Would You Vote to Bomb Iran?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

I think you are using the lay definition of “direct evidence.” “Direct evidence” is testimony of a person stating a certain fact is true. Direct evidence is provided by Mr. Masyaf.

Regarding your larger point, I am not going to hunt down the 1,000s of stories confirming this. I do have a life.[/quote]

No, I was using the scientific definition of direct evidence, and there is none here that I have seen.
[/quote]

Didn’t know there was a scientific defintion of “direct evidence.”

Legally, it means someone who saw something and says it ----- for example, a general who sees WMD get loaded onto trucks and planes, as compared to circumstantial evidence (like WMD were there – and now they aren’t).[/quote]

That is probably because you are a lawyer and not a scientist. I am a scientist, so I tend to use scientific definitions of terms, not legal ones.
[/quote]

Upon looking at the definition, I don’t think there is a difference. Seeing something is direct evidence in science. A witness seeing something happen is direct evidence in law.

The general seeing and stating what he saw is direct evidence, period.

For the record, I am an MIT engineer, as well as a lawyer.[/quote]

An engineer is still not a scientist, and I have an MS in mathematics and a PhD in physics from Carnegie Mellon University. And in order for something to be considered direct evidence from a scientific standpoint, we have to actually know when and where an event took place, this means that data must be available to show this. All we know that a convoy went from Iraq to Syria and a bunch of WMDs went missing at some point. For example, physicists at CERN say they conducted an experiment and a new particle was discovered. Their word on that means nothing without the data showing that the experiment took place. These men claiming that WMDs were on that convoy is not enough. Without physical evidence to show that there were indeed WMDs on that convoy and that they are still in Syria, we do not know if their word can be trusted.

82

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

I think you are using the lay definition of “direct evidence.” “Direct evidence” is testimony of a person stating a certain fact is true. Direct evidence is provided by Mr. Masyaf.

Regarding your larger point, I am not going to hunt down the 1,000s of stories confirming this. I do have a life.[/quote]

No, I was using the scientific definition of direct evidence, and there is none here that I have seen.
[/quote]

Didn’t know there was a scientific defintion of “direct evidence.”

Legally, it means someone who saw something and says it ----- for example, a general who sees WMD get loaded onto trucks and planes, as compared to circumstantial evidence (like WMD were there – and now they aren’t).[/quote]

That is probably because you are a lawyer and not a scientist. I am a scientist, so I tend to use scientific definitions of terms, not legal ones.
[/quote]

Upon looking at the definition, I don’t think there is a difference. Seeing something is direct evidence in science. A witness seeing something happen is direct evidence in law.

The general seeing and stating what he saw is direct evidence, period.

For the record, I am an MIT engineer, as well as a lawyer.[/quote]

An engineer is still not a scientist, and I have an MS in mathematics and a PhD in physics from Carnegie Mellon University. And in order for something to be considered direct evidence from a scientific standpoint, we have to actually know when and where an event took place, this means that data must be available to show this. All we know that a convoy went from Iraq to Syria and a bunch of WMDs went missing at some point. For example, physicists at CERN say they conducted an experiment and a new particle was discovered. Their word on that means nothing without the data showing that the experiment took place. These men claiming that WMDs were on that convoy is not enough. Without physical evidence to show that there were indeed WMDs on that convoy and that they are still in Syria, we do not know if their word can be trusted.[/quote]

That does not make it “not direct evidence.”

That makes it direct evidence you chose not to believe, for whatever reason (valid or not valid), just like you have chosen not to believe the Mossad, the Iraqi General, the Syrian Defector, the new head of Obama’s National Security team, and various other intelligence folk listed above.

I also think your (apparent) lack of military training comes into this.

Large convoys of military trucks do not leave a place that is about to be attacked unless they are taking out something that the attackee seeks to preserve or hide. If nothing else, the men would be used to dig in, fortify, etc.

83

I edited an above post, but just in case some missed it: The fact that the transport of this allegedly large amount of WMDs without some of the most sophisticated and competent intelligence agencies noticing tends to support the idea that it was done so in smaller, more subtle amounts over a longer period of time and spread to different places rather then transported in large convoys during a relatively short time to just a few locations in one country when transit into and out of and within Iraq was being closely monitored in advance of an impending invasion.

84

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

I think you are using the lay definition of “direct evidence.” “Direct evidence” is testimony of a person stating a certain fact is true. Direct evidence is provided by Mr. Masyaf.

Regarding your larger point, I am not going to hunt down the 1,000s of stories confirming this. I do have a life.[/quote]

No, I was using the scientific definition of direct evidence, and there is none here that I have seen.
[/quote]

Didn’t know there was a scientific defintion of “direct evidence.”

Legally, it means someone who saw something and says it ----- for example, a general who sees WMD get loaded onto trucks and planes, as compared to circumstantial evidence (like WMD were there – and now they aren’t).[/quote]

That is probably because you are a lawyer and not a scientist. I am a scientist, so I tend to use scientific definitions of terms, not legal ones.
[/quote]

Upon looking at the definition, I don’t think there is a difference. Seeing something is direct evidence in science. A witness seeing something happen is direct evidence in law.

The general seeing and stating what he saw is direct evidence, period.

For the record, I am an MIT engineer, as well as a lawyer.[/quote]

An engineer is still not a scientist, and I have an MS in mathematics and a PhD in physics from Carnegie Mellon University. And in order for something to be considered direct evidence from a scientific standpoint, we have to actually know when and where an event took place, this means that data must be available to show this. All we know that a convoy went from Iraq to Syria and a bunch of WMDs went missing at some point. For example, physicists at CERN say they conducted an experiment and a new particle was discovered. Their word on that means nothing without the data showing that the experiment took place. These men claiming that WMDs were on that convoy is not enough. Without physical evidence to show that there were indeed WMDs on that convoy and that they are still in Syria, we do not know if their word can be trusted.[/quote]

Wait for all that and your DEAD. I trust a guy (Jewbacca) who is over there.

Pull our guys out of Ass-crackistan, then bomb their (Iranian) nuke facilities.

Burn the nest.

85

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
I edited an above post, but just in case some missed it: The fact that the transport of this allegedly large amount of WMDs without some of the most sophisticated and competent intelligence agencies noticing tends to support the idea that it was done so in smaller, more subtle amounts over a longer period of time and spread to different places rather then transported in large convoys during a relatively short time to just a few locations in one country when transit into and out of and within Iraq was being closely monitored in advance of an impending invasion.[/quote]

Perhaps. Saddam was, however, an optomist. I think he waited until the last moment, thinking he could talk his way out of the trap.

Some of what you say went on, though. I recall the Italians saying the anthrax program went to Syria well before the war.

86

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Wait for all that and your DEAD. I trust a guy (Jewbacca) who is over there.

[/quote]

San Diego? (Just for tonight — I will be going back soon, however. Mrs. Jewbacca’s specialty training is almost up.)

87

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

I think you are using the lay definition of “direct evidence.” “Direct evidence” is testimony of a person stating a certain fact is true. Direct evidence is provided by Mr. Masyaf.

Regarding your larger point, I am not going to hunt down the 1,000s of stories confirming this. I do have a life.[/quote]

No, I was using the scientific definition of direct evidence, and there is none here that I have seen.
[/quote]

Didn’t know there was a scientific defintion of “direct evidence.”

Legally, it means someone who saw something and says it ----- for example, a general who sees WMD get loaded onto trucks and planes, as compared to circumstantial evidence (like WMD were there – and now they aren’t).[/quote]

That is probably because you are a lawyer and not a scientist. I am a scientist, so I tend to use scientific definitions of terms, not legal ones.
[/quote]

Upon looking at the definition, I don’t think there is a difference. Seeing something is direct evidence in science. A witness seeing something happen is direct evidence in law.

The general seeing and stating what he saw is direct evidence, period.

For the record, I am an MIT engineer, as well as a lawyer.[/quote]

An engineer is still not a scientist, and I have an MS in mathematics and a PhD in physics from Carnegie Mellon University. And in order for something to be considered direct evidence from a scientific standpoint, we have to actually know when and where an event took place, this means that data must be available to show this. All we know that a convoy went from Iraq to Syria and a bunch of WMDs went missing at some point. For example, physicists at CERN say they conducted an experiment and a new particle was discovered. Their word on that means nothing without the data showing that the experiment took place. These men claiming that WMDs were on that convoy is not enough. Without physical evidence to show that there were indeed WMDs on that convoy and that they are still in Syria, we do not know if their word can be trusted.[/quote]

That does not make it “not direct evidence.”

That makes it direct evidence you chose not to believe, for whatever reason (valid or not valid), just like you have chosen not to believe the Mossad, the Iraqi General, the Syrian Defector, the new head of Obama’s National Security team, and various other intelligence folk listed above.

I also think your (apparent) lack of military training comes into this.

Large convoys of military trucks do not leave a place that is about to be attacked unless they are taking out something that the attackee seeks to preserve or hide. If nothing else, the men would be used to dig in, fortify, etc.[/quote]

It makes it an unconfirmed claim since we have no physical data to show that the WMDs were moved at the same time this convoy went to Syria and that they were indeed on the trucks and still in Syria. A claim backed up by data is evidence, and if the person making the claim collected the data, it is direct evidence. All we have is the claim by a few men that WMDs were on this convoy with no physical data to prove or verify it, or to verify that those same WMDs are still in and stayed in Syria.

I also know enough to know that large convoys of military trucks do not cross the border of a country than another country is about to invade without being noticed and without the country that is invading the other country tracking the convoy’s movement and finding out some information on it.

88

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

I also know enough to know that large convoys of military trucks do not cross the border of a country than another country is about to invade without being noticed and without the country that is invading the other country tracking the convoy’s movement and finding out some information on it.
[/quote]

You assume a level of competence that is not there. They had all sorts of information, but just couldn’t get to it:

http://www.worldthreats.com/?p=60

89

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

I also know enough to know that large convoys of military trucks do not cross the border of a country than another country is about to invade without being noticed and without the country that is invading the other country tracking the convoy’s movement and finding out some information on it.
[/quote]

You assume a level of competence that is not there. They had all sorts of information, but just couldn’t get to it:

http://www.worldthreats.com/?p=60[/quote]

Fair enough, but according to that letter, nobody knew what was on those trucks and even the drivers were changed at at least one point so we still have no confirmation that WMDs were on that convoy and that the WMDs were indeed transported to and stayed in Syria, which is how compartmentalized information tends to work.

For all we know, only a couple of those trucks had WMDs and the WMDs were spread out in other, or similar ways to other places, or even to one place like Syria. Moving them all at once to one location over two trips just does not seem plausible. It would have meant transporting all or most of Iraq’s WMDs to Baghdad and from there moving them across the border.

It just seems to me it would be safer to move them in smaller amounts to prevent all of the WMDs from being taken or destroyed if the convoy was compromised. I know if I was planning on moving an arsenal like that knowing that US and other intelligence activities in my country at an all time high in preparation for an invasion, I would plan the operation under the assumption that it was compromised and try to ensure that at least some of it got away instead of gambling it all in one shot.

90

As an aside, Mossad also says that it was a combination of Ukranians and Russians who helped orgnize the bug-out.

I think you are covering up; maybe my friend Uri needs to come visit. :wink:

91

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
As an aside, Mossad also says that it was a combination of Ukranians and Russians who helped orgnize the bug-out.

I think you are covering up; maybe my friend Uri needs to come visit. ;-)[/quote]

Damn, you figured me out. Now I have to disappear.

Seriously, though, that Russian part could very well be true. There were reports of a former KGB General named Primakov (not sure if I got the english transliteration right) in Iraq during the time frame where a good amount the WMDs would likely have been moved and he had a reputation for being able to smuggle weapons across borders and is familiar enough with US intelligence to have pulled this sort of thing off under the CIA’s nose.

92

So let me get this straight:

1). No hard evidence of nukes in Iran.
2). Iraq may have moved their chemical WMD program into Syria.
3). Syria has threatened to use said WMD in case of intervention from outside forces.
4). Lets go bomb Iran.

snafu

93

Let’s just get rid of anyone who thinks they have a right to land based on their race or religion and see where we go from there.

94

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
Keeping the transport of the amount of WMDs that are being claimed here without some of the most sophisticated intelligence agencies in the world knowing, who are actively gathering intelligence on these WMDs, takes a lot more subtlety then caravans like the ones described.
[/quote]

Israel’s Mossad (arguably among the best) unequivocally takes the position that the WMD were shipped to Syria.

But this is summarily dismissed as coming from “Jews with an agenda.”[/quote]

Arguably, “jews with an agenda” is the best description of the Mossad that is out there.

95

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Let’s just get rid of anyone who thinks they have a right to land based on their race or religion and see where we go from there.[/quote]

Civil war, until they find something else to unite them.

96

[quote]Cuso wrote:
So let me get this straight:

1). No hard evidence of nukes in Iran.
2). Iraq may have moved their chemical WMD program into Syria.
3). Syria has threatened to use said WMD in case of intervention from outside forces.
4). Lets go bomb Iran.

snafu[/quote]

A large part of U.S. defence expenditure goes to protecting Germany and Western Europe from the Russians. They should turn off the spiggot and use that money for their own defence.

Also, the first “hard evidence” of Iran having a nuclear bomb will be when they test one and join the club which will be a little late.

97

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
A large part of U.S. defence expenditure goes to protecting Germany and Western Europe from the Russians. They should turn off the spiggot and use that money for their own defence.

Also, the first “hard evidence” of Iran having a nuclear bomb will be when they test one and join the club which will be a little late.[/quote]

Please take note that I’m an American working and living in Germany, and agree with you 100% as to the use of American taxpayer’s money abroad.

98

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]shorty_blitz wrote:
As a person with Iranian heritage, I can assure you that I have heard more ‘western’ people talk about bombing Iran with lust than I have ever heard an actual Iranian living in Iran talk about doing anything remotely similar to a western country. Sure the government has it’s agenda but so do other countries.[/quote]

The Iranian people got goatfucked by a bunch of lunatics that took over their government.

Too bad that so many of them have to die. Once again, religion shows itself for what it is…death worship.
[/quote]

Haha you brainless degenerate, if I recall correctly you got ‘goatfucked’ by the same group of Islamic maniacs that you created called Al-Qaeda.

I know of Israelis and Palestinians who don’t wish each other as much ill will as some loud mouths like you do.

99

[quote]shorty_blitz wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]shorty_blitz wrote:
As a person with Iranian heritage, I can assure you that I have heard more ‘western’ people talk about bombing Iran with lust than I have ever heard an actual Iranian living in Iran talk about doing anything remotely similar to a western country. Sure the government has it’s agenda but so do other countries.[/quote]

The Iranian people got goatfucked by a bunch of lunatics that took over their government.

Too bad that so many of them have to die. Once again, religion shows itself for what it is…death worship.
[/quote]

Haha you brainless degenerate, if I recall correctly you got ‘goatfucked’ by the same group of Islamic maniacs that you created called Al-Qaeda.

I know of Israelis and Palestinians who don’t wish each other as much ill will as some loud mouths like you do.
[/quote]

Location: Ramsar

Did you like the little ‘treat’ we sent you?

“Iranian nuclear facilities have been reportedly attacked by a â??musicalâ?? virus, turning personal computers in laboratories on at nighttime and starting playing AC/DCâ??s â??Thunderstruckâ?? out loud.”

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! NSA FTW!!!

100

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]shorty_blitz wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]shorty_blitz wrote:
As a person with Iranian heritage, I can assure you that I have heard more ‘western’ people talk about bombing Iran with lust than I have ever heard an actual Iranian living in Iran talk about doing anything remotely similar to a western country. Sure the government has it’s agenda but so do other countries.[/quote]

The Iranian people got goatfucked by a bunch of lunatics that took over their government.

Too bad that so many of them have to die. Once again, religion shows itself for what it is…death worship.
[/quote]

Haha you brainless degenerate, if I recall correctly you got ‘goatfucked’ by the same group of Islamic maniacs that you created called Al-Qaeda.

I know of Israelis and Palestinians who don’t wish each other as much ill will as some loud mouths like you do.
[/quote]

Location: Ramsar

Did you like the little ‘treat’ we sent you?

“Iranian nuclear facilities have been reportedly attacked by a â??musicalâ?? virus, turning personal computers in laboratories on at nighttime and starting playing AC/DCâ??s â??Thunderstruckâ?? out loud.”

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! NSA FTW!!![/quote]

Yes, I’m sure they appreciate AC/DC out there!