I know, Dys. So sad. "The leader talks. We'll follow."
Iran has WMDs, and are known to support terrorists. hmmm.......
OE, I don't see why a search engine couldn't pull up Kerkar as SOMETHING wouldn't you think? All I came up with were unrelated businesses, a few family names unrelated to anything we've been talking about and absolutely nothing related to the article you posted.
But since you asked the question, why do you question everything our leader says? I found the article you posted interesting but not convincing without some collaboration.
Oh, collaboration like the one Colin Powell's UN SEcurity Council presentation supporting Bush's contentions about Saddam's WMDs. I get it, now!
Foxfyre wrote:OE, I don't see why a search engine couldn't pull up Kerkar as SOMETHING wouldn't you think? All I came up with were unrelated businesses, a few family names unrelated to anything we've been talking about and absolutely nothing related to the article you posted.
But since you asked the question, why do you question everything our leader says? I found the article you posted interesting but not convincing without some collaboration.
Fox, sorry. Try this one:
search for Mullah Krekar
Foxfyre wrote:But since you asked the question, why do you question everything our leader says?
It's called 'democracy'. We've learned our lesson.
Well to me democracy allows us to encourage and applaud and feel good about things and show approval when our leaders do something good too. I'm really sorry you Europeans are doomed to what appears to be eternal pessimism.
Foxfyre wrote:I'm really sorry you Europeans are doomed to what appears to be eternal pessimism.
I'm sorry you choose to see it that way. Yet I'd like to ask you: was the 'democracy' in the Weimar Republic a democracy? Should people have questioned what the 'elected' 'leaders' had to say?
And it's not pessimism. We're proud about what the European countries achieved during the last decades!
Well OE, believe it or not, all Americans don't find it necessary to hate our elected leaders. Some can accept people, even their elected leaders, with all their warts, weaknesses, quirks, and foibles. And I think those of us who are fond of our president see him as a human being, given of vision and sincerity and strength of his convictions, and also capable of error and, like us all, with feet of clay. I don't know a single soul here on A2K, not even the most passionately right leaning among us, who does not have some issue or quarrel with our President. I certainly do. And he and my elected state officials hear from me quite regularly when I do.
They also hear from me quite regularly on those things of which I approve. What intelligent person is even going to try to satisfy the grumps of the world that nobody is going to make happy? Everybody, even a President, enjoys knowing that everybody doesn't hate him and we all do our best work in a supportive environment, not one continually poisoned by angry, vindictive people.
Since you seem to think we should not be supportive of our elected leaders, does it follow that you are not supportive of yours? If that is the case, I really think that's an unpleasant situation and one I would not want.
(Edited to clarify intent)
Foxfyre wrote:Since you seem to think we should not be supportive of our elected leaders, does it follow that you are not supportive of yours? If that is the case, I really think that's an unpleasant situation and one I would not want.
Ah, Fox, but remember: we don't have a presidential system! And we don't elect a
leader. We vote for a party, and there's quite a few to choose from.
So no reason to be 'supportive of our elected leaders'. Some people are, but many
do see when they fail.
And for some reason, I've still heard nothing about the Al-Qaeda-Iraq link!
Ansar al-Islam: the missing link? Or not?
source
I wonder why Krekar would say that he hates Americans and that suicide attacks are legitimate, and at the same time that there is no link between him and Al-Qaeda and no link between him and the Baathists? I mean, what would he gain?
Well among those links, is this BBC piece describing him as a staunchly anti-American Islamist and telling about Norway and Holland throwing him out and he's wanted in Jordan for heroin dealing. You're quite convinced Powell has him all wrong?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2781969.stm
I believe he is a radical, American hating, cynical, anti-democratic terrorist. With no connections to Al-Qaeda.
Well the opening paragraph in the BBC piece linked him to al Qaida and said it again further on down the page. So maybe he isn't directly involved--they did say 'alleged'--but apparently Powell isn't the only one to see a link.
Foxfyre wrote:Well the opening piece in the BBC piece linked him to al Qaida. So maybe he isn't directly invovled, but apparently Powell isn't the only one to see a link.
Come on, Fox. He is
'maybe somehow' linked to Al-Qaeda, and was
'possibly tolerated' by Saddam...?
That's not a link. What would that prove?
And, if he says he hates Americans and suicide bombings are a 'very very good' possibility to propagate one's targets, why would he deny a connection to Al-Qaeda?
Seriously, Fox: do you think that he is the 'missing link'?
I don't have a clue OE. He hadn't been on my radar screen at all. But as bad as British and U.S. intelligence was, they didn't get everything wrong.
