News Briefs 29-09-2006
Posted by Kat at 07:52, 29 Sep 2006The Spirit of Tyranny is a seductive bastard...
- New study reveals details of time when Earth was hot, CO2-rich. Hot, prehistoric conditions may return by 2100.
- Kids' kickabout reveals church's mystery crypt.
- Scottish university to carry out major study on the mysterious Beaker people, who flourished across Europe more than 4,000 years ago.
- Did Michigan's copper fuel Europe's Bronze Age? Here are - three - excerpts from Michigan Copper: The Untold Story.
- A new 'theory of everything' is gaining ground.
- How to build a particle accelerator on a table top.
- China claims successful test of fusion reactor.
- Two million air miles will buy you a ticket into space. Humm... Hey, Branson, wouldn't flying that much be environmentally irresponsible?
- Self-resurrecting bacteria's secret revealed. In other words, some bacteria are born old.
- Distraction tactic wipes out allergies. Will Rico move to Switzerland so he can get in the clinical trials?
- Researchers discover that dust mites and their droppings - long linked to asthma and allergy attacks - contain an enzyme which destroys the protective function of the skin.
- Eris, NASA, Madonna, the Pope, Stargates and Magic Mushrooms in Movies.
- A virtual world like no other.
- British are following Americans off the debt cliff.
- Bush claims crown ...err, victory as Senate approves terror suspects bill. No matter how they phrase their responses, many agree - these are - dark times - for the US.
- The science of predicting the future: it's all about crossing thresholds.
- Beneath the scary headlines about the Patriot Act, government spying, or the evils of voting machines, the biggest, yet least discussed, problem with America's electoral system is gerrymandering. Dims or Repugs: Our current system of two parties amounts to nothing more than a choice of being screwed with, or without, a lubricant. (Greg said that ought to be a QotD, but I'm giving today's final word to one of history's greatest orators.)
- If you've ever wondered why Americans seem so ill-informed, here's your answer. According to The Guardian, Newsweek's international editor, Fareed Zakaria, explained the difference in covers by saying that in the US, Newsweek is a mass market magazine with a broad reach, while overseas it 'is a somewhat more upmarket magazine for internationally minded people.'
Quote of the Day:
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER," and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.
Thomas Paine, The Crisis
Bookmark/Search this post with
Comments
19 October 2004
5 years 5 weeks
Today's uber-Leftist rantings are a bit much, even for Kat. I think someone is trying to make Howard Dean look reasonable by comparison.
;)
30 May 2005
48 weeks 1 hour
*Slowly shakes head, and buries head in hands*
I've been watching, with sadness, TDG more and more ramp up it's political stories and commentary over the past couple years.
It's becoming harder and harder to come to my once favorite site because of it.
I initially started coming to TDG over 3 years ago, multiple times a day, for fringe science, for UFO's, for Esoterica, and strange cool story links that couldn't be easily found otherwise. I loved this site for THOSE things. I even went out of my way to spend my money on the newsletter sponsors to do my part.
Now, I have to trudge through an increasing number of clever political stabs and outright far left political propaganda. Almost on a daily basis now.
It's bad enough that the politics of any kind are included here. But having it always be far left bomb throwing and smearing makes it worse.
I realize that I am in a great minority here, not being of the far-left persuasion, and I don't want to be catered to. I just feel like coming here should be more of an escape from political banter, not an aspect of it.
All I'm saying is it just makes me sad. I wish politics didn't have to be apart of what TDG is. I wish, at the very least, there could be a separate page for it.
It's not my site and I have no say... but....Well.... if wishes were dollars.... Maybe I could donate enough $ to Greg to get politics off the main site :)
1 May 2004
22 weeks 1 day
Hi thrustbucket,
This may sound strange to you (and then maybe not) but some people see links between 'esoterica' metaphysics and psychism.
Meaning that things are not just into a box of their own without influence on other parts of reality.
Viewed in this sense, politics become as important as the rest, maybe even more so because it is then one major outlet of psychic forces that have an impact over our lives.
Regardless of the slant people give to politics, anyone interested in the invisible can make an association between it and politics. You could call that the occult of politics if you want.
One example is the realm of prophecies that of course can only be played through politics and geopolitics. It is where you will see them either materialize or fail. That alone makes it an interesting trail (politics) to test the validity of prophetic texts.
It is generally difficult to avoid the slant. It is still possible to have civic conversations using creative opposition. (No systematic opposition need apply.)
It is possible though not to take statements personally. I believe we would all benefit from dissecting the consequences and social impacts of politics as well as the reasoning and its reason behind slant, political or otherwise. (By this I mean the reason even as for the reasoning.)
This is one manifestation of the invisible and one cue about its reality.
One can always look at politics historically speaking to find the alleged links between leaders of the past and powerful magic bonds, usually of the dark type, that were involved and that brought about great destruction and major shifts in world balance.
