Wonder what he knew?
quote:
Azizza had this to say about the Spice Girls:
I wouldn't go quite that far. I just get this nagging feeling that there is more to it than a simple car accident.
Much as I sometimes like conspiracy theories, car accidents are the most common type of fatal accidents...
It's still a [ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: Tarquinn ]scary disturbing coincidence though.
quote:
NecroPope's account was hax0red to write:
I will believe it was an accident when I see the video tape showing that the other car did not, infact, speed up before impact.
Why would there be a video tape?
I'll wait until there's more (if there ever is) to draw my conclusion.
Or something.
Once we get a few more facts I will either go the other way or stay the same. As of now I am more than a little suspicous.
quote:
McGiantt impressed everyone with:
"Innocent till proven guilty? What's that mean?"
I actually heard someone on CNN the other day actually say that Iraq was being considered guilty until they prove that they are innocent.
nice to know that the principles of due process are things of the past.
quote:
McGiantt thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
"Innocent till proven guilty? What's that mean?"
They're not the United States. Saddam gives funds to terrorism. Punch to the face.
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
Is Maradon your bitch, big D?
quote:
Dolemite had this to say about the Spice Girls:
This is a preemptive "don't make me pimp this thread," because I know I'll have to by page two.
So far I really don't see anything that is to out of line. Did I miss something?
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Azizza said:
So far I really don't see anything that is to out of line. Did I miss something?
It's a thread about Iraq started by Azizza with people already whining about how we're treating poor Saddam, not even twelve posts into the thread.
It is doomed.
quote:
Kermitov's fortune cookie read:
I actually heard someone on CNN the other day actually say that Iraq was being considered guilty until they prove that they are innocent.nice to know that the principles of due process are things of the past.
Due process is a right guaranteed by the US Constitution to citizens of this country.
Where, exactly, is it written that such principles apply in international diplomacy? Or that there must be some sort of public disclosure of all the evidence, thus spoiling our sensitive sources of information?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
NecroPope's account was hax0red to write:
exactly my point.
For the love of god, save the board's brain cells and STOP POSTING!
quote:
T. E. Bloodsage spewed forth this undeniable truth:
Due process is a right guaranteed by the US Constitution to citizens of this country.Where, exactly, is it written that such principles apply in international diplomacy? Or that there must be some sort of public disclosure of all the evidence, thus spoiling our sensitive sources of information?
And the U.S. constitution was written by people who at least said that those kinds of rights should be universal. Of course that seems to be pointless since we've proved again and again that that's not the case.
Anyway it's not that I think the civil concept of due process is perfect for the military world. But I found it disturbing that this U.S. official basically said "We're going to bomb them into the ground unless they prove they're not going to bomb us." Guilty until proven innocent.
By the way I've mentioned it twice now and you're probably sick of it but the fact that the TSA can take away my pilot certificate with no regard to due process means it's no longer a constitutional right either.
Oh, and that drone they supposedly found in Iraq that could be used to spread Anthrax? it's allowed by the terms the UN set since it's range is only about 5 miles. Not only that, it's apparently constructed out of balsa wood, duct tape, and weedwhacker motors. [ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: Kermitov ]
quote:
Kermitov was listening to Cher while typing:
Anyway it's not that I think the civil concept of due process is perfect for the military world. But I found it disturbing that this U.S. official basically said "We're going to bomb them into the ground unless they prove they're not going to bomb us." Guilty until proven innocent.
They were innocent to begin with until they proved themselves guilty with publically demonstrated use of biological weapons and announced intentions of developing a nuclear arsenal.
They aren't guilty because we said they are, they're guilty because they've demonstrated themselves guilty and must now use thier second chance to demonstrate that they are not, which, incidentally, is one chance more than we give convicted criminals.
quote:
Maradon XP had this to say about Punky Brewster:
They were innocent to begin with until they proved themselves guilty with publically demonstrated use of biological weapons and announced intentions of developing a nuclear arsenal.They aren't guilty because we said they are, they're guilty because they've demonstrated themselves guilty and must now use thier second chance to demonstrate that they are not, which, incidentally, is one chance more than we give convicted criminals.
Ok, a lot of people think that since I don't particularly agree with this vendetta we seem to have against Hussein that I am pro-Hussein. Completely untrue. What I am against is having to go in and wage a war against people who are already surrenduring to troops who are not even shooting at them yet. Also, I feel that if we go in again we will again leave the job unfinished and we might as well not go in at all. It happened in Somalia. After we pulled out the warlord factions considered it a victory and things only got worse.
I don't feel that America has the resolve to remove Hussein and even if they do remove him they don't have the patience to ensure stability in the region. It's easy to say we do now but when people start dying (and they will) and the horrors of war (even a one sided war) show their ugly head and public opinion is in the toilet The Iraqi war will be over and nothing will change.
Saddam has basically been flipping the UN the bird for 12 years. The UN responds by saying if he doesn't cooperate, he will face "serious consequences." Guess what, Saddam has yet to do so and I haven't seen any of these so-called "serious consequences" yet. I think that we must do something in order to justify the validity of the UN.
