"Bearing false witness", the only kind of lie considered evil enough to be proscribed in the Ten Commandments.
___The WMD thing hasn't been established as "making up lies". As things stand, all that has been demonstrated is that there was a lot of willful ignorance going on. Obviously the charge turned out untrue, but for that to qualify as a lie, one would have to show that those making such statements knew that there were no WMDs. And at the time, most intelligence organizations in the world believed that they were there. A lot of peer pressure there. The dissenters were few, and their demeanor at the time made them seem less than credible. The debate at the time wasn't about whether or not there were WMDs, but about whether the UN sanctions would keep Saddam in check. Your historical memory seems to have omitted these things.
___Ironically, those who talk about WMD "lies", in the absence of further evidence, are themselves guilty of the same sort of willful ignorance that the Bush Administration was guilty of.
___Every exaggeration is a marginal lie, but still a lie. Truth is more restrictive than falsehood, and the significance of partial truths is in their partial falsehood more than in their partial truth.
___The charges still turned out false, and the government ought to have checked its facts out better, perhaps pushing for more forceful inspection proceedures.
2007-09-14 05:51:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by G-zilla 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
#1: I totally disagree with the WMD 'pretense' tact you are taking. Who is filling you full of propaganda. We have every reason to believe Saddam had WMD's, he killed his own people, some with poison administered via the air. #2: All of the dead were not VietCong by choice-they were forced at gunpoint to comply by the vietcong. They forced them to stockpile guns and ammo and our forces had no way to know it wasn't a vietcong camp. I dated a guy in VietNam-he said a girl walked right up to him with a smile on her face and dropped a hand grenade in front of him and his friends, some made it some didn't. About WMD-I guess we don't have to worry about Saddam anymore, but there are others and it is still believed they are there and were moved. Also do you not consider chemical weapons which if dispensed properly could kill many more than were killed in 9/11 as a Weapon of Mass Destruction. I certainly do. I am thankful every day I wake up.
In reference to your original question, any person can sue another person, and if you told the boss or whomever takes such complaints you can sue the company, the boss and the person responsible for your slander. Lawyers use several different phrases when filing suits, slander is one. Defamation of character is another. And if it is written it's called libel. Contact your legislators and demand a bill against creating a hostile work environment that fits the situations you mentioned. No one should have to work in hell.
2007-09-14 12:45:30
·
answer #2
·
answered by dtwladyhawk 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Also called libel or "defamation of character"
I doubt there's a special word that includes the motivation for slander, libel or defamation.
Your other examples are problematic though.
Saying a country 'has' nukes isn't really defamation, though saying Bush falsified the intelligence reports might be.
Labeling Vietnam dead as Vietcong would again not be slander since it's unlikely the object would be to ruin the reputation of dead people. This would be a cover your @ss situation, so you didn't get blamed for killing civilians.
Though again, saying this was standard practice might be slandering soldiers.
Not to be rude here, but your willingness to slander our President and Military while accusing THEM of slander makes you precisely the sort of person I would WANT to see fired.
You might take a good hard look in the mirror to make sure you are not the author of your problems.
2007-09-14 04:25:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by Phoenix Quill 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
There was once a time that I followed the pack and told the lies, but no longer. Truth is always the best because only tragedy follows a lie. Only truth allows us to act effectively and deal with our problems. Delaying the issue only worsens the eventual effect. While it may worsen your condition, it gives others the opportunity to move on. Now, the only time I will lie to make someone happy is when they are about to die and cannot find out that I told a lie. If you can make the last moments of a person's life pleasant, you should do so at any cost. They deserve to die happy.
2016-05-19 03:46:34
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
first off, what is the name of the place you worked.I think the rest of us would like to stear clear of the place! in our governments case I think the word you are looking for is - lying
2007-09-14 03:54:36
·
answer #5
·
answered by Donna J 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Defamation of character. You can sue for this type of thing.
2007-09-14 12:05:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by JLB 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
aspersion, backbiting*, backstabbing*, belittlement, black eye*, calumny, defamation, depreciation, detraction, dirt*, dirty linen*, disparagement, hit*, knock, libel, lie, misrepresentation, muckraking, mud*, mud-slinging*, obloquy, rap*, scandal, slam*, slime*, smear*, tale
slander is spoken defamation; libel is written or visual or broadcast defamation
2007-09-14 03:59:15
·
answer #7
·
answered by JustMe76 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
two faced,backstabber,ingrate,low life,pond scum,need I say more.Ok since you asked,deadbeat,jealous,envious.If you are no longer there,it may be a blessing in disguise.Be who you are,and as long as you are not hurtung anyone keep it moving
2007-09-14 03:56:39
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think the term you're looking for is "libel". ^^;;;;
2007-09-14 03:53:38
·
answer #9
·
answered by ksolaris 3
·
0⤊
0⤋