Western Crimes against Nature

[Raithere]

Now you say to me that 'experts' may not be teeling the truth, right? yet next sentence are relying on experts yourself. aren't you? what makes YOUR experts better than mine?.....If you come back with that they have'evidence'....HOW do you know their evidence is real. is telling the truth?...have you done the actual research yourself? so how do you actually know their science is true, and not manipultated for State?

I have two main reasons. First, the information and analysis isn't coming from just one group or country, there are many different sources. In addition to various U.S. organizations there are groups and individuals from Canada, Australia, Yugoslavia , England, Switzerland, the Netherlands, France, regional hospitals and national health departments in many countries. There are also multinational groups such as the U.N., the WHO, the European Agency for Reconstruction, etc.

Second, the fact that there are watchdogs all over the place would make it extraordinarily difficult for there to be any massive cover up. A conspiracy of the size you suggest would require massive amount of support in itself before even being reasonable considered. In other words, you cannot found the lack of evidence for one assertion based upon an unfounded second assertion.

In particular, I trust the WHO. They do not seem to play at politics, their reports appear to be very comprehensive, and they do not make unequivocal statements; they indicate some measure of risk.

~Raithere

[Gustav]

That's true but there's a little more to consider before calling it a complete impasse.
It has to do with the number of experts on each side of the issue AND their individual credibility.

pardon. perhaps i was not being clear. i am not talking about a third party analysis of the argument but perspectives from the respective players. their pov. what do they do?

Deundy's "experts" are always WAY in the minority (many times limited to only one or two!) and make extraordinary (and often outlandish) claims. And that's also usually against hundreds of experts on the other side of the issue.

actually i am not concerned about duendy "experts" being "always......" it is just the contents of this thread i consider.

So are all of those hundreds of experts bought off by one or more of Duendy's "secret societies?" Perhaps one like the "super-secret agency" she claims in her most recent thread? The one who's existence is clearly revealed in that current bill before the house of representatives?

i will not give credence to outlandish claims by considering it. and again, i see no need to allow statements and attitudes from other threads bleed over to this one unless of course, it is actually relevant and specific to the topic post. for instance, allegations of nefarious conspiracies might be justified in a particular topic while indefensible in another.

Or rather is it just more likely that any crackpot like Duendy can search around - especially on the internet - and find another crackpot that has the same ideas she does???????

Or... is it really possible that, as I said elsewhere, that only Duendy and a select few can actually see these "invisible" secret groups and their plans while no one else can??

what a waste of time and energy. i find these both these questions, unproductive and irrelevant.

Now seriously - which of those seems most likely to you?

sweet
start off by identifying the "sides"

[Raithere]

it is a judgement call individual posters have to make based on their respective skills. if either party is adamant about the reliability of their sources, and are unwilling to crunch the numbers in order to resolve discrepancies, understand an impasse has been reached

That's true but there's a little more to consider before calling it a complete impasse. It has to do with the number of experts on each side of the issue AND their individual credibility.

Both of you are wrong here.

The issue is not about how many experts nor their individual credibility. The issue is one of evidence.

Think about Albert Einstein's life. At the point where he had no credibility he stood alone against throngs of experts, steadfastly asserting that their entire concept of reality was off track, that they were wrong. Later in his life, when he had tons of credibility and plenty of other experts on his 'side' he refused to accept various assertions made in Quantum Theory, this time Albert was wrong. The determining factor, in both cases, was the evidence.

~Raithere

[Light]

Both of you are wrong here.

The issue is not about how many experts nor their individual credibility. The issue is one of evidence.

Think about Albert Einstein's life. At the point where he had no credibility he stood alone against throngs of experts, steadfastly asserting that their entire concept of reality was off track, that they were wrong. Later in his life, when he had tons of credibility and plenty of other experts on his 'side' he refused to accept various assertions made in Quantum Theory, this time Albert was wrong. The determining factor, in both cases, was the evidence.

~Raithere

I totally agree with evidence! Facts, facts, facts! I was simply pointing out that in most circumstances the view held by the majority of the experts is more likely to be correct than the one expressed by one or two.

Your reference to Einstein is valid but a rather thin validation of what you're attempting to say. For every Einstein or Copernicus there have been untold thousands of "junk" experts that history has long forgotten. And so it will be with the ones that Duendy is so fond of relying on. Why? Because they were proven wrong with evidence.

