Bad idea ...

Once again, i have to point out the obvious:

Not all Muslims live in Iraq or Afghanistan. I have some in my home town. A large majority of them aren't even of that ethnicity. A lot of them are African-american. If you think they Approve of the actions of a few zealots, you haven't been to a mosque ever in your life. It is no different than Judging catholics based on what the pope said. Not only that but most of their actions are not Religiously motivated in the first place.
the fact is that we are occupying militarily. Afghanistan is 100% muslim and Iraq is 97% muslim http://islamicweb.com/begin/population.htm
But whenever they attack our troops or look at a troop crosswise or do whatever you or i would do in their same position, it is "Muslim Extremism" at its worst again. It is FOOLISH to think a Christian or Jew, etc. would act any different in their place, especially considering how many wars have been fought over those two religions. GET A CLUE

also i should point out that on average, one out of every ten people in the united states is Muslim. I guess you know an awful lot of terrorists personally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homer13j

You are confusing Timothy McVeigh with David Koresh (hence the name "Davidians"). McVeigh was not motivated by a love of God - he was motivated by a sheer hatred of government. Of course this has stopped exactly nobody on the political left from labeling him a "Christian religious zealot." It just fits too well...

---

He was motivated by lots of things, and they all get intertwined in ways that are difficult to separate. The aryan nation movement is closely tied to a variation of evangelical christianity. Does that make the aryan nation members evangelical christians? Well....some are, some aren't, kind of depends on how you define it. McVeigh was associated with some of the aryan nation related groups. Would he have identified himself as a christian? Probably, but sort of in the way the war in Kosovo was described: A bunch of people not going to church to worship Christ fighting against a bunch of people not going to church to worship Mohammed. You could find devout people on both sides saying this person was or wasn't a member of any particular church, so whether McVeigh was or wasn't depends largely on who you ask.

McVeigh was associated with various amorphous groups that roughly align themselves as fundamentally christian, though other christians might disagree with their self assesment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 18experience

by homer13j:

I know this is mainly a coding forum, and perhaps you are just venting, but if you stick to logical claims, you would be taken much more seriously.

---

And what is coding, but thinking logically. Show me someone not thinking logically (and possibly brainwashed by our whitehouse) and i bet their coding sucks too. Maybe some research could be done along those lines. Some kind of defect in the corpus callosum.

18experience is correct, it was an "extremely hyperbolic assertion." I apologize. I had seen Professor Kurzman's page before and I still say it was produced strictly to satisfy a political agenda.

I am speaking from my own experience with Islam here in Cleveland, Ohio. Almost all Muslims in my neighborhood attend a certain Mosque in Parma that has long been associated with terrorism. Many videos have been smuggled out of the place where the Imams are saying not at all nice things. Recently one of the Imams was deported for terrorist ties. Yet when I ask about these things I get no answers. I am told in no uncertain terms that infidels are never to ask such questions. My own neighbors' universal silence on the subject is disturbing to say the least. This is what I meant by "I have yet to hear ANY Muslim condemn ANY terrorist act." And bring us nicely back to the original thread topic.

It's interesting how large numbers of non-Muslims will go to great lengths to defend Islam while I appear to be the only non-Christian willing to defend Christianity. ;)

Quote:

---

And what is coding, but thinking logically.

---

I thought about that as I was posting.

I don't know anything about brainwashing (think about that for a second, brain washing...sounds funny), but I bet people who argue from their heart (or gut?) instead of their head have a lot of infinite loops in their programs.

Or, maybe their logic goes something like this.

Quote:

---

While Person = RandomMuslim.Next
DirectCast(Person, Terrorist)
End While

---

Strange, but when I put that in VS 2003 (some of you may want to check it in VS 2005 for me), I got an error on that line inside the loop. I mean, it looks perfectly fine, and it compiles, but when it actually runs, something just doesn't make sense.

Ahhhhhhh, I don't really feel like debugging it. I think I'm just going to publish it.

