Re-writing History

[Michael Emrys]

While on the other hand, we have ability to REASON,rather than to just THINK...this, I think, is the primary difference.

If by 'reason' you mean the ability to arrive at a conclusion via a logical process, I think you may have been overtaken by recent research with various animals. I don't recall the details as it has been some while since I read it, but it seems that certainly many primates and even some simpler animals have been shown to exhibit what it would be difficult to call by any other name. Granted it is a somewhat primitive form, but they do employ it on a regular basis. Chimps have even been shown capable of mathematical and other symbolic reasoning.

Michael

[abneo3sierra]

If by 'reason' you mean the ability to arrive at a conclusion via a logical process, I think you may have been overtaken by recent research with various animals. I don't recall the details as it has been some while since I read it, but it seems that certainly many primates and even some simpler animals have been shown to exhibit what it would be difficult to call by any other name. Granted it is a somewhat primitive form, but they do employ it on a regular basis. Chimps have even been shown capable of mathematical and other symbolic reasoning.

Michael

That is what I meant. As I wrote that, I thought about some animals I have had the pleasure of knowing, including my forever favorite, a boxer that I got as a pup,and shared many very happy memories with growing up. I remember playing a game with him, where we would chase each other around the house...for a few minutes, I was the "chaser" and then somehow we both knew when to switch, and he chased me. I recall him on several occasions, 'pretending' to tire out,then switching to a burst of speed, that always had me wondering if it was a trap..He was without a doubt the smartest animal I have ever seen, even almost able to use tools..ie. he was able to push something over to our fence, and then climb onto whatever he had pushed, and get over the fence.

[womble]

Womble I am not sure which attributes you think humans have that are different to animals ... : )

I think I'm pretty specific on the morals thing. As I understand it, morals requires some sort of self-analysis, and judgement of rectitude: "is such-and-such an action the right thing to do/have done?" The ability to philosophise, if you like. I've not seen any headlines about conversations with 'lesser' primates about right and wrong.

I will accept that we may dress our motivations ups in fancy language.

I think it's where the fancy language actually becomes the motivation that we get past and out of the animal. When we can codify, if you will, those behaviours which best preserve our community and hence the common, and therfore our own best interest.

The ability to work together to solve a human made puzzle does not only apply to apes but to crows and elephants also.

Which says nothing to morality.

Studies show dogs understand unfairness and will sulk to show it.

They understand they didn't get what they wanted when they might've/have before. Doesn't make the other dogs in the experiment step back and let the unfairly-treated one have their fair share.

Crows count to three - roughly the same as some Amazonian tribes.

Crows are clever. They can make tools to make tools, and use several tools in sequence to achieve a goal. Doesn't make them moral.

There are so many instances of animals sharing some of our smarts, and all our primal desires, it would seem impossible to say we are divinely different. : )

The divine, to misappropriate a phrase, "don't enter into it". Perhaps it's a quantitative difference: we have more capacity for language and so more symbols than other animals, so we can address second- or third- order issues like morality or discussions of it (if there's a difference).

Animals just do it. They might think about how but not so much on the 'why', beyond the initial stimulus.

I think the best indicator that humans have 'morals' while animals have 'behaviours' is that human morals (as in 'that which is societally acceptable') and mores change over time and space, while animals don't, unless the physical environment changes. That's because we think about things, and change our minds.

[Stalins Organ]

A guy called Lloyd Geering wrote a book in 1996 called "Tomorrow's God: How We Create our Worlds " in which he postulated that (IIRC) the main thing that seems to differentiate "us" from the "lower animals" is the ability to think in the abstract.

I read it several years ago & it was a fairly radical tome - IIRC he's in favour of the idea that humanity created god, and sees the ability to do so as part of the ability to think in abstract.

[Michael Emrys]

I think I'm pretty specific on the morals thing. As I understand it, morals requires some sort of self-analysis, and judgement of rectitude: "is such-and-such an action the right thing to do/have done?" The ability to philosophise, if you like. I've not seen any headlines about conversations with 'lesser' primates about right and wrong.

I'm not absolutely certain that we are talking about the same thing here, but baboons have shown that they are conscious of violating the mores of their band and will exhibit quite complex behavior to try to conceal the fact. They are self-conscious and self-reflective and know how to lie. Other primates that are highly social do more or less the same thing too.

Interestingly enough, I am starting to hear that elephants too may have a similar faculty.