It may be more useful to recognize their equivalent today, where they exist now, to be in a position of potential action.
If it has happened, it will happen.
The world is being polarized like countries are becoming polarized between Left-Right discourses.
In the end, it is less the discourse than the fact of being polarized that leads to conflict.
Conflict to me is a tool of the invisible to keep their reign over the unconscious humanity that is totally absorbed by the form and concepts while it easily forfeits the spirit of the form, what the concepts means integrally and not what it appears to be on the surface.
Without the polarization that identifying to an ideology brings, there would be no conflict therefore political statements would not be taken personally and the subject would remain on the table rather than in our emotions.
What the loss of polarization does though is the need to contest any and all concepts that imply domination at one point or the other.
This is perhaps why many people who have studied metaphysics for so long tend to lean Left as metaphysics asks the individual to leave his ego behind, in a way, and care about the powerless, the poor, those that have not fared as well as we because of their karmic ties.
On the other hand, one could say that the elevation of human consciousness will also require us to refine our consciousness in ways that are not equivalent to self defeat for the service of a social cause, steering the rudder right again.
In other words, it can't be Left and it can't be right and, because of this, it can't be center since the center we think of is simply a point of equilibrium between the two poles and even that varies according to the stage they have reached within a society in particular.
Instead, we would be talking about being centered relative to our own energy and our own polarized views in a way that neutralizes the impressions that these views could have on us, to avoid beings influenced from within.
Refusing to be influenced by others is obvious enough but do we know not to be influenced by our own internal tensions, our fears to lose or to not have? our fears period?
All these allow politics to unfold as they do and to create poles of tension between group that pull on the sheet until that sheet is shred to pieces.
This is where politics become interesting and are debunked as a cosmic conspiracy against the well being of humanity, an invisible conspiracy to maintain a state of conflict and globally maintain the individual prisoner of his ideologies that were programmed into his psychic fabric prior even to his incarnation.
Know thyself means knowing the invisible links that render man adept of astral magic and dependent on the laws of death.
Seeing those links automatically makes of one a scientist of politics since the links between the realm of the dead and the unfolding events become increasingly apparent.
Events that could be predicted or hinted at because they were already globally programmed.
Politics and geopolitics then become a time meter that inform us on the current psychological status of humanity. It also allows us to see where we are in relation to the end of the times of psychological manipulation, therefore of mortal politics, that people use in all aspects of their lives.
We do it at work, with our spouses, with everyone from which we need a return.
We are intrinsically psychological tacticians who hope to influence the environment to our advantage, to the advantage of the ideology to which we are vibratorily tied.
World politics reflect this psychological reflex as the personality of nations is mainly derived from the personality of its members.
We need the strength to see the manipulations of our peers and for that we need the strength to see the manipulation within and politics is one of the most extreme useful method to know oneself if we know to observe what it does to us, if we know to take a psychological distance from it.
There are of course other realms of life experience that are powerful vectors, family is one.
It is up to us to look at politics in a different light rather than be absorbed by it. If not then we are only playing the game that politics enforce on us with rules that are beyond our will and that we refuse to see for the benefit of the perpetuation of an ideology.
19 October 2004
5 years 5 weeks
I'll spare you the lengthy, esoteric diatribe and offer up a simple "ditto". My experience with TDG mirrors yours and I couldn't agree more.
1 May 2004
22 weeks 1 day
The long esoteric diatribe
Of course, many would not be interested in those.
It would depend on what someone is looking for I guess.
Tabloid curiosities or somthing else.\
This said, why the need to censor?
19 October 2004
5 years 5 weeks
I see no censoring on the part of TDG readers who don't have the power to do even if they so desired. The owner and contributors already censor themselves by virtue of what they choose to post and not post. Offering up critical advice in an attempt to influence thier decisions in that regard is hardly censorship.
30 April 2004
2 hours 10 min
It's bad enough that the politics of any kind are included here. But having it always be far left bomb throwing and smearing makes it worse.
'Always'? You obviously must have missed the Chomsky story on Wednesday. Or the ones questioning global warming. Etc.
Maybe I could donate enough $ to Greg to get politics off the main site :)
No money required. Just vote your idiot king out...we're much more relaxed when we don't have to worry about invasions, torture, human rights abuses and the rest of it.
;)
Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
22 November 2004
3 days 2 hours
W will be out soon. 15 months or so. No need for voting.
Then you can worry about the rest of them.