I wouldn't call it a direct cast, I'd call it a heightened level of attention. I don't condemn anyone as a terrorist, I'm just saying you can't count any Muslims out of possibly being a terrorist.

Two things:
1. Please form any responses to post #66 into hilarioius code, i.e.:

Quote:

---

While PresidentBushStillInOffice
'Pro/Anti-Bush statement here
End While

---

And please, let's not limit ourselves only to Bush statements and While loops.

2.

Quote:

---

I'm just saying you can't count any Muslims out of possibly being a terrorist.

---

You are absolutely right. However, you can't count ANYONE out of possibly being a terrorist. So, why even say that?

So, in reference to my point 1:

Quote:

---

Dim X As String
X = InputBox("Please enter a group of people")

MsgBox("You can't count any " & X & " out of possibly being a terrorist.")

---

I would most likely agree with the output of that program. I am trying to think of a group of people that wouldn't fit into that statement...

I'm not saying that anyone can't be a terrorist. I'm completely aware that they can. But look at the conflict, and look at the recent history. Most (notice the lack of "All" there) terrorist activity is Muslim, so from a logical perspective, doesn't it make sense to be more cautious with Muslims than with other groups of people? For all we know, RoboDog could be a terrorist, but his culture hasn't acted in that manner, so we don't assume him to be one. Personally, I don't even count him in the group that might be terrorists. Muslims, though, I would be cautious around, not because they're Muslims, but because Muslims have proven to be the main group producing terrorists. If it were the Germans that were doing this, I'd be cautious around Germans... crap, my mother is German...

Anyway, you get where I'm coming from?

Yes, I understand the tendency to think like that. But, your words are wrought with contradiciton.

Quote:

---

Muslims, though, I would be cautious around, not because they're Muslims, but because Muslims have proven to be the main group producing terrorists.

---

I get what you are saying. But you just said that the one characteristic you would base cautiousness on is whether or not they are Muslim. Not that you have anything against their religion, its just that you believe most terrorist acts are carried out by Muslims. But, you are still saying that you would be cautious around them simply because they are Muslim.

Thats like saying, "I'm not racist, but I would be cautious around black people, but not because they are black. I personally have nothing against dark pigmentation. However, black people produce more criminals than any other group."

Also, I know nothing about RoboDog, but I am certain than anyone might/could be a terrorist. My Mom might/could be a terrorist. Granted, she is a very sweet lady, but she could still be a terrorist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 18experience

But you just said that the one characteristic you would base cautiousness on is whether or not they are Muslim.

---

Negative. It's based around the tendencies of the group of people. Notice my example about the Germans. The fact is, Muslims are mostly responsible for terrorist activity, hence I'm cautious around them. I'm not nearly as cautious around my friends, not completely because they're my friends, but because their ethnic category hasn't proven to produce lots of terrorists.

I saw something funny recently about Snoop Dog. He was drug-searched at an airport. Some black group was trying to say it was racially profiling. The rebuttal staement was "We didn't search him because he's black. we searched him because he's Snoop Dog"
This is what background info is used for. Black people don't produce the most criminals. the produce the most criminals that get caught because they usually victimize people instead of corporations. If you have EVER stolen anything (this includes shoplifting a pack of gum) you are a criminal who just hasn't been caught. I don't think RobDog888 could be a terrorist. He obviously stands for good. Look at all the Jedi he trained!

Quote:

---

Negative. It's based around the tendencies of the group of people.

---

What group? Muslims. I fully believe that you would not feel that way if some Muslims hadn't committed terrorist acts lately. However, that is not the case. So, now, you are basing a decision on whether or not someone is Muslim. Not whether or not they are Muslim and may be a terrorist, because you are already assuming that they might be.

I don't know how to make this any more plain. You are projecting the traits of a small (tiny, in fact) group of people (Muslim terrorists) onto a large group of people (Muslims). That is the definition of stereotyping.

Quote:

---

The fact is, Muslims are mostly responsible for terrorist activity, hence I'm cautious around them.

