Zophar's Message Domain

Go Back   Zophar's Message Domain > General Chat > Talk of the Town

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-05-2004, 04:24 AM   #1
Lenophis
Senior Member
 
Lenophis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,386
Default So that's...!

Well looky what we have here...

Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.
John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.


I'm going to highlite something now...

working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility

Make sure you read the rest of the story too...

The following statement is a joke. ->
And here I thought the democratic party made the whole weapons story up!
<- Do not take the last statement seriously.

Danoz will not approve, for it is not Fox news. What about everyone else though? I find this a little surprising, and more "cloak and dagger" than anything. It could be a lame coverup, but who knows. I've learned not to fully trust the shit this administration spews out.

<P ID="signature">
"For lovers of irony; I'll just say one thing...wishes do come true." - Lobster Cowboy.</P>
__________________
Lenophis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2004, 07:54 AM   #2
WhyteKnight
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 775
Default Re: So that's...!

Bzzt. Thanks for playing, Washington Times. This sounds very unlikely. Not only that, but since when was it an Al Qaeda facility to begin with? This sounds like a fuckup almost as big as losing them in the first place was.

<P ID="signature"><center><a href=http://faith.rydia.net/></a></center></P>
WhyteKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2004, 09:16 AM   #3
SpaceTiger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,548
Default Re: So that's...!

> Not only that, but since when was it an Al Qaeda
> facility to begin with?

Al-Qaqaa, not Al Qaeda. It's the name of a weapons storage facility in Iraq. It was recently discovered that weapons which had originally been in this facility (after the fall of Baghdad), have since disappeared. The Democrats were harping on Bush for not properly protecting it.

<P ID="signature">----
"And dreams may come
That are everlasting
Though all just plastic too..." </P>
SpaceTiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2004, 10:55 AM   #4
WhyteKnight
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 775
Default Re: So that's...!

I know all that crap. I misread and thought that the times had called it an Al Qaeda facility. It still sounds about half bullshit though.

<P ID="signature"><center><a href=http://faith.rydia.net/></a></center></P>
WhyteKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2004, 04:56 PM   #5
Danoz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,903
Default Re: So that's...!

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Danoz will not approve, for it is not Fox news.

<hr></blockquote>

You sure know how to be an asshole. I've told you and this forum that I watch and read a great variety of news sources, including MSNBC, CNN, BBC, FOX, C-SPAN, and Newsweek. Yes, I listen to talk radio because I enjoy it, not because it's my sole source of news. I watch, listen to and read all news with a grain of salt, but I prefer FOXNews to the other television news stations.

Also, what does this article have to do with anything? Can you even comprehend the significance? It means that the last people to see these particular stockpiles where UN Inspectors, and that they were removed before we entered Iraq. How is this contradictory to anything I’ve said? Your threads are a joke, please put some thought into your posts before you criticize me for the news I read. Your dismissal of FOXNews entirely shows your acceptance of media bias more than anything else. At least I make a point to absorb them all.

I have to keep a sense of humor on these boards with how damn ridiculous so many of the posts are.

<P ID="signature">
http://www.georgewbush.com/</a></P>
Danoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2004, 04:24 AM   #6
Lenophis
Senior Member
 
Lenophis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,386
Default Re: So that's...!

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

You sure know how to be an asshole.

<hr></blockquote>
<img src=smilies/cry.gif> On some days, but most of the time I'm in a good mood, as was last night.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I've told you and this forum that I watch and read a great variety of news sources, including MSNBC, CNN, BBC, FOX, C-SPAN, and Newsweek.

<hr></blockquote>
My apologies, I must have missed that post. <img src=smilies/banghead.gif>

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Yes, I listen to talk radio because I enjoy it, not because it's my sole source of news. I watch, listen to and read all news with a grain of salt, but I prefer FOXNews to the other television news stations.

<hr></blockquote>
Sometimes it doesn't seem like it. I say that because you often times snip out parts of comments, like Kerry fighting a 'sensitive' war. You attack the word, not what he said. (Just one example, mind you.)

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Also, what does this article have to do with anything?

<hr></blockquote>
Many times others have asked you that question in the past, including myself. I bring this up because it was news (also saw it posted somewhere else, and not here.)

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Can you even comprehend the significance? It means that the last people to see these particular stockpiles where UN Inspectors, and that they were removed before we entered Iraq. How is this contradictory to anything I’ve said?

