Runaway Global Warming Possible!

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:27:37 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Ian St.
John" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Unlike the American looting of Iraq and the Israeli looting of
Palestinian land, Syria gets nothing but a good friend from it's
support. They own nothing in the Bekaa Valley and will have nothing
to show for years of assistance, which is why they are so easily
convinced to leave. It is clear that the Lebanese, at least,
consider it time to stand on their own feet, and thus the need for
the expensive military presence of Syria is over.

The U.S. has mistepped, thinking that killijg Kirriri would cause a
rush to judgment that Bush could get out in front of and claim to
be 'leading'. All he has done with his speeches is to call
attention to the fact that the U.S. is the only country with the
motive to kill Hirirri. Trying to take eyes off of Iran which has
come out as the next 'installment' of the Bush plot. Not only
that, but his clumsy speeched putting the 'hard line' to Syrian
presence have been bolixed by the fact that Syria is quite willing
to go, the facts get ahead of and do not follow his assumed
'timetable' of results, and thus he starts to look like the fool
he is as he spouts endless rhetoric, missing the point entirely.

You're completely nuts.

Ah. The reasoned argument of a complete bull****ter.

It's at least as compelling an argument as "You're a liar," which
seems to be one of your favorites.

To call someone a liar assumes that he has some clue as to the truth. No. I
suspect that your lies are the result of bull****ting or spinning.

And mine has the virtue of apparently being true,

No. It flies in the face of the facts as recorded. Syria had no interest in
staying in Lebanon other than to support it's allies and agreed to leave
with no serious resistance. This is the opposite of what would happen if
they were behind the attack in a bid to stay within Lebanon.

Otoh, the U.S. was ready, willing and able to use the incident as a sudden
'wind' in the sails of Bush as 'leader of the democracy movement' for which
he did exactly squat ( assuming that soemone else did the bombing ). It is
unlikely that his being prepared was a result of his lightening swift
intellect ( sarcasm intended ) so it is quite reasonable to believe that he
is a suspect, and the evidence gets more convincing. The overkill is exactly
what you would expect from a military power that had no end of high
explosives, supplying a local group of poorly trained militants. A perfect
foil for the CIA whose main goal was to ensure that there was no chance of a
miss.

since almost everyone accepts that Syria was responsible,

No. But even if true, the success of a propaganda story has nothing to do
with the likelihood of it. Look at Hitlers propaganda or Stalins. This
logical error is formally specified under the title 'popularity'.

and to think that the US or Israel did it is lunacy.

No. The U.S. ( Israel? Mossad seems more competent than that ) has given
itself the right to promote terrorism in the world through the law that
allows assassinations and military interference with other governments. It
is not lunacy to expect them to use the law that they so assiduously
prepared. It would be stupid not to put them on the 'list of suspects' and
there is no question that they have the motive, means and opportunity.

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:27:37 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Ian St.
John" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Unlike the American looting of Iraq and the Israeli looting of
Palestinian land, Syria gets nothing but a good friend from it's
support. They own nothing in the Bekaa Valley and will have nothing
to show for years of assistance, which is why they are so easily
convinced to leave. It is clear that the Lebanese, at least,
consider it time to stand on their own feet, and thus the need for
the expensive military presence of Syria is over.

The U.S. has mistepped, thinking that killijg Kirriri would cause a
rush to judgment that Bush could get out in front of and claim to be
'leading'. All he has done with his speeches is to call attention to
the fact that the U.S. is the only country with the motive to kill
Hirirri. Trying to take eyes off of Iran which has come out as the
next 'installment' of the Bush plot. Not only that, but his clumsy
speeched putting the 'hard line' to Syrian presence have been
bolixed by the fact that Syria is quite willing to go, the facts get
ahead of and do not follow his assumed 'timetable' of results, and
thus he starts to look like the fool he is as he spouts endless
rhetoric, missing the point entirely.

You're completely nuts.

Ah. The reasoned argument of a complete bull****ter.

It's at least as compelling an argument as "You're a liar," which
seems to be one of your favorites. And mine has the virtue of
apparently being true, since almost everyone accepts that Syria was
responsible, and to think that the US or Israel did it is lunacy.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:35:43 -0800, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


Hate seems to be an extreme emotion that leftists
tend to feel, and project on others. I didn't hate Ted Bundy, either.

We hate those who want to kill.
- George W. Bush
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...020521-11.html


I'm George Bush? Who knew?

Having problem with english comprehension again?
Or do you think you are the only one to not be a leftist?


No, many people aren't leftists, who are also not George Bush. Also,
I never stated that only leftists feel hate. Many on the "right"
(whatever the heck that means) do too. As does, apparently, at least
occasionally, George Bush.

Apparently, you still need to work on that logic thing.

Could you point out what logical error I made?


I already did.

You did? You wrote:
"No, many people aren't leftists, who are also not George Bush."
I agree with that and never claimed it not to be true, so that
isn't where you have pointed out my logical error.

And you wrote:
"Also, I never stated that only leftists feel hate."
And I never said that you stated that. So again that isn't the
part where you pointed out my logical error.

