Skeptics ignore real world issues?

[McCragge]

Hey everyone, I have written on here a few times, mostly asking for help with were to look for references and what not. And I have to say you guys have always been very helpful.


I run my own forum mostly based on Miniature wargaming, however we have an off topic section where we talk about practically anything.

However, I recently posted a topic about the Sylvia Browne's 2006 predictions. And there has been some debate about the author of the article (the same one as linked to in the Swift) and whether he got his facts straight and what not. That really isn't that big of a concern, however this little bit was mentioned, I am not sure how to respond to it:

"On a slightly different note, I wish that folks like Smug Baldy would turn their skeptical gaze upon more pressing matters of general interest to the nation, if not the world. Where were all the super clever skeptics when we were being told that Saddam Hussien was connected to Al Queada? Where were they and their amazing fact finding skills when half the politicians were claiming that social security was going to go bankrupt and the other half said it was just fine? Surely that would have been an easy enough thing to verify.

In another thread here in Off Topic, everyone seemed to agree that the US government (as well as governments in general) lie to their citizens. If these oh-so-clever skeptics want to do some good then why don't they check up on some of the BS coming out of Washington DC? It would be nice if these supreme beings of skeptical analysis took on the real fraud artists that effect all our lives. Instead they content themselves with artless debunkings of goofball psychics which most people don't believe anyway, all the while slapping themselves on the backs about their own deductive powers."

You can read the full post here: http://easternfringe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3058

Now he makes some interesting points, but are they valid, can they be disproved or verified and if so how and where?

Thanks

McCragge

 

[Bikewer]

If one views "skepticism" as a philosophy, then nearly any aspect of life is fair to hold up to the lenses of reason and evidence.
If you read back through this "political" thread, you'll see spirited discussions on most of the heady topics of the day.

 

[a_unique_person]

I think that the skepticism and politics are very important. You will find the most active part of the JREF forum is the political forum. However, many of us seem to have found the evidence about Iraq to have been dubious all along, and the lack of WMD after the invasion to be pretty conclusive. Saddam was basically a secular tyrant who wanted no part of Al Qaeda. The presence of Al Qaeda happened as a result of the invasion.

 

[rikzilla]

I think that the skepticism and politics are very important. You will find the most active part of the JREF forum is the political forum. However, many of us seem to have found the evidence about Iraq to have been dubious all along, and the lack of WMD after the invasion to be pretty conclusive. Saddam was basically a secular tyrant who wanted no part of Al Qaeda. The presence of Al Qaeda happened as a result of the invasion.

Wasn't it Saddam who modified the Iraqi flag to include "holy words" from the Koran?

Now I do understand why you call Saddam "secular", you do so in context of all the other even more overtly religious leaders in the ME. But imagine if you will GW Bush modifying the US flag to include a Biblical verse! Aside from the fact that it is impossible; can you still imagine calling GW Bush "secular"?

Hell, I bet you can't even bring yourself to call Bush "secular" right now...and yet Saddam is??

I mean, I do understand the context and all...but there really is simply no such thing as a truly secular leader in the ME.

-z

BTW: There are news articles from before 9/11 which told of Zarqawi operating in Iraq and Jordan. IIRC he was a "guest" of Iraq along with the likes of Abu Nidal and Abdul Rahman Yasin (escaped bomber from the first WTC attack). Nevermind the fact Saddam also sent cash prizes to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. If you want direct evidence of official Iraqi government involvement in international terrorism just turn to page 120 of Scott Ritter's first book "Endgame". His UNSCOM 150 inspection team in 1996 ended up uncovering a Mukhabarat "terrorism school" which specialized in manufacturing bombs in a way that they would most likely be traced to Iran, as well as testing chemical/bio agents on political prisoners.

Read it...Scott Ritter was a far different kind of fellow before he was netted in a police sting for luring an underage girl across state lines for sex. His turn from UN arms expert into internet sex predator seems to have soured his view of our government ever since.