---

That is saying "I am cautious around someone who is Muslim." For whatever you may have, you are still being cautious around someone simply because they are Muslim.

We've already been through the fact that it's extremely difficult to figure out which Muslims are terrorists. In fact, it's damn near impossible to until they blow themselves up. And yes, if it were a different group, I wouldn't feel like that about Muslims. I'd feel like that about the group in question. As terrorist activity calms down, so will my feelings about Muslims. I'm cautious around the groups of people who warrant it.

Reminds me of a Bonanza episode. They were going to lock this Black man up because there was an escaped slave on the loose and there was a greater than zero chance it was him. guilty until proven innocent. It's what our country is founded on, after all.

Ok, since I'm not allowed to joke about the third stupidest discussion ever on this forum, may I point out to you rocket scientists a quote from the article..

Quote:

---

The United States will soon begin admitting a bigger trickle of the more than 2 million refugees who have fled Iraq, acknowledging for the first time the country may never be safe for some who have helped the U.S. there.

---

That is the first freaking sentance in the article. These are people who have pretty much signed their own death warrant in Iraq by helping us infedels out. Not your average explosive wearing muslim fanatic. Way to say thanks guys!

{insult removed by moderator}

Those posts were removed because you caused offence - as could be expected from the subject and the way you worded it.

Whether you like it or not, this site (which includes this particular forum) has rules that need to be abided by.

If you want to stay away from a group that is likely to cause you harm, stay away from drunks. Stay away from drivers, too. And while you are at it, REALLY stay away from drunk drivers.

People have a really bad time evaluating relative risks. We are cavalier about great risks (like driving), and all phobiced up about low risks (like flying, or terrorism). Just give yourself a dope slap and remind yourself that you are just going to die of a heart attack while sitting on the throne anyways, so there is no point in worrying about terrorism.

WOW! I was here for an actual, honest-to-god banning! I got a phone call after reading one post, and when I got off the phone and posted that last thing, MB was here and GONE!!

That's a first for me! It's like seeing a shooting star, only not as common. Call it the shooting of a star, or something like that.

Truthfully, if you divide your risk of dying in an airplane by the number of times you fly, and do the same with driving, you will soon discover you are MUCH more likely to die flying per trip.
An airline pilot has a 1 in 1000 chance of dying in a plane crash (official FAA report). I wonder what the chances are for pilots in single-engine planes?

We're not scientists. We're Engineers. And how dumb can we be if WE managed to not get banned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

Truthfully, if you divide your risk of dying in an airplane by the number of times you fly, and do the same with driving, you will soon discover you are MUCH more likely to die flying per trip.
An airline pilot has a 1 in 1000 chance of dying in a plane crash (official FAA report). I wonder what the chances are for pilots in single-engine planes?

---

The guy who wrote this article seems to disagree.

The number of deaths due to flying is incredibly smaller than the number of deaths due to driving. Personally, I love flying... and I live in a place that is very dangerous for drivers. Since you have to be trained to fly, but not so much to drive, I'd much rather take my chances in the air. People overinflate the dangers of flying because a plane crash will cause hundreds of deaths, versus a car crash which MIGHT cause three or four.

We aren't disagreeing. There are on average approximate one million people in the air at all times (except y2k)
Talk to any risk analyist. Obviously, If i only rode in a car once in my life, i am less likely to die than a cab driver in a car wreck.
Same with air planes. A pilot is much more likely to die in a plane crash than any passenger is simply because he flys more. Airline pilot is listed as the 2nd deadliest job in the US.

Planes are more deadly statistically than cars because when one of them crashes, it usually kills everyone.

More deadly? Yes. More dangerous? No.

Small plane crashes are a different story. I have heard that dying in a small plane crash is the leading cause of on the job mortality for wildlife biologists. I am only really talking about commercial air travel, not the puddle jumpers we take to back country strips.