7 June 2006
4 years 52 weeks
Greg, I agree with the questioning of the "always" statement and your examples are a good point. However, I do agree that lately the tone has gotten extremlly political and far left (especially when Kat does the posting, you usually seem pretty fair and non-political). But your comment above, and some of the other comments that appear directly insulting the President and his advisors, are just childish in tone and serve no real purpose. Calling Bush an "idiot king" insults not only him, but the majority of the country. First point, Bush is not an idiot. He's not a genius, but he is an intellegent man. Yes he has some problems speaking at times, but when he does speak he does not try to talk down to people or turn words inside out on them (such as saying that the meaning of a sentence depends on your definition of "is"). Second of all, if he were a king there'd be no debate over all these things because he'd do what he wanted, no questions asked (and if he were, I'd be one of the first to pick up a weapon and fight a non-democratic government). As for worring about invasions, torture, human rights abuses and the like - The terrorists would have attacked no matter who was in office. And if we want to blame someone, blame them. Mr. Clinton says he worked very hard to fight terrorism during his tenure (and I'm sure he feels he did), but we still had multiple terrorist attacks on American targets during the 90's (WTC1, Kobar Towers, African Embassies, USS Cole). Since 9/11, how many major attacks on American Targets have succeeded outside of IED attacks in Iraq on US Military? There have been major attacks, but they were on other targets, not American. Do we torture? I'm sorry, but I don't consider things like solitary confinement and tough questioning techniques torture. Even water boarding is tame compared to what these people would do to us if they had the chance. And they wouldn't care if you fought all the way to the Supreme Court to protect them, they would torture and kill you just the same. I'd rather treat them a little rough and get them to talk about their buddies still out there and use that info to protect us all, than to handle them with kid gloves and be spit on for it. As for Human Rights abuses, have you heard how well the Gitmo prisoners have it? At the moment, there favorite food is McDonald's Fillet-o-Fish, which they can have any time they want from the one on-base. Our brave soldiers who captured these terrorists have to eat rations while these guys have a very extensive take-out menu at thier beck and call. They are alowed thier 5 daily prayers and guards are punished if the walk to loud during those periods. We are codling these people who want to kill us. And now we need to give them access to our courts to sue us and the guards? MY GODS People, remind me if I ever reach a point in my life that I'm desperate and turn to crime to rob the leftist out there, because they'll stand up and say it wasn't my fault. Let's not forget that one of the "detainnees" is Kalid Sheik Mohhammed, the man who planned the so called "Planes Operation" that we know better as 9/11. Kat, as for your Quote from the great Patriot, Thomas Paine, let's remembet a few facts. The British Crown detained American Colonists for no reasons and held them without trial. We captured people trying to kill US Soldiers on the battlefeild and wanted to process them through millitary tribunals, so as to expidite things, but the way was blocked by the American left. And if you try and say that the tribunals would not be fair, then I pity your view of your fellow man that you mistrust that much.
Amadeus_rex
FORTE EST VINUM, FORTIOR EST REX, FORTIORES SUNT MULIERES: SUPER OMNIA VINCIT VERITAS.
"Wine is strong, a King is stronger, women are stronger still: but truth conquers all"
30 April 2004
2 hours 10 min
Calling Bush an "idiot king" insults not only him, but the majority of the country.
Sincerest apologies, but sometimes a country deserves to be insulted...so America, consider yourself insulted. The only mitigating factor is that the alternative is hardly an 'alternative'. But Bush is an idiot (I didn't say non-intelligent), and anybody that can't see that things are going very awry hasn't done much impartial analysis of the events of the last few years. It's interesting to note that most comments rebuking political comment here on TDG have gone on to rail against the Democrats...when I don't think any of us support them either (heck, only one of us is an American). Partisan politics is akin to fundamentalist religion these days.
But I agree that TDG shouldnt' be focusing on politics, and we should try to limit that aspect somewhat in future.
Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
22 November 2004
3 days 2 hours
It is an interesting topic, who can be insulted and who cannot.
These days it seems ok to insult americans, as in the "typical" american individual, and as a country.
It also is ok to insult germans individually and as a country, for historical reasons.
On the other hand, it is not ok to insult Arabians, Muslims, Africans, aboriginal Australians, or Chinese culture.
Why is that?
I can think of well-founded insults for pretty much everyone on earth. Including the above-mentioned folks that are not supposed to be insulted. But also Greg, Kat, Bill, Jameske, Ron, the Pope, Mohammed, Jesus, Mother Theresa, the Daila Lhama (sp?), my mother, and of course myself.
Perhaps the TDG site could add an e-mail feature, so that we can exchange individual insults.
[Edit:] these individual insults are available on request. If you don't want to know, don't ask, and I won't tell.
30 April 2004
4 years 20 weeks
Pardon the language but do you need to feel his balls slapping your ass to realise Georgey B. is f**king you? First of all I would question the values of anyone who argues that torture, whether waterboarding or any other form is an acceptable practice by the supposed leader of the free world against foreign nationals, or if the new detainee bill passes, their own citizens. The moment you compromise on the ideals of basic human rights (FOR ALL PEOPLE)then you throw away everything that our forefathers have fought tyranny for throughout history.
