WMD FOUND! Woooohooooooooo!

[PatriotX]

@Brutus

SimonX, quoting Ritter now, are we? You have really been scraping the bottom of the barrel lately. Notice how worthless your cite is: First, Scotty takes a break from chasing underage girls to say, “Iraq sarin shell is not part of a secret cache.” But what evidence does he put forth? A nice blurb about dud rates, but he doesn’t know, he says he doesn’t know, yet he is still confident in saying that this shell was a dud/not from a cache?

All we know for sure is that a shell containing Sarin went off. We don’t know if it was a dud, or snatched up from some cache somewhere.

You’re getting downright Reederesque.

Ritter said that in order for this to be evidence of the stockpiles, certain information has to be ascertained as to the shell’s condition.
Mr. Ritter points out that this information hasn’t been supplied.
He then says that without these particular bits of information that are indicative of the shell’s condition, one cannot conclude the shell is evidence of the stockpiles.

Can you can either 1) show where the information in question has been reported? or 2) show how the relevant conditions of the shell can be determined from the information that has been made available?

[Brutus]

@SimonX

Ritter said that in order for this to be evidence of the stockpiles, certain information has to be ascertained as to the shell’s condition.
Mr. Ritter points out that this information hasn’t been supplied.
He then says that without these particular bits of information that are indicative of the shell’s condition, one cannot conclude the shell is evidence of the stockpiles.

Sure. But without that evidence, he also can’t say that the shell isn’t from potential stockpiles. Yet he does.

Can you can either 1) show where the information in question has been reported? or 2) show how the relevant conditions of the shell can be determined from the information that has been made available?

[/quote]

Nope. But I am not saying that it neccesarily was or was not from a stockpile. The burden of proof is on those who want to make a definitive statement on the matter, and Mssr. Ritter has no proof.

[Squink]

@Brutus

The burden of proof is on those who want to make a definitive statement on the matter

So you’re now willing to admit that the president failed his country when he led us into war based on definitive yet unproven claims?

[Typo_Negative]

@Brutus

Nope. But I am not saying that it neccesarily was or was not from a stockpile. The burden of proof is on those who want to make a definitive statement on the matter, and Mssr. Ritter has no proof.

But Ritter is not saying it was or wasn’t. He’s saying that the information needed to make that cdetermination has not been provided.

Given what’s known about sarin shells, the US could be expected to offer a careful recital of the data with news of the shell. But facts that should have accompanied the story…were absent. And that’s opened the door to irresponsible speculation that the shell was part of a live WMD stockpile. The data - available to the ISG - would put this development in proper perspective - allowing responsible discussion of the event and its possible ramifications

[New_Iskander]

@Squink

So you’re now willing to admit that the president failed his country when he led us into war based on definitive yet unproven claims?

Did LBJ failed his country when he declared the war on poverty?

Ultimately, it’s not a validity of the cause that matters, but the goodness of intentions and perseverance in making them come true.

I don’t believe I have to explain it to you.

[elucidator]

@New Iskander

Did LBJ failed his country when he declared the war on poverty?..

This does for non sequiter what Sophia Loren does for titties.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Brutus

Sure. But without that evidence, he also can’t say that the shell isn’t from potential stockpiles. Yet he does.

Nope. But I am not saying that it neccesarily was or was not from a stockpile. The burden of proof is on those who want to make a definitive statement on the matter, and Mssr. Ritter has no proof.
[/QUOTE]

What assertion has Ritter made which requires proof? What “definitive statement” would you be referring to?

This statement by you:

First, Scotty takes a break from chasing underage girls to say, “Iraq sarin shell is not part of a secret cache.”

Is a fucking lie. Scott Ritter never made any such assertion, only that the elements which would prove the shell came from a stockpile were not present. That is a true statement, is it not? Or do you contend that those elements are present? Maybe you have some secret information?

Frankly, only the most desperate wishful thinking would lead to any conclusion that this thing came from a stockpile and anyone who wants to assert that it did has the burden of proof here.

[Brutus]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Is a fucking lie. Scott Ritter never made any such assertion…

I do not suppose that you read the fucking title of Ritter’s article?

