Jump to content

Politics XXXVIII (A Nontotient)


Recommended Posts

@ShadySands

ZH has been a site for quite a while. 

Personally, I've been using it for 8ys? (and google says they've been around since Jan 2009) 

Originally I've looked at their markets section only. They tend to bit a bit too doom&gloom, but sometimes you get some analysis that challanges your own and broader market view. It's good to be challanged, and sometimes they were spot on. 

Recently, for around a 1.5y I've started to look at their political pages as well. They are very, pro free speech, which has some drawbacks as you sometimes need to get through some op-ed, and then you realize who wrote it and on which side that person sits. The comments were unmoderated (unless something would be downright criminal), but a recent spat with google ads made them add some word filters. I would not read comments there though if I were you. Godawful mess. 

They've gained credibilty as time and again, what seemed to be unpopular in other media, appeared to be true or close enough to truth. 

Unfortunately moderate and rational based media are a dying breed in US, so for some challanging views, one starts to look in other places for alternatives to deduce a broader picture. NYT became an unreadable trash over last 15ys. (the last purge was a last nail in the coffin of that once reputable news source) 

As I said in some other thread my sources are now these:

WSJ

Bloomberg

Reuters

ZeroHedge

MarketWatch

 

Plus Fox youtube and YahooNews for political headlines. 

ZH is closer to the Federalist, but with less Trump and republicans, and with more free speech with all its flaws

Edited by Darkpriest
  • Hmmm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ShadySands said:

 

Not just here but I've been seeing ZeroHedge links pop up all over the place lately. Is it the new Breitbart or something?

 

*No, I wasn't a bad Marine or anything :P. I picked up Sgt in about 3.5 years with no meritorious anything.

zerohedge is popular 'mongst the eastern europeans who post prolific. no doubt is a fave site oft recommended by dipssh!t uncle quarterly.

which reminds us...

is not a criticism o' eastern europeans btw. many o' those nations got a history o' victimization at the hands o' state run media and they got a healthy distrust o' any official seeming news source. is nevertheless curious how distrust o' media somehow results in many folks glomping onto fringe theories and outlier sources. one would think such cynicism would make a person more suspicious o' unsubstantiated rando "news" stories.

am not gonna again post bs receptivity articles, but is a fascinating bit o' contradiction that the self-described hardcore cynics is so often the folks wallowing in conspiracy theory.

HA! Good Fun!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

The amount of times I heard it mentioned in dead serious tones to me by some of the more conservative people I know certainly suggests that crap was taken seriously by at least a small subsection of conservatives. Claims of martial law being used to cancel the elections and whatnot...

I'm still hearing it, along with Soros stuff. Obamagate was a thing some months back and I still have no idea what it was about but the folks who think Covid is a hoax were rabid.

  • Like 1

"I am the expert, asshat." - Hurlshot

"I'm fine with humanity being wiped out" - majestic

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Gromnir

I'd rather use this, than the institute you've linked

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.newsguardtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/ZeroHedge.com_.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjdqruxut_qAhVro4sKHcNKBdYQFjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw15XKEcxHK-8Uzd5WoT06wK

Still, they corroborate. As I said, it has its flaws, but it does ocassionally score a point and simetimes a big one at that. 

It definately needs a very critical approach, and look ups in other sources. 

 

Edit: For example a topic like this 

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/wall-street-firms-are-considering-mass-exodus-new-york

It touches some facts, it shows some numbers and potential negative scenarios and rationale behind them. 

Is it true? Is it a viable risk? Etc. Up to you to decide, but points to something that might be worth chceking, just in case

Edited by Darkpriest
Link to post
Share on other sites

  

18 hours ago, Darkpriest said:

That India iconographic is cute. I wonder, if the person providing it @213374U, could highlight the differences in appearance, beliefs and current tech in those populations, if he would talk to an average joe from each area. What's the history and timespan which led to forming of a culture in that big area? 

Yes, well. You will excuse my cynicism if I don't take your interest at face value, and respectfully decline your request to do your research for you -- especially when you have not provided a similar comparative analysis for the countries whose supposed diversity you are using as a basis for your hypothesis.

If you're genuinely interested, read up on the different cultures and empires that have risen and fallen in Greater India since antiquity, from the Vedic period to the Mughal empire. The Kushan empire that replaced Alexander's Indo-Greek successor kingdoms, and the fall of the Guptas to the Huns. The birth of Buddhism and the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate. The migratory movements from all over Asia into India of people fleeing the Mongols. The influence of the "Silk Road" phenomenon as the original cultural melting pot. India really is a fascinating place with a long, rich history next to which even Europe's own pales in comparison.