The ability to even have an open discussion on a topic like this is being threatened more and more each day. Keep the politics on the site guys. This site is all about the truth so keep the views coming cause we sure as hell aren't going to get the mainstream media to keep us informed. There was a time when the media were the watchdog of the government and the world. This time has saddly passed with the rampant corporation standover of the media and it is only through forums such as this site where we can get a small view of reality before they have polished it. Use your God given ability to use your mind objectively. Any person who makes up their mind before hearing the both sides of the entire issue is a fool. If you find that impossible or if you don't like the articles or the comments, I suggest you exercise your right to not read them, where as I'll exercise mine to keep reading them, while we in Australia still have those rights...
P.S
1. Bush is an idiot. (and I 've got a few more terms less flattering)
2. He does do everything he wants (when they jerk his chain)
3. lets not forget the one of the detainees at Guantanamo ISNT Osama Bin Laden.
Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 8:32
11 August 2005
6 years 17 weeks
Since 9/11, how many major attacks on American Targets have succeeded outside of IED attacks in Iraq on US Military? There have been major attacks, but they were on other targets, not American. Do we torture? I'm sorry, but I don't consider things like solitary confinement and tough questioning techniques torture. Even water boarding is tame compared to what these people would do to us if they had the chance.
Sad how right wingers in this country think. "Outside of IED attacks in Iraq" obviously shows the conflating of military casualties lost to insurgents with terrorist attacks. And it shows the right's inability to deal with logic. Why would the "Islamozombies" or whatever term the right wing is using this week spend money on airfare to attack Americans in the U.S. when Mr. Bush kindly shipped over Americans to them to attack.
Here above you also see the right wing's inability to recognize reality. Ignore the fact that when President Clinton ordered strikes on Osama bin Laden, the right wing criticized him. Ignore the numerous deaths of detainees to beatings and violence by U.S. interrogators. They Ignore the fact that detainees have been released after months of torture in captivity because they were found to have been innocent of any wrongdoing. Ignore the countless suicide attempts by those detainees still held in limbo. And ignore the fact that if any of our soldiers were taken prisoner and subjected to such treatment as we've done unto others, we damn well would consider it torture. Ignore the fact that counterrorism experts say torture is ineffective at getting useful information outside of the TV show "24" which the right confuses with reality. Ignore the fact that Bush's own former Secretary of State has called such tactics as endangering the U.S. fight against terrorism and world standing. No, the right only compares our behavior to that of the terrorists. Now there is a hell of a standard to be proud of. To those supporting President Bush and the Republican rubber stamp Congress, are you not yet ashamed enough?
30 April 2004
5 years 11 weeks
Ignore the fact that when President Clinton ordered strikes on Osama bin Laden, the right wing criticized him.
Clinton was critized because he destroyed a tent, blew-up an asprin factory, and killed a civilian in Pakistan when he attacked ObL. No one critized him for the attack; his failure was critized.
Bill
11 August 2005
6 years 17 weeks
Are you uninformed or not telling the truth?
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/...
The Republican leaders attacked him for the very reasons I stated. You could not possibly be more wrong. Clinton was attacked by Republicans as shown by their own words not for the methods of the attacks but for even MAKING the attacks on bin Laden in 1998.
Bearing false witness as you have done is breaking one of the Lord's commandments as much as adultery.
30 April 2004
5 years 11 weeks
Now we're arguing about Clinton. The real truth is that I don't hate Clinton. I just think he lies often and I'm ashamed of him.
Clinton wasn't being critized for attacking ObL or Iraq in those quotes. He was being critized for playing the Clinton version of "Wag the Dog". He was attempting to distrack the press and the public for his activities with Monica in the Oval Office.
I don't have any cool Bible verses for you. I don't think you can properly intrepret what you read. Did you bother to read what you posted?
Bill
11 August 2005
6 years 17 weeks
You really are an idiot. Saying "wag the dog" was attacking Clinton for the attacks not for the method. Your reading comprehension really is poor. Either that or you're so deluded as to no longer recognize reality. Probably both. Good day to you.
30 April 2004
5 years 11 weeks
Nobody could possibly be this stupid. Troll alert.
Bill
1 May 2004
2 days 3 hours
>>Kat, as for your Quote from the great Patriot, Thomas Paine, let's remembet a few facts. The British Crown detained American Colonists for no reasons and held them without trial. We captured people trying to kill US Soldiers on the battlefeild and wanted to process them through millitary tribunals, so as to expidite things, but the way was blocked by the American left.
If that's the case, then by 'the American left', I take it you mean all those Supreme Court Judges appointed by George Herbert Walker Bush and George W. Bush who voted that the tribunals were unconstitutional.
Kat
30 April 2004
5 years 11 weeks
Hi Thrustbucket,
It's oh-so media hip and cool and to be anti-Bush. After all, all the Hollywood stars that we like are anti-Bush and everyone thinks Jon Stewart is so oh-so hip and cool and funny and the Daily Show is real news, right? So let's all be hip and cool and funny and we can be the awesome left. In that sense, TDG is not media-fringe; just one of the crowd.