[Gustav]

Both of you are wrong here.

and i think you are being too hasty

The issue is not about how many experts nor their individual credibility. The issue is one of evidence.

consider anew

...and are unwilling to crunch the numbers in order to resolve discrepancies,

numbers=data=evidence supporting a hypothesis
do you see?
instead of resolving by appeals to authority, one must look into the actual data and methodologies used

[duendy]

During the course of my work, I have been criticized and denounced by the both extremes in the DU debate. In 1997, an intelligence officer working for the Pentagon’s Gulf War illness unit threatened me with a lawsuit and encouraged other veterans’ advocates to stop working with me. In subsequent years, Pentagon officials tried to discredit me by labeling me a dupe of Iraqi propaganda, with a secret agenda of world disarmament.

Ironically, extremist activists have also tried to discredit me by spreading rumors on the Internet and through word of mouth that I am secretly working for the CIA, the Pentagon, the nuclear industry, or other nefarious syndicates. In 2000, Iraqi government officials berated me at a conference in Spain because I questioned their claim that all the cancers and birth defects in southern Iraq were attributable to DU.

I have learned that liars and charlatans do not like to be exposed, and when exposed, they may lash out fiercely. The far left mirrors the far right with respect to DU, and the actions of some prominent anti-DU activists emulate those of the Bush administration during its drive to war in Iraq: first make alarmist claims based on flawed assessments that use fabricated evidence from unreliable sources, and then viciously attack anyone (fahey 2004)

duendy
please comment on the above if you find it relevant

Hey Gustav..........i have to share with you my EMOTION about this subject then. when i began finding reports about DU, and having seen some photographs of chlidren suffering the worst genetic deformation i have EVER EVER seen--so much so i cant even bear to look at the photographs for longer than few seconds--i of course wanted to findout about this.
I dont want you or others to imagine me a 'DU extremeist' etc. didn't know they existed actually. i am EXPLORING this issue.....of course i am not 'wantin it to be true', as some might PREsume. what....you think i want a world poisoned, genetic dformtion, youngmen/women/soldiers dying low deaths, Iraqi people with cancers, rthe environment made uninhabitable for millions of years etc etc. do i fuk. BUT tis doesn't mean i a shying away from invistigating this, which is why i initiated this thread here

i would lik to get in touch with the author of te link you forewarded and ask him/hr some questions. this is the way i do things. i dont presume--or try no to. i am wanting to inquire

i know the bigger pictue tho, and this must ALWAYS be kept in mind!

Bush nd the neocons war was ILLEGAL. and they LIE. they will do anythin to get what they want. We know abotnte weapons they used--ie American government --in Vietnam, such as AGEnt Orange. a terribly toxic wepaon ofmass destructiom. not manypeople know of the poison they drop on drug crops round the world in teir war on drugs which kills the people in the vicinity

so inam in oter words looking at their utter IMMORALITY. and such immorality lies. the aricles i've read about their use of depleted uranium + ohter radioactive substances such as plutonium from a cross section of reporters including tose trhat have served in military, seems quite convincing to me, and seems plausable. soon i will dig out te sources i havegotten

from jemory it is not clear why above author has been targeted by State for being a 'dupe of Iraqi propaganda', if as you say he questions DU being reponsible for disease and death. can you explain the essence of this person's message??

[Raithere]

I totally agree with evidence! Facts, facts, facts! I was simply pointing out that in most circumstances the view held by the majority of the experts is more likely to be correct than the one expressed by one or two.

and i think you are being too hasty
...
instead of resolving by appeals to authority, one must look into the actual data and methodologies used

In both cases I was highlighting specific statements not your overall consideration. Just want to nip the whole 'appeal to authority' argument in the bud.

As to Gustav's quotations, here's a link to the entire article which is worth reading:
http://www.wise-uranium.org/pdf/duemdec.pdf

~Raithere

[Raithere]

Bush nd the neocons war was ILLEGAL.