I'm not saying that this moral sense is as highly developed in non-human species as it is in humans, but the distinction is not as clear cut as some suppose. We are not set apart from them, we just occupy different locations on a gradient. I suspect that further research will uncover the same thing in still more species. We haven't even touched on dolphins and other marine mammals yet.

Michael

[Stalins Organ]

I think evaluation of such behaviour would have to decide whether the animals were concealing their behaviour because htey know it to be "wrong", or to avoid punnishment by their peers, and I have no idea how you would determin that!!

On a slightly silly note - China bans film and TV that shows time travel

[Michael Emrys]

I think evaluation of such behaviour would have to decide whether the animals were concealing their behaviour because htey know it to be "wrong"' date=' or to avoid punnishment by their peers, and I have no idea how you would determin that!![/quote']

I think there is a strong case that can be made that our sense of right and wrong derive from a desire to avoid punishment. It would not surprise me in the least that that is a trait we share with our primate cousins.

Michael

[dieseltaylor]

Getting back to animals, including the human kind. : )

Apes using Japanese thermal springs in winter is recorded as a new behaviour so they can learn new tricks without man.

However we are getting to the point where semantics loom large. I don't really want to get into defining terms but morality for me is really trying to do good rather than anything else. Good in this context is actually quite simple it means making people feel happier after we have interacted : )

The interesting part is why this does not occur all the time. Why do people get ratty , mad, psychotic during interactions.

However before we meander off down that interesting highway there is the rather grimmer thread of whether in fact humans just think they have free-will but all we actually have is a post-action reconciliation to make sense of what we have done. The theory going that this is a very necessary requirement if you live in a troop of animals were a pecking order is needed/exists.

How do you know your place in the order of things unless it can be rationalised? You would otherwise be continually fighting other pack members.

This is an interesting and growing area with some confusing answers. However as an example where a group of people are split and half are subjected to the theory there is no free-will when tested at maths with an opportunity to cheat they will cheat more than those who were not subjected to the theory.

There are other tests. People subject to deterministic reasoning become less altruistic, they become more aggressive to strangers. Personality types who resist this trend tend to score high for extroversion.

As determinism is a big subject it is perhaps best for the Wikipedia article to look at its ramifications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

I actually favour quite strongly linguistic determinism as an important factor. I think it shapes how one thinks ... which might imply I therefore believe in free-will. No I think it actually structures your mind to react in certain ways and actually may modify your gut reactions.

SOOOOO ..... having lost the thread slightly. Formal "Morality" is a construct of society to enable large groups to co-exist. We have societies that have opposing morals such as multiple wives etc so it is not innate. Animals if anything tend to be more uniform in their behaviours.

The innate morality I think is derived from empathy which we and some animals certainly have. Though some humans less than others - Aspergers.

ANywya time to get some food ... and warmth.

[abneo3sierra]

I think that one key component is also the willingness to do something which sacrifices your own good, for another...basic instinct normally is seen as doing what is necessary to survive, where reasoned behavior would allow a person to stop, think,realize that what he will do, will hurt him or kill him, and still make the choice to do that. This action occurs with even some insects , but it mostly is a non-thinking action there. This ability to go against "survival instinct" in a reasoned,thought out way, I believe to be entirely human, and one of our greatest assets.

I have seen guard dogs, etc also display "selfless"behavior,and while I greatly admire the dogs, I still would conclude that they are simply following their training, and have not the ability to reason that they are risking their lives..I may be wrong, but there is no real way to prove it in either direction I believe, and on my side of the argument, you will not see UNTRAINED dogs generally doing things like this.

[dieseltaylor]

AB - I find that argument slightly dubious. However without wishing to delve deeply into research literature it struck me that the converse of your behaviour is a very interesting one.

Men killing non-threatening animals and people for sport, or obeying orders. Is thta perhaps the best example of man being superior morally.

[Speedy]

On a slightly silly note - China bans film and TV that shows time travel

From Stalin's link

'The government says TV dramas shouldn't have characters that travel back in time and rewrite history,' said CNN's Eunice Yoon.

..snip..

The new ruling comes as the Communist party (CPC) prepares for its 90th anniversary in power, according to the Hollywood Reporter

So who is rewriting history?

[abneo3sierra]

AB - I find that argument slightly dubious. However without wishing to delve deeply into research literature it struck me that the converse of your behaviour is a very interesting one.

Men killing non-threatening animals and people for sport, or obeying orders. Is thta perhaps the best example of man being superior morally.