The Democrats problem is that they believe that they are not winning elections because they are just not getting their message out. Their message is out - people don't like it. Voters just don't buy into media anti-Bush, cut-and-run, no response to terrorism (We tried that with Clinton but it didn't work). I'm for taking the gloves off in Iraq.
Bill
14 January 2006
1 year 51 weeks
I now feel like I am ina pub listenging to private discussion. Yes Richard was pedantic in explaining his point of view but he did make some salient points. Everything on this planet is interconnected. No one is seperate from the pack. Bush represents the forces of change. He represents the old families that won't cede their power, or control of the third world's strategic resources. This hold won't last forever. I see these times as a transformational time. Nothing lasts forever. All the old civilizations came and went. Someday someone will come along and look at our civilation and they will find the same problems in our times exists in their times too. TDG is a great escape from the pack, but is also a place for self examination, looking at other cultures and see our own. Finding out about the lakes on Titan. I love getting first hand knowledge from someone on TDG about those pyramids in Bosnia--no where else this would happen but here. We can all forgive the pedagogical sorts. Just imagine living in WWII, or in Ancient Rome. We all would not be discusing such things. Come across a set of rooms and artefacts in a mountain, that would be the devil's work not the discovery of ancient Atlantis. Keep up the great work Greg, no one can please a critic. I once shot a 35 minute docuementary and passed it around to differant film festivals, it played only in England. Someone I know criticized it, but could they do the same????--nay. Keep up the good work, greg. Keep us monkies in line!
30 April 2004
5 years 11 weeks
I now feel like I am ina pub listenging to private discussion.
Bingo, Paul. So do I. You made my point. Look at the title of the column.
This isn't a blog; this is the news. Blogs belong in the blogs column, not the news. I do care about the revalent news of the day. I don't care about Kat's political opinion at all.
Bill
30 April 2004
2 hours 10 min
The Democrats problem is that they believe...
Oops, there's the D word again. Who mentioned them?
;)
Voters just don't buy into media anti-Bush,
ROFL. You kill me.
I just don't know how Bush was able to go to war with Iraq, the media were just so critical of everything the administration said...
Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
30 April 2004
5 years 11 weeks
Oops, there's the D word again. Who mentioned them?
;)
Actually, Kat did in the next to the last story in the news but she spelled it "Dims".
ROFL. You kill me.
I just don't know how Bush was able to go to war with Iraq, the media were just so critical of everything the administration said...
No, most were for it before they were against it. When it got tough they broke ranks. Now, most are hip and cool. ;o)
Bill
30 April 2004
2 hours 10 min
No, most were for it before they were against it. When it got tough they broke ranks. Now, most are hip and cool.
And by 'got tough', you're obviously referring to the total lack of WMD, lack of chemical trailers, lack of unmanned drones ready to attack the U.S, lack of Al Qaeda connection, and lack of being greeted as liberators. All of which were apparently as real as I am, according to Messrs Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.
So glad to see that expecting truth in matters of war has finally become "hip and cool". Kind of like flares, it happens every few decades or so...
Kind regards,
Greg
* "There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04
* "We know where the WMDs are." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/03
* "I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators." - Cheney
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
11 August 2005
6 years 17 weeks
I'd point out the people turned against the war even though much of the media refuses to show the real harshness of it.
30 April 2004
5 years 11 weeks
And by 'got tough', you're obviously referring to the total lack of WMD, lack of chemical trailers, lack of unmanned drones ready to attack the U.S, lack of Al Qaeda connection, and lack of being greeted as liberators. All of which were apparently as real as I am, according to Messrs Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq
Saddam's WMD have been found
500-metric tons (about 1-million pounds of yellow cake uranium) along with 1.8 metric tons of partially enriched uranium.
I still think the bulk went to Syria but I can't prove it. Now, what do you think Saddam was going to do with all that stuff? Since he was already funding suicuide attacks in Isreal, do you think some of it might have found its was to Al Queda?
Stopping them before they do it is a new concept. It really doesn't matter if you don't like it.
BTW Greg, it's your site so you win. Let's argue politics and forget all that other stuff.
Bill
30 April 2004
2 hours 10 min
Okay Bill, now you're starting to insult my intelligence.
Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq
Let's see, your first piece of evidence is a flash news release from mega-wingnut Rick Santorum, which was so credible that Fox News - that bastion of pinko, commie liberal thought - debunked it within hours.
Saddam's WMD have been found
Next we have an early 2004 article from a rabid neocon propagandist, which grabs at any straw it can find. So much credible evidence in it that in the next two years both Bush and the White House stated a number of times that Iraq did not have WMD. Not to mention the ISG report finding that "Iraq had no deployable WMD of any kind as of March 2003 and had no production since 1991." You'd think they'd be keen to find a little evidence of WMD wouldn't you? Perhaps you should pass the article on to them. Seriously, where do you dig this crap up Bill? Do you question anything that Bushco have done over the past 6 years (it's a very long sheet of paper)?
