This is interesting. Saddam really did have WMD's.

[Q.E.D]

@mswas

It’s a stupid preprogrammed response that people parrot in order to mutter a platitude that they learned about evidence.

Just because a particular argument is used frequently does not mean it’s invalid. Would you prefer blue muzzlewumps or purple snuffalupugusses?

@mswas

I seem to recall that in addition to making a crack about that dumbass argument, I also said other things. You may want to scroll back up and read what I wrote.

Indeed, you did. Others have already addressed why those statements carry no weight.

[Miller]

[QUOTE=mswas]

@Q.E.D.

At what age do they program the Pink Unicorn argument into you people? Don’t you have any other processes you can run?

The article in question is from someone who possibly has evidence regarding the issue, but mainly what I see are people making character judgements that conveniently support their position. If this guy was Saddam’s #2 man, then he probably has info on the WMDs, but conveniently because he was Saddam’s #2 man he’s not to be trusted. It’s great how that works right?

Erek

If that were the only reason people had for disbelieving him, you might, for the first time in your entire life, have a valid point. However, that’s not the only reason people aren’t buying the story:

1. If he’s known this all along, why is it only coming out now?

2. He has no corroborating witnesses or hard evidence, only his word.

3. He has a financial reason to lie about this: his new book.

4. He’s publishing his book through a venue that has a strong political bias and a documented disinterest in the accuracy and factualness of the books the print.

5. He’s already been caught in one lie, about saving downed coalition pilots.

Yes, despite all these factors, it is still possible he’s telling the truth. But it seems highly unlikely, and absent any other evidence, it is entirely rational to dismiss his claims on their face. If other evidence does come to light, we can all re-evaluate his claims and see if they’re any more believable, but as things stand now, there’s no reason to find this guy remotely reliable.

See, mswas, your problem is that you’ve confused having an open mind with having an empty ming. Being open minded does not preclude one from making judgements, it merely indicates a willingness to reconsider those judgements when given sufficient cause. Like I’m doing right now, in actually trying to respond to you logically instead of just pointing and laughing. I already know for a fact that there’s no point in taking you seriously and acting like you’re capable of participating in a rational debate, but here I am, trying to do it again. And which much less evidence than we have for the WMD claim, I might add. I’m just open minded that way.

[Q.E.D]

@Miller

…having an empty ming.

That’s right, a vase is a terrible thing to waste.

[mswas]

Revenant Threshold This guy’s statement is plausible however. Let’s examine what we do know.

1. America sold Saddam WMDs
2. Scott Ritter and the UN claim to have gotten the balance of what existed out of there
3. Bush Jr claims that Saddam had WMDs
4. 2002 was when Hans Blix was investigating the existance of WMDs and was being frustrated by stalling while looking for these WMDs. When he finally finished looking, he concluded that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
5. In 2003 we went to war with Iraq
6. #2 guy in the Iraqi air force claims that they were moved to Syria in 2002

None of these conflicts with one another. I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that there were no WMDs, I’m sorry. I’ve seen more compelling evidence that there were WMDs, and I think that moving them to Syria is plausible. The difference is, I am not saying that my belief is ‘fact’.

Erek

[What_Exit]

@mswas

…snip…
What Exit? I know that the ‘tin foil hat’ argument is an appeal to emotion and is used by people who want to support their bias.
…snip…
It’s one thing to go forward pragmatically with a certain position on something while lacking evidence, it’s another thing to scoff at the possibility that your position is incorrect even though their is insufficient evidence to come to a solid conclusion either way about something.

Erek

I was referring to your first post in the thread. This is the one that sounds like a unsubstantiated Conspiracy theory.

@mswas

You all want to believe there were no WMDs just because some inspectors never found them. My guess is that the administration did some accounting. They were like, ok Daddy sold them X weapons, Saddam used Y against Iran and the Kurds. If Y was less than X, that led them to conclude that Saddam still had WMDs. A “factory” can be a warehouse filled with beakers and test tubes. You know like how they make Cocaine, Heroin and Crystal Meth? Easily moved, easily destroyed.

You all are so willing to believe one thing despite a lack of evidence, but you won’t believe the other thing even though there is still a lack of evidence.

Basically none of you know jack shit, and you just want to feel smart because it suits your bias. Just like in the thread about how Republicans are Racist was able to make almost everyone unilaterally dismiss an unpublished study about partisan bias because of an irresponsible journalist’s reporting on that study.

Wanna-be pseudo-intellectuals are among the most gullible people on the planet. Once you guys stake a claim to an opinion you’ll use any method you can possibly think of to defend it, thinking you are advancing some crusade against ignorance, when really all you are doing is propagating ignorance because the fact of the matter is “YOU DON’T KNOW SHIT”. This happens time and time again that some high ranknig official military official will come out and say something that doesn’t fit the status quo opinion, and people will try to dismiss what he says because it doesn’t suit the bias of that status quo.

I would like to think I am willing & able to be open minded. My original post challenged this one mans word being proof, I did not deny that it might be true.