I think that any man who kills a "non-threatening animal or person" FOR SPORT, should be killed himself. Where in the ^%&& did I ever say that was an example of being "superior morally" ?????????? and "obeying orders"?no...but here is a good one for you..a man who lives in a dictatorship(the only place where you would be ordered to kill a "non-threatening person" is ordered by his dictator to kill a non-threatening person, on pain of death,himself, if he refuses...survival instinct would be to survive,hence,doing what he is told,this is the exact opposite of what I just stated above, so it is your argument that is "suspect" as it actually proves my own to be correct. The man has the ability to stop, in our pretend dictatorship,think,realize that what he is told to do, is wrong,,realize that if he does not follow the order, he will be killed,and still,can reason his thoughts,and do it,at the expense of his own survival instinct. Now, an animal, trained to kill, will never once hesitate to follow the kill order..will it matter that the "target" is innocent?no..THIS is what I was saying, and THIS is also proof of man's moral superiority, assuming he actually uses it,which,as your example of killing "non threatening animals and people for sport" shows we do not always use it, but we have the ABILITY to do so,which animals do not. They will, everytime, follow either their training, or their instinct.

[Stalins Organ]

Never seen a cat playing with a mouse hat it's not going to eat??

[abneo3sierra]

Stalin's Organist..that is true...but the reason it does not kill the mouse, has nothing to do with guilt or innocence of said mouse, and everything to do with the cat's own rather playful spirit.

[dieseltaylor]

Aha! The point I was skirting around was the notion that man was in some way morally superior to animals - in that man tries to do good.

While on the other hand, we have ability to REASON,rather than to just THINK...this, I think, is the primary difference. Also..see my above reply..it does not mean that those with no religion have no "moral compass points" but rather, it means that those who actually follow the religion, do,those who do not follow any "code" may, or may not. Those who follow religion will be TRYING to be good, while those who follow none...what incentive to be good? No hope of "heaven" or "after life rewards"..maybe can still be good, but it is not a guarantee, for sure.

We do have a rather grave problem that those people with a religious moral compass are the same people who have been killing their kindred racial types for having the wrong religion. Let alone the wrong colour skin, or language. I am not sure we have had any non-believers making war on all who believe - ever. Possible exception being the Communist parties removing religious infrastructure as a possible challenger to power not for beliefs.

So religiousness does not mean that you have a better or more active morale compass than non-believers. Of course we can talk of religious leaders taking the wrong message etc and trying to extrapolate to the modern thoughtful church as a refutation of past "errors". Unfortunately modern US politics seems to point to an enforcement of one religions viewpoint.

One thing I have always thought odd is that southern countries seem to be bloodier than northern countries, is it the climate or being primarily Catholic you can get absolution? : )

Thinking abstractly has been mentioned though the problem solving exploits of animals suggest that they can think through a problem before they start experimenting. I suspect humans being omnivorous had to learn plenty of different skills and if the enlarged brain due to DNA change is right that provided the extra capacity to go beyond the strictly necessary.

So in AB' scenario a reason we are superior to animals is that we can decide to kill or not to kill whereas animals are either trained or cannot help themselves. Thats kind of interesting theory we leaves me wondering about the cross-animal adopting, the animals who do kill humans but generally do not.

Incidentally the "dictatorship" where someone is ordered to kill example. Is this different to a democracy? : ).

However your argument is flawed in that you posit an animal trained to kill - presumably by a human, and ordered by a human to do the deed. SO unfortunately we cannot know the state of mind of an animal that you suggest. If he were left to his own devices I suggest the animal would only attack and kill what he could eat or what is a danger. There are a few oddities in the animal kingdom who do kill vicariously but they are the rarities.

[abneo3sierra]

Diesel, you and I are both speaking the same language, but what you get from what I said, is entirely different than what I said.

To try to make it short:some points

1. There is a vast difference between "having" a religion,and actually following it..Christianity, as the example I know most about, but certainly not alone in this..has a "moral code" attached,that probably 90% of people claiming the religion, do not follow..this is NOT the fault of the religion, it is the fault of people being hypocritical. If you have,say, a process for doing something, and you write a book, to instruct people how to do it..say simple example,driving..you write a book, on how to be a great driver...many people buy your book, they read it, talk about it,imagine how they will become great drivers, but when actually driving,they disregard what you wrote,and have an accident..does it mean your book was wrong? no, it means the person was a bloody idiot lol...and that just because they purchased your book, it did not make them a better driver, because they did not actually follow your guidelines.