 

[Darth Rotor]

BTW: There are news articles from before 9/11 which told of Zarqawi operating in Iraq and Jordan. IIRC he was a "guest" of Iraq along with the likes of Abu Nidal and Abdul Rahman Yasin (escaped bomber from the first WTC attack). Nevermind the fact Saddam also sent cash prizes to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. If you want direct evidence of official Iraqi government involvement in international terrorism just turn to page 120 of Scott Ritter's first book "Endgame". His UNSCOM 150 inspection team in 1996 ended up uncovering a Mukhabarat "terrorism school" which specialized in manufacturing bombs in a way that they would most likely be traced to Iran, as well as testing chemical/bio agents on political prisoners.

Read it . . . Scott Ritter was a far different kind of fellow before he was netted in a police sting for luring an underage girl across state lines for sex. His turn from UN arms expert into internet sex predator seems to have soured his view of our government ever since.

Does it occur to you that a smear campaign like that on Mr Ritter might turn him against the authors of the smear campaign?

I am not sure of any conviction involved, or of formal charges preferred. Is it possible that he was framed? An ad hom, or his own stupidity (hard to say which) if he was indeed trolling for jailbait, hardly changes his expertise on Iraqi weapons matters. I'll also point out the WND is not the most reputable of media sources I've ever come across.

Scott Ritter, the former weapons inspector who says President Bush should be impeached for his Iraq policy, was secretly arrested and prosecuted in New York a year and a half ago after allegedly being caught in an Internet sex sting, say law enforcement sources in published reports.

The Schenectady Daily Gazette and New York Daily News report Ritter was arrested in June 2001 for allegedly having an online sexual discussion with someone he thought was an underage girl. It turns out that "girl" was really an undercover police investigator, according to the Daily News whose sources spoke on condition of anonymity.

An AIM article, excerpted

The media, however, seemed content to solely focus on the scoop broken by the Schenectady Daily Gazette and the New York Daily News about how Ritter was secretly prosecuted in Albany County in 2001 after he was snared in an Internet sex sting operation. The stories cited anonymous "law enforcement authorities." It was reported that Ritter was arrested by Colonie (New York) Police in June 2001 on a misdemeanor charge after he allegedly had a sexual discussion on the Internet with an undercover investigator he thought was a 16-year old girl. The case was sealed, and Colonie officials declined to release the arrest records, explaining the matter was adjourned in local court in contemplation of dismissal. Albany District Attorney Paul Clyne said he had no knowledge of the case and fired veteran Assistant District Attorney Cynthia Preiser for failing to inform him of the case. The story spread from print media to cable news, culminating in a CNN interview of Ritter by Aaron Brown.

Secret court? Secret arrest? Case dismissed? Sealed records?

Is it just me, or does that smell slightly fishy?

DR

 

[rikzilla]

Ahh well...who knows eh? I was just struck by the fact that Mr. Ritters' first book was written by an obvious expert and showed no evidence of a domestic us political bias that I could detect. ...yet his later work was characterized by extreme BDS with a distinct moon-batty flavour.

Read "Endgame" for yourself...then go check out "Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America ".

It's like two different people wrote them. One sane and professional...the later rather deranged and moon-batty.

As ever...just MHO.
-z

 

[pgwenthold]

Again, being branded as a traitor and attacked by "secret courts" and "secrest arrests" is wont to make one strike back.

Say all you want about Ritter, but one thing you will not be able to say is where is was wrong about his assessment of the situation in Iraq.

 

[rikzilla]

Again, being branded as a traitor and attacked by "secret courts" and "secrest arrests" is wont to make one strike back.

Say all you want about Ritter, but one thing you will not be able to say is where is was wrong about his assessment of the situation in Iraq.

Which assessment? The one from Endgame where he laid out a very convincing case for regime change?? Or later...post arrest...when he turned anti-Bush activist?

Honestly you could argue he was right both times...but now you have a pick-'em situation. After 9/11 I'd say most everyone came off of that fence. After all the Congress did vote to support Bush on Iraq. Saddam being dangerous was not even controversial at the time. The national intelligence estimate on Iraq was provided to Congress pre-vote. Only 6 out of 50 Senators had their people read past the White House approved summary.

