Bull Biscuits!

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/Depleted-Uranium.htm

Thanks for providing a little levity on this Monday morning though.

Ah, it is now becoming clearer:

http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/baghdad.html

How much government funding do you receive Mr. Katz?

I think I’ll take the word of a professor over a kook site with a link title “Connection Satan-Bush”. Then again, Professor Katz might be jewish and I know what FF will say. Jews are bad, look out for the Jewish conspiracy.

FF - Sigh, ok I know I said I wouldn’t get into it with you again but I just can’t avoid it. Those pictures are just horrible, but there is no evidence that they are the result of shell use in Iraq. It’s just random pictures but with an article. No real citations. Anyone could have created the site, googled deformed baby pics and written the article sticking the pictures in. This is what I’m constantly pointing out to you. Only kooks are going to see the site and take it as gospel. Isn’t there a BBC investigation or some other reputable source with an article or are all official media agencies controlled by W Bush?

Ah, but, lest we forget, it was irrational fear

http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/11/09/real-terror-is-fear/

and deception which got us into Iraq in the first place.

Timmy - I’ve read and dissected your lame argument before in another post which you choose to ignore. The Cold War was less threatening because the militaries were state sponsored. Yes, thousands of soldiers and weapons were in play but it never went anywhere because if one state acted against the other then massive destruction would occur. In the war on terror we’re not dealing with state sponsored agents but small individual faundamentalists that believe dying for their cause is the end all be all. The Soviets didn’t want to die in the name of Communism. Terrorists have no qualm. So, though they have small “forces” and less threatening weaponry their tactics are a lot deadlier. They will target anyone at anytime with no thought to their own life. And, one can’t really pin them to a state. They are quietly aided or protected by a number of governments. But nothing clear cut and direct. Afghanistan was the most direct. Iraq had provided shelter to terrorists before as well as having funded bombers in Israel. We had previous hostilities that all intell showed that he was not holding up to his stipulations including disarming. What would have happened had the intell not been faulty? What if an attack had occured using chemical weapons handed over from Iraq? Bush would be inept instead of a liar.

Here’s the thing. You promote that Republicans used fear to gain votes. Thats not true. That stated the situation and argued what their response would be. The fact is that you are doing the exact same thing you accuse Republicans of. Fearmongering over fearmongering. You can’t win the debate so instead you fear monger in a different direction, that Republicans are just using voters instead of letting them make up their own minds. Its ridiculous. Either terrorism is a threat to be dealt with or it isn’t. If it is then we debate on how to handle it and you can try and win the debate. If it isn’t a threat then just say it isn’t a threat and argue that point. But don’t cry that Republicans are fear mongering on an issue if you can’t take a stand on one side or the other. You just have no answers so you have to scare the electorate yourself.

So which is it? Is terrorism a real threat or not? If it is, how would you deal with it? If not, just say so. At least FF picked a side, as crazy as it may be. All the government is bad, Dem and Rep alike and they are the threat, not terrorism. But I’ll give him points for choosing. You haven’t. You just sit back and hypocritically bait. You don’t want to state that terrorism isn’t a threat and argue against 9/11. But at the same time, I bet you don’t have an argument on how to handle it.

I would rather take the word of one Dr. Doug Rokke over some physics proffesor RCJ. Especially one that would vote for anybody who wants to bomb Baghdad. He still thinks Sadaam was connected to 911. Yeah, a real “reputable source”.

By the way, you did agree to ignore me, so please hold up to your agreement. I have better things to do with my time than argue with you. I have my beliefs based on my own independent research, and you have yours based on what Fox News and NPR tell you. Let’s leave it at that okay? Good. Now that wasn’t so hard, was it?

Apparently you haven’t read the link posted. Nor have you addressed any of the facts or arguments contained therein.

Terrorism isn’t a threat. We lose more people each year to deer/car accidents, bee stings and peanut allergies than we have lost to any terrorist attacks, including McVeigh’s.

You and the GOP are a bunch of right wing neocon Brown Shirt weblog echochambering yobbo yappers which promote fear for political gain. In effect, you take innocents for political gain….eh? I know what that makes you.

I’m not the one saying what the numbers are, it’s the libertarian Cato Institute. I’m not the one showing the totally mismanaged priorities of the GOP and their fearmongering, the Cato Institute does. I happen to agree, have made the point that you and the GOP are fearmongering yappers foolishly wasting lives and treasure in Iraq, and rest my case.

Your case isn’t made. All you’ve done is name call in an attempt to fearmonger against the right.

I’d disagree that terrorism isn’t a threat. While you compare the number of lives lost to hunting accidents and bee stings, you fail to realize the difference. Those events are either accidents or natural occurances that are realtively unavoidable. Accidents happen. People are born with allergies. Terrorist acts don’t just happen and they affect more than just the lives of the people killed and their families. They affect the phsyche of people that witness of hear of the event. Depending on how the act is committed it also affects economies. Terrorism inflicts raw stressful fear. It’s not fear mongering to acknowledge the situation and attempt to deal with it. Hunting accidents can’t be prevented (unless you want to ban hunting), but terrorism can be confronted. It can be done both militarily and diplomatically.

You know what, I’ll conceed something to you. Maybe Republicans aren’t right on how to handle terror. Maybe there is a better way. Or maybe terrorism isn’t a threat. But thats for the people to decide. There are any number of causes out there. AIDS, Tibet, global warming, terrorism, illegal immigration etc. Each of these causes has a dedicated group that thinks their cause is the number one issue in the nation or world. The advocate more money, more focus and raise awareness to combating or treating the problem. Would you consider each on of those groups as fearmongers? Or do you select who the fear monger is based on your own personal opinion, you’re right and everyone else sells fear?

I’d argue that none of these groups are fear mongers. They believe in their issue and work towards a resolution. Thats what our democracy is about. The populace can decide what is an issue and what isn’t. Both sides get to make their argument. Your argument should be “terrorism isn’t a threat because of this, this and this”. My argument is what I stated. Let the people decide. If they decide for you, then you win. If they decide for me then I win. But making a case is not fear mongering. Name calling instead of arguing is fear mongering. And while you continuously spout the same line: “right wing neocon Brown Shirt weblog echochambering yobbo yappers “, you do yourself a disservice. Its a tagline now. At least once a day it pops out. Make your argument and try to win the argument. Maybe stay away from name calling. It makes you look petty.