===== LIE =========================================


Lie \\Lie\\ (l[imac]), n. [AS. lyge; akin to D. leugen, OHG. lugi,
G. l["u]ge, lug, Icel. lygi, Dan. & Sw. l["o]gn, Goth. liugn.
See Lie to utter a falsehood.]

1. A falsehood uttered or acted for the purpose of deception;
an intentional violation of truth; an untruth spoken with
the intention to deceive.
[1913 Webster]

The proper notion of a lie is an endeavoring to
deceive another by signifying that to him as true,
which we ourselves think not to be so. --S. Clarke.
[1913 Webster]

It is willful deceit that makes a lie. A man may act
a lie, as by pointing his finger in a wrong
direction when a traveler inquires of him his road.
--Paley.
[1913 Webster]

2. A fiction; a fable; an untruth. --Dryden.
[1913 Webster]

3. Anything which misleads or disappoints.
[1913 Webster]

Wishing this lie of life was o'er. --Trench.
[1913 Webster]

To give the lie to.
(a) To charge with falsehood; as, the man gave him the
lie.
(b) To reveal to be false; as, a man's actions may give
the lie to his words.

White lie, a euphemism for such lies as one finds it
convenient to tell, and excuses himself for telling.
[1913 Webster]

Syn: Untruth; falsehood; fiction; deception.

Usage: Lie, Untruth. A man may state what is untrue from
ignorance or misconception; hence, to impute an
untruth to one is not necessarily the same as charging
him with a lie. Every lie is an untruth, but not every
untruth is a lie. Cf. Falsity.
[1913 Webster]

-----------------

Lie \\Lie\\, v. i. [imp. & p. p. Lied (l[imac]d); p. pr. & vb.
n. Lying (l[imac]"[i^]ng).] [OE. lien, li[yogh]en,
le[yogh]en, leo[yogh]en, AS. le['o]gan; akin to D. liegen,
OS. & OHG. liogan, G. l["u]gen, Icel. lj[=u]ga, Sw. ljuga,
Dan. lyve, Goth. liugan, Russ. lgate.]

To utter falsehood with an intention to deceive; to say or do
that which is intended to deceive another, when he a right to
know the truth, or when morality requires a just
representation.
[1913 Webster]

-----------------

From Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary:

Lie
an intentional violation of the truth. Lies are emphatically
condemned in Scripture (John 8:44; 1 Tim. 1:9, 10; Rev. 21:27;
22:15). Mention is made of the lies told by good men, as by
Abraham (Gen. 12:12, 13; 20:2), Isaac (26:7), and Jacob (27:24);
also by the Hebrew midwives (Ex. 1:15-19), by Michal (1 Sam.
19:14), and by David (1 Sam. 20:6). (See ANANIAS.)


===== DECEIVE =====================================


Deceive \\De*ceive"\\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Deceived; p. pr. &
vb. n. Deceiving.] [OE. deceveir, F. d['e]cevoir, fr. L.
decipere to catch, insnare, deceive; de- + capere to take,
catch. See Capable, and cf. Deceit, Deception.]

1. To lead into error; to cause to believe what is false, or
disbelieve what is true; to impose upon; to mislead; to
cheat; to disappoint; to delude; to insnare.
[1913 Webster]

Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse,
deceiving, and being deceived. --2 Tim. iii.
13.
[1913 Webster]

Nimble jugglers that deceive the eye. --Shak.
[1913 Webster]

What can 'scape the eye
Of God all-seeing, or deceive his heart? --Milton.
[1913 Webster]

2. To beguile; to amuse, so as to divert the attention; to
while away; to take away as if by deception.
[1913 Webster]

These occupations oftentimes deceived
The listless hour. --Wordsworth.
[1913 Webster]

3. To deprive by fraud or stealth; to defraud. [Obs.]
[1913 Webster]

Plant fruit trees in large borders, and set therein
fine flowers, but thin and sparingly, lest they
deceive the trees. --Bacon.

