So adding a George Carlin vid is suggesting that your posts (including this one) are sarcastic.
Italian scientists get six years in prison over 2009 deadly quake
- Thread starter In Between Man
- Start date
I would have had less of a problem with the Iraq war if Bush had simply said "Saddam is a dick. Lets take him out" instead of lying about WMD. Plus some better planning on what happens after Saddam's regime collapsed would have been useful. Also settling Afghanistan first would have been nice as well.
As for the OP - what a stupid precedent. On the other hand, this may lead to the end of the 'act of god' excuse insurance companies use to not pay. We'll have some random scientist to blame instead.
Italy: Officials Quit Over Punishment of Quake Experts
By ELISABETTA POVOLEDO
Published: October 23, 2012
Several members of Italy’s National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks resigned Tuesday after the conviction of six scientists and a public official on manslaughter charges for failing to give adequate warning to the residents of a seismically active area before an earthquake that killed more than 300 people. Luciano Maiani, a physicist, resigned as president of the commission, along with several other members in protest over Monday’s ruling, in which the defendants have drawn six-year prison sentences. “The commission can’t carry out its functions in this situation, which borders on intimidation,” he said in an interview. “It’s impossible to work with serenity if you’re afraid that if you give an opinion that turns out not to be right you can be punished.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/world/europe/italy-officials-quit-over-quake-convictions.html?_r=0
By ELISABETTA POVOLEDO
Published: October 23, 2012
Several members of Italy’s National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks resigned Tuesday after the conviction of six scientists and a public official on manslaughter charges for failing to give adequate warning to the residents of a seismically active area before an earthquake that killed more than 300 people. Luciano Maiani, a physicist, resigned as president of the commission, along with several other members in protest over Monday’s ruling, in which the defendants have drawn six-year prison sentences. “The commission can’t carry out its functions in this situation, which borders on intimidation,” he said in an interview. “It’s impossible to work with serenity if you’re afraid that if you give an opinion that turns out not to be right you can be punished.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/world/europe/italy-officials-quit-over-quake-convictions.html?_r=0
Is there perhaps a chance they weren't found because no one looked in the right place? Saddam had had them in the past so I think Bush should be given the benefit of the doubt when he suspected Saddam of using them in the future. When dealing with people like Saddam I believe in erring on the side of caution.
Where have you been for the last 10 years? The inspectors said Bush was wrong before the war. The intelligence community has come forward and said the data given to the UN by Powell was fraudulent. There were no WMDs found in almost 10 years of searching. What more do you want to be convinced it was all lies. Everybody except Bush and his administration have said it was lies yet you still think there is some validity to the claims. I just don't get how you can still think there may have been WMDs.
Very simple, Nick.............because every place they could have been hidden hasn't been searched. I've heard speculation they may have been buried in Syria! :smile: (How many years have they been searching for water on Mars, yet they continue to look)
The IAEA and UN inspectors crawled up his a$$ with a microscope for 10 years and had not 1 shred of evidence of any WMDs. Almost everyone in the intelligence community (including people I know and worked with) said he had nothing and didn't even have the capability to start making them again. Just what do you need to be convinced it was all hogwash? Or will nothing ever convince you?
OK, Nick, maybe I stated it badly, I should have asked why he couldn't have had W.M.D.s instead of why he didn't have W.M.D.s. But regardless back in 2002 when he invaded Iraq, he didn't know that. The f**ker had already gassed the Kurds.
Off Topic, but I can't stand this level of ignorance.
You were lied to JLM!
Bush, Blair, Harper and many other political leaders... most main stream news sources... all lied about Iraq's WMDs. As a result gullible people like your self continue to support an unprovoked war crime which killed about a million innocent people, including 30,000 Iraqi soldiers (mostly involuntary conscripts forced into uniform a few weeks before the invasion aka: cannon fodder) in the first few days.
estimates of the total war casualties in Iraq since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.... over 1.2 million deaths (1,220,580)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_su...ies#January_2008_update:_1.2C033.2C000_deaths
That's a hell of a lot of blood shed, death and destruction that you support just because you believe a politician should get the benefit of the doubt...
Bush and company knew Iraq was not a WMD threat in March 2003. The UN Weapon Inspector Report to the UNSC regarding Iraq just a few weeks before the war was clear that Iraq did not possess a WMD threat, that they were cooperating and that all remaining WMD concerns were just within a few months of resolving:
SECURITY COUNCIL 7 MARCH 2003
UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Dr. Hans Blix:
Mr. President,
For nearly three years, I have been coming to the Security Council presenting the quarterly reports of UNMOVIC. They have described our many preparations for the resumption of inspections in Iraq. The 12th quarterly report is the first that describes three months of inspections. They come after four years without inspections. The report was finalized ten days ago and a number of relevant events have taken place since then. Today’s statement will supplement the circulated report on these points to bring the Council up-to-date....
...Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998....