500-metric tons (about 1-million pounds of yellow cake uranium) along with 1.8 metric tons of partially enriched uranium.
You mean this yellowcake? The material that the IAEA "has kept...at the site safely under UN seal for 12 years." The one that only started going missing when some idiot invaded the country, allowing it to be looted. But it's all found now apparently. Certainly sounds like it was worth a war, and 40,000+ people dying.
I still think the bulk went to Syria but I can't prove it. Now, what do you think Saddam was going to do with all that stuff? Since he was already funding suicuide attacks in Isreal, do you think some of it might have found its was to Al Queda?
ISG again: "it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place". It's an unfalsifiable statement though, so I guess this is one point we really can't argue on conclusively.
Stopping them before they do it is a new concept. It really doesn't matter if you don't like it.
It's not so much me that you should be worried about. It's the millions of Islamic youth around the world who might not "like it"...the ones more likely to get their jihad on. Dubya and friends are pretty much making the case against pre-emptive war at the moment, so there's little for me to do. The tragic thing is, this is all supposed to stop terrorism.
BTW Greg, it's your site so you win. Let's argue politics and forget all that other stuff.
Hey, I spend four hours a day collecting all that "other stuff". By the end of it, I'm ready to talk politics...
;)
Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
30 April 2004
5 years 11 weeks
Okay Bill, now you're starting to insult my intelligence.
Sometimes your intelligence needs insulting. ;o)
That Fox News debunker, Alan Colmes, is as liberal as they come. It just depends on who is telling the story. BTW, if you’re going to quote someone it depends on where one stops quoting. I’ll finish this one for you,
The Iraq Survey Group believes "it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials." (My bold.)
You probably won’t read this, Strong Evidence There Were WMDs in Iraq, but you should.
It is interesting how history is so quickly forgotten. A ceasefire was in force on Iraq following the first Gulf war where Saddam invaded Kuait. Saddam consistently violated the ceasefire by expelling the weapons inspectors among other things. The US Congress passed President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 where it was decided to overthrow Saddam. We encouraged a coup and then rebellion by the people of Iraq, that didn’t work. The US knew that Saddam had chemical- and armament-WMDs because we gave them to him to fight Iran. Then he gassed the Kurds with them. The UN wouldn’t back their own resolutions because Saddam had member nations scamming millions from the Food for Oil program.
On September 20, 2001 President Bush said, Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.... And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
Saddam was providing safe haven to terrorist Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yasin (conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing), Khala Khadr al-Shalat (bomb-maker brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland), Abu Abbas (mastermind of 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer), and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan and leader of the Al-Qaeda's forces in Iraq until recently.
Documents captured in Iraq revealed that Saddam intended to resume anthrax and mustard gas production in two months. Every intelligence agency on earth, including the UN, believed that Saddam had WMDs. Even without them he was supporting suicide bombers in Israel.
There are things that I don't support with President Bush, but the invasion of Iraq isn't one of them. He spends too much money trying to appease liberals.
The reason that my references are old is because this topic is no longer current. It doesn’t really matter – we are there. What matters is “What do we do now?” Democrats here don’t want to “cut and run” and they don’t want to stay. In other words, they have no plan. I would put more boots on the ground and start bombing again. What would you do?
Bill
30 April 2004
2 hours 10 min
That Fox News debunker, Alan Colmes, is as liberal as they come. It just depends on who is telling the story. BTW, if you’re going to quote someone it depends on where one stops quoting. I’ll finish this one for you,
The Iraq Survey Group believes "it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials." (My bold.)
Perhaps more important to bold would be "it was unlikely", and to a lesser extent "limited" and "related". But this point isn't worth arguing - as I said, it's an unfalsifiable assertion. The best that can be said is that even the ISG can't find any evidence...hardly anything that you can bring up as justification for pre-emptive war.
You probably won’t read this, Strong Evidence There Were WMDs in Iraq, but you should.
Bill, I'll read whatever you're passing on. However, my estimation of your critical thinking is dropping faster than a lead balloon. So far your sources are wingnut Santorum and a rabid neocon propagandist. Now you're asking me to accept the word of Bill Tierney, a Christian fundie, who says that God showed him where the WMD were in Iraq but nobody would listen. The same Bill Tierney who then turns up at Gitmo as an interrogator, and gets a bit unhinged when he talks about torturing people. The same Bill Tierney who is given the 'Saddam Tapes' to translate, and seems to have free reign to release them to the public. The same Bill Tierney that gets interviewed outside Terry Schiavo's hospice. Can you say "shill" boys and girls?
The reason that my references are old is because this topic is no longer current. It doesn’t really matter – we are there. What matters is “What do we do now?”
No, if you want to rattle your sabre and promote pre-emptive war, then it still does *really* matter. You references are not old because the topic is no longer current, they are old because they have been made obsolete by the ISG report. If you feel the need to continually refer to them (and I can refer you back to the Atta in Prague debate we had much earlier for more of the same), then you are simply trying to reinforce your belief system with incorrect information.