Syn: Deceive, Delude, Mislead.

Usage: Deceive is a general word applicable to any kind of
misrepresentation affecting faith or life. To delude,
primarily, is to make sport of, by deceiving, and is
accomplished by playing upon one's imagination or
credulity, as by exciting false hopes, causing him to
undertake or expect what is impracticable, and making
his failure ridiculous. It implies some infirmity of
judgment in the victim, and intention to deceive in
the deluder. But it is often used reflexively,
indicating that a person's own weakness has made him
the sport of others or of fortune; as, he deluded
himself with a belief that luck would always favor
him. To mislead is to lead, guide, or direct in a
wrong way, either willfully or ignorantly.
[1913 Webster]

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Saddam had nothing to do with AL-Q ,the only AL-Q camp in Iraq was in the American no fly zone in the NW,safe from Saddam.

We went to WAR on made up documents from Niger and an Iraqi Informer under arrest who told the US a total load of Lies most of the intelligence people involved did not believe him,The UN inspectors two different Teams First one found nothing so the US demanded another Inspection AGAIN with hand picked American inspectors under the 'control' of the CIA, Both Reports said there were no weapons and did not think any Left,who would expect paperwork for Items you are not meant to have,Saddam said he did not have them, Proof of destruction was not there. Finding NOTHING Upset the Neocons no end,so they pushed the WAR on Knowingly false pretences,yellow cake and lies from someone who no one thought truthful .And saying they keep saying other Countries believed independently ,but they were basing that on the lies coming out of Washington

---

Saddam had nothing to do with AL-Q ,the only AL-Q camp in Iraq was in the American no fly zone in the NW,safe from Saddam.

We went to WAR on made up documents from Niger and an Iraqi Informer under arrest who told the US a total load of Lies most of the intelligence people involved did not believe him,The UN inspectors two different Teams First one found nothing so the US demanded another Inspection AGAIN with hand picked American inspectors under the 'control' of the CIA, Both Reports said there were no weapons and did not think any Left,who would expect paperwork for Items you are not meant to have,Saddam said he did not have them, Proof of destruction was not there. Finding NOTHING Upset the Neocons no end,so they pushed the WAR on Knowingly false pretences,yellow cake and lies from someone who no one thought truthful .And saying they keep saying other Countries believed independently ,but they were basing that on the lies coming out of Washington

Punctuation. Try it. It makes your writing much clearer.
(I understand that for many authors here English is not their first language... if that is your case then your English is much better than my second language.)

Every intelligence agency on the planet, and the UN inspectors, and the Clinton White House, agreed in broad terms that Saddam's regime had WMDs. They differed in the details, but the concensus was that:

1) Iraq had WMDs at some point. We know because they were used.
2) Iraq was required to verifiably destroy those WMDs.
3) Iraq has never verifiably destroyed the WMDs.
4) Only a complete moron would destroy them secretly and risk an invasion for nothing.
5) Therefore, the belief that Iraq had WMDs or moved them to some other location such as Syria was perfectly realistic.

Even if President Bush somehow psychically knew there were no WMDs, do you think he would go to war over them and have it blow up in his face afterwards? Even if you believe that Bush is an idiot, you can't think that all of his advisors would be.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Punctuation. Try it. It makes your writing much clearer.
(I understand that for many authors here English is not their first language... if that is your case then your English is much better than my second language.)

Every intelligence agency on the planet, and the UN inspectors, and the Clinton White House, agreed in broad terms that Saddam's regime had WMDs. They differed in the details, but the concensus was that:

1) Iraq had WMDs at some point. We know because they were used.
2) Iraq was required to verifiably destroy those WMDs.
3) Iraq has never verifiably destroyed the WMDs.
4) Only a complete moron would destroy them secretly and risk an invasion for nothing.
5) Therefore, the belief that Iraq had WMDs or moved them to some other location such as Syria was perfectly realistic.

