# Was it a False Flag attack by a couple of IRS employes to lead to mainstream Tax Revolt **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 1, 2013, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850 "2013-06-01T10:16:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 24
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2013, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/461 "2013-06-25T18:10:42Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Cite one time where I have claimed I have the only valid interpretation of historical events. Oh, so you don’t claim to have the _only_ valid interpretation, you just argue vehemently against any interpretations that differ from your own. My mistake, then. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Key word is ‘interpretation’. > > I cite things like Iraq was in violation of international law in October 2002 but was not in violation in March 2003. You know factual stuff. i argue interpretations of that stuff like everyone else. You seem to have no ability to distinguish fact from opinion, that’s half your problem. For instance, “The UNSC did not pass a resolution stating that Iraq had violated Resolution 1441” is a fact. “Iraq was not in violation of Resolution 1441” is an opinion. You use them interchangeably, because evidently you can’t tell the difference. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2013, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/462 "2013-06-25T19:22:44Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Oh, so you don’t claim to have the _only_ valid interpretation, you just argue vehemently against any interpretations that differ from your own. My mistake, then. > > You seem to have no ability to distinguish fact from opinion, that’s half your problem. For instance, “The UNSC did not pass a resolution stating that Iraq had violated Resolution 1441” is a fact. “Iraq was not in violation of Resolution 1441” is an opinion. > > You use them interchangeably, because evidently you can’t tell the difference. My fact on that matter is about the opinion of the majority of the UNSC as a legal body, Of course each member had their opinion but the majority opinion carries the day. And of course after Blix advised that Iraq was cooperating proactively for a month and before the war, the question remained to decide if that could be considered immediate. The UNSC majority were of the opinion that it was. It is not the truth to state that the UNSC and Blix and El Beradai were of the opinion that Iraq was not complying with the demands of 1441. Bushies and war supporters spin that yarn to reflect UN legitimacy on Bush and Cheney’s opinion on Iraq’s compliance. And See how you take what I write to find a path to some cockamaimee argument that is not legitimately available if sticking to facts. If Mr Bean opines that Iraq did not violate UNSC 1441 it is an opinion but an opinion the does not matter. That opinion of legal record rested with the party that produced 1441, not Dick Cheney and not John Mace. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2013, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/463 "2013-06-25T19:50:24Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > My fact on that matter is about the opinion of the majority of the UNSC as a legal body, > > Of course each member had their opinion but the majority opinion carries the day. > > And of course after Blix advised that Iraq was cooperating proactively for a month and before the war, the question remained to decide if that could be considered immediate. The UNSC majority were of the opinion that it was. > > It is not the truth to state that the UNSC and Blix and El Beradai were of the opinion that Iraq was not complying with the demands of 1441. Bushies and war supporters spin that yarn to reflect UN legitimacy on Bush and Cheney’s opinion on Iraq’s compliance. Again: Fact: UNSC never passed a resolution declaring Iraq to be in violation of 1441. Opinion(s): Iraq was or was not complying with 1441. This compliance or lack thereof was or was not justification for war. See how easy that is? Why is it so hard for you? You can (and should) use facts to _support_ opinions, but they are not interchangeable. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And See how you take what I write to find a path to some cockamaimee argument that is not legitimately available if sticking to facts. And here’s the other half of your problem, assigning motives to those who disagree with you, and then attacking the perceived motive rather than anything the person actually writes. This board, like life, isn’t a playground where everyone chooses up sides and joins one of two teams. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > If Mr Bean opines that Iraq did not violate UNSC 1441 it is an opinion but an opinion the does not matter. That opinion of legal record rested with the party that produced 1441, not Dick Cheney and not John Mace. Here’s a sub-problem, furiously attacking strawmen. I dare you to find me a post where **John Mace** wrote that Dick Cheney or himself had the legal power to declare Iraq to be in violation of 1441. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2013, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/464 "2013-06-25T22:11:10Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Again: > > Fact: UNSC never passed a resolution declaring Iraq to be in violation of 1441. > > Opinion(s): Iraq was or was not complying with 1441. This compliance or lack thereof was or was not justification for war. > > You can (and should) use facts to _support_ opinions, but they are not interchangeable. > > > [@](#): > > > > It is also a factual statement as well as a statement of fact, and a fact that “anyone who states that Iraq was in violation of, or not in compliance with, UN Resolution 1441 is making a false and untrue ststement.” And that is based and supported by the fact cited sbove by HA. > > > > One can dissagree with the fact that HA cited, but one cannot cite the opposite of that fact and expect it to be true or matter. > > > > The opposite would be, “UNSC passed a resolution declaring Iraq to be in violation of 1441.” > > And this is a fact, “Iraq was never in violation of UN Resolution 1441 and therefore Iraq was not in violation of international law during the enforcement of UN Res 1441.” > > And here’s the other half of your problem, assigning motives to those who disagree with you, and then attacking the perceived motive rather than anything the person actually writes. This board, like life, isn’t a playground where everyone chooses up sides and joins one of two teams. > > > [@](#): > > > > cite an example > > Here’s a sub-problem, furiously attacking strawmen. I dare you to find me a post where **John Mace** wrote that Dick Cheney or himself had the legal power to declare Iraq to be in violation of 1441. > > > [@](#): > > > > I would if I said it but I didn’t say it. Statements of fact and a fact are interchangeable. They should compliment each other. Now can you dispute that the above statement of fact is false. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2013, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/465 "2013-06-25T22:44:09Z")
Didn’t mean to send previous post. Will fix shortly, ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2013, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/466 "2013-06-25T23:29:55Z")
> [@](#): > > Fact: UNSC never passed a resolution declaring Iraq to be in violation of 1441. > > Opinion(s): Iraq was or was not complying with 1441. This compliance or lack thereof was or was not justification for war. > > You can (and should) use facts to support opinions, but they are not interchangeable. -Originally Posted by Human Action It is also a factual statement as well as a statement of fact, and a fact that “anyone who states that Iraq was in violation of, or not in compliance with, UN Resolution 1441 is making a false and untrue ststement.” And that is based and supported by the fact cited sbove by HA. One can dissagree with the fact that HA cited, but one cannot cite the opposite of that fact and expect it to be true or matter. The opposite would be, “UNSC passed a resolution declaring Iraq to be in violation of 1441.” And this is a fact, “Iraq was never in violation of UN Resolution 1441 and therefore Iraq was not in violation of international law during the enforcement of UN Res 1441.” Statements of fact and a fact are interchangeable. They should compliment each other. Now can you dispute that the above statement of fact is false. > [@](#): > > And here’s the other half of your problem, assigning motives to those who disagree with you, and then attacking the perceived motive rather than anything the person actually writes. This board, like life, isn’t a playground where everyone chooses up sides and joins one of two teams. -Originally Posted by Human Action Cite an example > [@](#): > > Here’s a sub-problem, furiously attacking strawmen. I dare you to find me a post where John Mace wrote that Dick Cheney or himself had the legal power to declare Iraq to be in violation of 1441. -Originally Posted by Human Action I would if I said it but I didn’t say it. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/467 "2013-06-26T01:33:26Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > It is also a factual statement as well as a statement of fact, and a fact that “anyone who states that Iraq was in violation of, or not in compliance with, UN Resolution 1441 is making a false and untrue ststement.” And that is based and supported by the fact cited sbove by HA. No, wrong. You don’t know what’s fact and what’s an opinion, this explains so much… > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > One can dissagree with the fact that HA cited, but one cannot cite the opposite of that fact and expect it to be true or matter. > > The opposite would be, “UNSC passed a resolution declaring Iraq to be in violation of 1441.” No, wrong. People can hold the opinion that Iraq was in violation of the resolution, independently of whether UNSC declared them to be so. By your logic, “UNSC should have found Iraq to be in violation” is a false statement of fact, and not an opinion. Can you not see how nuts that is? > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And this is a fact, “Iraq was never in violation of UN Resolution 1441 and therefore Iraq was not in violation of international law during the enforcement of UN Res 1441.” No, wrong. “They were never declared to be in violation by UNSC” is a fact, “They were never in violation” is an opinion. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Statements of fact and a fact are interchangeable. They should compliment each other. How would you know? > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Now can you dispute that the above statement of fact is false. The only fact above is that Iraq was never found to be in violation by the UNSC. No, that can’t be disputed, but it’s _not what your opponents are talking about_ when they refer to Iraq’s compliance issues. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Cite an example Sure! Remember this exchange, from [this thread?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=688451&highlight=Rand+Paul) > [@Human Action](#): > > The Newtown shooting represents neither; the killer is dead. This is exactly the sort of situation that allows for leisurely debate and cool reflection. > > The popular call for senseless action must be resisted, and one way to achieve that is, in cases with no immediate threat, to take time to study the issues before acting. Another way, as was referenced above, is to freeze out the most radical and dogmatic voices from the debate and listen to the moderates. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > How many mass random shootings since Columbine where the attackers were suicidal or mad, do we need to follow with leisurely debate and cool reflection. > > You are advocating giving the advantage to the emotional gun rights lobby while defusing the emotions of survivors and relatives of gun violence. > > Are you saying gun rights folks are the most reasonable and rational advocates in this eternal debate? > > By the time the emotions from last December die down, then another incident happens and the gun lobby talking points will come at us again. > > “We need to pause for more leisurely debate.” > > Bury your kid and loved one, and get back to us in a year or two, when you’ve come to your senses and can see why some Americans must have their lethal mass killing firearms more than you need to spend your life with a loved one that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I mean, wow. Step back and drink that all in. From my remarks that the wisest course would be debate, reflection, and study, you are somehow able to deduce that: 1. I advocate giving the advantage to the gun lobby over survivors of gun violence and the families of gun violence victims. 2. I believe that “gun rights folks are the most reasonable and rational advocates in this eternal debate.” In short, you assign to me the beliefs that you imagine your opponents to have. But that’s just one example, if you read through threads you’ve started with anything like an open mind, you’ll notice that you do this over and over and over. Particularly when the subject is Iraq. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I would if I said it but I didn’t say it. Ah, so that line was just meaningless froth…are you sure that’s better? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/468 "2013-06-26T03:14:09Z")
> [@](#): > > And this is a fact, “Iraq was never in violation of UN Resolution 1441 and therefore Iraq was not in violation of international law during the enforcement of UN Res 1441.” -Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW > > No, wrong. “They were never declared to be in violation by UNSC” is a fact, “They were never in violation” is an opinion. -Originally Posted by Human Action. How could Iraq be in violation if the only body that could declare them in violation did not declare them in violation as you keep on stating? > [@](#): > > The only fact above is that Iraq was never found to be in violation by the UNSC. No, that can’t be disputed, but it’s not what your opponents are talking about when they refer to Iraq’s compliance issues -Originally Posted by Human Action No here’s the fact… “Iraq was never found to be in violation by the UNSC therefore they were not in violation although some pro-war types held an opinion that they were in violation, but that opinion was false” Those pro-war types were of the opinion that Iraq was in violation of their own interpretation of what ‘immediate’ meant or what ‘omissions’ meant. The UNSC did not interpret ‘immediate’ or ‘ommissions’ in the same way. The pro-war types attempted to revise 1441 with the imposition of a deadline to complete inspections by March 17. The UNSC did not accept that deadline. So just because Bush and Blair wanted the deadline does It mean Iraq was in violation of their deadline? It is the same as immediate and as with omissions. Bush and Blair had personal interpretations of what those words meant. That does not mean that biased and warmongering interpretations had to become part of UNSC Res 1441. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/469 "2013-06-26T03:44:02Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > How could Iraq be in violation if the only body that could declare them in violation did not declare them in violation as you keep on stating? Interesting perspective. Based on that logic, no black was murdered by lynching in the South between 1870 and 1950, since no District Attorney declared those deaths to be “murder” and no court of law convicted anyone of “murder” in connection with those deaths. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/470 "2013-06-26T10:51:06Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Interesting perspective. > > Based on that logic, no black was murdered by lynching in the South between 1870 and 1950, since no District Attorney declared those deaths to be “murder” and no court of law convicted anyone of “murder” in connection with those deaths. I have another valid point in response to yours. Accepting your premise that UNSC Res 1441and fifteen member committee deciding it is the “District Attorney” of the racist south in your scenario… here why your logic is demonstrably bad. Mob rule and lynching is murder - its a felony. The Dixie District Attorneys did not do their jobs. They failed to uphold the law. Blacks murdered by lynching is a real tangible horrific event. IF a relative of the murdered black man sees it an knows it, their description of that event is the truth. It is a fact. It is not an opinion. On the other hand let’s say Dick Cheney’s opinion was of course that Saddam Hussein did not comply and was in violation of 1441 therefore Iraq must be invaded. First off that opinion is biased based upon an agenda. A black wife of a lynched man is certainly biased to believe her husband should not have been lynched.. he should have been afforded due process of the law if he was a legitmate suspect of some crime, but her statement of fact is that her husband is dead. No you want us to believe that Dick Cheney had the equivalent FACT of a ‘dead relative’ that motivated his opinion of lack of cooperation in violation of 1441 by Saddam Hussein. Tell me what Saddam’s ‘dead relative’ was. Omissions? Immediacy of cooperation to a proactive level. In the real life story of the UN inspections and the Bush drive for war that put an end to those inspections The UNSC (District Attorneys) actually were doing their jobs. The UNSC did its job and the majority in my view got it right. Dick Cheney is full of himself and reaching way beyond any realm of practical reality or truth… to compare his conclusion with the victims of lynching in the south. I doubt that you deny that the UNSC majority got the fact that Iraq was not in violation ever… of 1441 right and that dick cheney’s interpretation of that and disagreement with the majority was absolutely wrong. I doubt that you think the District Attorneys in the racist south got it right and the widows of the lynched men were wrong that their husbands and fathers of children were murdered. I certainly thank you for this opportunity to reply. This is my idea of having a great debate. I could be wrong about that, but that is what it is. I look forward to your counter argument to this reply. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/471 "2013-06-26T11:30:19Z")
How many people have to agree that something is a felony? ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/472 "2013-06-26T12:04:27Z")
How can something be a felony if the law doesn’t apply to that person? Also, since when does “God’s Law” have felonies? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/473 "2013-06-26T12:12:05Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > How many people have to agree that something is a felony? If you are asking how many people within the legal system the first numerical answer would be the members on a grand jury initially and then ultimately if there is a trial the jury. If there’s a confession to committing a felony then the answer could be one or two if you count the judge, not sure. I’d be interested in seeing the point of this. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/474 "2013-06-26T13:55:46Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > If you are asking how many people within the legal system the first numerical answer would be the members on a grand jury initially and then ultimately if there is a trial the jury. If there’s a confession to committing a felony then the answer could be one or two if you count the judge, not sure. That’s sheeple talk! As a free thinking individual, I deny such group thinking anti-freedom efforts to stifle my liberty to be just asking questions, here. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/475 "2013-06-26T13:59:42Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Interesting perspective. > > Based on that logic, no black was murdered by lynching in the South between 1870 and 1950, since no District Attorney declared those deaths to be “murder” and no court of law convicted anyone of “murder” in connection with those deaths. It’s a good analogy, since IIRC France, Russia and I believe China had said they would automatically veto any resolution that would lead to war with Iraq. The only reason they signed of with 1441 in the first place was that any material violation on the Iraqi’s part would not automatically result in war, but that another resolution would need to be created to take this final step…and that this final resolution would not be supported by a unanimous vote so wouldn’t pass. It’s pretty clear that Iraq wasn’t in compliance with 1441…and that it would have been difficult if not impossible for them to BE in full material compliance, since