No, this is NOT happening.

There is NO secret compound where Iraqi scientists are kept.

And so forth.

This "report" takes two facts and mixes them with 10 lies just to make a "report" interesting to people of very low IQ's.

Do you THINK that Saddam would need a piece of paper signed by someone in order to have that someone killed?

Do you?

What part of "dictator" do you NOT understand?

The same with letting a "defector" talk to a news crew.

The same with letting a news crew broadcast such sensitive information.

This is pure propaganda used to sway those with low IQ's who actually BELIEVE the crap that is sold in papers in the supermarket check-out lines.

If it is anti sadaam it is a lie. If it is pro sadaam it is the truth and you think I have a faulty logic chip.

Do you believe that an actual Iraqi scientist defected and was allowed to talk to a news crew about Saddam's secret compound for scientists in Iraq?

Step #1. Determine what was ACTUALLY said.

Step #2. Determine what was ACTUALLY said was a lie.

No, I don't believe our government would let an ACTUAL IRAQI SCIENTIST WHO HAD DEFECTED talk to a news crew about ANYTHING sensitive.

And the existance of a secret compound in Iraq would DEFINATELY come under the heading of "sensitive".

This is pure propaganda.

Staged solely to convince people of low IQ's.

Hi, Box!

lends a LITTLE credence to the other report.

Like I said, take 2 facts, add 10 lies and people with low IQ's will eat the WHOLE pile.

I may have a low IQ but I have critical thinking skills unlike you,an inverted marlowe with shallow binary thinking.

No, you THINK you do because you are not able to understand what "critical thinking" is.

Again, because A and B are facts, that does NOT mean that C and D and E and F and G and H and so forth are facts.

Yet you claim they are.

THAT is binary thinking.

"If A is true, then ALL are true."

Yes, Saddam PROBABLY threatens scientists.

No, that does NOT mean that there is a secret compound in Baghdad where such scientists are contained and that a defecting scientist was allowed to give an interview to a news crew that was then allowed to broadcast it to the world BEFORE this information was passed onto the UN inspectors so that they could check on the "secret compound".

But, yes, Saddam probably threatens scientists so ALL OF THAT must be true.

Your "critical thinking" skills are truly amazing.

Since I do not have inside info on whether or not this info was distributed some time ago to the inspectors, could you please publish your source for that claim? You didnt extrapolate that info by A + B is true so HTF mut be true did you?

Now I will step you through some very simple logic.

#1. Iraqi scientest defects (Mr. A).
#2. Mr. A provides information to US government about location of secret compound.
#3. US government gives this information to the inspectors.
#4. Inspectors go to secret compound and find scientists and illegal weapons programs.

Nice and simple. And everything follows from the "facts" in the story and your premise that such information was provided to the inspects.

Don't bother stating that such was not your premise because if it was not, then you agreed with my premise that such information was not provided to the inspectors. Duh.

So, have any reports been released about the inspectors finding Iraq's illegal weapons program or this secret compound?

No.

Have OTHER reports detailing where the inspectors have been and what they have found been released?

Yes.

Would there be any reason that the report of the inspectors found the secret weapons program be hushed up?

I can't think of any.

So, nothing to indicate that the inspectors have found the secret compound and Iraq's illegal weapons program.

You can't prove a negative. But this seems pretty conclusive for Real World criteria.

So, if the inspectors did NOT find the secret compound...

a. The US government did not provide the information on its location to the inspectors.

b. The government did provide the information, but Saddam cleaned it out before they got there.

c. There was no information to provide because the story is a lie.

You're claiming that "c" is incorrect. The story is true.

Therefore, it must be A or B. If B, how did Saddam know that the inspectors would be coming there long enough before they showed up to clean it out?

And so on and so forth.

Wow, a story, multiple options, multiple facts, some accurate, some not.

Yet binary only indicates 2 possible options.

And you see only two possible options.

Either they are all true
-or-
They are all false

And since YOU can substantiate one item
-then-
They are all true.

A logical error on your part. And one that you insist on repeating.

A and B are true.
C and D and E are in dispute.

You claim that A is true.

Yes, A is true. But C and D and E are not.

Again, you claim that A is true.

Yes, again, A is true, but C and D and E are not.

And again, you claim that A is true. Then you claim that C and D and E have not been verified by myself.

That is true. As I have stated, it is not possible to prove a negative.

My point is that, if they WERE true, a completely DIFFERENT set of circumstances should exist than what currently exists.

Since that is not the case, I am not going to believe that an Iraqi scientist defected with knowledge of Saddam's secret compound in Baghdad and was allowed to talk to a news crew who then broadcast that information across the world.

And I will believe that anyone who DOES believe that is an idiot.

"Duck hunters in Arkansas accidentally shoot an angel."
#1. Are there duck hunters? Yes.
#2. Are there duck hunters in Arkansas? Yes.
#3. Do duck hunters in Arkansas shoot? Yes.

Therefore, accourding to Boxley, this is a true story because no one can provide evidence that an angel was NOT shot.

Yet you say he has no weapons and his threatened use of them is a lie.

No. I never said he had no weapons.

His army has rifles and bullets.

He has rockets.

He probably has some chemical agent stashed away.

He probably also has some bio-agents stashed away.

I have NEVER said that he didn't have weapons.

I HAVE said that he does not have NUKES.

Yet you cling to the faith he has no weapons and is not a threat to anyone.

Again, I have NEVER said that "he has no weapons" nor that he was "not a threat to anyone".

He has weapons.

He is NOT a threat to any nation. Even the ones right next to him.

He can still have his own people shot.

He will not be taking over England or the USofA any time soon.

Nor Kuwait.

Nor Saudi Arabia.

Nor Iran.

etc.

We ARE talking about a NATION, right? With ARMIES?