rushmc 23
billvon 3,120
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
> Based on your statistics about munitions, and the fact that we can't
>find them all, I would also present that as a point that the WMDs could
>be anywhere, and some probably do exist, thus shutting down the 'No
>WMDs' argument.
Why - you're right! And following the same logic, since we can't find any evidence of Dick Cheney's guilt, and since he could have done _anything_ - he must have done something. Thus shooting down the whole "Cheney is innocent" thing. The very fact that we can find nothing to pin on him PROVES he is guilty!
I like this sort of logic!
>find them all, I would also present that as a point that the WMDs could
>be anywhere, and some probably do exist, thus shutting down the 'No
>WMDs' argument.
Why - you're right! And following the same logic, since we can't find any evidence of Dick Cheney's guilt, and since he could have done _anything_ - he must have done something. Thus shooting down the whole "Cheney is innocent" thing. The very fact that we can find nothing to pin on him PROVES he is guilty!
I like this sort of logic!
kallend 2,150
Quote
Rather perverse logic there, Royd. Being unable to find things is NOT proof that they exist.Quote
Funny, you use this type of logic to support your GWing position
It used to be that you reserved your most "Through the Looking Glass" posts for Fridays. ARe you now doing Mondays too?...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
jakee 1,596
QuoteI'll let you do the source finding.
How incredibly generous of you! Who wouldn't love to trawl the web looking for evidence to back up your unsupported claims?
QuoteBased on your statistics about munitions, and the fact that we can't find them all, I would also present that as a point that the WMDs could be anywhere, and some probably do exist, thus shutting down the 'No WMDs' argument.
I think you own an enormous stash of donkey porn. I've never seen any in your house, but that doesn't mean it's not in a lock up somewhere that I haven't found yet. Since that's almost certainly where the porn is hidden then you can't make any claims about not owning any donkey porn and expect to be taken seriously.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
jakee 1,596
QuoteQuote
Rather perverse logic there, Royd. Being unable to find things is NOT proof that they exist.
Funny, you use this type of logic to support your GWing position
Where?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
billvon 3,120
>Where?
(ssshhh, he's on a roll)
(ssshhh, he's on a roll)
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuote
Rather perverse logic there, Royd. Being unable to find things is NOT proof that they exist.
Funny, you use this type of logic to support your GWing position
Where?
How is that?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
QuoteQuote
Edited to add; I have not "defined' civil war in any way. That has been your work on this site, not mine
I am quite happy to go along with the standard definition, which is a violent conflict between factions within a country.
From Washington Post, April 9, 2006
James D. Fearon - Stanford University
Does the conflict in Iraq amount to a civil war? In many ways, the public debate over this question is largely political. Calling Iraq a "civil war" implies yet another failure for the Bush administration and adds force to the question of whether U.S. troops still have a constructive role to play.
Politics aside, however, the definition of civil war is not arbitrary. For some -- and perhaps especially Americans -- the term brings to mind all-out historical conflicts along the lines of the U.S. or Spanish civil wars. According to this notion, there will not be civil war in Iraq until we see mass mobilization of sectarian communities behind more or less conventional armies.
But a more standard definition is common today:
1) Civil war refers to a violent conflict between organized groups within a country that are fighting over control of the government, one side's separatist goals, or some divisive government policy.
By this measure, the war in Iraq has been a civil war not simply since the escalation of internecine killings following the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra in February, but at least since the United States handed over formal control to an interim Iraqi government in June 2004.
Here's why: Although the insurgents target the U.S. military, they are also fighting the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government and killing large numbers of Iraqis. There is little reason to believe that if the United States were suddenly to withdraw its forces, they would not continue their battle to control or shape the government.
Political scientists who study civil war have proposed various refinements to this rough definition to deal with borderline cases. One issue concerns how much killing has to occur -- and at what rate.
2) For a conflict to qualify as a civil war, most academics use the threshold of 1,000 dead, which leads to the inclusion of a good number of low-intensity rural insurgencies.
Current estimates suggest that more than 25,000 Iraqis have been killed in fighting since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 -- a level and rate of killing that is comparable to numerous other conflicts that are commonly described as civil wars, such as those in Lebanon (1975-1990) and Sri Lanka (beginning in 1983).
