Israel murders disabled people... whats next i wonder IDF-Apachefiring missiles on 67yr old civilian in wheelchair- at Sabra mosque inGaza...

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Cuts both ways. Remember all those stories about how Saddam used to feed
victims feet-first through an industrial shredder?

Actually, this is cutting the *same* way.

Okay, you're happy on a diet of lies: not everyone is as joyful about
being misled as you. You're telling me that you *like* being misled? Or
are you just wholly reckless as to the truth?

That's really how I perceive most of the left as of now. They're so
busy trying to find "lies!" that they can't allow for any normal human
mistakes... and will forgive Hussein's *thousands* of murders because
someone said something that someone can't prove.

Again, there's plentiful truth about Saddam, so why bother making stuff
up?

Because, at the time, these *were* the stories we were getting out of
Iraq. This is what the Iraqis were *telling* us, through the msaaive
laters of insane lies coming out of there.

Of course, you're certain that the Great Bush and Company Conspiracy
made this all up, just to deceive *you* into supporting a war when you
wouldn't go in for any of the other hundred reasons, like torture,
murder, rape, and worse. And - here's the nasty part - the plastic
shredder wasn't even as bad as the *proven* events (note also that the
"no shredder" story didn't really do anything except show that the
writer didn't find anything, not that they found a disproof of it).

But *you* are so concerned with trying to find the Big Lie that you
don't care about the hundreds of medium-sized Ugly Truths.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Okay, you're happy on a diet of lies: not everyone is as joyful about
being misled as you. You're telling me that you *like* being misled? Or
are you just wholly reckless as to the truth?

That's really how I perceive most of the left as of now. They're so
busy trying to find "lies!" that they can't allow for any normal human
mistakes... and will forgive Hussein's *thousands* of murders because
someone said something that someone can't prove.

Who's forgiving anything? You're making this up as you go along.

Again, there's plentiful truth about Saddam, so why bother making stuff
up?

Because, at the time, these *were* the stories we were getting out of
Iraq. This is what the Iraqis were *telling* us, through the msaaive
laters of insane lies coming out of there.

And you don't believe that a little caution might be required before
cheerfully believing every story?

Of course, you're certain that the Great Bush and Company Conspiracy
made this all up, just to deceive *you* into supporting a war when you
wouldn't go in for any of the other hundred reasons, like torture,
murder, rape, and worse.

Not particularly, no, this one seems to have started with Ann Clywd: who
would confuse the hell out of you because she's a left-wing politician
(in the genuine sense, not just a Democrat) who has been vehemently
pressing for regime change in Iraq for the last *decade* or so, pointing
out Saddam's iniquities to anyone she could get to listen. As far as I
know her mistake here was just being a little too credulous.

See what happens when you jump to conclusions?

And - here's the nasty part - the plastic
shredder wasn't even as bad as the *proven* events (note also that the
"no shredder" story didn't really do anything except show that the
writer didn't find anything, not that they found a disproof of it).

That's right: Hussein killed something like 30,000 people in the space
of a month or two. Back in 1991, right under the noses of UK and US
troops, who were ordered to sit tight and do nothing when the Shi'ia in
Basra and the south rose up against Hussein.

Where was the urgency to act back when the mass graves were still being
filled, and some of their occupants could have been saved?

But *you* are so concerned with trying to find the Big Lie that you
don't care about the hundreds of medium-sized Ugly Truths.

I'm just curious about the stop-go attitude.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Paul J. Adam wrote:

That's right: Hussein killed something like 30,000 people in the space
of a month or two. Back in 1991, right under the noses of UK and US
troops, who were ordered to sit tight and do nothing when the Shi'ia in
Basra and the south rose up against Hussein.

Where was the urgency to act back when the mass graves were still being
filled, and some of their occupants could have been saved?

But *you* are so concerned with trying to find the Big Lie that you
don't care about the hundreds of medium-sized Ugly Truths.

I'm just curious about the stop-go attitude.

Because the authority at the time felt further US involvement to
remove Hussein would lead to a massive breakdown of any sort of
authority, a likely multi-dimensional civil war, fragmentation of
the coalition and US forces being stuck in the country for years
to follow.

Sound familiar?

The difference was 9/11 happened in 2001, not 1990.

Yes you can argue 9/11 was terrorism and the Iraqi war something,
else, but rightly or wrongly, they have become somewhat bundled
as part of an overall package now.


SMH