Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xaccers
No, Punky and I understood what was meant, you didn't.
|
Oh well, if you two agree then I *must* be wrong...
Quote:
Lets say the security forces have inteligence about an iminent attack. And for this example, the only way they can get more details before the attack takes place, like exactly where and when, is through illegal means.
If they do not use those illegal means then there would be no way to stop the attack, and possibly hundreds of civilians will be killed or injured.
|
ROFL! That example is so laden down with suppositions and conditionals that William of Occam would give up and grow a beard!
Quote:
|
Really? So quarenteening someone with a deadly infectious disease is ludicrously simplistic is it?
|
No, saying that the "simplest way to obliterate it would be to wipe out everyone who is a carrier" which is ridiculous.
Quote:
|
If you have a mass epidemic of a deadly disease on your hands, the logical thing to do is round up those infected, quarenteen them and let them die to prevent further spread of the infection.
|
No it is not the "logical" thing to do if there is the possibility of a cure.
Quote:
|
Sorry, I could have sworn you were talking about supporting the fight against terrorism. I'm sure that's what Bush was saying in those quotes after 9/11 and way before any thought of going after saddam.
|
I suggest you do a little research into the "Project for the New American Century". For instance:
"A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001."
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
Or
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in592330.shtml
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,ââ‚ ¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ says Oâ₠™Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,ââ‚à ‚¬Ã‚ says Suskind. †œDay one, these things were laid and sealed."
That was irony.
Quote:
|
One mentions that waterworks were hit.
|
A rather terse precis when actually it says:
'The attacks that have come under the severest criticism were those launched after mid-February on electrical, water, and sewage facilities in Iraqi cities. These attacks are responsible for much of the continuing death and hardship among Iraqi civilians. The United States did not resort to terror-bombing in the Gulf, as it did in World War II or even in the Christmas 1972 bombings of North Vietnam. Yet the allies managed to inflict what a U.N. observer team would later call "near apocalyptic" damage to Iraqs infrastructure, leaving, by June 1, 70,000 homeless and as many as 20,000 others sick and dying in a state that had been bombed back to the "preindustrial age."'
Quote:
|
The other is of some Prof who thinks that because the coalition had a document covering the vulnerabilities of the waterworks, it must make it a target!
|
Sorry, did you actually *READ* that document?? Let me quote again:
"During allied bombing campaigns on Iraq the country's eight multi-purpose dams had been repeatedly hit, simultaneously wrecking flood control, municipal and industrial water storage, irrigation and hydroelectric power. Four of seven major pumping stations were destroyed, as were 31 municipal water and sewerage facilities - 20 in Baghdad, resulting in sewage pouring into the Tigris. Water purification plants were incapacitated throughout Iraq."
[QUOTE]Irrelevant.
Quote:
Why? Because it goes against your argument that there is no difference between terrorist organisations recruiting people to their cause and the anti-terrorist gov's (namely America) recruiting people to their cause?
[...]You watch the two towers fall and you tell me that recruiting people to do that is no different to the US or the UK recruiting people to fight against terrorism!
How dare you!
|
What on *Earth* are you talking about?? *Where* did this argument come from and how the *hell* did it become mine???
And *HOW DARE YOU* imply that I have said *ANYTHING* like what you imply here.