Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,828 Year: 4,085/9,624 Month: 956/974 Week: 283/286 Day: 4/40 Hour: 4/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The War On Terror Will End When.........
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 61 of 77 (464349)
04-24-2008 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Buzsaw
04-24-2008 9:27 AM


Re: Determination Of Future Outlook
Buzsaw responds to me:
quote:
Rrhain, Unless you can cite something Babylonian
Ahem.
The story of Noah is a direct rip-off of the story of Ut-Napishtim from the Epic of Gilgamesh.
You know this. It's been brought up here plenty of times. Please don't play dumb. Genesis is filled with Babylonian mythology.
I note that you haven't actually responded to the point, however. You are arguing that Islam and Mormonism are based on Christianity, therefore Christianity wins. But Christianity is based upon Judaism (as DrJones* pointed out), therefore Judaism wins. And since Judaism is based upon even older theologies, not even Judaism wins.
Would you be so kind as to actually respond to the points that were made against your argument?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Buzsaw, posted 04-24-2008 9:27 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 04-26-2008 11:26 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 77 (464541)
04-26-2008 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rrhain
04-24-2008 11:15 PM


Re: Determination Of Future Outlook
Rrhain writes:
The story of Noah is a direct rip-off of the story of Ut-Napishtim from the Epic of Gilgamesh.
LOL.
1. The oldest tablets of Gilgamesh postdate Noah's flood by around a half a millennium (2000 BC) There's other more distorted versions of the flood story in many cultures. Imo, these are all supportive to the older Biblical account of Noah's flood.
That the Gilgamesh account is less distorted than many other pagan accounts, reflects the likelihood that it was the oldest distorted pagan account known to exist.
2. What the Biblical account has lending to it's credibility as the genuine original that Gigamesh does not have is a treasure trove of corroborative data supportive to the Biblical record, much of which I and others have cited in the archived threads.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rrhain, posted 04-24-2008 11:15 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Rrhain, posted 04-27-2008 7:12 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 77 (464542)
04-26-2008 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by obvious Child
04-23-2008 5:24 PM


Re: Determination Of Future Outlook
OC writes:
Buzsaw, can you move weapons you do not have the capacity to make, store or use?
Evidently many in government on both sides of the isle figured they had the capacity to make lethal weapons. Poison gas was used by Saddam to massacre the Iraqis up North who were problematic to him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by obvious Child, posted 04-23-2008 5:24 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by obvious Child, posted 04-27-2008 7:11 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 66 by Rrhain, posted 04-27-2008 7:19 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4143 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 64 of 77 (464651)
04-27-2008 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Buzsaw
04-26-2008 11:32 PM


Re: Determination Of Future Outlook
quote:
Evidently many in government on both sides of the isle figured they had the capacity to make lethal weapons. Poison gas was used by Saddam to massacre the Iraqis up North who were problematic to him.
And I can make a wide variety of lethal weapons from the commercial cleaning agents under my sink. Does that mean I have? Does that mean I'm stockpiling weapons?
That gas was over a decade before the invasion of Iraq.
Your argument is crap. And you know it. hence why you're deliberately avoiding the posts pointing out the flaws.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Buzsaw, posted 04-26-2008 11:32 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 65 of 77 (464652)
04-27-2008 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Buzsaw
04-26-2008 11:26 PM


Re: Determination Of Future Outlook
Buzsaw responds to me:
quote:
quote:
The story of Noah is a direct rip-off of the story of Ut-Napishtim from the Epic of Gilgamesh.
LOL.
Ahem. Babylonian mythology predates the story of Genesis. The Epic of Gilgamesh is older than the story of Noah.
The first writings of Genesis are from sometime around the 8th or 9th centuries BCE. The first copies of the Epic of Gilgamesh are from the third millennium BCE.
quote:
What the Biblical account has lending to it's credibility as the genuine original that Gigamesh does not have is a treasure trove of corroborative data supportive to the Biblical record, much of which I and others have cited in the archived threads.
Except that you haven't, really. The Bible is a pretty poor historical document. Genesis, in particular, is quite bad.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 04-26-2008 11:26 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 66 of 77 (464655)
04-27-2008 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Buzsaw
04-26-2008 11:32 PM


