I know I've mentioned this several times before, but it needs to be mentioned again here for it's irony or humour. When I visited Toledo (Spain) many years ago, one part of the cathedral sculpture was completed by a Jew, and he left the star of David on the design on the floor.
[my comments are in boldface underlined]
InfraBlue wrote:
[1] "The al Qaeda are a confederation of multiple terrorist groups led by Osama bin Laden," is not evidence of a nexus between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Correct! It is indicative of evidence previously posted that al Qaeda is composed of multiple terrorist groups.
[2] "Osama bin Laden aided a group of Islamic extremists encamped in northern Iraq," is not evidence of a nexus between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Correct! Together with [1], it is evidence of a nexus between al Qaeda and the Islamic extremists encamped in northern Iraq.
[3] "The Al Qaeda encamped in northern Iraq, suffered major defeats by Kurdish Forces in the late 1990s," is not evidence of a nexus between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Correct! It is evidence that the Kurds did not tolerate and therefore did not harbor al Qaeda encamped in northern Iraq.
[4] "In 2001, the Al Qaeda remnant in northern Iraq, with Osama bin Laden’s help, re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam (AaI)," is not evidence of a nexus between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Correct! It is evidence of a nexus between the AaI and al Qaeda.
[5] "There is zero evidence that the Kurd’s again attacked the AaI al Qaeda in northern Iraq," is not evidence of a nexus between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Correct! It is evidence that the Kurds did not control AaI al Qaeda encamped in northern Iraq.
[6] "There is zero evidence that Saddam’s regime attacked the AaI al Qaeda in northern Iraq," is not evidence of a nexus between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Incorrect! It is evidence that Saddam tolerated AaI al Qaeda encamped in northern Iraq and thereby harbored them there.
[7] "There is zero evidence that the US attacked the AaI al Qaeda in northern Iraq before 2003," is not evidence of a nexus between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Incorrect! It is additional evidence that Saddam tolerated AaI al Qaeda encamped in northern Iraq and thereby harbored them there, because he did not request the US, who Saddam knew didn't want them there, to remove AaI al Qaeda.
[8] "There is zero evidence that Saddam Hussein requested the Kurds to attack the AaI al Qaeda in northern Iraq," is not evidence of a nexus between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Incorrect! It is additional evidence that Saddam tolerated AaI al Qaeda encamped in northern Iraq and thereby harbored them there, because he did not request the Kurds, who Saddam knew didn't want them there, to remove AaI al Qaeda.
[9] "There is zero evidence that Saddam Hussein requested the US to attack the AaI al Qaeda in northern Iraq" is not evidence of a nexus between Saddam and al-Qaeda.Incorrect! It is additional evidence that Saddam tolerated AaI al Qaeda encamped in northern Iraq and thereby harbored them there, because he did not pass-the-buck to the US to remove them.
[10] "In 2003, the US attacked and defeated the AaI al Qaeda in northern Iraq" is not evidence of a nexus between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Incorrect! It is additional evidence that Saddam did not remove the AaI al Qaeda from northern Iraq before the US invasion of Iraq; and, because there is zero evidence that Saddam made any effort whatsoever to remove AaI al Qaeda from northern Iraq despite an ability to do it himself without Kurd or US objection, or ask the Kurds or the US to do it for him, Saddam did indeed tolerate AaI al Qaeda in northern Iraq and did harbor them there.
Saddam's harboring of the AaI al Qaeda in northern Iraq constituted the nexus between Saddam and al Qaeda.
By the way, now in the context of the above, let's look at some additional evidence from the 9-11 Commission :wink: :
Quote:There are indications that by then [2001] the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54
Frank Apisa wrote: Well it appears obvious that Ican is still in his "I will not concede that I am wrong no matter what" mode. Fair enough. When you are wrong as often as he is...I guess you have to be careful not to start that kind of thing or you'd spend most of your time doing it.
This horseshyt he wrote...this pretense of rebuttal is so full of holes it is laughable. If anyone else wants to tear into it...please feel free to do so.
I've got more self-respect than to argue with him any further.
There's no rebuttal here, but there is plenty of ad hominem, and, even a display of fear of losing an argument!
HofT : i still would be interested in knowing your opinion on the current "war" in iraq. do you see it as a necessary 'crusade' of 'christians' against 'muslims/islam' or what is it ? since the u.s. government seems to indicate that (the christian) god is on the side of the united states, is it therefore a crusade (a war fought under the cross) ? hbg
WE CAN RUN BUT WE CANNOT HIDE
Quote:The following text is a fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi, a London-based newspaper, in August, 1996. The fatwa is entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."
Quote:...
Few days ago the news agencies had reported that the Defence Secretary of the Crusading Americans had said that "the explosion at Riyadh and Al-Khobar had taught him one lesson: that is not to withdraw when attacked by coward terrorists".
We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in lees than twenty four hours!
But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.
...
Lash - never was a word said about the Spanish Inquisition, by me at any rate.
Fascinating how projections are used in lieu of facts by so many here, but I draw the line at being quoted as having uttered someone else's fantasies.
HBG - certainly not. This alleged myth on "war of civilizations" is no part of anything the Republican party stands for, or anything that President Bush said.
May I remind you that in the days following the WTC attacks he duly went to pray at a mosque; and that Moslems in the US have generally voted for conservative candidates.