Simply put, Bush did mislead on WMD...but the Congress had ALL the info that the White House did...they just failed to read it.

-z

 

[fishbob]

Wasn't it Saddam who modified the Iraqi flag to include "holy words" from the Koran?

If true, this action would seem to be just like Hillary and the anti-flag burning issue. Pandering to the public.

 

[Chaos]

Wasn't it Saddam who modified the Iraqi flag to include "holy words" from the Koran?

Yep. He was the power-hungry, bloodthirsty SECULAR dictator who went through all the motions he had to in order to garner sympathy (or even support) from his fellow Muslims.

Now I do understand why you call Saddam "secular", you do so in context of all the other even more overtly religious leaders in the ME. But imagine if you will GW Bush modifying the US flag to include a Biblical verse! Aside from the fact that it is impossible; can you still imagine calling GW Bush "secular"?

Hell, I bet you can't even bring yourself to call Bush "secular" right now...and yet Saddam is??

Well, Bush is the guy who really means it when he talks about religion.

Personally, I think all the moves of the Bush administration in the direction of eliminating hard science from the public life in favor of religion display a much more deeply held religious commitment that adding a few words to a flag.
And I think Bush´s actions against stem-cell research will, in the long run, get a lot more people killed than sending a couple thousand bucks each to the families of suicide bombers.

I mean, I do understand the context and all...but there really is simply no such thing as a truly secular leader in the ME.

-z
*snip*

There is. Saddam was not religious. He was merely a cynical, manipulating, treacherous double-dealing mother****er of a tyrant.

(BTW, I guess this sentence should also keep anyone from claiming I has any undue sympathies for Saddam, shouldn´t it? )

 

[geni]

"On a slightly different note, I wish that folks like Smug Baldy would turn their skeptical gaze upon more pressing matters of general interest to the nation, if not the world. Where were all the super clever skeptics when we were being told that Saddam Hussien was connected to Al Queada?

Sort of hopeing you would listen. Eh there was plently of media coverage of that link being dismissed

Where were they and their amazing fact finding skills when half the politicians were claiming that social security was going to go bankrupt and the other half said it was just fine? Surely that would have been an easy enough thing to verify.

No. The problem is that there are various unknowns that go into that assement and depending on the values you chose either are posible.

In another thread here in Off Topic, everyone seemed to agree that the US government (as well as governments in general) lie to their citizens. If these oh-so-clever skeptics want to do some good then why don't they check up on some of the BS coming out of Washington DC?

We do although it has to be said politicans generaly avoid directly lieing

It would be nice if these supreme beings of skeptical analysis took on the real fraud artists that effect all our lives. Instead they content themselves with artless debunkings of goofball psychics which most people don't believe anyway, all the while slapping themselves on the backs about their own deductive powers."

I suggest you pay more attention to the topics in skeptic magazine and the like.

 

[Pardalis]

The presence of Al Qaeda happened as a result of the invasion.

How do you explain Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's presence in Iraq before the invasion?

 

[Pardalis]

As for the topic of the thread, I agree with Chaos that skepticism is fighting a good fight against the current ideological battle between religion and science, I think it's an important battle (even though I sometimes have a hard time with the ideological ethics like abortion).

It's important to realise how easily people can fool themselves, to become true believers. No one is immune to it and we have to know the dangers of this kind of thinking. When you are greatly invested in an ideology, maybe skepticism is the key to help you take a step back and give you perspective.

 

[geni]

Wasn't it Saddam who modified the Iraqi flag to include "holy words" from the Koran?

Now I do understand why you call Saddam "secular", you do so in context of all the other even more overtly religious leaders in the ME. But imagine if you will GW Bush modifying the US flag to include a Biblical verse! Aside from the fact that it is impossible; can you still imagine calling GW Bush "secular"?

Different context. Bush has real christian credentials. Saddam did not have real islamic credentials.

Hell, I bet you can't even bring yourself to call Bush "secular" right now...and yet Saddam is??