Re: Determination Of Future Outlook
Buzsaw writes:
quote:
Evidently many in government on both sides of the isle figured they had the capacity to make lethal weapons.
Ahem. "Both sides of the aisle" assumes that the other side had the same information as what the administration had. As we have been shown numerous times, they did not.
Congress did not have the same information the President had. The only information they had came from the President. Since we know the President was cherry-picking evidence to bolster his desire to go to war, are we surprised that there were members of Congress who agreed with the President?
If I lie to you and you fall for it, how does that make you at fault for my lie?
quote:
Poison gas was used by Saddam to massacre the Iraqis up North who were problematic to him.
Yes, that's true.
Question: When was that done? Hint: A Bush was President.
Question: Who gave him the gas? Hint: A Republican was President.
You seem to be heading toward the distraction of, "Are you saying the world would be a better place with Hussein still in charge?" as if that had anything to do with what we're talking about.
Whether or not Hussein was a bad man is immaterial. The question is whether or not he was a threat to the United States sufficient to justify declaring war.
All the evidence we were getting out of Iraq showed that he had no weapons and wasn't creating any. The inspectors that were in the country had complete access to everything they wanted, whenever they wanted it, and they were literally BEGGING Bush to back off and let them finish their job.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Buzsaw, posted 04-26-2008 11:32 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 05-04-2008 10:44 PM Rrhain has replied

  
killinghurts
Member (Idle past 5021 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 67 of 77 (464667)
04-27-2008 7:52 PM


The "war on terror" will end when the Democrats win office in the U.S. You can quote me on that.

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Buzsaw, posted 04-28-2008 9:17 AM killinghurts has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 77 (464690)
04-28-2008 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by killinghurts
04-27-2008 7:52 PM


Killinghurts writes:
The "war on terror" will end when the Democrats win office in the U.S. You can quote me on that.ll
Hi and welcome to EvC. Raw assertions are not well taken at EvC. Please elaborate on how this party will end the war on terror. Thanks

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by killinghurts, posted 04-27-2008 7:52 PM killinghurts has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by obvious Child, posted 04-28-2008 12:52 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4143 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 69 of 77 (464700)
04-28-2008 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Buzsaw
04-28-2008 9:17 AM


quote:
Raw assertions are not well taken at EvC.
Yes Buzsaw, they aren't. Care to support your claims of Iraqi WMDs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Buzsaw, posted 04-28-2008 9:17 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 77 (465301)
05-04-2008 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Rrhain
04-27-2008 7:19 PM


Re: Determination Of Future Outlook
Rrhain writes:
Question: Who gave him the gas? Hint: A Republican was President.
Rrhain, please document that the US ever sent any poisonous gas or chemical weapons to Iraq.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Rrhain, posted 04-27-2008 7:19 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Rrhain, posted 05-06-2008 7:57 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 71 of 77 (465394)
05-06-2008 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Buzsaw
05-04-2008 10:44 PM


Re: Determination Of Future Outlook
Buzsaw responds to me:
quote:
Rrhain, please document that the US ever sent any poisonous gas or chemical weapons to Iraq.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
Let us not play dumb, Buzsaw. You are perfectly capable of doing your own homework. This is common knowledge. You know how to use a search engine. Search for "us iraq gas reagan nerve iran."
From "Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement," by John King.
May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.
May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq.
September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq.
December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons.
July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians.
February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome.
As William Blum wrote in 1998 ("Anthrax for export: U.S. companies sold Iraq the ingredients for a witch's brew"):
During the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq received the lion's share of American support because at the time Iran was regarded as the greater threat to U.S. interests. According to a 1994 Senate report, private American suppliers, licensed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, exported a witch's brew of biological and chemical materials to Iraq from 1985 through 1989. Among the biological materials, which often produce slow, agonizing death, were:
    Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
  • Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
    Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.
  • Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.
    Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.
  • Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.
Also on the list: Escherichia coli (E. coli), genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA, and dozens of other pathogenic biological agents. "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction," the Senate report stated. "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program."
The report noted further that U.S. exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical-warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities, and chemical-warhead filling equipment.
The exports continued to at least November 28, 1989, despite evidence that Iraq was engaging in chemical and biological warfare against Iranians and Kurds since as early as 1984.
The American company that provided the most biological materials to Iraq in the 1980s was American Type Culture Collection of Maryland and Virginia, which made seventy shipments of the anthrax-causing germ and other pathogenic agents, according to a 1996 Newsday story.
Other American companies also provided Iraq with the chemical or biological compounds, or the facilities and equipment used to create the compounds for chemical and biological warfare. Among these suppliers were the following:
  • Alcolac International, a Baltimore chemical manufacturer already linked to the illegal shipment of chemicals to Iran, shipped large quantities of thiodiglycol (used to make mustard gas) as well as other chemical and biological ingredients, according to a 1989 story in The New York Times.
  • Nu Kraft Mercantile Corp. of Brooklyn (affiliated with the United Steel and Strip Corporation) also supplied Iraq with huge amounts of thiodiglycol, the Times reported.
  • Celery Corp., Charlotte, NC
  • Matrix-Churchill Corp., Cleveland, OH (regarded as a front for the Iraqi government, according to Representative Henry Gonzalez, Democrat of Texas, who quoted U.S. intelligence documents to this effect in a 1992 speech on the House floor).
The following companies were also named as chemical and biological materials suppliers in the 1992 Senate hearings on "United States export policy toward Iraq prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait":
  • Mouse Master, Lilburn, GA
  • Sullaire Corp., Charlotte, NC
  • Pure Aire, Charlotte, NC
  • Posi Seal, Inc., N. Stonington, CT
  • Union Carbide, Danbury, CT
  • Evapco, Taneytown, MD
  • Gorman-Rupp, Mansfield, OH
Additionally, several other companies were sued in connection with their activities providing Iraq with chemical or biological supplies: subsidiaries or branches of Fisher Controls International, Inc., St. Louis; Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., Princeton, NJ; Bechtel Group, Inc., San Francisco; and Lummus Crest, Inc., Bloomfield, NJ, which built one chemical plant in Iraq and, before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, was building an ethylene facility. Ethylene is a necessary ingredient for thiodiglycol.
Nightline, June 9, 1992:
Reagan/Bush administrations permitted ” and frequently encouraged ” the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.
U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
"Second Staff Report on U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq and The Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the War"
In October 1992, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which has Senate oversight responsibility for the Export Administration Act (EAA), held an inquiry into the U.S. export policy to Iraq prior to the Persian Gulf War. During that hearing it was learned that U.N. inspectors identified many U.S.- manufactured items exported pursuant to licenses issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce that were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and missile delivery system development programs.
...
The United States provided the Government of Iraq with "dual use" licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological, and missile- system programs, including chemical warfare agent precursors; chemical warfare agent production facility plans and technical drawings (provided as pesticide production facility plans); chemical warhead filling equipment; biological warfare related materials; missile fabrication equipment; and, missile-system guidance equipment.
For you to pretend that you don't know this shows either extreme naivete, deliberate ignorance, or something that I'm not allowed to mention here.
And let's not get distracted by the canard that, "Other countries were selling them chemical and biological weapons, too." This isn't about the Dutch or the Germans or Singapore. This is about the United States, the fact that we were the ones who installed Hussein, and the fact that we supplied him with the very weapons we said he wasn't allowed to have. We gave them to him because we wanted him to use them against Iran.
After it was discovered that Hussein has used his chemical weapons against the Kurds, the US Senate unanimously passed sanctions to cut off Iraq from pretty much all US technology.
Reagan quashed it.
Why is it you don't know these things, Buzsaw?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 05-04-2008 10:44 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Buzsaw, posted 05-07-2008 10:27 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 77 (465484)
05-07-2008 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Rrhain
05-06-2008 7:57 AM