A rather bold statement when there is evidence that those voting to end sanctions and against the war in Iraq had been paid off by Hussein. There's a lot of politics, accusation, and hearsay going on here but evidence is building that there was a rather large amount of dealing under the table.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102700954.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...food_12-3.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...9/MN116803.DTL
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/08jim.htm
http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/365/16389_UN.html

~Raithere

[Gustav]

In both cases I was highlighting specific statements not your overall consideration. Just want to nip the whole 'appeal to authority' argument in the bud.

pardon me again, but it was i that was doing the nipping. both you and duendy, at that time, were referencing "authority" in order to vindicate your respective positions

light and i said two, very different things
strange you do not see that.

i personnally do not find a reasoned appeal to authority fallacious
of course we probably then argue about what is "reasoned"

[Light]

actually i am not concerned about duendy "experts" being "always......" it is just the contents of this thread i consider.

i will not give credence to outlandish claims by considering it. and again, i see no need to allow statements and attitudes from other threads bleed over to this one unless of course, it is actually relevant and specific to the topic post. for instance, allegations of nefarious conspiracies might be justified in a particular topic while indefensible in another.

what a waste of time and energy. i find these both these questions, unproductive and irrelevant.

sweet
start off by identifying the "sides"

Nothing unproductive or irrelevant in the least. It all goes together - regardless of what thread it appears in - because it establishes the credibility (or the lack thereof) of the poster presenting the information. When someone, as in this case, has a clearly established track record of accepting highly biased sources, deals in sensationalism almost exclusively and rejects reasoned thinking, then it would be wise to be wary of anything that individual posts - again, regardless of what thread it's in.

[Gustav]

well perhaps
yet, credit the rest of us the ability to discern and observe for ourselves
you do not have to hold my hand and give the lowdown on anything

get off the crusade
it does not paint you in a flattering light

[Gustav]

can you explain the essence of this person's message??

easy

*DU has caused cancer, central nervous system damage, reproductive effects, and other health problems in laboratory rats

*Evidence of human health effects caused by DU is inconclusive, due largely to the fact that the health status of only a few dozen people with verified exposures has been assessed

*After DU munitions have been used in combat, the presence of DU in soil and water, or on equipment and in buildings, may depending on a variety of factors present short and long-term hazards to the health of local populations. (fahey)

oh and.....passion is good. too many of us do not give a shit

[Light]

well perhaps
yet, credit the rest of us the ability to discern and observe for ourselves
you do not have to hold my hand and give the lowdown on anything

get off the crusade
it does not paint you in a flattering light

No. I'll give credit to you and a few others for being able to make that determination but I'd certainly not extend that coverage to "the rest."

It's not a crusade, it's simply pointing out errors in facts, judgment and credibility wherever they surface. And I reserve that right - do you not do the same?

And incidentally, your post explaining what "all that meant" was very well done. An excellent interpretation of facts as they stand.

[Gustav]

It's not a crusade, it's simply pointing out errors in facts, judgment and credibility wherever they surface. And I reserve that right - do you not do the same?

look. if that is the case then you would be directing it at duendy and not me.
light, i have had my share of haranguing idiots and going overboard while doing so. it is understandable but hopefully it will get old as it did me.

and of course, you are entitled to conduct yourself anyway you see fit

bottom line
illogic and irrationality should not be allowed to stand in these hallowed halls
lets find a reasonable and painless way of doing so

And incidentally, your post explaining what "all that meant" was very well done. An excellent interpretation of facts as they stand.

pardon. i explained nothing. fahey did

[Light]

pardon. i explained nothing. fahey did

I respectfully disagree just a bit. By parsing the clearest parts of what Fahey said, I think you should receive credit for putting it in a form that - ahem! - anyone could understand it.

[Cottontop3000]

Nothing unproductive or irrelevant in the least. It all goes together - regardless of what thread it appears in - because it establishes the credibility (or the lack thereof) of the poster presenting the information. When someone, as in this case, has a clearly established track record of accepting highly biased sources, deals in sensationalism almost exclusively and rejects reasoned thinking, then it would be wise to be wary of anything that individual posts - again, regardless of what thread it's in.

Kind of like you, Light, when you say that the project for a new american century should be ignored. When you say "The less attention they get the better. Sort of like the KKK, skinheads, and others of that ilk - best ignored." When I read that, I suspected immediately that you are working for the busheviks and that your only purpose in this forum is to spread more of their lies and disinformation. Lying, basically, for money, most likely. Tell us, do you even believe what you say, or is it just that fat little paycheck that keeps you going?