But yeah, cute.

  • Like 1

- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 213374U said:

  

Yes, well. You will excuse my cynicism if I don't take your interest at face value, and respectfully decline your request to do your research for you -- especially when you have not provided a similar comparative analysis for the countries whose supposed diversity you are using as a basis for your hypothesis.

If you're genuinely interested, read up on the different cultures and empires that have risen and fallen in Greater India since antiquity, from the Vedic period to the Mughal empire. The Kushan empire that replaced Alexander's Indo-Greek successor kingdoms, and the fall of the Guptas to the Huns. The birth of Buddhism and the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate. The migratory movements from all over Asia into India of people fleeing the Mongols. The influence of the "Silk Road" phenomenon as the original cultural melting pot. India really is a fascinating place with a long, rich history next to which even Europe's own pales in comparison.

But yeah, cute.

Ok, this is an aside but I find the Indo Greek culture fascinating. Particularly the fact that you have Buddha statues and reliefs with Hercules protecting him and this is some of the earliest representations of the religion. History is awesome once you peel back the politics.

  • Like 1
I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"*

 

*If you can't tell, it's you. ;)

village_idiot.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever I see someone like John Oliver suggesting to go with media consensus to avoid conspiracy theories I'm reminded of two things.

Firstly, Gulf War 2. Anyone who didn't believe the WMD fabrications of 2002-3 was an unpatriotic conspiracy theorist. Except, it turned out, it was the media which fell for an actual conspiracy. Good thing they learned their lesson, after all the media which was punished for their stupidity and cupidity... oh wait, it was just the BBC that didn't buy into it that got punished, wasn't it? Guess there's an obvious lesson to be learned there, it just isn't a palatable one if you don't like male cattle excreta.

Then there's mass surveillance. 'Conspiracy theory' says the mainstream media. Then there's Snowden and most of the mainstream media decides that actually it's not a big deal because we all knew it was happening anyway. And meh, let's barely mention the blatant violation of the Vienna Convention involved in forcing down and searching Evo Morales' plane because Snowden might be there.

Yeah, antivaxxers, covid or 5g conspiracy theorists are whacky as; though flat earthers are almost all just taking the mick out of po faced science absolutists. Trouble is that the mainstream media will happily parrot utter rubbish if it's in their best interests or, frankly, even if they're just lazy and don't want to be bothered critically examining what a source or press release tells them; and if they cannot do it via the news they'll do it via opinion pieces that can easily be forgotten about or disclaimed away. That's also why 'propaganda' media which pushes conspiracy theories works in the first place, it doesn't matter if they lie so long as they can prove that the 'trusted media' lies too. And that's all too easy. Ultimately that's where reports like Oliver's fall down if taken as having a proper/ deeper message than just trying to be funny. There's a reason conspiracy theories exist which isn't solely because those that believe them are credulous ignoramuses. It's because the mainstream news is far more concerned with being sensationalist, building narrative and a host of other things than just giving out facts.

(Difficult to be too critical of Oliver personally there since like Jon Stewart before him he's primarily entertainment/ satire rather than out and out news, and also like Stewart he's typically better at informing  than a lot of mainstream news despite that)

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Except Iraq had WMD. That isn't a conspiracy. They admitted is. The issue is said WMD somehow 'vanished'. Where did they go in-between Iraq admitting to having them and when they 'vanished' is the question. Iraq eventually claimed to have destroyed them yet could provide no proof they did so even though that was a requirement. on top of that, people ignore the fact that there wer emutlipel reasons (excuses) for the Iraq war. WMDs was *just* one of them. Saddam being gone is a good thing. Now, the US **** the bed  in post war Iraq, though. That was pathetic.

 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/07/photo-appears-show-black-lives-matter-supporters-holding-kneeling-neck-white-baby/

 

FAKE NEWS? I hope so. But, it does fit with grom's usual goody two shoes BLMers. This is what BLMers do as matter of course so even if it isn't fake it wouldn't be surprising if it is real.   Afterall, BLM has mass murdered 100s of black folk so nothing with harming a white baby since whites aren't human anyways. And, LMAO at the white BLM mother who allows this to happen and giggle.

 

It has to be FAKE NEWS.  Just gotta be.

