Poll: over 40% of Canadian teens think America is "evil"

ILZ, add self- to that word, and you've got it in a nutshell.

0 Replies

Wow you're behind the times C.I. That myth was put to bed weeks ago.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

And this: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=2&u=/nm/20040709/pl_nm/iraq_intelligence_qaeda_dc
The bi-partisan senate committee found NO LINKS between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Actually - to split hairs - they did find links; none of which were actually proven and none of which resulted in a collaborative relationship.

0 Replies

Here's our journalism wizard again displaying her firm grasp of current events. C.I. has linked an article on the report issued by the Senate today. You see, ILZ, this is why i called for the use of self-delusion. One has to make an effort to be that purblind . . .

0 Replies

I would also like to point out that the use of the term "links" to describe a meeting between an Iraqi officer and a member of Al Qaeda, from which no further discussion have ever been demonstrated to have arisen, is a misleading use of language. With such a criterion as that, the photo i've posted above of Rummy palling it up with Hussein (note who is smiling in the picture, and who is not), are grounds for claiming close ties between Rummy and Hussein. Which is no less absurd than attempting to make a case for Iraqi support of Al Qaeda based upon a single meeting.

To return to hammering my ealier theme, the word link is very appropriately used to describe the relationship between the Sudan and Al Qaeda. Bin Laden lived there, for christ's sake, and only left when Clinton's adminstration began pressuring the Sudan to hand him over.

0 Replies

Someday Setanta, I hope you get help for your problem.

And yes, nobody including the president has ever connected the dots between al Qaida, Iraq, AND 9/11. But there is a lot of evidence, including reports from the 9/11 commission, that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaida. It just didn't have anything to do with 9/11 at the time.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june04/iraqconnection_06-18.html

0 Replies

Hey Set, If these experts want to denigrate the bi-partisan senate intelligence committe's report, who are we to argue with these idiots?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I would also like to point out that the use of the term "links" to describe a meeting between an Iraqi officer and a member of Al Qaeda, from which no further discussion have ever been demonstrated to have arisen, is a misleading use of language. With such a criterion as that, the photo i've posted above of Rummy palling it up with Hussein (note who is smiling in the picture, and who is not), are grounds for claiming close ties between Rummy and Hussein. Which is no less absurd than attempting to make a case for Iraqi support of Al Qaeda based upon a single meeting.

The difference is a semantic one. I don't deny that links between Iraq and Al-Qaida may have existed. These links, however, are meaningless, and pale in comparison to the known - and dare I say proven - links of many other Middle Eastern countries.

For example, in the case you cited - of an Iraqi Colonel meeting with an Al-Qaida member - the Senate Committee acknowledged the link existed, but they also noted a number of caveats: a) it may be a case of mistaken identity, since the colonel has a very common name, b) the meetings resulted in no collaborative relationship, c) whatever connections existed between Iraq and Al-Qaida pale in comparison to the known and substantial connections of several other Middle Eastern countries. Any of these caveats - and I mean literally any - completely demolishes the argument that Hussien's terrorism connections justify war.

Quote:

To return to hammering my ealier theme, the word link is very appropriately used to describe the relationship between the Sudan and Al Qaeda. Bin Laden lived there, for christ's sake, and only left when Clinton's adminstration began pressuring the Sudan to hand him over.

Similar story in several other nations...

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Someday Setanta, I hope you get help for your problem.

And yes, nobody including the president has ever connected the dots between al Qaida, Iraq, AND 9/11. But there is a lot of evidence, including reports from the 9/11 commission, that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaida. It just didn't have anything to do with 9/11 at the time.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june04/iraqconnection_06-18.html

No, there isn't.

But, hey, two thumbs up for tenacity.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Wow you're behind the times C.I. That myth was put to bed weeks ago.

This is what you wrote when c.i. posted a link to an article about the Senate report issued today. You always tout your journalistic credentials; your conceit on being, as you claim, "well informed," is nothing short of monumental. I doubt that any self-respecting high school debate team would accept someone with as little abillity as you display. I've no problem for which i need help. You seem to need constant reminders of what you've written the same day, and the contents of news reports about which you consistently and falsely claim to be well informed.

0 Replies

Setanta I would think a history teacher would note more precision. C.I. flatly said there was NO LINK between Iraq and al Qaida. The 9/11 commission, the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, and the Iraqis themselves have put that notion to bed. What was said is there is no proven link between Iraq, al Qaida, and 9/11, not that there is no link between Iraq and al Qaida.

I don't know how to say it any plainer than that. And if that isn't good enough for you, then so be it.

0 Replies

Certainly, ILZ, Bin Laden has been a guest in quite a few nations, which haven't yet experienced the blessings of American democratization. I continually hammer the Sudan theme, because the current "government" has been in power for just as long as Iraq was ruled by Hussein, the slaughter is not only unabated but seems to be on the rise, and the Right are shedding all of these tears for Iraqis, while pointedly ignoring this same situation in a nation with undisputably close ties to Al Qaeda.

