Re: Nelson Mandela supplying Hussein with nukes

Jeff,

--- In metatuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
> Turns out the reason Mandela is accusing Bush of being Hitler

Wasn't that statement made by an aide to Gerhard Schroeder? If you've got documentation saying the same thing about Mandela, please divulge it.

> doesn't want the world to find out that the South African
> government has
> been supplying Iraq with the know-how and material to build a
> stockpile of nukes.

Any confirmation beyond that paragon of a website you pointed to?

> I tell ya, these Nobel Peace prize winners. What a bunch of
> psychopaths.

It would be nice if you thought about statements such as the above just a little bet before you put them in print. Unless you really do believe such a thing...

Jon

In-Reply-To: <B9BEB62D.11DB%xjscott@...>
X. J. Scott wrote:

> nor do I recall
> hearing about Bush's chemical weapons program.

Jeff, are you living on a different planet to the rest of us?

In-Reply-To: <B9BEB62D.11DB%xjscott@...>
X. J. Scott wrote:

> Follow the link there to the UK government site.

I'm hesitant about polluting your diatribes with facts, but here goes:

There is no link from <http://www.insightmag.com/news/284402.html> to a UK
government site. The most obvious external link is to
<www.official-documents.co.uk/document/reps/iraq/contents.htm>. Now come
on, you know how the Internet works, don't you? If it were a government
site it would have a .gov.uk domain. It's actually run by "The Stationery
Office" whose home page is <http://www.tso.co.uk/>.

That doesn't mean it isn't a government document, although there's no real
evidence yet. I've searched through it, and there's no mention of South
Africa. Africa comes up a few times in vague references to uranium
procurement. Nothing about that being successful, or the collusion of any
government, or even it being enriched uranium they were after.

<http://www.insightmag.com/news/284402.html> also says "It was buttressed
on Sept. 24 when the British government released an `unprecedented' white
paper based in part on classified intelligence information on Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction programs."

<http://www.official-documents.co.uk/index.html> includes a definition
(near enough) of "white paper": "Command Papers (sometimes known as White
or Green Papers)". So a White Paper is also a Command Paper. Here's a
list of the Command Papers issued in September from
<http://www.official-documents.co.uk/menu/cmd2002.htm#2002sep>:

Yes, that's right, no Command Papers (which means no White or Green
Papers) issued in September are available from The Stationery Office.

Her Majesty's Stationery Office (which, note, is a UK Government site)
also gives a list of Command Papers at
<http://www.hmso.gov.uk/ip/command-papers.htm>. That one does include a
few from September this year, but none from the 24th. Only one (since
October 2001) mentions Iraq: "Ministry of Defence 5352 The General
Service Medal 1962 - Service on Air Operations over Iraq (Amendment to Cm
3524)".

There's another definition of "White Paper" as well: "The subjects may be
major policy proposals (White Papers)..." Now, why would an intelligence
report on Iraq be published as a policy proposal? I'm starting to think
this isn't a white paper at all.

Oh, and it says "Copies of individual Command Papers can be purchased from
The Stationery Office Limited." so "The Stationery Office" is a credible
source, but still not a government site.

Well, "The Stationery Office" at
<http://www.official-documents.co.uk/menu/command.htm> agrees that White
Papers are policy proposals. It also says "The Papers are numbered
consecutively and the current series uses the prefix Cm."
<www.official-documents.co.uk/document/reps/iraq/contents.htm> doesn't
seem to have a Cm prefix, so "The Stationery Office" obviously doesn't
think it's a White Paper. Which reflects well on them, because it isn't.

Conclusion: Insight magazine is lying when it says this document (the only
one it links to in support of the story) is a White Paper. Either that,
or they're so ignorant of the British political system that they don't
even know what a White Paper is. Either way they lose credibility.

They also think that www.official-documents.co.uk is "the prime minister's
Website". Perhaps they mean "the prime minister" of "The Stationery
Office" but it certainly isn't anything to do with the Prime Minister of
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Oh yes, and while I'm at it:

> I do. Not all of them are psychopaths but more than one.
> And I mean it in the clinical, technical sense.

The word "psychopath" is not a clinical term.

Graham

Jeff,

--- In metatuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
> on 10/1/02 2:04 AM, Jon Szanto wrote:
>
> > Wasn't that statement made by an aide to Gerhard Schroeder?
>
> Mandela said Bush is the one who threatens world peace and not Hussein.

So you don't back up your "Hitler" statement. These are the kind of sloppy, emotional statements that devalue your otherwise (sometimes) valid ones. Why you don't see this as a weakness in arguing a cause I'm not sure.

And, at this point, I'd say both Bush and Hussein threaten world peace.

> Funny, I don't recall Bush having gassed his own people

He bombs wedding parties, etc.

> Follow the link there to the UK government site.

So when should I believe government propaganda and when shouldn't I?

> >> I tell ya, these Nobel Peace prize winners. What a bunch of
> >> psychopaths.

> I do. Not all of them are psychopaths but more than one.

Then don't make such broad statements, and/or name some of the Nobel Peace prize winners that you consider "psychopaths".

This is all pretty sad.

Jon