Jim

[mswas]

Saddam’s WMD Moved to Syria, An Israeli Says

Saddam’s WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief

A relative of Syrian President Bashar Assad is hiding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in three locations in Syria, according to intelligence sources cited by an exiled opposition party.

I need a tin foil top hat.

Erek

[World_Eater]

@Ravenman

Seventeen of them filed suit against the Government of Iraq in early 2003, and were awarded nearly a billion dollars in damages. (Interestingly, the Bush Administration then intervened in the case to get the whole matter thrown out.)

What’s up with that?

[Revenant_Threshold]

@mswas

None of these conflicts with one another. I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that there were no WMDs, I’m sorry. I’ve seen more compelling evidence that there were WMDs,

Why? In your list of “things we do know” there was one report of them not being there, by an independent, and two reports of them being there - one by Bush Jr., who relied (knowingly or not) on false evidence, and this new one, who stands to gain by his book sales. Did you miss your “things we know” that support your viewpoint off your list?

and I think that moving them to Syria is plausible.

I agree. It’s plausible.

The difference is, I am not saying that my belief is ‘fact’.

Neither am I. However, I am saying that my belief has more evidence underpinning it than yours. The “lack of evidence” supports my (and others in this thread) viewpoint, rather than it being “neutral” support.

[Talon_Karrde]

Well, I do have to say one thing for mswas: he’s consistent. He actually follows through on the “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence” argument and carries it to this discussion too. Even though I disagree with him in this thread, I find something (not quite admirable) respectable, in a way, about that.

Mswas, I don’t think people are being closedminded or anything in this thread. You can’t accuse them of dismissing the possibility of WMD’s out of hand when the fact is that the evidence in this thread is laughable. The scoffing is directed more at the evidence than at the possibility of WMD’s. You really think that Airman fricking Doors is talking out of some kind of partisan bias?

[What_Exit]

@World Eater

What’s up with that?

The money was needed to prop up the new Government.

[Stuffy]

@World Eater

What’s up with that?

Because the judgement would have been against the then CPA or the new incoming Iraqi government.

[mswas]

I don’t know what Airman Doors’ bias is, and it’s probably a bit different from that of others in this thread. Anyway, I only likened it to the thread about partisan bias. I was just saying that people want to believe something so they believe it.

Erek

[What_Exit]

@mswas

I don’t know what Airman Doors’ bias is, and it’s probably a bit different from that of others in this thread. Anyway, I only likened it to the thread about partisan bias. I was just saying that people want to believe something so they believe it.

Erek

Erek,
We choose to look for more facts that one shill selling a book. That is all.
I wasn’t even against the war, I just think we executed it horribly from the start.

Jim

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Talon Karrde

…Airman fricking Doors…

How did you know what my middle name was?

[mswas]

@What Exit?

Erek,
We choose to look for more facts that one shill selling a book. That is all.
I wasn’t even against the war, I just think we executed it horribly from the start.

Jim

You looked at any of the three cites I posted?

Erek

[Noctolator]

@What Exit?

Erek,
We choose to look for more facts that one shill selling a book. That is all.
I wasn’t even against the war, I just think we executed it horribly from the start.

Jim

Yo, he cited former Iraqi survey leader David Kay backing up that theory. Along with the Israelis and Syrian exiles. Even if two out of three are disreputable to you, scroll up to those cites. It’s more than just an Iraqi peddling a book.

[Q.E.D]

@mswas

You looked at any of the three cites I posted?

None of them present any physical evidence. Your “cites” are little better than mere hearsay.

[Ravenman]

@mswas

4. 2002 was when Hans Blix was investigating the existance of WMDs and was being frustrated by stalling while looking for these WMDs. When he finally finished looking, he concluded that there were no WMDs in Iraq.

No, that’s not what Hans Blix reported. He reported that Iraq had no capability of producing WMD contemporaneous with his inspections.

The CIA also investigated and found no significant industrial capacity since 1991, active and productive research programs, documentation of any existing WMD stockpiles, nor any evidence that anything WMD related was moved to Syria. (David Kay said, “We were all wrong.” Does that ring a bell?) That’s based upon two years of complete access to anything and everything in Iraq, including interviews with anyone who had any possible relation to any potential Iraqi WMD program, which would almost certainly include this book-writing bozo.

Given the extensive reporting that the Iraqi government had deceived itself into believing that it had WMD, it stands to reason that this Air Force general could still be laboring under that falsehood. Given that all reliable post-war evidence points to no WMD being in Iraq at all, this seems like a more reasonable possibility than what mswas really hopes might have happened.

Or he could just be lying to sell more books. I think he might get royalties from two reality-deprived posters in this thread.

[What_Exit]

@mswas

You looked at any of the three cites I posted?

Erek

Sorry, I missed that post, I will read them right after this post. The board has been stuttering a lot and this thread is moving fast. My statement is definately out of context now. :smack:

Jim

[World_Eater]

Interesting, thanks.