It's funny, because this logic only works in the opposite direction (IE if the US made up evidence of WMDs in Iraq, but there ended up being WMDs anyway, those doubting fabricated evidence would still have been correct to do so because it was fabricated).
This direction is just moralizing about doubting fabricated evidence of atrocities.
It's possible for something to be true even though lies were used to support it - if I make something up about apartheid, it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
It's impossible, though, for evidence which has been demonstated to be false to have been true - there were no WMDs, so any evidence of them was erroneous.
Also importantly: if evidence consistently turns out to be false, there's no good reason to believe that what it's being used to support is true.
Some people never seem to learn the lesson. The general public was wrong to believe Tonkin, but it didn't seem to matter. Same with WMDs and incubator babies. Again with Gaddafi's viagra squads.
Millions and millions dead so westerners could congratulate themselves over their imagined moral superiority. Absolutely no lesson learned. And so-called leftists aren't any better half the time.
The Nayirah testimony was testimony a girl gave regarding Iraqi actions after invading Kuwait, which included soldiers taking babies out of incubators and leaving them to die.
It helped justify the US intervening on the side of Kuwait, and it was a lie. She turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador. This was over 10 years before WMDs.
It's funny, because this logic only works in the opposite direction (IE if the US made up evidence of WMDs in Iraq, but there ended up being WMDs anyway, those doubting fabricated evidence would still have been correct to do so because it was fabricated).
This direction is just moralizing about doubting fabricated evidence of atrocities.
It's possible for something to be true even though lies were used to support it - if I make something up about apartheid, it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
It's impossible, though, for evidence which has been demonstated to be false to have been true - there were no WMDs, so any evidence of them was erroneous.
Also importantly: if evidence consistently turns out to be false, there's no good reason to believe that what it's being used to support is true.
deleted by creator
Some people never seem to learn the lesson. The general public was wrong to believe Tonkin, but it didn't seem to matter. Same with WMDs and incubator babies. Again with Gaddafi's viagra squads.
Millions and millions dead so westerners could congratulate themselves over their imagined moral superiority. Absolutely no lesson learned. And so-called leftists aren't any better half the time.
?
The Nayirah testimony was testimony a girl gave regarding Iraqi actions after invading Kuwait, which included soldiers taking babies out of incubators and leaving them to die.
It helped justify the US intervening on the side of Kuwait, and it was a lie. She turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador. This was over 10 years before WMDs.