You also wrote:
"Many on the 'right' (whatever the heck that means) do too. As
does, apparently, at least occasionally, George Bush."
Again something with which I agree and that I have never claimed
not to be true. Once again that isn't where you pointed out my
logical error.

Finally you wrote:
"Apparently, you still need to work on that logic thing."
So is that the part where you have already pointed out my
logical error? If so, I fail to see how.

I'm sorry that you don't understand what I wrote. I
don't know how to state it any clearer in English. If I knew someone
who could rewrite in Quebecois, perhaps I could do so. But I doubt
it.

I don't think the problem is my english here. But if you can't
write in Québécois, feel free to use any other dialect of
French. You could also, use German or Japanese. If you promise
to keep it very short and simple, I can handle Spanish, Italian,
Farsi or Wendat. :-)

Alain Fournier

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:40:06 -0800, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

I did not say that Syria has nothing but the best interest of
the Lebanese people at heart. I don't consider the Syrian
government to be anything like a good government. Nonetheless
the reason why they went into Lebanon is because there was
chaos in Lebanon at the time.


So, what's your point? That they should stay?

If you go read just a few posts up you will see that I have
already stated that I think that they should have pulled
out of Lebanon faster than they are doing. So, no I don't
think that they should stay.

And that they have no particular interests in the Bekaa Valley?
Because that's the point that you seemed to be responding to.

Of course they have some interests in the Bekaa Valley, it is
right next to their border. Do you have a point.

Alain Fournier

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 21:34:37 -0800, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

So, what's your point? That they should stay?

If you go read just a few posts up you will see that I have
already stated that I think that they should have pulled
out of Lebanon faster than they are doing. So, no I don't
think that they should stay.

And that they have no particular interests in the Bekaa Valley?
Because that's the point that you seemed to be responding to.

Of course they have some interests in the Bekaa Valley, it is
right next to their border. Do you have a point.

Yes, my point is that this is a major stronghold of their only real
allies there, the terrorist organization Hizbollah, and it may be
where some of Saddam's weapons may have been stashed...

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 21:34:37 -0800, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

So, what's your point? That they should stay?

If you go read just a few posts up you will see that I have
already stated that I think that they should have pulled
out of Lebanon faster than they are doing. So, no I don't
think that they should stay.

And that they have no particular interests in the Bekaa Valley?
Because that's the point that you seemed to be responding to.

Of course they have some interests in the Bekaa Valley, it is
right next to their border. Do you have a point.

Yes, my point is that this is a major stronghold of their only real
allies there,

That much is a point, but not a good one. The U.K. is a good ally of the U.S
and yet this does not mean that the U.S. should flee it's ties with Britain.
It means more that trade, diplomatic, and alliances are easier to make.

the terrorist organization Hizbollah,

Coming from the terrorist organisation ( called the U.S. ) which practices
state terrorism against Iraq, Palestinians ( throught support of the Israeli
military), Vietnamese( back in the war) and others, this is somewhat
hypocritical.

and it may be
where some of Saddam's weapons may have been stashed...

Pulled that from your ass again?

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

:Yes, my point is that this is a major stronghold of their only real
:allies there, the terrorist organization Hizbollah, and it may be
:where some of Saddam's weapons may have been stashed...

Why would they put them over in such an unstable region, Rand? Why
wouldn't they simply add them to their own stocks, which are held in
safer areas of the country?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:48:45 GMT, in a place far, far away, Fred J.
McCall made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

Yes, my point is that this is a major stronghold of their only real
allies there, the terrorist organization Hizbollah, and it may be
where some of Saddam's weapons may have been stashed...

Why would they put them over in such an unstable region, Rand? Why
wouldn't they simply add them to their own stocks, which are held in
safer areas of the country?

I don't know, but there was reportedly a lot of truck traffic from
Iraq to that region just prior to the war. They may not have thought
of it as unstable at the time...

Thus showing that Rand is pulling this out of his ass, and has no
imformation on the issue. It is typical of his form. If you want to claim to
prove something, invent a 'pseudofact' that supports it and claim that you
heard the details on the news.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:48:45 GMT, in a place far, far away, Fred J.
McCall made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote:

:Yes, my point is that this is a major stronghold of their only real
:allies there, the terrorist organization Hizbollah, and it may be
:where some of Saddam's weapons may have been stashed...

Why would they put them over in such an unstable region, Rand? Why
wouldn't they simply add them to their own stocks, which are held in
safer areas of the country?

I don't know, but there was reportedly a lot of truck traffic from
Iraq to that region just prior to the war. They may not have thought
of it as unstable at the time...

In sci.space.policy Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:48:45 GMT, in a place far, far away, Fred J.
McCall made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote:

:Yes, my point is that this is a major stronghold of their only real
:allies there, the terrorist organization Hizbollah, and it may be
:where some of Saddam's weapons may have been stashed...

Why would they put them over in such an unstable region, Rand? Why
wouldn't they simply add them to their own stocks, which are held in
safer areas of the country?

I don't know, but there was reportedly a lot of truck traffic from
Iraq to that region just prior to the war. They may not have thought
of it as unstable at the time...

so what you are saying is that despite having used these weapons on the
Shia more than once they then turned around and handed them to the Shia?
For what puropse?


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++