Edited by Volourn
  • Like 1

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the wmd conspiracy bit persists. 

not a conspiracy. were garden variety stoopid. 

am not sure how blix always gets listed as a source for the conspiracy theory folks 'cause we heard him speak at berkeley and he pushed back on the notion o' conspiracy. blix observed how even he believed saddam had wmds as late as december 2002, and he were hardly convinced otherwise in early spring o' 2003... recognized how saddam not having wmd and yet refusing to allow inspections when the alternative were imminent invasion were utter unreasonable. nevertheless, a few o' our resident tinfoil hat brigade cite blix as support for a wmd conspiracy when he represents opposite unless taken complete outta context.

christiane amanpour gave blix multiple opportunities to throw bush under the bus. blix wouldn't do it. the un inspector were deliberate pushing back on notion the US and brits had some kinda ill intent in promoting the wmd narrative. from blix pov, because US military and intelligence already believed saddam had wmd, they looked at every bit o' evidence as solid proof o' such a danger when in fact the evidence were dubious at best. US wanted an excuse to invade and they genuine believed, in spite o' suspect evidence, that saddam had wmds. no conspiracy, but perhaps worse as it reveals how in spite o' obvious human and monetary costs o' an invasion and occupation o' iraq, there were little critical thinking and reflection from folks in the bush administration.

curious though, blix singled out bush as almost the singular senior American defending the the wmd investigations. 

video o' the interview may exist. were from way back in 2004. 

edit: btw, the wmd not-conspiracy distracts from the more costly but less salacious genuine conspiracy o' iraq: the misleading projected costs of occupation. us military and intelligence knowing vast undersold the manpower and money requirements for occupation and rebuild o' iraq. bush administration knew the more conservative estimates on manpower and dollar costs, but they pretended as if iraq would magical transform post liberation and take 'pon themselves the herculean tasks o' security and rebuild.  

HA! Good Fun!

Edited by Gromnir
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ShadySands said:

 

 

*No, I wasn't a bad Marine or anything :P. I picked up Sgt in about 3.5 years with no meritorious anything.

You did better than me then. It took me that long to make Corporal. My MOS was small. For almost a year and a half of the time I was eligible there was no cutting score for Lance Corporal to Corporal. When it finally came it was so low a crap ton of guys made it. I was one of the most senior lance corporals around, 3 years in grade, and here were all these guys with 18 months in the suck getting promoted with me. I was annoyed! A little anyway. Not too much because I'd already decided to walk away when my EAS came up.

But on the Pros and Cons, like you said, subjective. My first unit in the fleet were hardasses about it. But the second was the exact opposite. Top Aeslin said if you show up on time, look presentable, do your job and don't bitch that will get you 4.5. Do all that an run a first class PFT will get you 4.6. Do that and shoot expert will get you 4.7. To get that extra .1 I learned a lesson early on: volunteer for the s--t detail you probably would have been put on anyway. You're doing it no matter what. Might was well get  some goodwill from it. 

  • Like 1

Get off my lawn!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

 

edit: btw, the wmd not-conspiracy distracts from the more costly but less salacious genuine conspiracy o' iraq: the misleading projected costs of occupation. us military and intelligence knowing vast undersold the manpower and money requirements for occupation and rebuild o' iraq. bush administration knew the more conservative estimates on manpower and dollar costs, but they pretended as if iraq would magical transform post liberation and take 'pon themselves the herculean tasks o' security and rebuild.  

HA! Good Fun!

To say nothing of the staggering ignorance of the region, it's history, it's people, culture, languages, and the extreme unlikelihood that they would all just "get along" once they were not being held together by force. Oh yeah, they did under sell it to us, but also to themselves because of how much they didn't know or didn't WANT to know. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Get off my lawn!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gromnir said:

the wmd conspiracy bit persists. 

 

There's nothing that stops it being a conspiracy.  Doesn't matter if they genuinely believed the bollocks they were peddling, all they have to do is be organised to systematically lie which they clearly did. And outside of the legal definition of big C Conspiracy it doesn't have to be illegal, just dishonest. Though without a UN resolution it almost certainly was, at least for Bliar. If you have any doubt about them being dishonest then perhaps I can interest you in some nice beachfront real estate in Nightcaps.