<hr></blockquote>
Hold on slick... If you would please, go back to what I highlited in the opener, "almost certainly." Many times intelligence has been proven wrong. AND, and, "almost certainly" does not mean "they did it." I'll give you a comparitive scenario. Barry Bonds has been accused many times of using steroids during the last few years. Well, during the last year, there were supposed "ties," but no rock hard evidence. Bonds has maintained his innocence. Now, I'll quote Michael Wilbon of the Washington Post and co-host of PTI, "Until you give me the rock solid evidence, shut up." Case in point, show me the condemning evidence, not just "maybe's" and accusations.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Your threads are a joke, please put some thought into your posts before you criticize me for the news I read.

<hr></blockquote>
Ahh, well what I said was a (brace yourself): J O K E ! Hard to tell over the net, eh? My apologies.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Your dismissal of FOXNews entirely shows your acceptance of media bias more than anything else. At least I make a point to absorb them all.

<hr></blockquote>
And Fox isn't biased? I'll give you an example. World Series game 2, Fox aired 4 pro-Bush ads during the game. There was one that was even "proudly presented by Fox." Can you guess how many pro-Kerry ads they aired? Nothing, nadda, zilch, zero. Three and a half hours of a game, the only ads were for Bush. Can you explain that?

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I have to keep a sense of humor on these boards with how damn ridiculous so many of the posts are.

<hr></blockquote>
Almost the same reason I almost stopped posting in the backroom in the first place. Damn, now I feel like a posting spree. <img src=smilies/banghead.gif>

On a side note, you notice how we're the only two using the quote tags?

<P ID="signature">
"For lovers of irony; I'll just say one thing...wishes do come true." - Lobster Cowboy.</P>
__________________
Lenophis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2004, 04:55 AM   #7
Danoz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,903
Default Re: So that's...!

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Sometimes it doesn't seem like it. I say that because you often times snip out parts of comments, like Kerry fighting a 'sensitive' war. You attack the word, not what he said. (Just one example, mind you.)

<hr></blockquote>
Well, then you failed to read the rest of the thread. I hate that I have to clarify this again; I know exactly what context it was in, and my criticism stands. He said we should fight a more “sensitive” where were international support (the United Nations) is appealed to before action is taken.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Hold on slick... If you would please, go back to what I highlited in the opener, "almost certainly."

<hr></blockquote>
I saw that you bolded it.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Many times intelligence has been proven wrong. AND, and, "almost certainly" does not mean "they did it."

<hr></blockquote>
It generally means that it is highly likely though. You have to understand the nature of “intelligence” before you can criticize it the way you are. It’s may not be perfect, but it certainly isn’t flawed. I highly recommend you read the speech by George Tenet at Georgetown, whatever you think of him personally, it’s very good.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I'll give you a comparitive scenario. Barry Bonds has been accused many times of using steroids during the last few years. Well, during the last year, there were supposed "ties," but no rock hard evidence. Bonds has maintained his innocence. Now, I'll quote Michael Wilbon of the Washington Post and co-host of PTI, "Until you give me the rock solid evidence, shut up." Case in point, show me the condemning evidence, not just "maybe's" and accusations.

<hr></blockquote>
Rock solid evidence… like the kind John Kerry used to accuse the President of not protecting those stockpiles? You’re directing the burden of proof in the wrong direction.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

And Fox isn't biased?

<hr></blockquote>
It’s the responsibility of news to show the facts and all sides of an argument interpreting and explaining those facts. No person can be entirely unbiased, and it follows that no organization can be completely unbiased. But FOX isn’t balanced because of it’s anchors, it’s balanced because it gives fair coverage to opposing viewpoints.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I'll give you an example. World Series game 2, Fox aired 4 pro-Bush ads during the game. There was one that was even "proudly presented by Fox." Can you guess how many pro-Kerry ads they aired? Nothing, nadda, zilch, zero. Three and a half hours of a game, the only ads were for Bush. Can you explain that?

<hr></blockquote>
Well, first off I’d like to see the ads, of course. And second, who cares? Do you have any idea how often pro-Kerry/Anti-Bush ads ran on FOXNews? All the time. You’re jumping to conclusions you want to believe.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Almost the same reason I almost stopped posting in the backroom in the first place. Damn, now I feel like a posting spree.

<hr></blockquote>
Sorry I lashed out in the previous post.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

On a side note, you notice how we're the only two using the quote tags?

<hr></blockquote>
I guess it’s second nature now… I think they’re a lot cleaner.

