George W. Bush

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>
>>>>"It's correct to say that the IAEA was fooled by the Iraqis. But the
>>>>lesson was learned. ... Not seeing an indication of something does not
>>>>lead automatically to the conclusion there is nothing."
>>>> --Hans Blix, UN Chief Weapons Inspector Sept. 2002
>>>
>>>But since then we've had many more inspections, and they've concluded
>there
>>>were no WMD. What does it take to convince you neocons?
>>
>>What we know NOW isn't what we're talking about...
>
>You keep claiming there still are WMD buried in the desert, shipped to
>Syria, teleported to Mars...

Just one more thing you're absolutely wrong about. Bet you can't
produce a quote from me claiming any of the above.

>>it's what we knew
>>BEFORE the war. Imagine how easy government would be if we knew the
>>outcome of every issue months or years in advance!
>
>So why didn't we wait until we did know? The inspectors were there, doing
>their job.

Because the President, right or wrong, concluded that the threat of
Iraq cooperating with one of the terrorist groups by supplying them
with WMDs was too much of a threat. Personally, I'd rather he NOT
wait until the next attack to do something - but everyone has their
own opinion.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

> "Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Pull a weapon on a cop and watch as he defends himself,
>>without waiting to be fired upon.
>
>But that isn't what happened. Person A pulled a weapon on a cop, so the
>cop shot person B.

Not exactly. Let's rewrite the script a bit more accurately...

Person B was a well-known criminal in his own right, having shot lots
of his neighbors. He gets busted, and agrees to a bunch of terms
including giving up his arsenal of weapons to avoid going to jail.
Then he proceeds to blow off those same terms, while openly
cultivating relatinships and supporting other criminals, some of whom
have been known to kill people in my neighborhood.

Now we can wait to see if person B is going to sell weapons to person
A and his accomplices - or we can go take out person B to make sure it
doesn't happen, and to provide the appropriate response to person B's
decade-plus long refusal to meet the terms of his "probation".

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:

>>The report I posted a link to:
>>
>>http://www.nti.org/db/profiles/iraq/fulltext/unmovic_jan6.pdf
>>
>>Contrary to the "Jan6" suffix was from MARCH 2003. You really haven't
>>read a word of it, so there's nothing to talk about.
>
>Yes, they said Iraq's POTENTIAL production could be...

Keep reading... you'll get to the good stuff soon (presumed presence
of 10,000 liters of anthrax, for example).

>They found none, and now we know there was none.

Which is of course, not what the UNMOVIC report said at the time.

> The "mobile labs" were
>not weapons labs, there were no "underground" weapons labs, there were no
>UAVs, etc. This is as much vapor as the uranium, the tubes for
>centrifuges, all the other false information we (and the UN) were given by
>Bush.

You want to maintain the myth that Bush and company concocted the
intelligence - and steadfastly refuse to admit that it came from the
UN, from previous administrations, and from every credible
intelligence agency in the region.

Concentrate on the info available before the war - to do anything else
is pointless in terms of assigning blame for the decision to go to
war.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Alan LeHun]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> and from every credible
> intelligence agency in the region.
>

[]

> Concentrate on the info available before the war

Ahh yes, a country whose infrastructure and military might had been
systematically and comprehensibly destroyed, had been ostracised by the
wider international community and with little or no funds, was suddenly
accused of having the capability to launch short and medium range
ballistic WMD's against other nations with 45min's notice. This, despite
the fact that other nations, desiring of such technologies and with
intact infrastructure and viable funding still have yet to achieve such
status.


Do not try to defend the intelligence agencies, that is impossible....
etc etc. There are no (credible) intelligence agencies.

--
Alan LeHun

 

[rick etter]

"Alan LeHun" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> and from every credible
>> intelligence agency in the region.
>>
>
> []
>
>> Concentrate on the info available before the war
>
> Ahh yes, a country whose infrastructure and military might had been
> systematically and comprehensibly destroyed, had been ostracised by the
> wider international community and with little or no funds,
==========================
ROTFLMAO No funds? I see, 23 billion here, 23 billion there, pretty soon
that adds up to real money somewhere fool. And *that's* just the part that
is skimmed off illegally. You know, the parts that went to france, russia,
and kofi...


was suddenly
> accused of having the capability to launch short and medium range
> ballistic WMD's against other nations with 45min's notice. This, despite
> the fact that other nations, desiring of such technologies and with
> intact infrastructure and viable funding still have yet to achieve such
> status.
>
>
> Do not try to defend the intelligence agencies, that is impossible....
> etc etc. There are no (credible) intelligence agencies.
====================
You obviously work for them right?