Parallel intelligence apparatus reprting to Cheney dedicated to conclusion shopping that Iraq still had wmds and removing any and all equivocation about it, plagairising a masters thesis and passing it off as intelligence, embiggening whacky yellowcake stories then illegally burning one of your own assets to get revenge when their husband debunked it, making up Iraqi links to 9/11 etc. They "knew where the WMD was, it's near Tikrit and Baghdad" and the Iraqis were authorised to use it, stated repeatedly and consistently. They most certainly didn't know any such thing, they just believed it. Shame they didn't believe they could fly if dropped from 10,000m instead, then there would be only a few dozen dead from their stupidity instead of millions.

It was a systematic and organised promotion of falsehood, an absolutely classic conspiracy in every single respect. The media fell for it hook line and sinker and defenders and deflectors can't deal with being taken for a ride themselves- or the media they put on a pedestal being taken for a ride.

Edited by Zoraptor
Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC the US "knew" Iraq had chemical weapons because we GAVE them chemical weapons to use on Iran. Not that any such a thing would ever be admitted to. IF there was anything left after 25 years is questionable. One thing for sure, they were not sent to Syria. Assad WOULD have used them. What munitions he did use were Soviet IIRC. 

This is going off of my memory here so that that fir what it's worth. It HAS improved since I gave up booze. 

Get off my lawn!

Link to post
Share on other sites

again, they weren't lying. blix were convinced it weren't lies... in fact, he compared to witch hunters in oldie europe. just as the witch hunters believed there were an epidemic o' witches and saw every bit o' evidence as convincing and definitive proof, so too did the Americans believe saddam possessed nukes. sure, some witch hunter may have known they were frauds, but not most o' 'em.

this is one o' those conspiracies which has been disproven, but the problem is the same witch hunter mentality exists in the conspiracy folks. can't take those government reports serious 'cause the government lies, right? take bits o' evidence which any kinda application o' critical thinking would conclude high confidence in absence o' a conspiracy and instead the witch hunters see opposite.

4 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

To say nothing of the staggering ignorance of the region, it's history, it's people, culture, languages, and the extreme unlikelihood that they would all just "get along" once they were not being held together by force. Oh yeah, they did under sell it to us, but also to themselves because of how much they didn't know or didn't WANT to know. 

the bigger problem is they (the Administration,) most o' them, were aware o' the tribalism which woulda' made a kinda spontaneous unification in iraq utter implausible. after the fact we know just how much the administration were being warned o' the tribalism problem, and yet... *shrug* they literal knew their force calculations for post invasion were off by at least a factor o' three.

obama indulged similar stoopid. when arab spring were happening and the obama administration were promoting regime change in the middle east, all his experts were telling the administration just how badly such change would end w/o guidance including huge investments o' US dollars. obama had even less excuse for indulging fantasy 'cause o' iraq. the difference is obama were acting more clandestine and and as such he weren't trying to shine on the public, but if that difference makes you feel better, we question your sanity. 

HA! Good Fun!

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites

keep in mind, he ain't the first.

 

Edited by Gromnir
  • Thanks 1

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can proudly say that I never believed in the WMD crap and was opposed to the invasion from the getgo.

Of course I was rather shocked to see that most of my American "Kin" were stupid and went along with it.

I've been anti-American ever since.  Trump's election is the culmination that "Freedom" is the new fascism.  Ask any Republican what they think of Communist China and you'll get nothing but knee jerk uncontrollable hatred and probably spit on, or any liberal of Russia and you'll get a similar response.

'He who seeks to defend everything, defends nothing."

King Frederick the Great of Prussia

OUT OF STOCK

Link to post
Share on other sites

am challenging any trump supporter to identify the five difficult questions on the montreal dementia test. what should be frightening to the trump folks is the President has claimed the doctors were shocked by how well he did on the test. am knowing it is foolish to assume trump is telling the truth 'bout anything, but if the doctors were genuine surprised by how well trump performed on the cognitive test, that is a cause for concern rather than a reason to brag.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited by Gromnir
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites

TalkingPoints - DHS Chief says his federal agents are "proactively" arresting people in portland

Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Chad Wolf spun his unidentified federal agents’ random detainment of nonviolent anti-police brutality protesters in Portland, Oregon as some kind of pre-crime measure on Tuesday night.

 

“Because we don’t have that local support, that local law enforcement support, we are having to go out and proactively arrest individuals,” Wolf said during an interview on Fox News. “And we need to do that because we need to hold them accountable.”

He derided the “ridiculous” notion that federal law enforcement shouldn’t take over a city without local leaders’ permission.

“You need to hold individuals accountable, and when we don’t do that, I think we get what we see in Portland today,” the Trump administration official said.

