iraq uprising

[bullett308]

I meant it in the context of two old english chaps speaking and one of them say here here old boy !
But whatever LOL.
You got the point.

[Nash]

If the payment from Hussein to the Palestinians constituted terrorism and warranted the invasion, why didn't the US just invade Palestine instead?

[Hortlund]

You wanted an example on how Iraq supported terrorism, I gave it to you, so naturally you try to spin the discussion in some other direction "well, yeah, but why didnt the US then invade this or that nation who ALSO supports terrorism"...predictable and pointless.


Pongo, you have to (try) to separate between "palestinians" and "palestinian terrorist organizations" I know its hard, because they are practically synonymous....but anyway, you have to try.

When the US and Israel are negotiating with the palestinians, they are not negotiating with the Hamas or the  Hezbollah or the Al Acqsa martyrs brigades, instead they are negotiating with the Palestinian Authority.

Naturally it is a tad complicating when Arafat is both the leader of the PA and the innoficial leader of the Al Acqsa martyrs brigades...but this is a fact that most westerners in general, and the pacifist anti-Israel lefties in particular, conveniently overlooks all the time, so maybe you could too.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
No critical error in logic exists, I was pointing out that no evidence proves nothing.  I have been consistant on this regardless of issue.  I was pointing out a flaw in the logic of those advocate the 'hang him because he lied' point of view, that no evidence proves their point as well.  

While oddsmakers probably lean heavily in one direction, the only logical point of view presently on this particular issue is one of agnosticism.  It cost nothing, and one who waits and sees is standing on firm ground.

Not entirely true - One could adopt the legal stance of "innocent until proven guilty", where the prosecution failing to produce evidence means you're not guilty of the accusation. That logical rule allegedly works well for a lot of legal systems. The legal systems use it because of practicalities. Your agnostic method never resolves itself except with positive evidence: if nobody ever finds any evidence because it really doesn't exist, using the agnostic method one can always argue that the evidence exists, but nobody has found it yet. Thus you can wait and see for all eternity.

[moot]

Preferred point of view and practical method don't necessarily mirror each other.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by moot
Preferred point of view and practical method don't necessarily mirror each other.

No argument there, just pointing out it's not the only logical point of view, and that as a view it's heavily loaded in favour of the accusation of WMDs - in that the only way to resolve it at all is to find WMDs.

[moot]

ok.