The organization -- or rather, disorganization -- of the warring communities in Iraq means that a large-scale conventional conflict along the lines of the U.S. Civil War is unlikely to develop. More probable is a gradual escalation of the current "dirty war" between neighborhood militias that have loose ties to national political factions and are fighting almost as much within sectarian lines as across them.
This is roughly what happened in Lebanon and at a lower level in Turkish cities in the late 1970s. Ethnic cleansing will occur not as a systematic, centrally directed campaign (as in Bosnia), but as a result of people moving to escape danger.
And there's another twist to the terminology:
3) If the conflict in Iraq becomes purely a matter of violence between Sunni and Shiite communities driven by revenge and hatred rather than by political goals, many political scientists would say that it is something other than civil war.
Almost no one, for example, calls the Hindu-Muslim violence in India a civil war.
A civil war has to involve attempts to grab power at the center of government or in a given region, or to use violence to change some major government policy.
In Iraq's case, however, the vacuum of power at the center means that communal violence will inevitably be tied to struggles for political power and control.
A final complication concerns the nature of international involvement. Some argue, for example, that the war in Bosnia should be seen as an interstate war rather than a civil war, since the Bosnian Serb forces were armed and directed largely by Belgrade. Post-Mobutu violence in Congo is often termed a civil war, even though fighters have been closely tied to armies from neighboring states.
4) A conflict may be both a civil and an interstate war at the same time.
The Vietnam War, for instance, clearly comprised both a civil war in the South and an interstate war involving the North, the South and the United States.
Good, this is a great start to get you on record so specifically. I wonder what your definition will be tomorrow seeing how this is not happening to any extend over there right now.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
jakee 1,596
QuoteHow is that?
Stunning. Simply stunning.
Selective memory in action is truly amazing to behold.
Anyway, back to my original question, where? Show a specific instance where kallend claims that GW is caused by humans just because there is no evidence that human are not causing it. Just one specific instance.
On second thoughts, forget it. We've been down this road before so I know how much you hate providing any eveidence whatsoever to back up your claims.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteHow is that?
Stunning. Simply stunning.
Selective memory in action is truly amazing to behold.
Yes, it is. It most certainly is.....
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
jakee 1,596
QuoteQuoteQuoteHow is that?
Stunning. Simply stunning.
Selective memory in action is truly amazing to behold.
Yes, it is. It most certainly is.....
Anyway, back to my original question, where? Show a specific instance where kallend claims that GW is caused by humans just because there is no evidence that human are not causing it. Just one specific instance.
On second thoughts, forget it. We've been down this road before so I know how much you hate providing any eveidence whatsoever to back up your claims.
Repeated because you replied before my edit came up
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHow is that?
Stunning. Simply stunning.
Selective memory in action is truly amazing to behold.
Yes, it is. It most certainly is.....
Anyway, back to my original question, where? Show a specific instance where kallend claims that GW is caused by humans just because there is no evidence that human are not causing it. Just one specific instance.
On second thoughts, forget it. We've been down this road before so I know how much you hate providing any eveidence whatsoever to back up your claims.
Repeated because you replied before my edit came up
I am not surprised you dont get it but here, let me see if I can help you out.
There is no proof that man is causing GWing. There is theory, conjecture and hypothesis, which is based on conflicting data and computer models. So, buy the very logic he uses (and all other GWing alarmist use) Since no one can prove to them that man is not doing it, (causing GWing) man, by default, must be causing it. See how easy that was?
If one chooses to use convoluted logic they should expect it being used against them, dont you think?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
jakee 1,596
QuoteThere is no proof that man is causing GWing. There is theory, conjecture and hypothesis, which is based on conflicting data and computer models. So, buy the very logic he uses (and all other GWing alarmist use) Since no one can prove to them that man is not doing it, (causing GWing) man, by default, must be causing it. See how easy that was?
Easy,but wrong. You're approaching the subject from a fundamental lack of understanding.
Show me an actual post from Kallend or Bill that shows they believe in man made GW not because of actual evidence for man made GW but because of lack of evidence for the alternative.
While you're at it, maybe you could finally tell me who thinks Hansen is a loony.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
rushmc 23
You're approaching the subject from a fundamental lack of understanding.
Quote
It did not take you very long to get to the only "you " understand and anybody not agreeing with you is somehow less informed.
What would most people call this kind of attitude?"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites