The Associated Press is considered one of the more reputable sources of media. I ignore both liberal and neo-conservative media, but you are starting to sound like a paranoid, McCarthy-ian who just blames everyone for being different if they don't agree, and can't substantiate anything.
Considered reputable by who?
The AP is nothing more than a giant newspaper that doesn't print newspapers. It 'finds' stories and supplies them to their media constituents, of which, all of the liberal television news stations, and almost every news paper in the US are. If you look this story up online you are likely to find a flood of links to different articles, but they will all say the same thing word for word because it was written by the AP.
I would not consider the AP reputable at all. They constantly break stories that start out with some fact then go on to twist that fact into some line of garbage that fits their views. The AP is an ultra liberal organization.
And I have not once blamed anybody for anything for not agreeing with me. I am certainly not paranoid and I have not made any accusations like a "McCarthy-ian" would.
blazedaces said:
So who gets to decide what is true and what isn't true? This is why you look for only reliable sources instead of picking and choosing the parts of faulty sources you deem acceptable. Your source is invalid and from the beginning I didn't trust it much. What you should have done is gone to find another, more reliable source, or at least a few more that could corroborate that story, instead of picking and choosing what you like about it.
First of all, I am not picking and choosing parts I deem acceptable. I only linked the article to show that this event occurred, which nobody is denying. Second, you can't find a more reliable source for the reasons I mentioned to CK above. The AP sent this story out to hundreds of news agencies and those stories have 'flooded the market' so to speak. If there is a story written by a more reputable source, you can't find it through all the copies of the APs article. If you google 'iraq' and 'yellowcake' you will only find the AP article.
So yes I used a questionable article to show something happened, that happened without question.
blazedaces said:
And the entire article could be a lie. Who cares what "could" be? You can't pick and choose what parts of a source you deem reliable. You have no authority. Either find alternative evidence or dismiss the entire premise.
The entire article 'could be' a lie, but it isn't. Nobody is questioning the events that took place, they are only questioning the spin the AP is putting on the events.
blazedaces said:
Did you not read what I had to say? Are you purposefully avoiding the obvious fact just to hold on to your petty belief?
The only thing that can be used as a weapon is radioactive material. The yellow-cake is radioactive material. Or are you insinuating that the yellow-cake was also placed there after-the-fact?
What are you talking about? Avoiding what facts? There are devices that can be used as weapons. Whether that is the devices themselves, or the material inside them does not matter. The point is that something about those devices can be used to make weapons.
And no, I am not insinuating the yellowcake was placed there after the fact. I didn't say that at all. All I said was it would be highly irresponsible to store those devices alongside a stockpile of yellowcake, and in Saddams control, and then claim that Saddam had no possible way of making any WMDs.
blazedaces said:
You're honestly just using semantics (that's another way of saying twisting words) to hold onto something you said which was just plain wrong. Why is it so hard to admit you said something wrong? What's the big deal?
Semantics? The article says the devices were dangerous, so I said the devices were dangerous and I am using semantics and twisting words? I am just plain wrong about the possibility the devices could be used to make a weapon, even though it is written plain as day in the article?
blazedaces said:
I also think it was vaguely worded and could have been explained better. But if you read it again it says the device was used to decontaminate food. What happens when you decontaminate something? You obviously have to store the contaminated part of it somewhere... And the radioactive elements were the ones that could be used to make weapons...
So? Now who is arguing semantics? I am wrong because I said the device was dangerous when it is actually the stuff INSIDE THE DEVICE that is dangerous? If I told you being hit by a car would cause injury, would you argue that I am wrong and it is being hit by the cars bumper that does the damage?
blazedaces said:
You're just arguing semantics yet again. "Evidence" and "Proof" are synonyms in any dictionary (don't take my word for it, look it up yourself if you don't believe me). You just sound stupid throwing words around like it makes a difference.
I am beginning to wonder if you know what 'arguing semantics' really means. Yes 'evidence' and 'proof' are synonyms, and I apologize for the typo. I meant to say "This does not 'prove'...". To 'prove' something, you need evidence, or proof, to back it up. If you are wondering who drank your last can of coke, you might find some 'proof', like an empty can near your friend, but that does not 'prove' he was the one who drank it. So a stockpile of yellowcake and some potentially dangerous devices (or the contents of the devices) does not 'prove' that Saddam was trying to create a weapon, but it is 'proof' or 'evidence' that he was. Just like the empty can was evidence or 'proof' your friend drank the coke, whether he did or not.
blazedaces said:
This is complete nonsense. The UN knew about it earlier. There is no secret cover up operation going on under our noses. Look, they even say in YOUR source "Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase more yellowcake from the African nation of Niger — and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims..." A US ambassador refuted the claims. You're just spouting conspiracy stories. It's completely ridiculous.
First, the UN knew about the yellowcake earlier. It is debatable about the devices. Until either of us can find any evidence one way or the other, we can't know for sure. Until then, I have to go by my logic, which says a responsible weapons inspector would not have allowed the devices to be stored with the yellowcake.
Second, I never claimed there was a secret cover-up. I was just pointing out some peculiarities.
Third, One guy, a US ambassador, claims that Saddam didn't try to buy more yellowcake. So what? What does a US ambassador know about the dealings of a crazy dictator? And even if Saddam really didn't try to buy more, he still had 550 tons of it already.
Fourth, I am not spouting conspiracy stories. I was simply pointing out that Saddam had radioactive material. That was all I was doing. We were all told Saddam could not have possibly made any kind of WMD at all, and yet he had 550 tons of material. I am not saying he was using it, or that there is a conspiracy, I am just saying they were wrong.
blazedaces said:
Re-read the article.
Kur, I'm not playing this game with you. Either the evidence clearly says what you claim, or it doesn't. If we're fighting this much about it, and if even you disagree with parts of it you must rescind it.
-blazed
I've read it 3 times. I think I could do without a fourth. Though I suggest you re-read my post so you can see I have not done any of the things you are accusing me of.
Evidence rarely 'clearly' says anything. That is why you need multiple pieces of evidence to prove something. So far, with the evidence available, I am inclined to think the UN made a mistake by telling us that Saddam had no way of making any WMDs. If any more evidence becomes available, I may change my mind or become stronger in my opinion based on what I see.
And what is this? "If we're fighting this much about it, and if even you disagree with parts of it you must rescind it." I assume you are talking about rescinding the article.
Well as I pointed out, this article is the only source right now saying this event happened, and nobody at all is saying it did not. My only intention of even bringing this up was to show that Saddam had a large stockpile of radioactive material, even though the UN said he had nothing to show he could make any kind of weapon. 550 tons of yellowcake is certainly something. This stuff is a powder, heck he could have loaded it into cheap planes and dumped it into the wind over a village. It would result in catastrophic loss of life, pain, suffering, future birth defects, damaged crops, starvation, etc. all without the need for a missile, or explosives of any kind.
From this small point, you seem to have blown it up into a conspiracy theory.