>
> --
> Alan LeHun
>

 

[V.Simkins]

>
> must i repeat myself over and over, to get a point across?
> =====================
>Repating your ly over and over doesn't make it true....

i have to admit, this is quite amusing.... you are actually doing exactly
what i accused you of, earlier..... lol. and i thought you said you could
read....

i'm still waiting for the "proof"..... you expect me, and others, to believe
you just because you say so? you can't be that stupid....

plus, the Moderator at rec.backcountry is really getting angry at people
posting flame threads on his group. nice to see you didn't respect his
earlier message. (deleted rec.backcountry from current post)


"rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "V.Simkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >> >> You're more than welcome to your stupidity. The re-writing is by
you
> >> > fools
> >> >> and loons. Try to keep up. WMD was not "the" reason given. ou
can
> >> >> pretend otherwise, but it won't change that fact.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Rick, you keep repeating that "WMDs were not the reason that America
> > went
> >> > to war" over and over, and yet i haven't seen you give a single
> >> > credible
> >> > reference to support your statement, all i see is you saying "i'm
> >> > right,
> >> > your wrong" to just about everyone.If you have a point to make,
PROVE
> > it.
> >> > the rest of us, at least, seem to be trying to. Otherwise, kindly be
> >> > considerate, and don't reply, because it's just making people
download
> >> > useless junk to read on thier computers.
> >> ====================
> >> ROTFLMAO You make the ignorant statement first fool.
> >>
> >
> > must i repeat myself over and over, to get a point across?
> > =====================
> Repating your ly over and over doesn't make it true....
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:%[email protected]...
> >>
> >> "V.Simkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >> You're more than welcome to your stupidity. The re-writing is by
you
> >> > fools
> >> >> and loons. Try to keep up. WMD was not "the" reason given. ou
can
> >> >> pretend otherwise, but it won't change that fact.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Rick, you keep repeating that "WMDs were not the reason that America
> > went
> >> > to war" over and over, and yet i haven't seen you give a single
> >> > credible
> >> > reference to support your statement, all i see is you saying "i'm
> >> > right,
> >> > your wrong" to just about everyone.If you have a point to make,
PROVE
> > it.
> >> > the rest of us, at least, seem to be trying to. Otherwise, kindly be
> >> > considerate, and don't reply, because it's just making people
download
> >> > useless junk to read on thier computers.
> >> ====================
> >> ROTFLMAO You make the ignorant statement first fool.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > i trust you will make the "right" decision.
> >> =================
> >> Always do, unlike you...
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[email protected]...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >> > In article <[email protected]>,
> >> >> > "rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>"V.Simkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> >>news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >>>> >
> >> >> >>>> >>You really are that stupid too,
> >> >> >>>> >>aren't you? Besides, WMD wasn't given as THE reason to go to
> > war.
> >> >> >>>> >
> >> >> >>>> > Then you just fell off the turnip truck. That's all we were
> > told.
> >> >> >>>> ==================
> >> >> >>>> No, your hate has blinded you, but that's typical. that wasn't
> > THE
> >> >> >>>> reason
> >> >> >>>> given.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> do you know how to read, Rick?
> >> >> >>=========
> >> >> >>Yes, I do. Apparently better than you. WMD was not THE reason
for
> > the
> >> >> > war.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Welcome to 1984, where neocons think they can rewrite history.
> >> >> ==================
> >> >> You're more than welcome to your stupidity. The re-writing is by
you
> >> > fools
> >> >> and loons. Try to keep up. WMD was not "the" reason given. ou
can
> >> >> pretend otherwise, but it won't change that fact.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Mark Hickey]

Alan LeHun <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> and from every credible
>> intelligence agency in the region.
>>
>
>[]
>
>> Concentrate on the info available before the war
>
>Ahh yes, a country whose infrastructure and military might had been
>systematically and comprehensibly destroyed, had been ostracised by the
>wider international community and with little or no funds, was suddenly
>accused of having the capability to launch short and medium range
>ballistic WMD's against other nations with 45min's notice. This, despite
>the fact that other nations, desiring of such technologies and with
>intact infrastructure and viable funding still have yet to achieve such
>status.

From the UNMOVIC report:

"There has been a surge of activity in the missile technology field
in Iraq in the past four years. While UNMOVIC is still evaluating
the full extent of this activity, some developments are noted
below. Foremost amongst recent developments are two ballistic
missile systems: the Al Samoud 2 (liquid propellant) and the Al
Fatah (solid propellant). Both missiles have been tested to a
range of greater than that permitted under resolution 687 (1991)
with the Al Samoud 2 tested to a maximum range of 183 kilometres
and the Al Fatah to 161 kilometres."

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Ian St. John]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "It's correct to say that the IAEA was fooled by the Iraqis. But
>>>>> the lesson was learned. ... Not seeing an indication of something
>>>>> does not lead automatically to the conclusion there is nothing."
>>>>> --Hans Blix, UN Chief Weapons Inspector Sept. 2002
>>>>
>>>> But since then we've had many more inspections, and they've
>>>> concluded there were no WMD. What does it take to convince you
>>>> neocons?
>>>
>>> What we know NOW isn't what we're talking about...
>>
>> You keep claiming there still are WMD buried in the desert, shipped
>> to Syria, teleported to Mars...
>
> Just one more thing you're absolutely wrong about. Bet you can't
> produce a quote from me claiming any of the above.

Well, it is true that you never go into any credible scenario, just claim
that they *were* there, despite the overwhelming evidence. And suppose that
they may be 'somewhere else' without rational thought. Even you claims of
burial are easily shown to be **** as detecting steel drums under dry sand
is not a serious challenge to the type of detection equipment available. But
then, I can forgive you as you seem to have an excuse in your pure ignorance
of science and technology.

>
>>> it's what we knew
>>> BEFORE the war. Imagine how easy government would be if we knew the
>>> outcome of every issue months or years in advance!
>>
>> So why didn't we wait until we did know? The inspectors were there,
>> doing their job.
>
> Because the President, right or wrong,

Or even with malice aforethought, and deliberate deception... as evidenced
by his asking his people specifically for evidence that supported his
prejudged position. He really didn't care about the facts, just if he could
make a case using cherry picking and a blind eye towards the credibilty of
the sources. He is not sufficiently stupid that you can use that 'defense'
of his actions.

> concluded that the threat of
> Iraq cooperating with one of the terrorist groups by supplying them
> with WMDs was too much of a threat.

So, I consider thet possibility that you will someday pose a threat to me
and so I shoot you. Self defense, right? Are you that delusional or do you
have to work at it? The *supposition* of a threat or a future scenario is
NOT a basis for self defense ( either personally or internationally ). It
is still a war crime to invade a country with no justification except
delusional thinking. And each soldier is also guility of the crime by his
participation in full knowledge of the illegality.

> Personally, I'd rather he NOT
> wait until the next attack to do something - but everyone has their
> own opinion.

Fact is that, by attacking a sovereign and primarly Moslem nation without
cause ( other than the Christian God told you to.. ), Bush has declared war
on all Moslems and you may seriously regret supporting that position. But
please don't let me try to talk some sense into you. I have some hope for
'evolution in action' as stupidity of such proportions makes it likely that
people like you stop adding to the gene pool.

 

[Ian St. John]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "B i l l S o r n s o n" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Uh, the white house said Saddam had WMD. You're not helping your
>>>>> credibility.
>>>>
>>>> Uh, I guess the previous White House saying the same thing doesn't
>>>> help his credibility either. And I guess the UNMOVIC weapons
>>>> inspection report saying the same thing doesn't help his
>>>> credibility either.
>>>
>>> The Clinton WH said 50% of the people who voted in Afghanistan in
>>> 2004 were women? Did that come from the Dept. of Clairvoyance?
>>
>> Well if THAT doesn't blow up this thread {Nazi! ******!}, then
>> nothing will.
>>
>> Learn to read, Lloyd...
>
> I'm starting to think

I can find no evidence for that.