On a side note, this is a fine civilized conversation we are having here. Let's try not to lock this thread. Dolemite's been overworked lately and we wouldn't want to keep him away from his ho's. 
quote:
Kermitov stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
Ok, a lot of people think that since I don't particularly agree with this vendetta we seem to have against Hussein that I am pro-Hussein. Completely untrue. What I am against is having to go in and wage a war against people who are already surrenduring to troops who are not even shooting at them yet. Also, I feel that if we go in again we will again leave the job unfinished and we might as well not go in at all. It happened in Somalia. After we pulled out the warlord factions considered it a victory and things only got worse.I don't feel that America has the resolve to remove Hussein and even if they do remove him they don't have the patience to ensure stability in the region. It's easy to say we do now but when people start dying (and they will) and the horrors of war (even a one sided war) show their ugly head and public opinion is in the toilet The Iraqi war will be over and nothing will change.
You owe it to yourself to actually do some research and gain the faintest shred of a clue before posting drivel that rivals that of Geeorn in the area of politics.
Due process has nothing to do with international relations, as I said. Had you stayed awake in civics, or understood the least bit about the concepts you're so quick to wave around in defense of a mass-murdering tyrant, you'd be better prepared for these discussions.
Exactly why do you believe the Iraqi propaganda regarding their UAV? 'Cause you saw the images on CNN from the reporters shooting exactly what the Iraqis allow them to?
Why ignore the fact that Blix, as pro-Iraqi a scumsucking a useless liar as there ever was, even said was in violation of 1441?
Yes, under the terms of 1441, the Iraqis must prove that they have complied with the earlier resolutions and the terms of the cease-fire by disarming. We do not have to prove that they are breaking them, though the evidence is abundantly clear, and they have already "discovered" things they "forgot" to disclose during their "full disclosure."
You use the word "feel" a lot. Perhaps if you based more of your opinions around words like "think" and "informed," you'd fare better.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Tarquinn had this to say about pies:
Yes, and inspectors hunt in packs, er INSPECT in packs.
I'd love to know what clever point you were trying to make with this comment, Tarq. Way I see it, it could mean one of several things.
1. You think that the U.N.'s inspectors (they're not the United States' inspectors; we use spy planes and satellites and such) don't belong there. This would be contradictory to previously put-forth (in other threads) points about how the USA should listen to the UN about things...if we're supposed to listen to the UN and the UN isn't supposed to send inspectors into countries that it lays down resolutions in regards to limiting, then how are they supposed to enforce anything and remain a valid body?
2. You think the UN's inspectors are hunters rather than inspectors, by all means point out that they're carrying weapons. Inspectors look. Hunters track down and kill. It's the difference between a bird watcher and a trophy hunter. You have a keen enough grasp of the English language to make the joke, I hope your grasp of the language is good enough to know the difference in definitions.
3. Could've been just a joke that sounded better unsaid. In which case I'm overblowing things and I thus apologize.
Good to have you back around more often, Sage!
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
I would say that it was just an accident.
[edit: complete change of post.]
[ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: Dr. Pvednes, PhD ]
Your right to fly is not a right. It is not guarenteed anywhere in the consitution. It is a privilage given to you by the US goverment. Just like driving. If it was a right you would not have to pass tests to be able to do it.
So on those grounds you are in the wrong.
Now... That being said I agree with you to some extent. They have gone a little far. I was in the process of getting my Pilots license and I know what a pain it has turned into. However you don't see me turning against the whole country because of it.
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael:
I'd love to know what clever point you were trying to make with this comment, Tarq. Way I see it, it could mean one of several things.1. You think that the U.N.'s inspectors (they're not the United States' inspectors; we use spy planes and satellites and such) don't belong there. This would be contradictory to previously put-forth (in other threads) points about how the USA should listen to the UN about things...if we're supposed to listen to the UN and the UN isn't supposed to send inspectors into countries that it lays down resolutions in regards to limiting, then how are they supposed to enforce anything and remain a valid body?
2. You think the UN's inspectors are hunters rather than inspectors, by all means point out that they're carrying weapons. Inspectors look. Hunters track down and kill. It's the difference between a bird watcher and a trophy hunter. You have a keen enough grasp of the English language to make the joke, I hope your grasp of the language is good enough to know the difference in definitions.
3. Could've been just a joke that sounded better unsaid. In which case I'm overblowing things and I thus apologize.
The *hunt*-part was a little joke aimed at nobody. I just had to think of "wolfpacks" as I wrote my post.
The point however was that the inspectors move around in groups, visit this factory, this old depot, this bunker, this whatever. If they find something suspicious, the WHOLE group will know what's going on. Not just a single, lonely inspector, who can be easily assassinated, because he's the only one who knows the truth.