Iraq sarin shell is not part of a secret cache
A definitive statement.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Brutus

I do not suppose that you read the fucking title of Ritter’s article?

Iraq sarin shell is not part of a secret cache
A definitive statement.

Maybe you don’t know much about the print media but the writers of articles like this generally do not write the headlines. Ritter made no such categorical assertion in the body of the piece and it’s unlikely that he wrote the headline.

[Squink]

Here’s an example of a definitive statement Brutus:

The dictator who is assembling the world’s most dangerous weapons…

There’s no doubt about tenses. There’s no doubt what it means. There’s no doubt who said it. It’s not found in some headline. It’s in the body of the text.
It also turned out to be unsubstantiable bullshit.
Full text here.
Are you outraged?

[New_Iskander]

@elucidator

This does for non sequiter what Sophia Loren does for titties.

Not sequiter, but sequitur (pres ind pass 3rd sg of sequor), you ignoramus you.

And stop fantasizing.

[Brutus]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Maybe you don’t know much about the print media but the writers of articles like this generally do not write the headlines. Ritter made no such categorical assertion in the body of the piece and it’s unlikely that he wrote the headline.

As usual, you are blabbering. The title is definitive. It is on his article. Whether he wrote it himself, or someone else did, is irrelevant. It gets attributed to him. You fools just can’t back down when you are wrong, can you?

[World_Eater]

@New Iskander

Ultimately, it’s not a validity of the cause that matters, but the goodness of intentions and perseverance in making them come true.

I don’t believe that the ends justify the means, especially when the means include some serious lying to the public, and there isn’t any tangible end to achieve.

[elucidator]

@Brutus

… You fools just can’t back down when you are wrong, can you?

Yeah, that’s us all right. Blindly stubborn, entirely incapable of divorcing ourselves from a failed policy, clinging desperately to floating debris and proclaiming it a flagship. Sinking inch by inch in a boiling pot of raw sewage and swearing its chocolate sauce.

Yeah, you got us good that time, Brutus. The planet you’re from, any carbon-based life forms there?

[Qadgop_the_Mercotan]

@Brutus

The title is definitive. It is on his article. Whether he wrote it himself, or someone else did, is irrelevant. It gets attributed to him.

Now, Brutus, that’s just silly. I learned decades ago from reading the papers that the headline to the article was often wildly inaccurate, and not infrequently completely contradicted the contents of the article. This phenomenon has made many a jaded newsgatherer weep.

So to ascertain what the author thought, we need to read what he wrote, not what title some anonymous editor pasted above his work.

Capisce?

[PatriotX]

@New Iskander

Ultimately, it’s not a validity of the cause that matters, but the goodness of intentions and perseverance in making them come true.
I don’t believe I have to explain it to you.

Better explain it to me. AFAICT, the validity of a cause is critical. Take this example that has good intentions and perseverance in making them come true:

If I use my shotgun to engage in an attempt to purge the world of aliens disguised as humans, and I engage in this attempt whole heartedly with the absolute apex of a great intentions, and I persevere magnifigantly to make this purge come true, it is still a horrendous idea, plan and course of action.

[elucidator]

They adopt many cunning disguises, friend Simon, but none of them look like hippies. None whatsoever. Trust me on this.

[Revtim]

@elucidator

They adopt many cunning disguises, friend Simon, but none of them look like hippies. None whatsoever. Trust me on this.

Are you sure?
http://www.clipsahoy.com/webgraphics2/aw4483.htm

[New_Iskander]

@World Eater

…there isn’t any tangible end to achieve.

If you seriously believe that, we are talking at cross-purposes.

[New_Iskander]

@SimonX

If I use my shotgun to engage in an attempt to purge the world of aliens disguised as humans, and I engage in this attempt whole heartedly with the absolute apex of a great intentions, and I persevere magnifigantly to make this purge come true, it is still a horrendous idea, plan and course of action.

Don’t be ridiculous. There is a whole world of difference between dusting off your neighbours on conviction that they are space aliens and blowing away Saddam on suspicion that he was playing dirty tricks. It’s not like Bush went after Vaclav Havel all of a sudden…