2.Not sure what you mean about modern US politics pointing to "enforcement of one's religious viewpoint" ..while this was indeed,historically a problem here, it is not even on the radar screen,so to speak, in "modern US politics"

3.Also,not sure where you get the data that shows southern countries(falsely implied as Catholic,more on that in a second) as bloodier than northern countries. The primary "Catholic"continent is S.America probably,and has had fewer wars, by far, than "northern" countries, your own, as a good example,which is not Catholic,and has a rather long history of markedly cruel imperialism,throughout Africa,the Middle East,etc.

Africa and the middle East,both could be considered southern, and both are fairly violent places, probably the most violent in the world in these days, however, neither are Catholic.

3. I agree with your point on the animal trained to kill, if left on his own...however, this proves my own point, as I said he will either follow his training, or his instinct..in this case, the instinct will be as you said, only killing as needed...while the human,also trained,still can,and often does,make the choice that goes against both training,and instinct.

4. Democracy vs Dictatorship being ordered to kill an "innocent"person..I think this question must have been just a joke on your part,as I know you must be intelligent enough to know that in a democracy, people are not ordered to kill "non-threatening"people..if you can find an example otherwise, I would love to hear it.I would suspect that your definition of non-threatening may be off some though.

[dieseltaylor]

1. But how come you say, and I quoted it, that religious people are more likely to follow a moral compass than non-believers. So are you saying that only true "Christians" can be put into this category. Which I can understand as an argument and I fone thinks of the Quakers they must be near the epitome of what a good religion is. - in terms of doing harm, enforcing views.

2. As I understand it several states are currently introducing bills to make women wishing for abortons have an ultrasound and counselling before they can have a termination. It is the Christian right that is behind these moves. Of course whilst espousing anti-big government views the control of people seems to be on the agenda.

I find that slightly hypocritical as either you believe the foetus belongs to the mother or to the state and I go with the first.

3. Currently the most violent countries are in Central America according to the Economist this week. US drug habits fuelling a war supplied by US armanents and money. With US tax havens for the proceeds.

Do not confuse wars with societal violence! External wars are comparatively few due probably to distances, lack of population and impoverished countries.

4. I suppose placing UK troops in another country was likely to elicit a reaction in which the natives are deemed threatening - though of course a specific order to kill is never given. Possibly the lethal weapons are the clue. Iraq was not a threat.

Shooting missiles at Libyan forces by UK planes does not adress a threat to the pilots.

Despite their possible moral compunctions they are killing people of another country to allow other people of that country to change leaders.

I am not saying in the Libyan case it is necessarily wrong - I am saying that people in a democracy are killing people to order. And if they do not do the killing are they shot? No. They are jailed and punished financially. SO they still kill people.

So are we better or worse than animals if we override our apparent moral compunction for the sake of money. Perhaps the ability for self-justification is the real difference between man and animals. : )

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Diesel, you and I are both speaking the same language, but what you get from what I said, is entirely different than what I said.

To try to make it short:some points

1. There is a vast difference between "having" a religion,and actually following it..Christianity, as the example I know most about, but certainly not alone in this..has a "moral code" attached,that probably 90% of people claiming the religion, do not follow..this is NOT the fault of the religion, it is the fault of people being hypocritical. If you have,say, a process for doing something, and you write a book, to instruct people how to do it..say simple example,driving..you write a book, on how to be a great driver...many people buy your book, they read it, talk about it,imagine how they will become great drivers, but when actually driving,they disregard what you wrote,and have an accident..does it mean your book was wrong? no, it means the person was a bloody idiot lol...and that just because they purchased your book, it did not make them a better driver, because they did not actually follow your guidelines..

That completely skips the possibility that

is in fact faulty as a guide to morality.

Going Old Testament is a byword for cruelty and slaughter for a reason. Not exactly a source of morality I would want to associate with and it is the basis for the major monotheistic faiths.

Going by how few disobedient children are getting their skull smashed in these days, morality seems to persist despite religion, not because of it. Hurray for the "hypocrites", I say.

[womble]

Aha! The point I was skirting around was the notion that man was in some way morally superior to animals - in that man tries to do good.

It's not the doing, where we have the superior development. It's the capacity to draw the distinction. We, as a species are each capable of making the choice between 'good' and 'evil'. The definitions of both may vary, but animals are not so capable. They may do things that seem like 'good' or 'evil', but I haven't seen any evidence that they're disposed to consider the difference, or make choices based on such abstracts.