[Raithere]

pardon me again, but it was i that was doing the nipping. both you and duendy, at that time, were referencing "authority" in order to vindicate your respective positions

Referencing an authority is not the same as appealing to authority. At no point did I make any statement indicating that because an opinion came from an expert it must be true.

i personnally do not find a reasoned appeal to authority fallacious

Appeal to Authority is always deductively fallacious. However, informally, expert opinion can be a valid point in argument. The problem here comes about when there is significant disagreement between experts. Obviously, with the case at hand, there is indeed significant disagreement. Expert opinion must therefore be set aside in preference to the actual research and evidence.

It's seems we may just be misunderstanding each other.

~Raithere

[Gustav]

brilliant!
i concede and i concur

[duendy]

LOOK lads amd lasses, the BOTTOm line in all of this is not clever words or conceeding to or not conceeding to, or 'logical' shows of superiority etc etc etc etc it IS: ARE people< SPECIES< PLANET really suffering due to the use of depleted uranium by US and UK forces????!...THAT, and that alone is important

I hve heard they have/are, and further horrors by experts of radiation like Leuran> why should she lie>>>please tell me? SERIOUSLY

I have personally seen the most horrific photographs genetic damge due to depleted uranium, and its effects in Gulf war 1 where rthe effects are verynulcear looking indeed.

I hear one of the main antagonists to my views here is Raithere whodoesn't even believe the war in Iraq was ILLEGAL. thyis when even some of the most vewhement supporters of war have changed their tune recently now they have sussed what really went down. the utter lies. even some high up members of US GOVERNMENT now ADMIT intelligence about WMD etc., was faulty. ie., passin the buck

so. lets look at patterns. asbestos. a highly physically damaging material that kills victims HORRIBLY, even years after contact. a friend of ours died of asbestosis a few years back. so it's personal

the promoters of asbestosos KNEW of its dangers to health right from the beginning. but didn't say anything. victims even until recently had to fight for years to get compensation for illness and deaths. being lied to andtreated with disrespect

now that was industry....how much more lieing and cheating and propagada can we expect from the so-called pro-DU weapons in these EMPIRE-building times??????? come on lads and lassies get them minds wokin

[Raithere]

ARE people< SPECIES< PLANET really suffering due to the use of depleted uranium by US and UK forces????!...THAT, and that alone is important

That's the question, we've yet to find a conclusive answer.

I hve heard they have/are, and further horrors by experts of radiation like Leuran> why should she lie>>>please tell me? SERIOUSLY

For the same reason Naughton says, "DU is not any more dangerous than dirt", it serves her ideological position. People have a very strong tendency to acknowledge that which agrees with their preconceptions and dismiss that which doesn't. Do you not understand that people on both extremes have political agendas?

I have personally seen the most horrific photographs genetic damge due to depleted uranium, and its effects in Gulf war 1 where rthe effects are verynulcear looking indeed.

You cannot determine causation simply by looking at some pictures.

I hear one of the main antagonists to my views here is Raithere whodoesn't even believe the war in Iraq was ILLEGAL.

No, I agree that the war was undertaken without the sanction on the U.N. Of course congress (not Bush by himself) ratified the war so from a national perspective it's quite legal. But I don't disagree with the technical accuracy of your statement but with your ethical position. The primary opposition was taking bribes and payoffs in oil and cash and they stood to make much more if the sanctions were lifted. They weren't against the war because they thought it was wrong or immoral, they were against the war because they were making money.

In other words; France, Russia, and Germany supported an evil, genocidal, dictator in violating the legal terms and sanctions placed upon Iraq by the U.N. because he was paying them off with oil.

Now show me where their moral ground is superior to those who decided that Saddam needed to be stopped. Please. Don't you get it yet? There's no moral high-ground here, everyone is playing the same goddamn game.

thyis when even some of the most vewhement supporters of war have changed their tune recently now they have sussed what really went down. the utter lies. even some high up members of US GOVERNMENT now ADMIT intelligence about WMD etc., was faulty.

Maybe repetition will help; people will acknowledge that which agrees with their preconceptions and serves their position. It's called "cherry picking".

now that was industry....how much more lieing and cheating and propagada can we expect from the so-called pro-DU weapons in these EMPIRE-building times??????? come on lads and lassies get them minds wokin

It's all lies, cheats, and propaganda child. The trick is playing them off each other. And you gotta ask to see the cards. That's the only way to get even close to the truth.

~Raithere