WMD scam in preparation?

  • #26
39
0
Njorl said:
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.
 
  • #27
39
0
Njorl said:
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/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
 
  • #28
Njorl
Science Advisor
267
15
Adam said:
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
 
  • #29
Njorl
Science Advisor
267
15
Adam said:
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/fallacies/appeal-to-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
 
  • #30
member 5645
Njorl said:
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! :cool:
 

Related Threads on WMD scam in preparation?

  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
85
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
77
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
3K
R
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
1K
Top