...during our meetings in Baghdad, the Iraqi side tried to persuade us that the Al Samoud 2 missiles they have declared fall within the permissible range set by the Security Council, the calculations of an international panel of experts led us to the opposite conclusion. Iraq has since accepted that these missiles and associated items be destroyed and has started the process of destruction under our supervision... (Note: These missiles marginally exceeded treaty limitations, when unarmed and unguided. When carrying a payload and navigation system, they did not exceed treaty limitations. But they were a "technical" violation, not a "deliberate" violation. Iraq destroyed them anyway just before the US led invasion)
...There is a significant Iraqi effort underway to clarify a major source of uncertainty as to the quantities of biological and chemical weapons, which were unilaterally destroyed in 1991....
...Let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work programme, which resolution 1284 (1999) requires us to submit this month. It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks; it will describe the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification that the Council has asked us to implement; it will also describe the various subsystems which constitute the programme, e.g. for aerial surveillance, for information from governments and suppliers, for sampling, for the checking of road traffic, etc.
How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, ****yse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.
Read the entire report here:
Security Council 7 March 2003
After reading the above (delivered just 11 days before Bush declared war on Iraq), it should be clear even to you JLM, that that everything Bush said to justify war with Iraq were lies and deceptions. He used fear and hate to manipulate you and millions of others into supporting the unprovoked killing of tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
Read the transcript of George Bush's war ultimatum speech:
18 March 2003
My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned...
...Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised...
Full text: Bush's speech | World news | guardian.co.uk
If you actually read and understood Chief Weapon Inspector Blix's report, you'd know that Bush was lying about Iraq to justify war. Some people like myself saw right through it, but a majority of people trusted what Bush said, even though his claims about Iraq consisted of half truths, unproven allegations, provable lies and deliberate deceptions... not just now in hindsight, but at the time the lies and deceptions came out of his mouth. Notice the dates of Blix's report (March 7, 2003) and Bush's declaration of war (March 18, 2003). And you'd still give Bush the benefit of the doubt? Wow, that's pretty fricken unbelievably gullible. How many other politicians do you just accept their word, when it comes to killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people?
The most accurate and complete document regarding Iraq's WMD program was written by Iraqis and submitted to the UN December 7, 2002 Iraq. I've already raised that point in another thread here and no one has found anything in Iraq since then which contradicts the Iraqi submitted report's accuracy and completeness.
Here is the thread:
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/history/108370-iraqs-12-000-page-pre.html
The news had to know Bush was lying to, yet not a single Whitehouse reporter challenged Bush's "claims" about Iraq's WMD capability. Try finding a major news source reporting that UN Weapon Inspectors were confident that all remaining WMD issues would be resolved within months and that Iraq was proactively cooperating with UNMOVIC. Few exist... What does that tell you about our news and how well it informs us?
Harper supported the war, knowing what Blix reported about Iraq. What does that tell you about Harper?
To JLM:
Effectively you support mass murder and mass murderers.... Wake the **** UP! If you haven't figured out that you were deceived into supporting the Iraq war crime, then you are either willfully ignorant or not that bright.
Last edited:
That Iraqi CW gas attack against the Kurdish village of Halabja was March 16, 1988.
RE: Iraq used gas on the Kurds
If that war crime wasn't a justification for war at the time it happened, when more gas attacks against civilians were imminent, then it certainly can't be used 15 years later as justification for war, when Iraq no longer possessed a CWs capability.
Because this attack was repeatedly referenced, out of context and without a date, most of the manipulated masses believed that the attack was a recent event and proof that Iraq had WMDs... Instead people getting all riled up about this war crime, 15 years later proves most people aren't that bright and are easily manipulated by even bad propaganda.
BTW, nearly every nation in the world condemned that attack at the time it happened... except the US. The US under Ronald Reagan initially tried to blame the attack on the Iranians, then defended Iraq's actions at the UN and finally increased US arms sales with Iraq when the rest of the world imposed an arms embargo... Yes a great reason to go to war with Iraq 15 years later. (sarcasm alert)
RE: Iraq used gas on the Kurds
If that war crime wasn't a justification for war at the time it happened, when more gas attacks against civilians were imminent, then it certainly can't be used 15 years later as justification for war, when Iraq no longer possessed a CWs capability.
Because this attack was repeatedly referenced, out of context and without a date, most of the manipulated masses believed that the attack was a recent event and proof that Iraq had WMDs... Instead people getting all riled up about this war crime, 15 years later proves most people aren't that bright and are easily manipulated by even bad propaganda.
BTW, nearly every nation in the world condemned that attack at the time it happened... except the US. The US under Ronald Reagan initially tried to blame the attack on the Iranians, then defended Iraq's actions at the UN and finally increased US arms sales with Iraq when the rest of the world imposed an arms embargo... Yes a great reason to go to war with Iraq 15 years later. (sarcasm alert)