Even if President Bush somehow psychically knew there were no WMDs, do you think he would go to war over them and have it blow up in his face afterwards? Even if you believe that Bush is an idiot, you can't think that all of his advisors would be.

I think if you go to the website of the Project for the New American Century and read the Statement of Principles you will realise that Iraq was on the USA hit list as far back as 1997. Look at the signatories. Some pretext would be found for regime change and that was the one of WMD.

Statement of Principles

---

I think if you go to the website of the Project for the New American Century and read the Statement of Principles you will realise that Iraq was on the USA hit list as far back as 1997. Look at the signatories. Some pretext would be found for regime change and that was the one of WMD.

Statement of Principles

Well, you can believe that your cite shows a evidence of a pretext if you want (though I simply see a call for preparedness). However, you are changing the subject a little here: the point of this last series of posts is that Bush was not lying when he said there were WMD in Iraq. However, to respond to your allegation, no pretext was needed to go in to Iraq and resume military action because Saddam had been in violation of his obligations under the cease-fire agreement for more than a decade.

U.S. won't guarantee Iran that it won't be attacked

ASSOCIATED PRESS

December 13, 2005

WASHINGTON – The Bush administration is ruling out a guarantee not to attack Iran to induce it to halt development of nuclear weapons.

Iran must first act like a responsible member of the international community and stop violating its agreements, State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said yesterday.

"That would represent a sea change in its behavior," Ereli said. "Then maybe other kinds of notions might be more palatable.

"But right now, I don't think people should be asking the United States, 'Why don't you do this or why don't you do that?' " he said.

Ereli's remarks appeared to dismiss a suggestion by Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency, who said yesterday in Stockholm that he believed the United States would need to give Iran a security guarantee before a final agreement could be reached on Iran's atomic programs.

On Sunday, Iran opened the door for U.S. help in building a nuclear power plant – a move designed to ease American suspicions about the program.

In Israel, officials said yesterday they would not rule out a military strike if Iran advances in efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

ElBaradei, the recipient along with the IAEA of this year's Nobel Peace Prize, also said the United States would need to become more involved in stalled negotiations between Iran and the European Union aimed at persuading Iran to permanently freeze nuclear enrichment.

Last week, Undersecretary of State Robert Joseph said that step was the last "red line" Iran needed to cross to produce nuclear weapons.

In parallel talks designed to halt North Korea's nuclear weapons programs, the United States has offered written guarantees that it would not be attacked.

The assurances were offered by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her predecessor, Colin Powell.

On Iran, President Bush said last February that it was "simply ridiculous" to assume the United States had plans to attack, and Rice has made similar statements.

Unlike the negotiations with Iran, the United States is a participant in the North Korea negotiations, along with South Korea, Japan, China and Russia.

---

Account frozen...

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

'Retreat and Defeat'
GOP ad hits back on Iraq strategy

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

December 14, 2005

They say all is fair in love and war – and politics. Actually, that's not true. There are some ground rules in politics. You shouldn't spread lies or rumors or misinformation about your opponent. Nor should you demagogue an issue, candidate or cause as a way of short-circuiting an open and honest debate.

Now, Democrats want to amend the rules. Here's how the amendment would read: "From this point, no one should be held accountable for his own words, public statements, policy positions or red-meat political rhetoric – especially not loudmouthed party chairmen with a knack for speaking before they think."

One of the first people to benefit from the rule change would be Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.

Was "loudmouthed" a giveaway?

Dean recently told a radio audience in San Antonio that the Iraq war was the equivalent of a lost cause. In fact, his exact words were: "The idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that, unfortunately, is just plain wrong."