Odds of death/trip are probably MUCH higher for an airplane, but odds of death/mile traveled is lower. Either statistic can be manipulated. The death/trip is so greatly reduced because it includes trivial little trips , and city driving trips where the speeds involved never get up to levels where death is likely (I'll bet taxi drivers in big cities have a low probability of death by auto accident because they never achieve lethal speeds).

I think the most accurate comparison would be to compare cross-country driving vs. flying trips, where I would expect flying would be vastly safer. Though it might not be if you look at those trips in terms of hours flying vs hours driving.

Oh, I guess I ought to tie that back to terrorism. There again it comes down to how you frame the study. If you were to look at terrorist attacks in the US based on number of incidents, then muslims are less dangerous than white men, and possibly less dangerous than white, male, christians, depending on how you define christianity. If you were to look at terrorist attacks in the US based on numbers killed, muslims are more dangerous than any other group, but that is only because 9/11 is such a hage statistical outlier. So you can make the statistics show whatever you want them to show, and neither way is particularly "right", but I doubt any competent statistician would include an outlier of the magnitude of 9/11 at least without specifically justifying the reason for doing so.

You can't group muslims any more than you can group christians. Babtists are not the same as branch davidians are not the same as catholics, but they are all christians. It's a label. Christians could be lumped in to a larger category called Jews because they believe in the same god. They just differ on when the son is coming/came.

Sounds good to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

We're not scientists. We're Engineers. And how dumb can we be if WE managed to not get banned.

---

Ahhhhh, I forgot. progs like to call themselvs engineers these days. :rolleyes: Isn't it funny that you get a computer "Science" degree and end up an engineer? Dumb is a relative term. Once upon a time it was considered humorous to accuse a mod for wetting his pants and was generally accepted as it was initially intended. Nothing more than a "what crawled up your butt" observation. Now it is apparently not acceptable. Whatever :confused: But again that re-enforces my observation that we are more related to the science field than engineering. Engineers deal in absoulutes and laws of Physics to acomplish a goal. Scientists also deal with these but also have to contend with inconsistant observations and attempt to find patterns and logic associated with it. Are muslims or Arabs prone to become suicide bombers moreso than caucasian, asians american indians or africans? There is no way to find out. Did an off comment really offend Si or was he having a bad day or does he really pee the bed or was he simply enforcing the rules of this forum? Who knows? Who Cares? Either way, You are not an engineer man. A relativly smart monkey can be "trained" to engineer something.

I'm out. Later guys, It's been a fun 8 years.

Since i build custom computers as a hobby, have close to 20 years of mechanical experience working on both Automobiles and diesels, Spent three years in the navy repairing radar systems, and am currently in the process of remodeling a building, i think i qualify as an engineer.
What i don't have is a computer science degree. I just do this as a hobby.

But speaking of degrees, if Computer Science isn't an engineering degree, what is it then? An Art? Those are your two options. Science or art. Guess which one the Structural Engineering program falls under. Wrong! It is an M.S. The s stands for science. so i guess they aren't engineers either.

In the UK degrees are either Art(BA, MA), Science(BSc, MSc) or Engineering(BEng, MEng).

Most computing degrees fall under the Science side not the Engineering so I would class myself in Science rather than Engineering rightly or wrongly.

Well the software debate actually is delineated between two camps:

Knuth:= Art
Pressman: = Engineering

I suspect the reality is somewhere in between.

Black Art if you ask me.

My degree was under the science faculty but I think I'd class programming as closer to engineering, if anything. To be honest though, I really don't care what people call me. I'm happy with 'Code Monkey'.

So have we concluded that profiling can be useful yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

Since i build custom computers as a hobby, have close to 20 years of mechanical experience working on both Automobiles and diesels, Spent three years in the navy repairing radar systems, and am currently in the process of remodeling a building, i think i qualify as an engineer.
What i don't have is a computer science degree. I just do this as a hobby.

But speaking of degrees, if Computer Science isn't an engineering degree, what is it then? An Art? Those are your two options. Science or art. Guess which one the Structural Engineering program falls under. Wrong! It is an M.S. The s stands for science. so i guess they aren't engineers either.