I'm kinda shocked that you were offended/insulted/annoyed/irritated/whatever by my post, but as you are a cool guy and I have only respect for you, I accept your apology anyway. =Þ
*Edit: I apologize for not adding one of these " [ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: Tarquinn ]
" to my initial post to make clear that I didn't want to insult anyone.*
As I said. I am not jumping up and saying he found nukes or anything. But I do have to question what we have been told. I dont' believe in coincidence. Especially not in a situation like this. Hell I am not even saying Saddam had him killed. But in a country like that it is not unheard of for a general or other officer to take such initiative.
quote:
T. E. Bloodsage probably says this to all the girls:
cut personal attacks and blah blah blah
And you would do much better to learn to argue without resorting to damaging the character of others and insults. Take a deep breath once in a while and formulate an opinion that doesn't include "You're an idiot". That's a fallacy too you know.
You missed the part where I said that I didn't necessarily believe that the civil definition of due process was useful in international politics but I found it disturbing that it seems there is nothing Iraq can do to prove itself other than self destruct but then we'd probably complain that they killed the weapons inspectors when they did it.
quote:
Azizza wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
Kermitov your anger anger seems to come mostly from the problems around your Pilots license.
I bring up two points that may seem to conrtadict each other... But for the sake of argument listen.Your right to fly is not a right. It is not guarenteed anywhere in the consitution. It is a privilage given to you by the US goverment. Just like driving. If it was a right you would not have to pass tests to be able to do it.
So on those grounds you are in the wrong.
Now... That being said I agree with you to some extent. They have gone a little far. I was in the process of getting my Pilots license and I know what a pain it has turned into. However you don't see me turning against the whole country because of it.
No, you're right, my right to fly is actually a priveledge. That's why there is a process the FAA can follow to strip me of it. But up until now I had the right to hire a lawyer and defend myself. I no longer have that right.
And I haven't turned on the entire country just because of that fact. I'm pursuing legal, ethical, and democratic ways of getting this law struck from the books because if one kind of law like this is allowed then that sets a precedent. What scares me and the problem that I have is that there are not enough people who see a problem with a law like that even though it doesn't affect them.
Besides, not having a pilots license is not going to stop a terrorist from anything.
quote:
Kermitov had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
And you would do much better to learn to argue without resorting to damaging the character of others and insults. Take a deep breath once in a while and formulate an opinion that doesn't include "You're an idiot". That's a fallacy too you know.You missed the part where I said that I didn't necessarily believe that the civil definition of due process was useful in international politics but I found it disturbing that it seems there is nothing Iraq can do to prove itself other than self destruct but then we'd probably complain that they killed the weapons inspectors when they did it.
Misquoting someone simply so you have something to bitch about is a foul.
Your response also shows you didn't bother to read what I said.
So you have a few tasks before you:
1. Go back and read what I actually wrote
2. Learn the difference between an assault on your ideas and your methods, and one on your person
3. If you then have objections to something I've actually said, lay them out logically and see what happens.
Unfortunately for you, this reply proves my point, making it painfully obvious you haven't engaged your brain in this discussion, but are arguing based upon incoherent emotion.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
T. E. Bloodsage impressed everyone with:
Misquoting someone simply so you have something to bitch about is a foul.Your response also shows you didn't bother to read what I said.
It's so hard to put any credence to what you say when it's littered with insults.
quote:
2. Learn the difference between an assault on your ideas and your methods, and one on your person
Remember typing this?:
quote:
You owe it to yourself to actually do some research and gain the faintest shred of a clue before posting drivel that rivals that of Geeorn in the area of politics.
personal attack on two people one of which hasn't even posted here.
And this one?:
quote:
Had you stayed awake in civics, or understood the least bit about the concepts you're so quick to wave around in defense of a mass-murdering tyrant, you'd be better prepared for these discussions.
Also a personal attack.
And I never said I was defending a mass murdering tyrant. You've done everything so far besides call me un-american for disagreeing, but that's ok, someone else already has.
quote:
Unfortunately for you, this reply proves my point, making it painfully obvious you haven't engaged your brain in this discussion, but are arguing based upon incoherent emotion.
personal attack. Boy you're good at this.
What point was that? You haven't actually answered any of my opinions (burden of proof lies on you remember), and apparently you didn't know that the word "feel" can be used to convey that the person's statement is opinion and in that context means the same thing as "think." [ 03-15-2003: Message edited by: Kermitov ]
You have failed to inform your statements with the least bit of research, thought, or everyday common sense. Sorry, but that's not a "personal insult," but a statement of rather obvious fact, reinforced by your continuing use of the word "feel" to describe the basis of your silliness.
Further, though you keep claiming not to be defending a murderous tyrant, that's exactly what you are doing. It doesn't matter whethehr you use those words or not.
So why don't you come back with something other than whining that your precious little feelings are hurt because I pointed out how baseless your arguments are?
Now be a big boy, and answer the substantive objections rather than whining about your hurt feelings.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Made the post more clear. [ 03-15-2003: Message edited by: Suddar ]
#2...ARGH, I guess being sick all day doesn't help coherency.
