Cognitive Dissonance - Black Box Thinking

[_Sethbag]

Reframing the evidence, to me, looks more like this:

"Well, it's true that the Book of Abraham facsimiles don't appear to have anything to do with Abraham, and in fact are accompanied by translations of the characters that Egyptologists have said are just plain wrong. That being said, I've felt a wonderful Spirit when I've read the other works of Joseph Smith, and the church he founded is doing so well, and is so good to raise my kids in, that my unshakeable faith in Joseph's prophetic calling is reconfirmed again and again."

[_Franktalk]

You are a living, breathing demonstration of the point being made.

The new York Times was and is no friend of Bush. They had to place in their article an out for lefties to feel good about themselves. You bought into it. It is thought that all of the good stuff was shipped to Syria before the war took place. You are a live breathing example of what Lenin called a useful idiot. Someone who reads propaganda and believes it.

And as the article pointed out people suffered as a result of contact with the WMD. Who cares if it was made last week or last month. It was still active.

An active program means active weapons. GEEEEZ

Let us say that the USA has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire earth. Then we decide to not make any more. Using your logic we would not be considered and active nuclear country. I know this may seem like a difficult thing to grasp. So please call up the New York Times and they will fill you in on what to think.

[_Sethbag]

You are a living, breathing demonstration of the point being made.

The new York Times was and is no friend of Bush. They had to place in their article an out for lefties to feel good about themselves. You bought into it. It is thought that all of the good stuff was shipped to Syria before the war took place.

Would you mind rephrasing this in the active voice? Who thinks that all the "good stuff" was shipped to Syria before the war? And they think this because of what evidence? Hopefully you've got some actual evidence to point to, and aren't just assuming the weapons went to Syria because A) Saddam really had them up until right before the war, B) they weren't in Iraq anymore after we took over the place, and therefore C) they must have been moved to Syria, because you can't explain B) otherwise.

[_Franktalk]

Would you mind rephrasing this in the active voice? Who thinks that all the "good stuff" was shipped to Syria before the war? And they think this because of what evidence? Hopefully you've got some actual evidence to point to, and aren't just assuming the weapons went to Syria because A) Saddam really had them up until right before the war, B) they weren't in Iraq anymore after we took over the place, and therefore C) they must have been moved to Syria, because you can't explain B) otherwise.

No, look it up yourself.

[_honorentheos]

I was a skeptic of our military adventure into Iraq in 2003 after Powell's presentation to the UN. I also watched the Iraq war start "live on CNN" while standing line to get my small pox and anthrax shots to go over there with my reserve unit that had just been activated and arrived at our mob station shortly before the actual shooting war began. I took the NBC side of mobilization just as serious as anyone else. The potential for Saddam to gas troops, even at the risk of causing deaths to his own people to do it, was never outside of the realm of possibility to me at that time.

BUT, and this is interesting to me as I read this thread - we didn't think of his bio-chem weapons as the types of WMD's we were going to war to prevent Saddam from deploying against the US. The argument all along was based on the belief he was attempting to build nuclear weapons. The shift to chem-bio as the WMD's used to justify the war came as the reality on the ground shifted. I didn't feel the war was justified on the grounds the evidence for a nuclear program like North Korea developed was a sham. The idea we went to war because Saddam had chemical weapons is a fairytale.

The arguments made by Blair are B.S. ISIS has it's roots in the fall of Saddam and the botched planning for what to do in Iraq during so-called reconstruction. Syria's specific problems and the horror that is it's civil war has it's roots in long standing ills foisted on the entire region by his country and the west from WWI to the present day. It's all rubbish talk.

[_Maksutov]

Would you mind rephrasing this in the active voice? Who thinks that all the "good stuff" was shipped to Syria before the war? And they think this because of what evidence? Hopefully you've got some actual evidence to point to, and aren't just assuming the weapons went to Syria because A) Saddam really had them up until right before the war, B) they weren't in Iraq anymore after we took over the place, and therefore C) they must have been moved to Syria, because you can't explain B) otherwise.

No, look it up yourself.

Of course Frank can't put up any evidence himself. He has none, as usual.

The war was BS, Frank, just like your theories. Not surprised you're on the wrong side of this one, too. Your "inner journey" and Dubya's "gut feeling"--equally delusional.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

If the US and NATO had really wanted to find nukes in 2003, they would have invaded Pakistan instead.

[_Sethbag]

Would you mind rephrasing this in the active voice? Who thinks that all the "good stuff" was shipped to Syria before the war? And they think this because of what evidence? Hopefully you've got some actual evidence to point to, and aren't just assuming the weapons went to Syria because A) Saddam really had them up until right before the war, B) they weren't in Iraq anymore after we took over the place, and therefore C) they must have been moved to Syria, because you can't explain B) otherwise.

No, look it up yourself.

I thought so. As I said earlier, I believed Saddam had the WMD before we invaded. As time has gone on and we've gathered more evidence, I've come to believe that, in fact, Saddam apparently no longer had them by the time we invaded in 2003. If you have any evidence that he'd shipped them off to Syria then I'd like to see that. But "it is thought..." is not evidence. Moreover, such use of the passive voice is calculated specifically to avoid having to attribute the statement to any specific source which could be checked. You certainly understand this. And you certainly understand why you can't get away with this sort of usage in an argument, don't you?