> Lloyd is Ian's sock puppet... same kind of
> reading problems (classic troll stuff - pitching softballs and then
> claiming that it really didn't travel over the fence behind them, but
> is safely in the catcher's mitt, even though he can't find it).

Speaking of Iraqs WMDs again?

>
> Nazi, SS, helmet, greased tapers, greasy tapirs, steel frame going
> soft, soldering and tying spokes. That might help...

The easiest thing to do is to stop denting those rocks with your head. Your
brain may recover in time.

>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Ian St. John]

B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> No, everyone did not think so. If so, invading wouldn't have been
>> such a tough sell the world over.
>
> You conveniently leave out millions and millions of dollars in
> bribe--- errr, extenuating factors.
>
> Talk about a coalition of the corrupt...

I still haven't heard if Costa Rica had to pay the bribes back when they
went off 'the list'. Just reading the list of countries that lent 'moral
support' is worth a laugh.

 

[Ian St. John]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>> "Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Pull a weapon on a cop and watch as he defends himself,
>>> without waiting to be fired upon.
>>
>> But that isn't what happened. Person A pulled a weapon on a cop, so
>> the cop shot person B.
>
> Not exactly. Let's rewrite the script a bit more accurately...

How can you improve on the truth? A is Al_Quaeda ( or you could consider it
Saudi Arabia ) which not only pulled a weapon but shot the cop. B is Iraq
which had nothing to do with A's actions. ]

>
> Person B was a well-known criminal

Ah. So you are claiming that you have prejudice? And I should correct you
that B (Iraq) was NOT a criminal, well known or not, but a victim of
persecution and libel as far as I can tell from the FACTS. Regardless, even
if you claim that B is a 'convicted criminal' it does not authorise you to
shoot them for no reason.

> in his own right, having shot lots of his neighbors.

One must remember that this was a fight between two parties in both cases.
Both had reasons for starting the fight and there is little to choose
between them. Iraq/Iran was one religious fanatic trying to sell his message
to a neighbor that didn't want to listen. The other was a territorial
dispute with history and claims of 'fence shifting'. It isn't really
relevant to the cop though since neither dispute was with him.

> He gets busted, and agrees to a bunch of terms
> including giving up his arsenal of weapons to avoid going to jail.

He was wrestled to the ground by friends of one disputant, yes. Openly
supporting a rather nasty dictatorship at that which has almost no freedoms
except for the royal family and which runs almost a slave state composed of
mostly foreigner domestic workers. Not really a good person to defend but
yes, the friends broke it up based on the principle of keeping the peace. A
principle that the cop ( actually in this analogy a private citizen) then
broke by gettting into a fight himself without cause.

The U.S. has no jurisdiction past it's own borders so in the world, it is
only a private citizen like everyone else. Only in the dispute with A is
there a juridictional claim. You are trying to establish some sort of
'police powers' for the U.S. and that is ****.


> Then he proceeds to blow off those same terms, while openly
> cultivating relatinships and supporting other criminals, some of whom
> have been known to kill people in my neighborhood.

Unsupported. The U.N. inspectoin process was ongoing and nearly completed.
Not that it is any concern of the cop who is not a party to the dispute and
out of his jurisdiction in any case.


<more unsupported fantasies and silly illogic deleted>

 

[Ian St. John]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Alan LeHun <[email protected]> wrote:

> Fatah (solid propellant). Both missiles have been tested to a
> range of greater than that permitted under resolution 687 (1991)
> with the Al Samoud 2 tested to a maximum range of 183 kilometres
> and the Al Fatah to 161 kilometres."

Oh, gee whiz. This is just a logistical problem. Fact is that the rockets
tumble and their 'range' is somewhat hard to define as it depends on how
they tumble. Not that it is significant since they still can' t reach the
U.S., were useless strategically, and were scheduled for dismantling when
objections were raised.

>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $695 ti frame

Stop beating the rocks to death with your head. There is evidence of serious
brain damage.