it set such a high bar. From [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441) Wiki page on it, you can see Blix saying pretty much this: > [@](#): > > On 7 December 2002, Iraq filed its 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. The five permanent members of the Security Council received unedited versions of the report, while an edited version was made available for other UN Member States. On 19 December, Hans Blix reported before the United Nations and stated in regards to Iraq’s 7 December report (unedited version): “During the period 1991–1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated.” By March, Blix declared that the 7 December report had not brought any new documentary evidence to light. > > Iraq continued to fail to account for substantial chemical and biological stockpiles which UNMOVIC inspectors had confirmed as existing as late as 1998. Iraq claimed that it had disposed of its anthrax stockpiles at a specific site, but UNMOVIC found this impossible to confirm since Iraq had not allowed the destruction to be witnessed by inspectors as required by the pertinent Resolutions. Chemical testing done at the site was unable to show that any anthrax had been destroyed there. > > Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq’s level of compliance with Resolution 1441.[2] [3] [4]. On 27 January 2003 Chief UN Weapons Inspector Blix addressed the UN Security Council and stated “Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance – not even today – of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.”[5] Blix went on to state that the Iraqi regime had allegedly misplaced “1,000 tonnes” of VX nerve agent—one of the most toxic ever developed.[6] > > By mid-February the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles remained unresolved. Blix’s 7 March report stated “Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections.” > > Blix’s report also stated: > “ "What are we to make of these activities? One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January. This is welcome, but the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out. This is not yet clear. Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated “immediately, unconditionally and actively” with UNMOVIC, as required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002). The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following: > > The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it. > > It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”, these initiatives 3–4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues." > ” > > At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately “in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security”. > > Before the meeting took place, French president Jacques Chirac declared on 10 March that France would veto any resolution which would automatically lead to war. This caused open displays of dismay by the U.S. and British governments. The drive by Britain for unanimity and a “second resolution” was effectively abandoned at that point. > [@](#): > > Factual questions about the Iraqi declaration still remain. To date the contents have still not been made public for independent scrutiny.[13] When the UK government was asked to state where in the Iraqi government’s declaration there were false or inaccurate statements, the reply was that it was a confidential matter and that “huge quantities of documents remain to be translated.”[14] ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/476 "2013-06-26T14:02:56Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > That’s sheeple talk! As a free thinking individual, I deny such group thinking anti-freedom efforts to stifle my liberty to be just asking questions, here. I answered your question as best I could so I apologize for not getting how your freedom has been stifled? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/477 "2013-06-26T14:14:01Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > How could Iraq be in violation if the only body that could declare them in violation did not declare them in violation as you keep on stating? By violating the terms and strictures of 1441. The same way any person or body violates any law, ordninance, etc. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > No here’s the fact… “Iraq was never found to be in violation by the UNSC therefore they were not in violation although some pro-war types held an opinion that they were in violation, but that opinion was false” Nope, that’s a fact welded to an opinion by the word “therefore”. This isn’t rocket science, here. By your logic, the delegates of UNSC _couldn’t_ have found Iraq to be in violation, since to do so they’d have to believe that Iraq had violated the resolution, and they can’t do _that_ unless they’ve already voted to declare Iraq to be in violation, since only a formal declaration suffices for anyone to state that Iraq is in violation; anything else is a factual error, not an opinion. Do you begin to see how your reasoning is flawed? > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Those pro-war types were of the opinion that Iraq was in violation of their own interpretation of what ‘immediate’ meant or what ‘omissions’ meant. Right, _and