Re: Determination Of Future Outlook
Rrhain, you made the claim. I asked for documentation. You delivered. No need to demean my intelligence for wanting to know.
Btw, if they got all these lethal weapons, where were they when we went in? Did they use them all up for agricultural purposes, ship them over the border or what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Rrhain, posted 05-06-2008 7:57 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Rahvin, posted 05-07-2008 1:58 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4042
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 73 of 77 (465497)
05-07-2008 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Buzsaw
05-07-2008 10:27 AM


Re: Determination Of Future Outlook
Rrhain, you made the claim. I asked for documentation. You delivered. No need to demean my intelligence for wanting to know.
Btw, if they got all these lethal weapons, where were they when we went in? Did they use them all up for agricultural purposes, ship them over the border or what?
They used quite a bit of them. And not for agricultural purposes. We know they used some on the Kurds. It's also suspected that some of his bio/chemical weapons were responsible for Gulf War syndrome, meaning he used some on us. In the first war, not the second.
The rest were likely disassembled as Iraq complied with weapons inspectors after the first Gulf War. Saddam didn't deny them entry for the whole time, just enough to make a nuisance of himself and try to provoke a response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Buzsaw, posted 05-07-2008 10:27 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Buzsaw, posted 05-07-2008 7:34 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 77 (465507)
05-07-2008 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Rahvin
05-07-2008 1:58 PM


Re: Determination Of Future Outlook
Rahven writes:
The rest were likely disassembled as Iraq complied with weapons inspectors after the first Gulf War. Saddam didn't deny them entry for the whole time, just enough to make a nuisance of himself and try to provoke a response.
........And to convince both sides of the isle in the US and the world body that they were still there ready for use in Jihad. Thus the invasion.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Rahvin, posted 05-07-2008 1:58 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Rrhain, posted 05-08-2008 11:16 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 75 of 77 (465653)
05-08-2008 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Buzsaw
05-07-2008 7:34 PM


Re: Determination Of Future Outlook
Buzsaw writes:
quote:
And to convince both sides of the isle in the US and the world body that they were still there ready for use in Jihad. Thus the invasion.
Except all the news coming out of Iraq was that there weren't any. Blix and the rest of the inspections teams had complete access to everything, any time they wanted. They were BEGGING for Bush to back off and let them do their jobs.
You seem to keep forgetting that we had to pause to pull the inspectors out of Iraq before we could invade. On the very same day that Bush announced we were going to invade, there were televised news reports of the inspectors destroying missiles that were over the range limit imposed.
You keep acting as if the state of affairs in 2003 were identical to what they were in 1998.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Buzsaw, posted 05-07-2008 7:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024