Cheers to Lebanon and boo to Syria

[vulturesrow]

Syrian Soldiers Leave (http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20050427-120134-7799r)

MASNAA, Lebanon -- Syria ended its nearly 30-year occupation of Lebanon yesterday, pulling its last 250 soldiers across the border after an upbeat ceremony that glossed over the tensions between the two neighbors

CIA can't rule out WMD move to Syria (http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20050427-121915-1667r)

The CIA's chief weapons inspector said he cannot rule out the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were secretly shipped to Syria before the March 2003 invasion, citing "sufficiently credible" evidence that WMDs may have been moved there.

[ACPlayer]

Syrian soldiers leave Lebanon --> Good

Regarding the WMD thing (are you not tired of trotting out that lie yet) --- here is a different way of looking at that report. I take it that the ISG decided that there is .1 percent chance it happened and Washington Times made that the spin of the day.

Report finds no evidence (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501554.html)

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding the WMD thing (are you not tired of trotting out that lie yet) --- here is a different way of looking at that report

[/ QUOTE ]

No because I dont think it is a lie. I think it is a plausible event that hasnt been able to be investigated fully, which both your link and my link say. Also my link has direct quotes from Duelfer. Do you deny that he said those things?

[ACPlayer]

Interviewer: So Mr Duelfer are you saying that there is absolutely no chance that truck loads of chemical weapons were shipped across to Syria, without our sophisticated satellites detecting this movement.

Mr Duelfer: "ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war,"

Interviewer: So you found that it did happen right?

Mr D: "Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place," and cotinued with

"However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."

The unasked question: did the bosses pressure you to finish the report? Did you ask for more time and it was denied? The WMD hunt is like the Kenneth Starr boondoggle, the intelligent thinking person knew the outcome before it began and realized that it was all about domestic politics.

To put this report in perspective -- there is a far greater threat of WMD proliferation in the Islamic world from our close friends and allies the Pakistanis then there is from this politically driven hunt.

Note for the dumb heads on this forun: THis is a fictitious interview though the quotes are from the the Washington TIme "newspaper" report.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding the WMD thing (are you not tired of trotting out that lie yet) --- here is a different way of looking at that report. I take it that the ISG decided that there is .1 percent chance it happened and Washington Times made that the spin of the day.

[/ QUOTE ]

So to you, "unlikely" apparently means "0.1% chance"

I take it this might also be the value you would assign to your poker opponent's "unlikely" chance to hit his 2-outer: 0.1% /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Hey, whatever works for you, ACPlayer;-)

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
without our sophisticated satellites detecting this movement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually there was satellite imagery showing large amounts of heavy vehicle movement in and out of Syria just prior to the war.

[ QUOTE ]
The unasked question: did the bosses pressure you to finish the report? Did you ask for more time and it was denied?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that both articles make it pretty clear why the investigation wasnt finished.

Im not saying that this is a certain thing. I am saying it is plausible.

[ACPlayer]

This was an attempt to find justification and get political cover after the fact.

Most people who objectively look at it realized that the effort to look into this alleged transfer should have instead been spent on looking into the Pakistani nuclear programs. Syria is even less of a threat to America then Iraq ever was (or would have been if left alone)>

So, we waste resources on this and send F-16s to Mushie. At this rate the war on terror will continue for ever and the circle of us arming future terrorists will continue.

Good for the defense industry bad for the American people.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
This was an attempt to find justification and get political cover after the fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before the fact (of the war), www.debka.com (http://www.debka.com) posted that WMD were possibly being moved to Syria; and, if I recall, even may have offered aerial or satellite photos of the suspicious truck convoys.

[ACPlayer]

Ah, still getting your propoganda from dubious sources./images/graemlins/grin.gif

Yes, Debka, Fox and other apologists started this Syria watch nonsense. No doubt WND also had such reports.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Sensible thread /images/graemlins/smirk.gif. None of the sides have any idea if there are WMDs in Syria or not. I don't know either, but remember that Syria voted for weapons inspectors in Iraq.

Nice that they left Lebanon, however I don't think Syrian forces and Israeli forces has clashed directly in Libanon for the last decade. I think it is the Syrian-backed Hizbollah that have clashed with Israeli forces.

[Cyrus]

MMMMMM will now engage in the standard obfuscation of the null hypothesis, where the words "unikely" and "possible" are totally inter-changeable.

MMMMMM, who, like many superbrains before him /images/graemlins/grin.gif on this forum, is able to solve all Politics through Math, makes the mistake of equating A to B --- because they are both unequal to C, see?

Note that when that particular line of argument is exhausted (or you are), MMMMMM will commence disputing the precise meaning of the words "in", "the" and "he" from the original news item.

You are doomed either way. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Matty]

Where's the cheers to Lebanon part?

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus,

ACPlayer said that he took that report to mean that the ISG determined there was a "0.1% chance it happened." Yet there is nothing in the report to support such a conclusion. At best, one might conclude it is "unlikely" or even "very unlikely"--but certainly to not such a degree of precision. And for that matter, a 5% chance would also be "very unlikely"--just as when your opponent is drawing to a two-outer in hold'em. Hence my joust at ACPlayer in asking him if he considered the hold'em example also to be a 0.1% chance;-) I'm not saying the two are equivalent; I'm saying that based on the report ACPlayer has no way of knowing if the likelihood is 0.1% or 5%. Yet ACPlayer said he took the report to mean that the chance was 0.1%.

So I did not commit any logical errors such as you suggest; I only pointed out that ACPlayer could not attribute such a tiny likelihood to the occurrence based on the ISG report. Pretty simple stuff actually (for anyone who can read).