WMD scam in preparation?


by pelastration
Tags: preparation, scam
phatmonky
phatmonky is offline
#19
Apr15-04, 11:23 AM
P: 1,528
Quote Quote by Njorl
It is a perfectly valid supposition that any existing Iranian newspaper is an organ for the promotion of the policies of the hard-line antireformist movement in Iran. Simply google <Iranian newspaper closed > and you will see that any paper not conforming to reformist agenda is closed.

No aspect of the story is falsifiable. No fact can be independently checked. I could just as easily print my own paper, "The Njorl Times" and write, "Unnamed sources confirm WMD in Iraq all along" and Phat could reference it.

The story is not logical. The alleged conspiracy is ridiculous. While it is entirely believable that the US could attempt to plant evidence, they would certainly not involve so many different entities. One independent contractor which was a CIA front would fly a cargo plane to Iraq. The cargo plane would have a loaded truck inside of it. That truck would drive into the desert. No more than a dozen people, all Americans or CIA "resources" with security clearances, would be involved. The conspiraccy presented by "The Tehran Times" is laughable. It is a cartoon.

Njorl
Well, atleast I'm not the only one
Adam
Adam is offline
#20
Apr15-04, 11:33 AM
P: 454
Quote Quote by Njorl
The story is not logical. The alleged conspiracy is ridiculous. While it is entirely believable that the US could attempt to plant evidence, they would certainly not involve so many different entities.
This is where some familiarity with history is useful. It's already been done. The CIA did it for the start of the USA-Vietnam war, planting a barge-load of weapons on a river, then "finding " it later.

Given that they have done it, how can you possibly say it's illogical or unlikely?

In short, your appeal to ridicule (http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-ridicule.html) does nothing for you. Try again.
Njorl
Njorl is offline
#21
Apr15-04, 11:43 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 875
Quote Quote by Adam
This is where some familiarity with history is useful. It's already been done. The CIA did it for the start of the USA-Vietnam war, planting a barge-load of weapons on a river, then "finding " it later.

Given that they have done it, how can you possibly say it's illogical or unlikely?

In short, your appeal to ridicule (http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-ridicule.html) does nothing for you. Try again.
Please read more carefully. Seeing as how you quoted me saying:

While it is entirely believable that the US could attempt to plant evidence
I would think that you might have read it. What I claimed to be illogical was that they would do it in such a pathetically stupid way.

These remain unrefuted:

The source is not reputable.
The hypothesis is not of a falsifiable nature.
The hypothesis is not logically self-consistant.

Edited to add - By the way Adam, have you ever read that site to which you linked? With regards to "Appeal to ridicule" it states, "It should be noted that showing that a claim is ridiculous through the use of legitimate methods (such as a non fallacious argument) can make it reasonable to reject the claim. "

Njorl
ptex
ptex is offline
#22
Apr15-04, 12:04 PM
P: 74
Thank you phatmonky
State run news sources are by nature suspect. Americans did bring in WMDs in the form of USMC and they were not hidden they were in plain view.
Adam
Adam is offline
#23
Apr15-04, 12:06 PM
P: 454
Njorl, you said it is not likely, ridiculous, and wouldn't happen with so many people. You were wrong. It's already happened. Deal with it.
Njorl
Njorl is offline
#24
Apr15-04, 12:41 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 875
So Adam, when (or if) the CIA engaged in this conspiracy in Vietnam, did they engage the use of foreigners from multiple countries for no aparent reason? Did they engage uncontrolled private contractors? Did they go out of their way to be found out, engaging in reckless, stupid practices to no possible advantage?

Learn to read.

Njorl
Njorl
Njorl is offline
#25
Apr15-04, 12:47 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 875
Since you like the Nizkor project so much, here are your fallacies:

Appeal to Authority
You use the Tehran times as a source of authority. You need to present reason for it to be recognised as such.

Burden of Proof
You are the one making an unfalsifiable claim. You are the one who bears the burden of proof.

Njorl
Adam
Adam is offline
#26
Apr15-04, 01:43 PM
P: 454
Quote Quote by Njorl
So Adam, when (or if) the CIA engaged in this conspiracy in Vietnam, did they engage the use of foreigners from multiple countries for no aparent reason? Did they engage uncontrolled private contractors? Did they go out of their way to be found out, engaging in reckless, stupid practices to no possible advantage?
They used the CIA, arms suppliers, whoever sold them the barge, some reporters, and some locals. A lot of people.

The purpose was to justify invasion. And it worked. Thus the advantage.
Adam
Adam is offline
#27
Apr15-04, 01:46 PM
P: 454
Quote Quote by Njorl
Since you like the Nizkor project so much, here are your fallacies:

Appeal to Authority
You use the Tehran times as a source of authority. You need to present reason for it to be recognised as such.

Burden of Proof
You are the one making an unfalsifiable claim. You are the one who bears the burden of proof.
That's not actually an appeal to authority. I have not said "This is true because the Tehran Times is an expert on the matter". I have presented news, and people have made appeals to ridicule in response. Here you go: http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...authority.html
Njorl
Njorl is offline
#28
Apr15-04, 03:46 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 875
Quote Quote by Adam
They used the CIA, arms suppliers, whoever sold them the barge, some reporters, and some locals. A lot of people.

The purpose was to justify invasion. And it worked. Thus the advantage.
...and the inventors of gunpowder and the barge were in on it too, indirectly.

Who was "in on it" really. Were the reporters acting as CIA operatives? I'd like some specifics if that's what you allege.

Njorl
Njorl
Njorl is offline
#29
Apr15-04, 03:50 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 875
Quote Quote by Adam
That's not actually an appeal to authority. I have not said "This is true because the Tehran Times is an expert on the matter". I have presented news, and people have made appeals to ridicule in response. Here you go: http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...authority.html

Oh, so you are not a rational participant in a debate. You are a base rumormonger. This is significantly more condemning of you. It is, I suppose, somewhat noble of you to admit your nature. This also means you should not be protected by any of the rules of debate, as you admit to not being a participant thereof.

Njorl
phatmonky
phatmonky is offline
#30
Apr15-04, 04:50 PM
P: 1,528
Quote Quote by Njorl
Oh, so you are not a rational participant in a debate. You are a base rumormonger. This is significantly more condemning of you. It is, I suppose, somewhat noble of you to admit your nature. This also means you should not be protected by any of the rules of debate, as you admit to not being a participant thereof.

Njorl

Since this thread is long derailed, I have to say that this is the funniest thing I have read on this board in a long time!


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Cancer drug scam General Discussion 28
Cough syrup scam? General Discussion 4
(809) a scam! General Discussion 13
Internet scam? General Discussion 4
Fish Oil Scam General Discussion 0