• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Study: False statements preceded war

Jacey

WinJace
Jan 12, 2004
3,894
337
48
Atlanta
Visit site
✟5,805.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Democrat
Oops



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study
 

wpiman2

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2007
2,778
61
Godless Massachusetts
✟33,251.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Libertarian
Name me one war in which the public was NOT lied to in order to get the public to buy in.

The government and media lied about the Lusitania, about Pearl Harbor, and about the threat of global Communism.

Again, nothing new.
 
Upvote 0

SteveAtheist

Senior Member
Jun 28, 2007
815
71
50
✟23,812.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Name me one war in which the public was NOT lied to in order to get the public to buy in.

The government and media lied about the Lusitania, about Pearl Harbor, and about the threat of global Communism.

Again, nothing new.

Does that make it OK for us to get incorrect information about this current war? Should we expect more of the same in the future?

Is this OK with you?
 
Upvote 0

Billnew

Legend
Apr 23, 2004
21,246
1,234
60
Ohio
Visit site
✟50,363.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Sounds like the country needs a healthy dose of Obama.
Makes him sound like a laxitive or an enema.

What this town needs is an enema.
Joker(Jack Nicholson)


Seems this should be in political debate, ecspecially since there isn't anything new here, as is the requirement for NEWS &Current events.
Oh, wait, there is at least 3 there already.

btw,
every statement by anyone concerning Iraq wmds is a false statement. False statements doesn't mean lies.
lies mean intentionally providing false information. But we can see what they mean for people to think.
 
Upvote 0

MikeMcK

Well-Known Member
Apr 10, 2002
9,600
654
✟13,732.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
Here's a clip of Hillary Clinton stating several times that Saddam did have WMDs and that the US must go into Iraq to remove him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_KEWUU33Lg

And now, let's just sit back and watch the excuses roll in from the liberals.
 
Upvote 0

MikeMcK

Well-Known Member
Apr 10, 2002
9,600
654
✟13,732.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
MikeMcK, do you honestly think that all liberals support (or even agree with) Senator Kerry and Senator Clinton?
So then, if the liberals, who are so honest and sincere, are going to be consistant, then they must also say that the following Democrats lied.

 
Upvote 0

MikeMcK

Well-Known Member
Apr 10, 2002
9,600
654
✟13,732.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, United Nations inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons. Inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction."—Patty Murray, October 9, 2002.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."—Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998.

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production."—Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources—something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."—John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002.

"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East."—John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002.

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts."—Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
 
Upvote 0

MikeMcK

Well-Known Member
Apr 10, 2002
9,600
654
✟13,732.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
MikeMcK, do you honestly think that all liberals support (or even agree with) Senator Kerry and Senator Clinton?

I don't care if you support them or not. The fact that you're so willing to call President Bush a liar, but you won't say a word about Democrats who said the very same things, shows that you're a bunch of hypocrites.
 
Upvote 0

HannahBanana

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
9,841
457
38
Concord, MA
✟12,558.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Funny how fundamentalists throw a fit when Bible verses are taken out of context, but when it comes to making liberals look bad, they're absolutely fine with taking things out of context. The hypocrisy of it all saddens me greatly.
 
Upvote 0

MikeMcK

Well-Known Member
Apr 10, 2002
9,600
654
✟13,732.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
Funny how fundamentalists throw a fit when Bible verses are taken out of context, but when it comes to making liberals look bad, they're absolutely fine with taking things out of context. The hypocrisy of it all saddens me greatly.

OK. Show me which quote is out of context and please post the entire statement in it's proper context for us.
 
Upvote 0

HannahBanana

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
9,841
457
38
Concord, MA
✟12,558.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
OK. Show me which quote is out of context and please post the entire statement in it's proper context for us.
All of them are taken out of context, since all of them don't have the preceding and succeeding sentences surrounding them. Plus, you even took words out of some of them (as is evidenced by your use of ellipses). This would be like me using this website: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html as a justification of how the Bible contradicts itself. I doubt you would accept the list on that website as proof, so why do you expect me to accept your list as proof?
 
Upvote 0

MikeMcK

Well-Known Member
Apr 10, 2002
9,600
654
✟13,732.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
All of them are taken out of context, since all of them don't have the preceding and succeeding sentences surrounding them. Plus, you even took words out of them.

So then, why don't you go ahead and post the rest of their statements and be sure to point out the part that changes the meaning of the statements.

The simplest way to prove these statements wrong is to post all of them in their "proper context".
 
Upvote 0