---

Computer Science is not Engineering. Engineering has to actually deal with well objects, whether designing electrical circuits or mechanical gears.

Computer Science is all software and code.

What is Computer Science? I think it's more a study of applied Mathematics and Information Processing.

My main point you overlooked was that an engineering degree is also a science degree. So i guess they are scientists.

Well, in the same way that a real estate tycoon develops housing, I like to think I'm a hardware tycoon which develops software.

Sometimes it's the quality of the housing which matters, other times not.

Sometimes you may finish the housing project, other times not.

So, I'm a developer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

My main point you overlooked was that an engineering degree is also a science degree. So i guess they are scientists.

---

Computer Science is not really science either IMO.

It should be Computer Mathematics.

I will definitely accept that Programming is Mathematically based, but the hardware aspect isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

I will definitely accept that Programming is Mathematically based, but the hardware aspect isn't.

---

As for me, I will accept that a thread on Iraqi refugees has turned into a discussion as to what programming is related to....but only with a laugh:lol:

my grandfather has been brainwashed by Fox and CNN. Now he thinks it is a good idea to bring back United States concentration camps like the ones from WW2 where we locked up all the U.S. citizens with a Japanese heritage. He said "Lock the Muslims up!". when i pointed out that he's confusing a nation and a religion and 1/10 of United states was Muslim, he suggested a scenario that reminded me of "Escape From New York". And this time he wasn't even drunk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

my grandfather has been brainwashed by Fox and CNN. Now he thinks it is a good idea to bring back United States concentration camps like the ones from WW2 where we locked up all the U.S. citizens with a Japanese heritage. He said "Lock the Muslims up!". when i pointed out that he's confusing a nation and a religion and 1/10 of United states was Muslim, he suggested a scenario that reminded me of "Escape From New York". And this time he wasn't even drunk.

---

According to the Pew Research Center (2007 estimate) there are only 2.35 million muslims in the US which would put that group at about 1% of the total US population, not 1/10 or 10%.

X

i see what you mean. I did some further looking and found numbers ranging from 1/2 percent to 7%. Turns out the census isn't allowed to ask about religion and they are all guessing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

my grandfather has been brainwashed by Fox and CNN. Now he thinks it is a good idea to bring back United States concentration camps like the ones from WW2 where we locked up all the U.S. citizens with a Japanese heritage. He said "Lock the Muslims up!". when i pointed out that he's confusing a nation and a religion and 1/10 of United states was Muslim, he suggested a scenario that reminded me of "Escape From New York". And this time he wasn't even drunk.

---

Jesus, that is scary.

Just last weekend I was home visiting my parents. There were a large (relatively) number of Japanese people there. My Dad mentioned that they were all in town to visit the old WWII concentration camps (I don't really get this part because those camps are about 150 miles away from that town). I suppose they had relatives that were locked up there back in the 40s. But, I remember remarking on how strange that seems now. I also said something along the lines of, "that would never happen today." I really hope I am right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

my grandfather has been brainwashed by Fox and CNN.

---

I would be willing to bet your grandfather has held these beliefs for a lot longer than Fox and CNN have existed. They make good scapegoats, though usually one or the other gets the blame depending on your particular political leanings.

no, no. He is very patriotic and thinks if you go against anything the president says, you are a Commie. The president can't be wrong, Saddam had WMD, Saddam was working with Bin Laden, etc. And he got it all from White House press releases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

no, no. He is very patriotic and thinks if you go against anything the president says, you are a Commie. The president can't be wrong, Saddam had WMD, Saddam was working with Bin Laden, etc. And he got it all from White House press releases.

---

Well he is right about one thing. Saddam did have WMD, there are a lot of dead Kurds that prove that fact. Also I would explain to him (if he thinks the president can’t be wrong) that the President stated that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 several times.

X

Why yes he did... After he had already claimed that it did, then invaded, then got Iraq invaded by terrorists who want to take it over so now he can legitimately claim it is a terrorist nest.

And yes Saddam had WMD. which he got rid of because of UN sanctions and had been complying with that particular sanction for over ten years when US invaded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

And yes Saddam had WMD. which he got rid of because of UN sanctions and had been complying with that particular sanction for over ten years

---

If he "had been complying with" the UN then why do you think he tossed out all those UN inspectors? Do you really believe he had nothing to hide?

Saddam knew damn well the UN didn't (and never would) have the balls to do anything about it but pass more laughable toothless resolutions.

The real reason he moved the whole mess to Syria was because we were stupid enough to think the UN would do anything but drag their feet for SIX MONTHS before we finally said screw them and invaded anyway.

Quote:

---

why do you think he tossed out all those UN inspectors?

---

A combination of national pride and the opportunity to be seen to diplomatically poke the US and the UN in the eye.

Quote:

---

he moved the whole mess to Syria

---

There's no evidence of this.

Quote:

---

the UN would do anything but drag their feet for SIX MONTHS

---

Yep, sending in weapons inspectors who continually reported that there was no substantive evidence of ongoing WMD programs in an effort to prevent an unneccessary war that's been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people, has destabilised the region, has furthered the causes of fundamentalism and terrorism in the region and has left a country in soon to be abandoned anarchy can definitely be described as 'dragging their feet'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

weapons inspectors who continually reported that there was no substantive evidence of ongoing WMD programs

---

To paraphrase my favorite tyrant, Monte Burns:

Hans Blix couldn't find ugly at a Radcliffe mixer.

Quote:

---

Hans Blix couldn't find ugly at a Radcliffe mixer

---

:lol:
Mind you, apparently, neither can the US or British army. You draw your conclusions, I'll draw mine.

Say your local police get a tip that one of your neighbors is stockpiling illegal weapons. They go to a judge and get a warrant (see UN Resolution 1441), but instead of executing that warrant, they tell the guy "you better comply with our demands to disarm or else!"

When the cops finally get around to executing the warrant (six months later), Surprise! they can't find any weapons. They believe those weapons were moved next door, but can't do squat about it now because a certain element in the neighborhood insists the cops were lying about the weapons all along just because they didn't like the guy and/or only did it to get at the drums of oil in his garage...

Even better: just say the weapons never existed in the first place. Yeah, that's the ticket!

US and British troops couldn't find more than a handful of weapons because most had been moved elsewhere over the previous six months.

Mr. Blix couldn't find any weapons because he simply didn't want to find any weapons.

Say the local police got the tip off from a different neighbur who'd previously clashed with the first neighbour over whether their dog had crapped in thir yard... and suppose the warrant was worded in such a way as to not explicitely allow forced entry while not explicitely dissallowing it either... and suppose the warrant did explicitely allow the immediate entry of a trained and respected third party who I agreed to as well as several of my own hand picked representatives to search the premises and none of them managed to find substantive proof of said illegal weapons stockpile... and suppose, when the police forced entry some 6 months later they failed to gain a further warrant explicitely allowing that forced entry...

I suspect my neighbour would have cause to sue.

Quote:

---

Mr. Blix couldn't find any weapons because he simply didn't want to find any weapons.

---

That's a ridiculous statement that lessens your entire argument.

If someone were to be moving weapons over a period of six months, they had to move them somewhere. Well where did they go? Are they being hid in Iran? If people had any kind of basis of saying "Six months ago we saw him start do unload weapons into England (as likely as anywhere else), then why didn't they put an end to it then? He wasn't transporting anything by boat because we had an embargo on him for ten years straight preventing him from selling oil to anyone, which naturally had the effect of sinking the entire country into poverty.

UN resolutions are not Toothless. The UN is the one that started the embargo. The terms were simple too. "We will drive your country to poverty unless you convert your government to a democracy", never mind that there isn't a single country in the world that is a democracy because democracy doesn't work. "To the REPUBLIC for which it stands..."
That's all for now. I'll save the good stuff for later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

Why yes he did... After he had already claimed that it did, then invaded, then got Iraq invaded by terrorists who want to take it over so now he can legitimately claim it is a terrorist nest.

