Just ask any Politburo officer from the
former USSR.
(further examples of similar muddy thinking snipped for brevity)

DSK

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Even Dick Cheney agrees that he was given intel
data showing that Saddam's WMD programs were either feeble or
nonexistent... he just ignored the data...

Not true.

This is from January 19th, 2004:

Cheney says it's too soon to tell on Iraqi arms
By Judy Keen, USA TODAY
LOS ANGELES - Vice President Cheney says he believes "the jury's still out"
on whether Iraq had the chemical and biological weapons that were the Bush
administration's justification for war.
"I am a long way at this stage from concluding that somehow there was some
fundamental flaw in our intelligence," Cheney said in an interview with USA
TODAY and the Los Angeles Times



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

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

John H wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 17 May 2004 21:29:18 -0400, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
So it would not be possible for a bad guy to live in California and be supported
by someone living in Kansas?

Sure.

But OTOH if you invaded Kansas and killed 10,000+ Kansans because of it,
then you had better be damned sure of the facts... unlike NOBBY... and
Bush & Cheney & Rumsfeld, for that matter. If you tortured 100s of
Kansans (or ordered others to do so) because of it, you'd be considered
a war criminal and definitely part of the problem rather than part of
the solution.

isn't it funny how we're one year into a major war, and the Bush/Cheney
cheerleaders have nothing to offer but maybes and future
investigation... and one 20+ year old artillery shell with sarin gas.

DSK

Your logic took a leap I couldn't follow. I'm not saying it's bad, I just
couldn't follow the leap.

John H

Probably because you are too busy looking for pictures of little girls
"in the biblical sense, huh, teacher?

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

"DSK" wrote
Even Dick Cheney agrees that he was given intel
data showing that Saddam's WMD programs were either feeble or
nonexistent... he just ignored the data...

NOYB wrote:
Not true.

This is from January 19th, 2004:

Cheney says it's too soon to tell on Iraqi arms
By Judy Keen, USA TODAY
LOS ANGELES - Vice President Cheney says he believes "the jury's still out"
on whether Iraq had the chemical and biological weapons that were the Bush
administration's justification for war.
"I am a long way at this stage from concluding that somehow there was some
fundamental flaw in our intelligence," Cheney said in an interview with USA
TODAY and the Los Angeles Times


And this is a long LONG way from his iron-clad determination that Iraq
*definitely* had WMDs and we had to attack very soon to eliminate the
imminent threat of them.

Now he's saying "the jury's still out." Hmmm...


BTW what do you think about the CIA and NSA staff saying that they told
Cheney point-blank that there were indications Iraq did not have WMDs?
How about all the foreign intel that's been published since? How about
the UN (remember them, the guys whose mandate we are theoretically
enforcing) weapons inspection team's findings?

In short, there is no way short of hysterical delusion can you claim
that *all* the intel on Iraw showed unequivocal evidence of WMDs. Oh
wait, you're the one who thinks it would be just peachy to start a world
war to exterminate all Muslims... why am I trying to talk sense to you
NOBBY??

DSK