If someone makes an offensive remark, it has no identity in its own right. If we agree the statement is offensive, it cannot be separated from the person making it. I don't follow your convoluted logic.
You should. Attacking a post is not against the TOS. Attacking the person behind it is. If there is no difference to you you won't last long as a member. The comment was offensive to me too, but it was not an offensive comment directed at any member so to respond with a comment about the author of the comment (as opposed to responding to the content of teh comment) is a violation.
Attack the idea, not the person behind it.
ok lets try another way
what the author said, imo, was rude arrogant and offensive and displayed an ignorance to the point of being embarrassing. But I'm criticising his post not him.
There ya go. And I agree 100%.
That's the idea, Steve ... its not so convoluted at all, is it?
That coupled with past actions lends heavy credence to the allegation.
No argument there, Bill. Sometimes something happens due to one big thing, sometimes something is brought about by the accumulation of many smaller things.
So true, so true.........
We are all victims of our past experiences, upbringing, heritage and biases! (Notice I used the word "victim" here. Any number of words could be substituded for different effects but still relating the exact same meaning. This, of course, does not mean I am unaware, stupid or any other ad hom term, it is a matter of choice - note, I am not pointing any fingers at anyone, just making an observation.)
Timber wrote:
Quote:Perhaps the source of the error lay not in The Current Administration but in Saddam's own machinations. An unarmed criminal shot by police as a result of intentionally giving the impression of being armed has essentially committed suicide.
Well, that makes perfect sense. Let's blame Saddam himself, he's an easy scapegoat. Nobody likes him anyway. And I'm sure it's Robert Novak's fault that he revealed the identity of Wilson's wife too. I'm sure he was told by the person who leaked the story to not use her name and that the leak wasn't intended to intimadate others who might come forward with information the WH doesn't like in the future. Let's direct all blame away from the White House where it really belongs. Anybody notice a pattern?
I know it's being suggested that I'm a silly believer in conspriacies. But that's what I do for a living. I notice patterns in behavior and wonder what they're about. Of course I'm usually working with a person who recognizes he/she is doing something to cause herself trouble. Recognizes patterns and is bothered enough by his symptoms to be motivated to understand and do something about it. I notice these trends in process.
Quote:Kuwait foils Iraqi-WMD smuggling attempt
Report: Biological warheads, chemical arms en route to Europe snagged
Posted: October 1, 2003
5:54 p.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
Following months of frustrated searches by hundreds of U.S. and British investigators for Saddam's weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, some have turned up in Kuwait, according to Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Siyassah.
The pro-government daily reports Kuwaiti security forces foiled an attempted smuggling of $60 million worth of chemical weapons and biological warheads from Iraq to an unnamed European country.
Citing an unnamed security source, Al-Siyassah said the smugglers had been under surveillance since they arrived in Kuwait and were arrested "in due time."
No details about the suspects, possible accomplices, where the weapons came from in Iraq and how they were acquired were disclosed.
The smuggled arms will be turned over to an FBI agent by Kuwaiti Interior Minister Sheik Nawwaf Al Ahmed Al Sabah, according to the paper. No time was given for the news conference where this handover is slated to take place.
The reported find of weapons of mass destruction comes on the eve of testimony by David Kay, the head of the CIA-led team of some 1,200 investigators, before House and Senate intelligence committees. Kay is due to offer an interim report on the status of their search for WMD in Iraq.
The Washington Post reports Kay is expected to float a working theory that the ousted Iraqi president was bluffing about possessing weapons of mass destruction to appear as more of a threat than he actually was.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34881 , more or less the same article at
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_399454,00050004.htm
and, from Kuwait,
http://www.zawya.com/Story.cfm?id=274w1446§ion=Countries&page=Kuwait&channel=All%20Kuwait%20News&objectid=22403639-8F1A-11D4-867000D0B74A0D7C
This has been floating around since late yesterday, and has not yet picked up major-media steam ... so it might be just another "Bodyguard" story. It first appeared on the subscription-only, and typically credible, Dow Jones news ticker, with an AP Byline. There was AP Ticker mention, but it seems not to have been given treatment on AP's news pages. So far, it remains a "Single Source Story", with little other pickup. There has been mention of it on Hannity's radio program, but I haven't seen anything from the TV news outlets. If it just goes away, then one could infer there was no "There" there. However, if it does not go away, some very different assumptions would be called for. I for one would like to see this given more attention, and either followed up and developed, or refuted and dismissed.
Finding those other sources may prove difficult. But yes, I would also like the story to be either followed up or refuted. But if it's refuted, I'd like to know the lone source of the story.
Ari Fletcher:
"The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region. I firmly believe the decisions we made will make America more secure and the world more peaceful."
credible?
Credible? The UN inspectors were already there. They had to leave when the US and UK threatened to start the war. Credible? nah.......
Credible to some. There are those who dispute Darwinian theory, too, or the scientific validity and actual worth of psychoanalysis.
Bagdad Bob was the humour point prior to invasion with his denial of everything under the sun. Bagdad Bob has been replaced by the Bush/Rumsfeld dynamic duo. Bagdad Bob denied there was an invasion and that US troops were entering the city of Bagdad. Bush/Rumsfeld are still looking for the WoMD they had pin-pointed on maps, charts and 8x10 glossies with circles and arrows and writing on the back. Frankly I find the humour of Steven Wright far more interesting.
Doubting credibility is more acceptable to me after one has investigated with an open mind.
Thanks, Gelisgesti. Right about now, that may have helped, and sure didn't hurt.
timber, I'm with Steve here. That was an over-the-top statement and summoned forth his over-the-top response.
But I did enjoy your lyrical interlude back there. Dint know you had it inya.