And yes Saddam had WMD. which he got rid of because of UN sanctions and had been complying with that particular sanction for over ten years when US invaded.

---

I have never found a quote in which Bush has blamed Saddam for 9/11. If you can find a quote in which Bush directly states that I would like to see it.

The only quotes I remember concerning Iraq and 9/11 are those in which he stated that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

there isn't a single country in the world that is a democracy because democracy doesn't work.

---

http://www.dunamai.com/Humor/BagdadB..._bob_large.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

Say the local police got the tip off from a different neighbur who'd previously clashed with the first neighbour over whether their dog had crapped in thir yard... and suppose the warrant was worded in such a way as to not explicitely allow forced entry while not explicitely dissallowing it either... and suppose the warrant did explicitely allow the immediate entry of a trained and respected third party who I agreed to as well as several of my own hand picked representatives to search the premises and none of them managed to find substantive proof of said illegal weapons stockpile... and suppose, when the police forced entry some 6 months later they failed to gain a further warrant explicitely allowing that forced entry...

I suspect my neighbour would have cause to sue.

---

The only thing you are forgetting is that the respected third party was not given total access to do their job, therefore any conclusions made by said party could not be counted on to be 100% accurate. Had there been full compliance with the third party your point might carry some weight. I would argue the police would have no other option but to check by force what the third party could not effectively do.

X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

UN resolutions are not Toothless. The UN is the one that started the embargo. The terms were simple too. "We will drive your country to poverty unless you convert your government to a democracy", never mind that there isn't a single country in the world that is a democracy because democracy doesn't work. "To the REPUBLIC for which it stands..."
That's all for now. I'll save the good stuff for later.

---

I don’t remember which Resolution ever stated that Iraq must convert to a democracy. I looked over the various resolutions from the start of the first gulf war and I have yet to see one that specifically states this. You have it in quotes, which resolution are you quoting?

X

Quote:

---

that the respected third party was not given total access to do their job, therefore any conclusions made by said party could not be counted on to be 100% accurate

---

Very true but, lets be honest, not exactly unusual in the world of international diplomacy. Blix wasn't given enough access to satisfy the UN resolution but he was given enough access to satisfy himself. He stated in several interviews and in official reports that he did not believe Saddam had any active weapons programs and he spoke out publicly against the invasion.

Given the grey area this leaves I'd have thought the correct course of action for our hypothetical police would be to get a further warrant which explicitely allowed forced entry or some other measure intended to get the neighbour to comply with the original warrant. Instead, our hypothetical police force went all Dirty Harry and waded with its .44 magnum blazing but without explicit court agreement to do so.

"Now, Sadam, did you document the destruction of six canister of biological agents for which you have no long range delivery capability or only five. In all the confusion back there I lost count myself. So what you've gotta ask yourself is 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya', punk?"

Homer, once agin :lol: Is there really a shot of him saying 'yeah everythings fine' while the American tanks come cruising past behind hiom. I've never actually seen it but it's talked about so often. I'm wondering if it's actually an urban myth but I'd love to see the footage if anyone can link to it. He provided hours of entertainment during the invasion:thumb:

Quote:

---

there isn't a single country in the world that is a democracy

---

I'm guessing you're referring to democracy as a sort of every individual voting on every issue you're right but that's a very narrow definition of the word. Democracy literally translates to 'rule by the people' and, while this does cover that definition, it also covers everything from anarchy (the political state, not the social one) to monarchy (The Scots declaration of Arbroath states 'Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King' - as early as 1320 the Scots were making it clear that, in the final analysis, the Bruce served them and not the other way round).

I think most people would regard Democracy as meaning a state in which there is an formalised process in which the legislative body must periodically actively seek the aproval of the people for its continued right to govern. It's a notoriously difficult word to define though.