[abneo3sierra]

My points have been made in capitals,cannot seem to make the bold font work..

1. But how come you say, and I quoted it, that religious people are more likely to follow a moral compass than non-believers. So are you saying that only true "Christians" can be put into this category. Which I can understand as an argument and I fone thinks of the Quakers they must be near the epitome of what a good religion is. - in terms of doing harm, enforcing views.WELL,WHAT I AM SAYING,IS THAT YOU CANNOT COUNT PEOPLE AS RELIGIOUS,JUST BECAUSE THEY SAY THEY ARE, IT DEPENDS WHETHER OR NOT,THEY ARE FOLLOWING SAID RELIGION. HERE, FOR EXAMPLE, I CAN THINK OF SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO MAKE IT TO CHURCH,THEN GO TO GET THEMSELVES DRUNK IMMEDIATELY AFTER. I WOULD NOT SAY THEY ARE FOLLOWERS OF THE RELIGION,AS THEIR FIRST CONSCIOUS ACT AFTER "FOLLOWING" IT IS SOMETHING IT LOOKS DOWN UPON. JUST AN EXAMPLE,BUT THERE ARE MANY..CATHOLIC PRIESTS WHO HAVE ABUSED CHILDREN,ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE CATHOLIC FAITH THAT THEY THEMSELVES PREACH,AS IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT PLACES, THIS IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN ON PAIN OF EVEN DEATH IN THEIR OWN BOOK.

2. As I understand it several states are currently introducing bills to make women wishing for abortons have an ultrasound and counselling before they can have a termination. It is the Christian right that is behind these moves. Of course whilst espousing anti-big government views the control of people seems to be on the agenda.

I find that slightly hypocritical as either you believe the foetus belongs to the mother or to the state and I go with the first.

I PERSONALLY VIEW THE FETUS AS ALIVE,AND THUS NOT PROPERTY...THOUGHT THAT WE HAD DONE AWAY WITH THE IDEA OF PEOPLE AS PROPERTY. THAT SAID,HOWEVER, AGAIN, CHRISTIAN RELIGION, IF YOU ACTUALLY FOLLOW WHAT IT TEACHES,SAYS NOT TO BE A PART OF THE SECULAR LAWMAKING PROCESS...SO MY VIEW WOULD PREFER TO REMOVE THE REASONS PEOPLE CHOOSE TO HAVE AN ABORTION,RATHER THAN THEIR DECISION TO DO SO.

3. Currently the most violent countries are in Central America according to the Economist this week. US drug habits fuelling a war supplied by US armanents and money. With US tax havens for the proceeds.

Do not confuse wars with societal violence! External wars are comparatively few due probably to distances, lack of population and impoverished countries.

I HAVE BEEN TO SOUTH AMERICA, AND WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A FEW CITIES,IN COLUMBIA, I WOULD WALK DOWN THE STREETS THERE AT NIGHT,SAFER THAN EVEN IN MY HOME CITY HERE IN THE STATES...WHOEVER WROTE THAT,HAS A DISTORTED SENSE I THINK OF WHAT IS "MOST VIOLENT"

4. I suppose placing UK troops in another country was likely to elicit a reaction in which the natives are deemed threatening - though of course a specific order to kill is never given. Possibly the lethal weapons are the clue. Iraq was not a threat.

THE IRAQI LEADER WAS A THREAT TO HIS OWN PEOPLE, THIS WAS THE REASON FOR THE NO FLY ZONES THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Shooting missiles at Libyan forces by UK planes does not adress a threat to the pilots.

Despite their possible moral compunctions they are killing people of another country to allow other people of that country to change leaders.

I THINK THIS IS A BAD WAR,ALSO,AND AM AMUSED THAT THE NATIONS MOST AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR,HAVE BEEN IN FAVOR..FRANCE..AHEM.. : )

I am not saying in the Libyan case it is necessarily wrong - I am saying that people in a democracy are killing people to order. And if they do not do the killing are they shot? No. They are jailed and punished financially. SO they still kill people.

So are we better or worse than animals if we override our apparent moral compunction for the sake of money. Perhaps the ability for self-justification is the real difference between man and animals. : )

MONEY IS BUT ONE REASON TO OVERRIDE..FOR CERTAIN,SOLDIERS IN THE FIELD ARE NOT PAID WELL ENOUGH TO RISK OUR LIVES,SO OURS IS NOT FOR MONEY.

