example of doublespeak i guess

[brad]

http://www.sunshine-project.org/publ.../pr070203.html

--------------------
Top US military planners are preparing for the US to use incapacitating biochemical weapons in an invasion of Iraq. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, revealed the plans in February 5th testimony before the US House Armed Services Committee. This is the first official US acknowledgement that it may use (bio)chemical weapons in its crusade to rid other countries of such weapons. The Sunshine Project and other nonprofits have warned since late 2001 that the "War on Terrorism" may result in the United States using prohibited biological and chemical armaments, thereby violating the same treaties it purports to defend. The US announcement creates grave concerns for the future of arms control agreements, particularly the Chemical Weapons Convention.

[MMMMMM]

--even if both are prohibited there are immense moral and practical differences between deadly and non-deadly weapons.

Why didn't you point up this difference too, instead of ONLY commenting on the doublespeak aspect?

What were you like in school? Did you try to cause controversy for the sake of controversy there too?

I think you sometimes make some good points but you selectively choose that which will tend to generate the greatest controversy. Why don't you just try to get at the TRUTH, and leave the slant for unprincipled newscasters?

[brad]

no i try to post stuff that can be argued/debated about at the table if youre in a friendly or chatty game.

[MMMMMM]

Why do you try to generate debate? Why not post that which you actually believe, or find interesting?

For instance, here, I doubt if you REALLY think it's doublespeak and nothing else--c'mon, admit it, you posted it that way on purpose even though you clearly saw there was more to it than that.

[brad]

US may use prohibited chemical weapons. thats the truth.

its also the truth that such non lethal weapons which are prohibited by treaty are not prohibited for use against civilians in a law enforcement capacity.

and i do think its interesting if you follow certain stuff.

for example, do u know that the military/police have a microwave weapon mounted on a jeep/humv for crowd control purposes? maybe well see it in action if anti war protests get too big.

[Jimbo]

brad I must ask for proof of this statement of yours "for example, do u know that the military/police have a microwave weapon mounted on a jeep/humv for crowd control purposes?" I have a very comprehensive knowledge of microwave radiation and accompanying theory and find this a bit past plausible unless they are attempting to sterilize a bunch of idiots all at once. Step right up folks and get your gonads nuked by our shake n bake oven on wheels! LOL

[brad]

i will post a mainstream article (cnn, msnbc, etc., ok maybe washington post, heh) but i might wait until tomorrow cause i dont know if u can take me being right twice in one day (demonstrably right i mean, heh)

[Jimbo]

brad I posted that you were more correct than I regarding the authority of the no-fly zone. That alone does not make you completely correct just less incorrect than I was. How do you like that for some double speak with a double negative thrown in for good measure? [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[brad]

i cant not comment.

[brad]

http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/science...new.weapon.02/

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon is touting a new "non-lethal" weapon designed to control threatening crowds by using a directed energy beam to inflict a painful but brief burning sensation.

--------------------------------

but i left you an out since this particular story doesnt go into the domestic crowd control applications that other stories ive read did.