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler has repeatedly demanded that the Trump administration withdraw the feds from his city, asserting during a CNN interview on Sunday that their presence is “actually leading to more violence and more vandalism.”

“People are being literally scooped off the street into unmarked vans, rental cars, apparently,” Wheeler said. “They are being denied probable cause. And they are denied due process.”

 

"Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."

Link to post
Share on other sites

no oregon State body has asked for help: legislature; governor; and courts. all silent.

the protesters being arrested is suspected and actual vandals but attempting to paint them as insurrectionists is a complete vocabulary fail not requiring a Con Law expert to explain. doj lacks authority to arrest these folks off fed property while they ain't active committing offenses. 

there is a third category where use o' fed cops w/o state approval is allowable, but we hesitate to mention 'cause is gonna cause confusion and be used by many to legitimize what is clear illegal.

post brown v. board, the fed granted unto itself the authority to use troops/fed police to protect Constitutional rights o' the people o' the US from the diminution and dilution o' state institutions. now keep in mind Gromnir is likely the only non overt racist sob you will ever meet who has public criticized brown v. board. (is just one reason we were never gonna be making it as a fed judge-- immediate dq if you criticize brown.) the Justices did the right and moral thing with brown, but the law, the specific decision, were flawed. use scaliaesque textualist reasoning to overturn plessy woulda' been possible, but not only would such a decision have failed to address the actual immediate problem, textualism weren't a thing in the 50's.

am not gonna get into all the legal flaws with brown, but part o' the problem with the decision which were immediate apparent were the Court's lack o' an enforcement capacity. the thing is, Congress and the President didn't have much authority neither. sure, Congress could withhold money from states who didn't enforce brown, but such wouldn't be much benefit to students current suffering from segregation practices. as difficult as it may be to believe, the POTUS didn't have more authority than Congress to enforce brown

Congress rewrote laws to give the President authority to use troops to protect Constitutional rights, which is kinda suspect and should make one pause at potential abuses. nevertheless, the fed folks so recent dismissed as rabid dogs were doing the right thing as they saw it. the fed were trying to protect those who could not protect themselves from the real rabid dogs-- The People. 

*sigh*

fast forward to 2020 and doj is using brown reasoning to arrest protesters in portland?

...

recall Constitution is not the Declaration, so if folks tell us 'bout protecting life and liberty and property  (translation: pursuit of happiness) as legit rights needing and deserving fed protection we will callous and condescending mock 'em. Constitutional rights is not particular numerous and is not o' kinda and quality being protected by the dhs stormtroopers in portland. in fact, the militarized dhs troops is arguable violating rights o' speech, assembly, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, due process, and right to counsel... stuff off the top o' our noggin. gotta serious indulge in legal contortionism to use Constitution protection to validate faceless dhs paramilitary troop presence in portland as they arrest protesters and detain 'em w/o benefit o' counsel, nevertheless, in 2020 with bill barr's doj, such a heretofore ridiculous implausibility is what we are facing.

how is it possible for so many to not be horrified?

  • Like 2

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at the report they used as justification for sending in the feds to Portland. 72 counts of violent anarchists brutally graffiting helpless buildings. It'd be funny that the feds were better prepared to roll out the secret police than deal with a plague if I didn't have to live it.

"I am the expert, asshat." - Hurlshot

"I'm fine with humanity being wiped out" - majestic

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

IIRC the US "knew" Iraq had chemical weapons because we GAVE them chemical weapons to use on Iran.

It was mostly West Germany that sold them precursors and equipment. Which the US knew about, of course, so the practical difference isn't great. The US mostly supplied intelligence and ran interference for the CW program and its use, especially at Halabja.

5 hours ago, Gromnir said:

again, they weren't lying.

Yes they were. Rumsfeld 100% didn't know where the CW was, it wasn't around Tikrit and Baghdad because it didn't exist. Saddam didn't try and obtain yellowcake from Niger, and they were told he didn't and they ignored it then burned Valerie Plame in retaliation. The 9/11 hijackers did not get support from Iraq. The 45 minute WMD over London claim was inserted from a masters thesis by Alistair Campbell over objections from British intelligence about it being at very best complete speculation. The Iraqis were not authorised to use the WMD they didn't have. Doesn't matter if they really really really believed it was true. They weren't merely innocent mistaken bumpkins blundering into mass slaughter for the best of intentions, they went out of their way to suppress any and all evidence- including using blatantly illegal means to do so- that didn't support their position

Ironically, you use pretty much the exact argument many use for defending 5g/ covid/ antivaxxer. They all really really believe the stuff they spout is true too. So what. It isn't true, there is and was plenty of evidence that it isn't and being a moron and conclusion shopping to fit your beliefs does not mean you're incapable of lying.