HofT wrote:McG has a point, Hamburger: the entire history of the late Byzantine Empire was a struggle against the encroaching armies of Islam. The Crusades for the most part weakened Byzantium instead of helping it, so there's no simple answer along the lines of "cross vs. curved sword", or "us and them", if you prefer.
AU 1929 would know the answer to this: isn't it the case that the Jews during those centuries sided with Islam? At least that was Isabella's explanation for ordering their expulsion from Spain after the fall of Constantinople.
Actually, you did mention the Spanish Inquisition. The Jews expulsion coincided, correct?
(Aside-- I see you are having possibly heated conversations with other people, and I didn't want you to think my responses to you were intended to be argumentative. I was interested in the subject matter.)
A shift in the Muslim vote.
The Shifting of the Muslim Vote
Cross-references: Election 2004 The Muslim Vote
On November 29, 2004 Central Florida Future (University of Central Florida) reported, "religion may have affected the decisions of many young Muslim voters, but not as strongly as foreign policy. 'The main issue Muslims care about is foreign policy because it affects them and their families overseas,' Ameer Zufari, vice president of UCF's Muslim Student Association, said. Abdullah Sheikh, a Muslim student and member of MSA, agreed. 'The block vote was much different this time than last time because last election the Muslim vote was geared toward social issues and this time it was international affairs,' Sheikh explained. He continued, 'There isn't a party that clearly identifies with Muslim needs.' Zufari and Sheikh's statements can be supported by facts. A Project MAPS/Zogby International poll released last month found that while 42 percent of the Muslim vote supported Bush in 2000, largely because his emphasis on family values fit nicely with their conservative leanings, in the 2004 election 72 percent of Muslims supported Kerry, often citing opposition to Bush's handling of Iraq. Another poll, conducted post-debate by the Washington-based Coalition on American-Islamic Relations, showed that 80 percent of likely Muslim voters planned on supporting Kerry."
(November 29, 2004, Central Florida Future (University of Central Florida News))
Read the full story
Lash - pls read before posting. "Isabella" is not a nickname for the Spanish Inquisition, as you appear to think. It was the name of the then Queen.
Btw, Lash, Isabella is the same queen who financed the 3 ships Columbus sailed in.
And no, before you ask, shipping is not shorthand for the "Spanish Inquisition" either!
HofT
Why quibble. I too immediately thought of the inquisition when you talked about expulsion of the Jews from Spain. The two incidents are joined at the hip. In any event if you read the link I noted your question would I am sure be answered.
HofT--
I'm quite aware which Isabella you are speaking of. Are YOU aware that you do not need to type out the name of a person or a thing--but merely allude to it--and presto-you're talking about it.
1478 ---------- Spanish Inquisition starts when King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella chose Catholicism to unite Spain and asked permission of the Catholic Pope to begin to purify their people. Spain then persecutes (Sephardic) Jews, Moslems, heretics." The Spanish Inquisition's reign of terror was finally suppressed in 1834.
1483 ---------- Martin Luther born.
1484 ---------- Papal Bull condemns withcraft. Inquisitors sent to Germany.
1485 ---------- Battle of Bosworth Field.
1487 ---------- Bartholomew Diaz sails around Cape of Good Hope.
1492 ---------- King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain expels all the Jews, Moslems, and "heretics" from Spain.
1492 ---------- Christopher Columbus reaches the West Indies.
1493 ---------- By decree, Pope Alexander VI divides the world between
Portugal and Spain. All others, keep out! Especially
England.
1494 ---------- Treaty of Tordesilla. This Treaty was signed by Portugal
and Spain on June 7, 1494, with the Pope's mediation.
The Treaty established that all lands west of an imaginary
line of demarcation 370 leagues west of the cape Verde
Islands, in Africa, belonged to Portugal, while lands
to the east of this line belonged to Spain.
1494 ---------- At the invitation of Sforza, Charles VIII of France invades
Italy.
1495 ---------- The French capture Naples.
1496 ---------- Spain founds Santo Domingo in the Caribbean.
1496 ---------- King Manuel I of Portugal issues a decree that encourages Jews to convert to Catholicism and so become "New-Christians"
(also known as "Marranos" or "pigs"). Those Jews who did not acquiesce or leave the country fell into the Inquisition.
-------------
You will receive a sincere apology if you can point to a time when Isabella expelled Jews from Spain, outside of the timeframe of the Spanish Inquisition.
Otherwise, I think it is incumbent upon you to assume the position.
Oh that Isabella, I thought you meant Actress Isabella Rossellini who is taking on a new role that has become more than just a pet project.
For the past 10 months, Rossellini has been training a future guide dog for the blind, taking him on the subway, into restaurants, onto movie sets, even to Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.
"I walk the dog myself," Rossellini said of her daily outings in Central Park with the puppy, a Labrador-poodle mix named Terry. "I cannot imagine myself living without pets," and raising a future guide dog "allows me to combine my love of dogs with work for my community." But she's Italian not Spanish.
thanks, dy, for your entry ! you show that it is possible to bring a little levity into a serious subject. i was afraid of having to read 'references' for the rest of my (short) remaining life. i think i'll go to the 'joke' thread and enjoy myself. hbg
I know not from levity (nor jocularity) mostly I am just ignorant.
Ignorance is bliss. So they say.
Then one can assume I am the ultimate in bliss, Joseph Cambell wrotes books about me.(he was kind to the ignorant)