Saddam is dead which makes it a bit hard to tell. Bush is a secular leader who uses relgion from time to time to a greater extent than Saddam.

I mean, I do understand the context and all...but there really is simply no such thing as a truly secular leader in the ME.

Hosni Mubarak

King Abdullah II

BTW: There are news articles from before 9/11 which told of Zarqawi operating in Iraq and Jordan.

He was born in Jordan.

IIRC he was a "guest" of Iraq along with the likes of Abu Nidal and Abdul Rahman Yasin (escaped bomber from the first WTC attack).

No evidence. If he was in iraq it was in the areas Saddam did not control.

Abu Nidal was a leftover from the 70s and 80s. It's quite likely that Saddam just didn't know what to do with him. Killing him would be risky although it looks like Saddam when for that option in the end.

Abdul Rahman Yasin appears to have spent a fair amount of time in jail. Saddam wanted something in return for handing him over the the US but nothing was ever offered.

Nevermind the fact Saddam also sent cash prizes to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Saddam was never one to scoff at cheap PR.

If you want direct evidence of official Iraqi government involvement in international terrorism just turn to page 120 of Scott Ritter's first book "Endgame". His UNSCOM 150 inspection team in 1996 ended up uncovering a Mukhabarat "terrorism school" which specialized in manufacturing bombs in a way that they would most likely be traced to Iran, as well as testing chemical/bio agents on political prisoners.

Both are duel use and bio agents as late as 1996 seems unlikely.

 

[geni]

How do you explain Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's presence in Iraq before the invasion?

Saddam didn't have total control. It was pretty good better than what is there now but by the late 90s sanctions were makeing things rather tricky.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think that the skepticism and politics are very important. You will find the most active part of the JREF forum is the political forum. However, many of us seem to have found the evidence about Iraq to have been dubious all along, and the lack of WMD after the invasion to be pretty conclusive. Saddam was basically a secular tyrant who wanted no part of Al Qaeda. The presence of Al Qaeda happened as a result of the invasion.

The way to describe their situation is this "they hated eachother so much that they couldn't even set asside their differences to attack us"

 

[shanek]

Where were all the super clever skeptics when we were being told that Saddam Hussien was connected to Al Queada?

Here. Unfortunately, a lot of skeptics turn off their skepticism about this issue. When I was in this very forum saying that there was no justification for the war, I was jumped all over from all sides saying I was un-American, un-Patriotic, that the tears I cried at 9/11 were "crocodile tears," etc. From people who are skeptics on other boards on this forum.

In another thread here in Off Topic, everyone seemed to agree that the US government (as well as governments in general) lie to their citizens.

Yes. But they're hardly the only ones who do so.

If these oh-so-clever skeptics want to do some good then why don't they check up on some of the BS coming out of Washington DC?

I'd like to think I've been doing that almost constantly the whole time I've been here.

Now he makes some interesting points, but are they valid, can they be disproved or verified and if so how and where?

I would like to see skeptics take on more real-world issues. That's why I wrote this article on investing for the SkepticWiki.

We do need to take on these issues more. And by "we," I am including myself. Only 1 of the 20 articles I've written for SkepticWiki cover this kind of thing; the rest are the usual paranormal/conspiracy theory/myth busting fare.

(Another one that comes close is my article on fuel-saving products, it's kind of a consumer-reporting thing. So, maybe 2 out of 20. There still need to be more.)

But those two articles I'm really proud of, because they give people information they can really use absent of any paranormal-style content that is the usual skeptic fare.

(Yes, there are a lot of other articles that have plenty of useful information, but usually only in a limited capacity. They're not really general-interest like the two I mentioned.)

 

[SezMe]

Simply put, Bush did mislead on WMD...but the Congress had ALL the info that the White House did...they just failed to read it.

Rik, that is just not true. The Bush administration did NOT brief the House committee oversight committee (forget which one at the moment) on their information. The ranking member at the time (again, forget his name) was even forced to hand write a note to the White House to complain because he was told he couldn't reveal what he had heard to anyone.

Sorry for the vague memories today. If you want, I'll try to find some links to back up my assertions.