If they'd said they believed that Saddam still had WMDs they wouldn't have been lying. But no, they said he definitely had them when he didn't, systematically removed all nuance and equivocation and told blatant untruths.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Al-Qaeda - Saddam connection was always pretty funny. Not sure how credible it was but was an ex-CIA agent claimed she was told to build up some link between Zarqawi and Saddam, and also the CIA was told to hold off bumping off Zarqawi for similar reasons.  

 

For some reason I thought Chalabi was Curveball,

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/15/defector-admits-wmd-lies-iraq-war

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, more censorship as Yahoo isn't allowing message pointings… because they care about the 'safety' of posters. LMAO Nazis strike again!

 

Again, about Iraq, we know Iraq had WMD because Iraq ADMITTED to it. And, they were required to destroy them and provide proof of said destruction. They never did the latter point.

As for Iraq's 'connection' with  AQ. That was pure balony.

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, nah. Can't prove a negative, can't prove that you've destroyed everything, especially can't when the stuff you're supposed to have include mobile labs that were literally made up by a defector. Showing there was no meaningful wmd program or manufacturing/ munitions was being done in 2003, up until the invasion. And ultimately, there is as good a proof as you were ever going to get that they had no meaningful wmd post invasion when none were found except a few perished artillery shells. Should also say, the vast majority of serious CW- nerve gases for Saddam's stockpile- has a pretty short shelf life and the precursor supply to Iraq was basically non existent post 1991. If your VX isn't stabilised and lasts short term you don't really have to prove that your 1991 era stockpile doesn't exist a decade plus later because science does that for you.

Probably wouldn't have mattered anyway, there are plenty of dual use or easy to make CWs- cyanide, chlorine, phosgene- they could have claimed Iraq was stockpiling which it would be literally impossible to show they weren't.

(Seeing non chemists talk about CW is often unintentionally funny. My favourite was the french DGSE claiming Syria was mixing chlorine and sarin to make super WMD. If you do that you get no sarin and slightly less chlorine pretty much instantly, as any competent chemist could tell you. Don't know if they'd been reading wikipedia's phosgene entry or watching Bodie make suggestions for drug names on The Wire, whichever it was it was unintentionally one of the dumbest things I've ever read from an 'intelligence' agency)

Edited by Zoraptor
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

 

Ironically, you use pretty much the exact argument many use for defending 5g/ covid/ antivaxxer. 

 

how do you once again ignorant misinterpret stupidity as a conspiracy? anti vaxxers is morons, but they ain't necessarily part o' one o' your colorful but improbable illuminati plots. and again, you used blix in past as a source. blix had access to best intelligence and he concluded there were no coordinated attempt to lie or deceive. insisting certain individuals knew when multiple bipartisan government reports, US and brit as well as blix, whom you has cited as a source for your conspiracies, reject such conclusions is  kinda making you look like the anti vaxxer... again.

 

15 hours ago, Gromnir said:

no conspiracy, but perhaps worse as it reveals how in spite o' obvious human and monetary costs o' an invasion and occupation o' iraq, there were little critical thinking and reflection from folks in the bush administration.

yeah, is moderate disconcerting to recognize how willful obtuse were a few o' the folks in the bush administration regarding wmds. however, like anti vaxxers, they were seeing the devil they wanted to see as 'posed to perpetratrating some kinda mass deception for nefarious purpose.

what is your excuse?

HA! Good Fun!

ps also worth repeating, again, blix believed as late as december 2002 that saddam had wmd. yeah, the US increasingly looked at intelligence and where there were implied question marks, they saw exclamation points instead... which were a colorful bit blix used to describe the situation and we see as apt. is hardly the scope o' obtuse o' antivaxxers. nevertheless, at some point, the US and brits didn't want more evidence and folks such as cheney never trusted inspectors... 'cause how does one prove a negative? still, no conspiracy and no coordinated attempt to mislead. coordinated is part o' the conspiracy bit zor seems to wanna ignore. singular lies and misstatements from numerous people does not a conspiracy make... which were what saved trump from mueller btw.

Edited by Gromnir

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Gorth locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...