<P ID="signature">
http://www.georgewbush.com/</a></P>
Danoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2004, 05:45 AM   #8
Lenophis
Senior Member
 
Lenophis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,386
Default Re: So that's...!

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

It generally means that it is highly likely though. You have to understand the nature of “intelligence” before you can criticize it the way you are.

<hr></blockquote>
The "intelligence" also has little room for error. During a time of war, that little margin becomes no margin. The mission is to win, and faulty or questionable intelligence is not a factor to winning.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

It’s may not be perfect, but it certainly isn’t flawed. I highly recommend you read the speech by George Tenet at Georgetown, whatever you think of him personally, it’s very good.

<hr></blockquote>
*reads* The name kind of sounds familiar, not sure though.
--Edit--
What opens a .pdf file?

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Rock solid evidence… like the kind John Kerry used to accuse the President of not protecting those stockpiles?

<hr></blockquote>
Kerry sure looked like an idiot, didn't he? <img src=smilies/laff.gif> Another example of not getting all the facts before rushing out with the story. And I didn't buy into what he said either.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

You’re directing the burden of proof in the wrong direction.

<hr></blockquote>
I've yet to determine who is entirely at fault for this whole mess involing the cache.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

It’s the responsibility of news to show the facts and all sides of an argument interpreting and explaining those facts. No person can be entirely unbiased, and it follows that no organization can be completely unbiased. But FOX isn’t balanced because of it’s anchors, it’s balanced
because it gives fair coverage to opposing viewpoints.

<hr></blockquote>
I have nothing to argue this, because I haven't watched it. I don't watch it for the reason stated below, but I'll say it again anyway. I have better things to do than watch local tv and the big news stations all day.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Well, first off I’d like to see the ads, of course. And second, who cares?

<hr></blockquote>
I believe they were part of the "get out the vote" campaign. The only thing that irks me is that they "proudly presented" Bush ads. Even if I had seen one pro-Kerry "proudly presented" for the "get out the vote" campaign, I wouldn't care. But then again, I don't spend all day watching local tv or the big news stations (CNN, MSNBC, FOXNews).

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Do you have any idea how often pro-Kerry/Anti-Bush ads ran on FOXNews? All the time.

<hr></blockquote>
I'm willing to bet the number is about 2^32, which is 4,294,967,296 times. And I'm probably being conservative on that guess. <img src=smilies/banghead.gif> It is indeed quite sickening. Although, there is something I was curious about. Some time early last year, there was a horribly loop-holed reform to the campaign financing. One detail I think I remember is that no attack ads could be run by any candidate one week from the election. If what I remember is true, then both parties would be guilty. The only problem is, what are they guilty of? Running ads on tv? I think there was a huge dollar penalty for this, no idea. (That IS a total guess too.)

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

You’re jumping to conclusions you want to believe.

<hr></blockquote>
I'm only giving you what I know. Nothing more, nothing less.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Sorry I lashed out in the previous post.

<hr></blockquote>
It's ok, I know I've also lashed out at you for no reason at times. <img src=smilies/cry.gif>

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I guess it’s second nature now… I think they’re a lot
cleaner.

<hr></blockquote>
Much cleaner, one thing that is continually annoying though, going back and deleting all the line breaks. Easy to miss one now and then... <img src=smilies/eek13.gif>

Too address your earlier point about media bias, yes it does exist. And I'll bring in my IRC log now:
<.Gavin> Danoz listed the top american media sources as if they aren't generally the same corporate entites
<.Gavin> with silght skews left or right
<.Lenophis> ?
<.Gavin> he listed MSNBC, CNN, and FOX in the same group
<.Gavin> they're basically the same news just more left or more right
<.Gavin> still large mainstream media
<.Lenophis> well I could've put them in the same group
<.Lenophis> not hard, considering that they all report the same damn thing
<.Lenophis> while x group gives more/less time to specific areas

In short, you receive no argument from me on that front. It's up to common sense to weed out bias, but I fear America is just getting dumber by the day. As a quick example, Kerry's lame ass attack ad on the weapons cache. How many people do you think automatically believed him based on nothing?
Or what about Bush quoting Kerry on "I actually did vote for the 87 million dollar bill, before I voted against it." (Although, that sounds more like a good stand up line than anything.)

<P ID="signature">
"For lovers of irony; I'll just say one thing...wishes do come true." - Lobster Cowboy.</P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Lenophis on 11/06/04 12:49 AM.</FONT></P>
__________________
Lenophis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:22 AM.

Contact Us - Zophar's Domain - Archive - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.