that’s where you should disagree with and argue with them_. State that Iraq’s compliance was immediate enough, or that the omissions were reasonable, or whatever tack you want to take. “Iraq wasn’t violating 1441 because UNSC never declared them to be” isn’t a rebuttal to either argument, becuase it doesn’t address the immediacy or the omissions in Iraq’s compliance. I know addressing the arguments of others isn’t your strong suit, but this is how you do it. (Or, go with the idea that even if Iraq was in violation, only the UNSC had the power to initiate hostilities, not the U.S. coalition.) > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The UNSC did not interpret ‘immediate’ or ‘ommissions’ in the same way. No, they did not. _This isn’t in dispute_, no one argues that UNSC really did vote to find Iraq in violation of 1441, because that didn’t happen. You need to address the arguements people actually make in a debate. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The pro-war types attempted to revise 1441 with the imposition of a deadline to complete inspections by March 17. The UNSC did not accept that deadline. Hey, that’s a fact too. Progress! > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > So just because Bush and Blair wanted the deadline does It mean Iraq was in violation of their deadline? In effect, yes: the pro-war coalition used their own deadline. Because an utterly derelict Congress gave Bush to power to do so, but that’s another issue. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > It is the same as immediate and as with omissions. Bush and Blair had personal interpretations of what those words meant. That does not mean that biased and warmongering interpretations had to become part of UNSC Res 1441. Not, _but that’s not what anyone is saying._ ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/478 "2013-06-26T14:18:43Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > That’s sheeple talk! As a free thinking individual, I deny such group thinking anti-freedom efforts to stifle my liberty to be just asking questions, here. Attempts to attack one poster by pretending that they are a different poster are not conducive to the discussion. Knock it off. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/479 "2013-06-26T14:29:22Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I have another valid point in response to yours. Accepting your premise that UNSC Res 1441and fifteen member committee deciding it is the “District Attorney” of the racist south in your scenario… here why your logic is demonstrably bad. No, my logic in impeccable. You are asserting that the violation of a law can only occur when the authorities who enact or enforce the law declare a violation. Murder, while a reference to a physical act, is still a concept embodied in law. (It differs from the separate concepts of manslughter and negligent homicide, for example.) In your argument, the law can onl;y be broken when the governing authority declares it to be broken, regardless of any number of actions to which other can point that would be considered violations of that same law. As XT has pointed out, the “law” was written in such a way that it would have been extremely difficult to have failed to violate it. That makes it a poor law/resolution. However, anyone, (not just the governing body), may look at the provisions of the resolution, compare them to the actions of Iraq, and draw the logical conclusion that Iraq was in violation, just as the widow of a lynched man could see that her husband had been killed by a mob and recognized that he had been murdered, regardless of the actions of the authorities. There are many decent reasons to conclude the 1441 was a bad deal, all the way around and that GWB and associates were going to use it as a pretext for invasion, but your claim that Iraq was not in violation because the governing body had failed to make that declaration is a non-starter. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/480 "2013-06-26T15:04:53Z")
XT is reading something into his cite that is a reference to old resolutions on unresolved issues. The fact is there is no violation within Res 1441 if it takes three months or six months to get to full compliance with all UN Resolutions. The violation of 1441 is if Iraq does not cooperate fully toward the goal of resolving all issues defined in all the resolutions. Bush and Blair tried to impose a deadline, date certain into 1441. It is not there and the UNSC considered Iraq’s proactive cooperation 3 months in to be compliant with the ‘immediate’ term and if any member said they would veto a deadline set to get to full compliance or automatic war that is not to ignore Iraq’s supposed violations or minor infractions it is because with proactive cooperation there was no need to set a deadline for automatic war. All XT’s text does not provide a case that Iraq was in violation of 1441. I continue to state the facts and not opinion. > [@](#): > > It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”, these initiatives 3–4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues." > ” > > At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately “in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850.md?page=25)