[dieseltaylor]

Interesting stuff

Womble :

It's the capacity to draw the distinction. We, as a species are each capable of making the choice between 'good' and 'evil'. The definitions of both may vary, but animals are not so capable. They may do things that seem like 'good' or 'evil', but I haven't seen any evidence that they're disposed to consider the difference, or make choices based on such abstracts.

I see the point we may for a moment or two wonder what we are doing, justify it as the corrct action, and pull the bomb release. Animals do or don't without any intervening thought. I wonder if dolphins etc are exceptions?

AB - Due to the heat on the gangs in Mexico they have moved south to the smaller weaker countries. Guatamala ' rate is 46 per 100K, which is twice as high as Mexico and nearly ten times greater than the US. Honduras and El Salvador are more violent still with rates over 60 homicides per 100,000.

If the foetus has rights then we had better look into prosecuting those who injure it whilst in the womb. That is by poor diet, drinking , smoking etc. There is what is ideal and what is actual practical in the society in which we live. If the idea is to force back-street abortions by making it painful to go the legit route fair enough. But I suspect going to another state will suit the rich folk.

It does seem a trifle rich that we are prepared to maltreat mammals for meat and fun but we can get our knickers in a twist over a foetus because it is a potential human. I suppose this is a fundamental point we cannot expect to agree on. I think a human is merely a mammal with a slightly more developed brain, whereas there are some wh like to think we are some divinely chosen species.

I am afraid science tends to support the likeness to other animals rather than any divine intervention.

Regarding Iraq. There are plenty of rulers who are a danger to their own people so why Iraq and not the others? Oil? One up on Daddy? And what is so galling is that Saddam was anti-fudamentalism.

Incidentally one might argue that Bush was a danger to his own people by becoming involved in an external war not relevant to stamping on AlQ

[Michael Emrys]

One up on Daddy?

I have long held a suspicion that that was involved in the decision to some degree. But it is also suspiciously glib to accept as The Answer. Rather, I expect that a lot of factors went into the choice of Iraq as an urgent target, and most of them involved either faulty reasoning or wonky values...or both.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Incidentally one might argue that Bush was a danger to his own people by becoming involved in an external war not relevant to stamping on AlQ

And that part I would certainly agree with.

Michael

[abneo3sierra]

Diesel..you CAN actually be charged, for example, with TWO counts of homicide, for killing a pregnant woman who WANTED the baby..so, I find the idea that if the only difference, is that the other women did not want it, to be ludicrous reasoning, to say the least. Not to mention that there are recorded cases of fetuses at quite young age, surviving. There is a heartbeat,etc, as well. To equate the eating of meat, with the murder of fetuses, is outrageous. That said, I also find it amusing that many(most?) of those who support abortion, to be against war,and against the death penalty, in both of which cases, the guilty are punished,yet to openly support the killing of an innocent life, this is quite hypocritical of most of that group.

As for the Iraq war, the intelligence agencies of most of Europe and the US, believed him (Saddam) to be a threat. This also included then President Clinton, as well as the current US Vice President Biden, neither of whom can be called remotely Bush supporters. It was only afterwards, when it became politically expedient to do so, that they switched their tune on the matter, as most politicians will do,when they see the winds change direction.

Also in reference to the al Qaeda issue and Iraq, having been among the forward units into Iraq, there were al Qaeda camps which we overran. There were also trucks with vehicle registrations for the US State of Texas,which were being prepared with explosives. Both of these made the news as well, in the USA, but then vanished from the news. But those of us there, in those months, did see the reason, or at least one very valid reason, for invading Iraq.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Also in reference to the al Qaeda issue and Iraq, having been among the forward units into Iraq, there were al Qaeda camps which we overran.

I'm going to call bull on that. What Ansar al Islam camps were there were outside the power of Saddam in Kurdish controlled areas. The latter were hostile to them too btw but were only in a position to do something about it in 2003. And FWIW Ansar al Islam was not affiliated with AQ.

As far as I know there has never been any link with AQ and Iraq that stood up to any scrutiny. Which is probably why this too vanished from the news.

There were also trucks with vehicle registrations for the US State of Texas,which were being prepared with explosives.

And this too seems rather suspect. To b fair it is the first I've heard of it. to what end would there be car bombs in Iraq using Texas plates?