You can talk about Saddam's intentions, history etc. But that is not what I am discussing, and what you have been replying to with shoddy sources. Here it is again:
And by 'got tough', you're obviously referring to the total lack of WMD, lack of chemical trailers, lack of unmanned drones ready to attack the U.S, lack of Al Qaeda connection, and lack of being greeted as liberators. All of which were apparently as real as I am, according to Messrs Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.
As per the ISG report for the first few points:
* Iraq had no deployable WMD of any kind as of March 2003 and had no production since 1991.
* Any remaining chemical munitions in Iraq do not pose a militarily significant threat...ISG has not found evidence to indicate that Iraq did not destroy its BW weapons or bulk agents
* Evidence available to ISG concerning the UAV programs active at the onset of OIF indicates these systems were intended for reconnaissance and electronic warfare.
* ISG judged the mobile units were impractical for biological agent production and almost certainly designed and built for the generation of hydrogen.
The 9/11 panel found that Iraq had no connection with Al Qaeda (two days after Cheney said Saddam had "long-established ties" with Al Qaeda). And as for being greeted as liberators...
As for your final question "What matters is “What do we do now?”", that's the thousand dollar question isn't it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't - US troops left in a war zone, or pull out and Iraq descends into civil war. Such a shame you let an idiot and his cronies drag you into this situation. Even bigger shame that you still sit there defending him with wingnut propaganda, rather than questioning decisions and philosophies that rightly deserve considered debate. Time to put your sabre down and think critically.
Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
30 April 2004
5 years 11 weeks
Hi Greg,
No matter what a report says it difficult to debunk actual hardware. I've named you the terrorists that Saddam was giving safe haven. I've given you the reason that the UN didn't want to back its own resolution. Keep in mind that this is a war on terror, not any particular branch of terrorists. I feel much better with Saddam in court knowing that he can't provide terrorists with safe haven, WMDs, or money. For this, we can thank President Bush.
The invasion of Saddam's Irag was five years ago. It's over. You and I will not agree on this. Time moves on. The question you didn't answer is really the question now.
Bill
11 August 2005
6 years 17 weeks
You're kidding right? Do you keep up on current events? The NIE report came out recently stating the exact opposite, that the war in Iraq has made the country less safe, yet you have the shamelessness to write the words above as if they are true. I really feel pity for you and people who think like you do at this point. Sadly the innocent people in Iraq killed by the tens of thousands who had nothing to do with terrorism, 9/11, Saddam Hussein, but just wanted to live their lives, raise their families, and spend time in their children probably will never receive any sympathy for you. But I'll add you to my prayers just as I do them.
30 April 2004
5 years 11 weeks
The NIE report came out recently stating the exact opposite, that the war in Iraq has made the country less safe,
Citation link, please.
Bill
11 August 2005
6 years 17 weeks
As soon as you admit I was right about the Republicans attacking Bill Clinton unfairly when he ordered the attacks in 1998 on Osama bin Laden.
I've got the NIE link right here waiting. But when I gave you a citation for an excellent compilation of quotes you didn't even acknowledge it so no more links for you until you do.
30 April 2004
5 years 11 weeks
I'll admit that you didn't understand why Clinton was being critized because you didn't comprehend your "excellent compilation of quotes". You didn't comprehend what I wrote.
A bit of advice to you: If you find yourself in a hole way over your head, stop digging.
Bill
11 August 2005
6 years 17 weeks
I'll admit that you didn't understand why Clinton was being critized because you didn't comprehend your "excellent compilation of quotes". You didn't comprehend what I wrote.
A bit of advice to you: If you find yourself in a hole way over your head, stop digging.
Bill
Irony, thy name is Bill.
That too probably sailed over your head.
30 April 2004
5 years 11 weeks
Greg,
Another thing one gets with politics is Trolls. Nobody could be this stupid.
Bill
1 May 2004
2 days 3 hours
Still quoting Fox News, even after this public admission of bias in June, 2005?:
"Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind. Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it."
Scott Norvell, London Bureau chief for Fox News
Quoted (only) in Wall Street Journal, European Edition
Nothing's changed since then. Fox News' O'Reilly Factor recently mislabeled disgraced Republican Congressman Mark Foley as being a Florida Democrat. Then, in their late-night rebroadcasts, they scrubbed the erroneous label - without explanation.
As Greg's been urging, perhaps you should try reading other sources. For instance, Factcheck.org just posted a thorough point-by-point assessment of Clinton's recent claims of doing more to stop Osama:
Osama Bin Missing: Who's Tried Hardest to Tackle Top Terrorist?
Kat
30 April 2004
5 years 11 weeks
Hi Kat,
Neither Greg or have mentioned Bill o'Reiley. He's a right wing conservative, but he did not do the interview. No one has mentioned him except you.