That's precisely what Dean said, and those words are now – together with the original audio – part of a scathing but very effective "Web ad" produced and released by the Republican National Committee. Entitled "Retreat and Defeat" (which the 60-second spot claims is the Democrats' plan for Iraq), the ad also features Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who says the withdrawal of American forces "ought to start now, right after the (Iraqi) elections." Then there's a video clip of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who recently had this to say to Bob Schieffer of CBS' "Face the Nation": "There is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night terrorizing kids and children, you know, women."

Each segment is introduced by the same gesture: the waving of a white flag, the universal sign for surrender. As the ad comes to a close, it shows a soldier watching the Democrats on television. Just then, a text message comes on, saying: "Our country is at war; our soldiers are watching. And our enemies are, too." The ad ends with a "message to Democrats – retreat and defeat is not an option."

It's all part of what is being called the harshest ad since the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth blasted away at Kerry during last year's presidential campaign. Democrats are outraged, but not at their leaders. Rather, they're outraged at Republicans for reciting their leaders' words back to them. They want the ad pulled, and they've even convinced Republicans such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to adopt a similar view.

We think we know what is going on here. These kinds of comments are nothing to be proud of, and indeed it could be that Democrats are a bit embarrassed by what some of their leaders have to say on the subject of Iraq.

But that doesn't change the fact that Dean, Boxer and Kerry said these things. These are their words, and so they're fair game. Besides, this discussion is exactly the one we should be having. Whether we should stay and fight, or cut and run, is the central issue of the debate over the war.

There's no point in denying it. The ad packs a punch. But that's only because, as the saying goes, the truth hurts.

Cuba won't be allowed to send a team to next year's inaugural World Baseball Classic, the U.S. government told event organizers Wednesday.
Organizers had said the Cuban team likely would have included only players currently residing in Cuba and not defectors such as Jose Contreras, Orlando Hernandez and Livan Hernandez, who have become major league stars.
In the tournament schedule announced last week, Cuba was to play its three first-round games in San Juan, Puerto Rico, facing Panama on March 7, the Netherlands on March 9 and Puerto Rico the following day. If the Cubans advanced, they would also have played their second-round games in Puerto Rico.

Is the US Government afraid that a Cuban team could possibly be winners?

But then- baseball is, as everyone knows, America's pastime.
Cubans should stick to Jai Alai and cockfights.

There's no place in baseball for communists...cc

Cuba won't be allowed to send a team to next year's inaugural World Baseball Classic, . . . [snip]
the

There's no place in baseball for communists...cc

Now, where's that molehill I thought I saw around here?

Now, where's that molehill I thought I saw around here?

Did the mountain crumble?

Hacker attacks in US linked to Chinese military

December 13, 2005

A systematic effort by hackers to penetrate US government and industry computer networks stems most likely from the Chinese military, the head of a leading security institute said.

The attacks have been traced to the Chinese province of Guangdong, and the techniques used make it appear unlikely to come from any other source than the military, said Alan Paller, the director of the SANS Institute, an education and research organization focusing on cybersecurity.

"These attacks come from someone with intense discipline. No other organization could do this if they were not a military organization," Paller said in a conference call to announced a new cybersecurity education program.

In the attacks, Paller said, the perpetrators "were in and out with no keystroke errors and left no fingerprints, and created a backdoor in less than 30 minutes. How can this be done by anyone other than a military
organization?" [More]

Source: TerraNet

---

It is not obviously evident,only by speculating.Chinese foreign ministry's speaker has denied such view.

---

It is not obviously evident,only by speculating.Chinese foreign ministry's speaker has denied such view.

It wouldn't be expected to admit to such a thing. But it shouldn't be surprising if true either. Governments (including the US) have done things like this in the past in some form or another, unfortunately.

---

It is not obviously evident,only by speculating.Chinese foreign ministry's speaker has denied such view.

This may not be the best place for my post, but I would like to welcome you to SETI, The SETI Cafe and this thread. I would love to hear your views on the many subjects discussed here . . . and in return, you may get some practice with your English language skills.

Brazil city proposes ban on death

City officals refuse to state punishment if you break this law.

---