 

[Ian St. John]

B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:
> Ian St. John wrote:
>> Ken [NY] wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:27:11 -0500, "Ian St. John"
>>> <[email protected]> claims:
>>>
>>>>> NO US OFFICIAL EVER LINKED 9/11 AND IRAQ, EVER!
>>>>
>>>> Lie.
>>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3715396.stm
>>>> "US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has cast doubt on whether
>>>> there was ever a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
>>>> The alleged link was used as a reason by President Bush for
>>>> invading Iraq. "
>>>
>>> Are you really having problems with reading comprehension? As
>>> I said, no US official ever linked 9/11 with Iraq.
>>
>> If you can link Iraq and Al-Quaeda, then you have a link to 9/11 as
>> Al-Quaeda links to 9/11. You really have problems with logic don't
>> you?
>
> So if your mother robs another 7-11, Ian, then the police can arrest
> you as an accomplice because you had dinner with her last week?

No, but it would have made at least a feeble excuse for the pre-emptive
strike. I am certainly not arguing that even links to Al-Quaeda would be
sufficient excuse to invade ( a serious breach of international law ) but at
least it would be a REAL excuse, tying the Iraq invasion to the 'war on
terror' and thus just like a 'raid on a crack house' which can be justified,
rather than the invasion of a totally unrelated location.

>
> Sea Kelp.
>
> Soon.

 

[Ian St. John]

B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:
> V.Simkins wrote:
>>> Regardless of what side of the political debate you're on, >Lloyd
>>> (and Ian before him) argues with blatant flaws in his logic. I'm
>>>> simply calling him on it, because it's just about as pathetic as
>>>> it gets.
>>
>> if everyone's logic was flawless, i doubt we would be arguing over
>> things such as these, since everyone would see it the same way, and
>> be in agreement with one another. Since nobody is perfect (yourself
>> included), your logic could very well be just as flawed as ours....
>> think about that.
>
>
> Bzzt. Wrong. Political opinion and nationalistic bias are
> /completely separate/ from logical argument. Lloyd's "if a knows b
> and b knows c, then a must know c" statements are patently false, no
> matter HOW one feels about a, b, or c.

Do you know the difference between "linked" and "known associates"?

The claim was for a 'link' between Iraq and 9/11 which would be Al-Quaeda.
Not evidence of wrongdoing but at least cause for suspicion. Unfortunately,
there was no such link so the desperate scramble for some sort of feeble
justifications for a totally and obviously illegal war goes on and on and
on...


>
> Eh?
>
> See?
>
> B

 

[Ian St. John]

Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "B i l l S o r n s o n" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>> "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
>>>> authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein
>>>> because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass
>>>> destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our
>>>> security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
>>>
>>> See those words "if necessary" there? Turns out it wasn't.
>>
>> And how was that fact discovered?
>
> If we'd let the inspectors finish their work, we'd have discovered it
> before invading.

Fact is that the inspectors were pretty much through the inspections and in
a month or so, the fact that there were no WMDs would have beeen public
knowledge. The reason for the unseemly 'rush to war' was *precisely* that
they were getting set to publish their findings, with the result that Iraq
would have been freed of U.N. sanctions and the last chance for Bush to use
his presidency for his personal agenda would have disappeared.

 

[Pete]

"Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote

> And I should correct you
> that B (Iraq) was NOT a criminal, well known or not, but a victim of
> persecution and libel as far as I can tell from the FACTS.

And there we have it, folks. The basis for Ian's position becomes crystal
clear.

If you start out from the position that Saddam is merely a victim, he does
make a sense, in a twisted kind of way.

Pete

 

[V.Simkins]

>
> In these days of cut and paste and Google, the "telephone
> effect" is just about obsolete.
>

not to sound paranoid, but can you be absoulutly 100% certain that it hasn't
changed, if you find it on the internet recited by a third-party? haven't
you heard the saying "Don't believe everything you see on the internet"?

i'd rather be 100% certain of something, then have to "guess" or "assume"
that something is credible.

but that's just me.





"Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:28:18 -0500, "V.Simkins"
> <[email protected]> claims:
>
> >> <sigh> Here is another link, this time from the White House,
> >> but some on the left here might not feel that that site is as
> >> "reliable" as an anti-Bush site. <grin>:
> >>
> >
> >not what you think..... ever hear about the "telephone" effect? the more
> >times a message is passed down from person to person, the more of a
chance
> >there is for the message to be changed somehow. I'd rather hear, word for
> >word, the same message delivered to the public, as close to the original
as
> >possible, not from some third-party, no matter who's side of the debate
> >they're on.
>
> In these days of cut and paste and Google, the "telephone
> effect" is just about obsolete.
>
>
> Cordially,
> Ken (NY)
>
> email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
> spammers can send mail to [email protected]
>
> http://www.flowgo.com/funpages/view.cfm/6402

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>> "Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Pull a weapon on a cop and watch as he defends himself,
>>>without waiting to be fired upon.
>>
>>But that isn't what happened. Person A pulled a weapon on a cop, so the
>>cop shot person B.
>
>Not exactly. Let's rewrite the script a bit more accurately...
>
>Person B was a well-known criminal in his own right, having shot lots
>of his neighbors.

12 and more years ago. Back then, of course, he was the police dept.'s
friend too.


>He gets busted, and agrees to a bunch of terms
>including giving up his arsenal of weapons to avoid going to jail.
>Then he proceeds to blow off those same terms, while openly
>cultivating relatinships and supporting other criminals, some of whom
>have been known to kill people in my neighborhood.

And so the police come without a court order and blow him away.

>
>Now we can wait to see if person B is going to sell weapons to person
>A and his accomplices - or we can go take out person B to make sure it
>doesn't happen, and to provide the appropriate response to person B's
>decade-plus long refusal to meet the terms of his "probation".
>
>Mark Hickey
>Habanero Cycles
>http://www.habcycles.com
>Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>The report I posted a link to:
>>>
>>>http://www.nti.org/db/profiles/iraq/fulltext/unmovic_jan6.pdf
>>>
>>>Contrary to the "Jan6" suffix was from MARCH 2003. You really haven't
>>>read a word of it, so there's nothing to talk about.
>>
>>Yes, they said Iraq's POTENTIAL production could be...
>
>Keep reading... you'll get to the good stuff soon (presumed presence
>of 10,000 liters of anthrax, for example).
>

It does not say that. I've read it.

>>They found none, and now we know there was none.
>
>Which is of course, not what the UNMOVIC report said at the time.

They said they didn't know, which is an argument for continuing to look.

>
>> The "mobile labs" were
>>not weapons labs, there were no "underground" weapons labs, there were no
>>UAVs, etc. This is as much vapor as the uranium, the tubes for
>>centrifuges, all the other false information we (and the UN) were given
by
>>Bush.
>
>You want to maintain the myth that Bush and company concocted the
>intelligence - and steadfastly refuse to admit that it came from the
>UN, from previous administrations, and from every credible
>intelligence agency in the region.

You refuse to admit it was 100% in error.

>
>Concentrate on the info available before the war - to do anything else
>is pointless in terms of assigning blame for the decision to go to
>war.
>
>Mark Hickey
>Habanero Cycles
>http://www.habcycles.com
>Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[the Moderator]

"V.Simkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> > In these days of cut and paste and Google, the "telephone
> > effect" is just about obsolete.
> >
>
> not to sound paranoid, but can you be absoulutly 100% certain that it
hasn't
> changed, if you find it on the internet recited by a third-party? haven't
> you heard the saying "Don't believe everything you see on the internet"?
>
> i'd rather be 100% certain of something, then have to "guess" or "assume"
> that something is credible.
>
> but that's just me.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:28:18 -0500, "V.Simkins"
> > <[email protected]> claims:
> >
> > >> <sigh> Here is another link, this time from the White House,
> > >> but some on the left here might not feel that that site is as
> > >> "reliable" as an anti-Bush site. <grin>:
> > >>
> > >
> > >not what you think..... ever hear about the "telephone" effect? the
more
> > >times a message is passed down from person to person, the more of a
> chance
> > >there is for the message to be changed somehow. I'd rather hear, word
for
> > >word, the same message delivered to the public, as close to the
original
> as
> > >possible, not from some third-party, no matter who's side of the debate
> > >they're on.
> >
> > In these days of cut and paste and Google, the "telephone
> > effect" is just about obsolete.
> >
> >
> > Cordially,
> > Ken (NY)
> >
> > email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
> > spammers can send mail to [email protected]
> >
> > http://www.flowgo.com/funpages/view.cfm/6402
>
>

The internet has had the opposite effect. Every nut job and conspiracy
theorist can express his misguided propaganda as fact. The story starts out
as lie.