Apparently, you have never heard Alan Colmes either. He is the resident left wing liberal. Colmes did the so-called debunking.
Bill
1 May 2004
2 days 3 hours
Above, under the subject 'More politics', you used a Fox News report as your source: Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq.
If you had actually read my post 'Still quoting Fox News', you should have understood that I gave you two examples for why Fox News, in general, is not a reliable news source. In the first example, Fox's own London bureau chief publicly stated that they were biased. The second example is their recent mislabeling of Foley as being a Democrat. For the purpose of showing that Fox is an unreliable news source, it doesn't really matter whose show they did that on. But for the purpose of showing they intentionally mislabeled Foley, it matters because of the O'Reilly show's popularity, and if they didn't mislabel Foley intentionally, then in their rebroadcasts, they would have apologized for the error and would have properly identified him as a Republican rather than showing him with no identification at all, and no explanation of their earlier 'mistake'.
Apparently, you also didn't bother to check out my link to a reliable source -factcheck.org - for a thorough point-by-point assessment of Clinton's recent claims of doing more than Bush, pre 9/11, to stop Osama.
>>Apparently, you have never heard Alan Colmes either. He is the resident left wing liberal. Colmes did the so-called debunking.
>>Actually, Greg was quoting Fox News for the Alan Colmes "debunking". I was pointing out that he's a Fox News, bleeding-heart, liberal. Unlike TDG, they have one in the interest of 'fair and balanced'.
Which is exactly what I was pointing out -- you won't find reliable, accurate news at Fox News - or any other news source - which presents the news from either a far right or far left perspective, and presenting it from BOTH a far right AND far left perspective isn't any better.
30 April 2004
5 years 11 weeks
Kat,
Both the source that I linked and the response that Greg linked were from Fox News. Ironic, isn’t it? I disagree that this makes the unfair and a poor source. I think they made a mistake on Foley. Even the AP picked it up. It was corrected in later broadcasts.
I almost always follow your links. I don't see the merit of some of them so I don't always address them. And, I usually don't agree with you.
There is no doubt that Bill O'Reilly is a conservative commentator. I was pointing out is that Alan Colmes is a liberal commentator. At least they don't try to conceal it like CBS did with Dan Rather. I did check out your factcheck.org but I was unsure what point you were trying to make. I disagree with their conclusion that Clinton was not trying to get Monica off page one with a strike on Iraq if that was their conclusion – I wasn’t quite sure.
This is why politics is a poor choice for TDG. It’s all about opinion and perception.
Bill
30 April 2004
5 years 11 weeks
Kat,
Actually, Greg was quoting Fox News for the Alan Colmes "debunking". I was pointing out that he's a Fox News, bleeding-heart, liberal. Unlike TDG, they have one in the interest of 'fair and balanced'.
Bill
11 August 2005
6 years 17 weeks
Amazing how you claim Clinton "cut and run." It just shows you don't know much about history. And you also don't know much about current events either. Bush closed the air base in Saudi Arabia -- Osama bin Laden's number one goal. Now that is cut and running. You also ignore the "cut and run" Bush did in Afghanistan. How's that hunt for Osama going by your boy?
30 April 2004
5 years 11 weeks
Do you see what happens when you start talking about politics. It's all opinion and any illiterate can scurry in.
Bill
11 August 2005
6 years 17 weeks
I have enough reading comprehension and understanding to know the National Intelligence Estimate, countless reports from the War College and the CIA as well as the DoD has shown that invading Iraq has made us less safer. I also have enough comprehension to know that Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott just said we should cut a deal with the Taliban to allow them back into the Afghan government. I'm sure you'll justify that "cut and run."
30 April 2004
5 years 11 weeks
troll alert
1 May 2004
3 years 31 weeks
The problem with the right is that they don't have a sense of humour.
11 August 2005
6 years 17 weeks
Or a sense of decency or morality. Everything you need to know about them is they knew a Republican Congressman was a sexual predator for years and they didn't tell the authorities or their Democratic counterparts. Instead, they kept him on the Congressional committee on missing and exploited children. I guess they figured he was an expert on exploiting children so he was on the right committee. It's their same line of thinking in letting the lobbyists from the oil industry write the environmental laws.
1 May 2004
3 days 1 hour
3 years ago I voiced concerns over the amount of political links appearing within TDG, and following a certain amount of debate, these appeared to abate.
However recent world events such as American politics and global warming issues have seen political items making up quite a proportion of links. Maybe the posters could impose a limit on themselves, of say maybe no more than 15%?
Personally, I do not come to TDG for politics.
Nostra
9 March 2006
3 years 45 weeks
Personally, I like to read the political news. I think that TDG has enough of a variety of all sorts of news that anyone can find something they are interested in. One couldn't read all of the news anyway. I don't believe in the existence of UFO's but I have no intention of complaining when information about them is posted. In fact, I sometimes find them interesting. I very much apppreciate all the effort that Greg, Kat and the rest go to. Thank you all so much.