MajorMajorMajor said:
Consider the Source
My and my friends edited Ray Jackendoff’s wiki page to contain several innuendos, and detract from the truth of the article.
Conspiracy Theory Moment: There are still many areas in Iraq that we either a) do not control or
do not want to control that have not been checked yet, and that may or may not be inhabitable. Therefore you cannot say with 100% certainty that they are/were no WMDs in Iraq. :shiftyeyes_anim:
Course personally I just do not trust what the media tells me, and I do not care either way if they were there or not. I’m just happy my cousin is coming home soon…. then going to Afghanistan YAY
Lies!!!
Wikipedia 4 LYF!!!
So because we aren’t 100% sure that there are NO WMDs means we CANT say their are no weapons of mass destruction?
Yet when Bush wasn’t 100% sure about WMDs, that means it’s okay to say “There are WMD’s over there”? That isn’t logical. If you can say with uncertainty that there are WMDs, you can also say with uncertainty that there are NO WMDs.
The fact is we were unsure. Yet he told us he was certain.