The situation in Saudia Arabia is a truly interesting and ironic one--it recalls to me the religious crap so often spouted by florid sermonizers about sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Setanta I would think a history teacher would note more precision. C.I. flatly said there was NO LINK between Iraq and al Qaida. The 9/11 commission, the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, and the Iraqis themselves have put that notion to bed. What was said is there is no proven link between Iraq, al Qaida, and 9/11, not that there is no link between Iraq and al Qaida.

Homie, were you dropping a log when I - and at least two other posters - sunk your "terrorist links justify war" argument on the last page. It doesn't speak well to the credibility of your position when it can be singlehandedly shot down by laymen on AN INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD. It's a fickle base to justify war on.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Certainly, ILZ, Bin Laden has been a guest in quite a few nations, which haven't yet experienced the blessings of American democratization. I continually hammer the Sudan theme, because the current "government" has been in power for just as long as Iraq was ruled by Hussein, the slaughter is not only unabated but seems to be on the rise, and the Right are shedding all of these tears for Iraqis, while pointedly ignoring this same situation in a nation with undisputably close ties to Al Qaeda.

The situation in Saudia Arabia is a truly interesting and ironic one--it recalls to me the religious crap so often spouted by florid sermonizers about sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind.

I don't disagree. I was just elabortaing.

0 Replies

Fox, What are you trying to imply that "link" is? Saddam had no WMDs to share with al Qaeda; so where's the beef?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

And this: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=2&u=/nm/20040709/pl_nm/iraq_intelligence_qaeda_dc
The bi-partisan senate committee found NO LINKS between Iraq and al Qaeda.

The Clueless Fox wrote:

Setanta I would think a history teacher would note more precision. C.I. flatly said there was NO LINK between Iraq and al Qaida. The 9/11 commission, the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, and the Iraqis themselves have put that notion to bed. What was said is there is no proven link between Iraq, al Qaida, and 9/11, not that there is no link between Iraq and al Qaida.

I don't know how to say it any plainer than that. And if that isn't good enough for you, then so be it

I didn't hear c.i. say anything, flatly or otherwise. I rather doubt that he has a microphone set up for the purpose of communicating with us. As is evident from the complete and uncut quote of his post i've provided above, c.i. did not write that there were no links between anyone and anyone else.

I'm not a teacher of history, i've always and will continue to consider myself to be a student thereof. You, however, have repeatedly demonstrated a need for a competent history teacher, while sadly also demonstrating an inability to read and comprehend, and to listen and learn.

(It occurs to me that you will respond that c.i. did write that there were no links--note his text: "The bi-partisan senate committee found NO LINKS between Iraq and al Qaeda.[/quote]"--as you display such poor reading comprehension skills, i'll point out to you that he is quoting the article he has linked.)

0 Replies

I have not any any place at any time suggested that there was a link between Saddam and 9/11. I think there is plenty of evidence to support the concept that Saddam ran a terrorist regime and engaged in such activities himself. I don't think there has ever been a warm fuzzy relationship between Bin Laden and Saddam, but I don't believe for a minute that al Qaida has had nothing to do with Iraq. I think nobody who reads could believe that. Now if you don't believe that, I can't do anything for you.

If you think al Qaida isn't operating in Iraq as we type tonight, I can't do anything for you.

0 Replies

I also prefer to debate without personal insults so I will bid you good people good night.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I have not any any place at any time suggested that there was a link between Saddam and 9/11. I think there is plenty of evidence to support the concept that Saddam ran a terrorist regime and engaged in such activities himself. I don't think there has ever been a warm fuzzy relationship between Bin Laden and Saddam, but I don't believe for a minute that al Qaida has had nothing to do with Iraq. I think nobody who reads could believe that. Now if you don't believe that, I can't do anything for you.

Awesome post.

In other news, The Guiness Book Of World Records has created a new catagory: Most Arseholes Torn In Lop-Sided Internet Forum Debate.

For details, read thread.

Quote:

If you think al Qaida isn't operating in Iraq as we type tonight, I can't do anything for you.

Don't travel this road, I beg you.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Nimh, I believe I qualified my comments to Cyclop to be (almost) all those with authority. Except for one German minister, which we have already discussed this week, I don't know of any who stated they 'doubted' or 'didn't know' if Saddam had WMD.

Well, you just stated that you believe "almost every person with authority to decide in this matter" believed Saddam still had WMD. And earlier you stated the same about "(almost) everyone in the free world". So perhaps it would be interesting to doublecheck whether there are indeed assertions of such a belief from around the time Powell was done trying to convince the UN that we knew Saddam still had WMD - for example by Kofi Annan, Hans Blix or Prime Ministers / Foreign Ministers from such "free world" countries as France, Germany, Canada, Belgium, Sweden, Finland or Greece, or such then-members of the UN Security Council as China, Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico, Pakistan or Syria.

I'm mentioning the latter because they are all among those who would have ended up voting on the new resolution on Iraq that America was preparing to bring to the SC, authorising war - and all indicated that they wanted the inspectors to have more time. Since that made for a large majority in the SC, America decided to not even bring in the resolution, at all. That may provide a hint about whether these governments believed there was indeed sufficient evidence on whether Saddam still had WMD (let alone wanted to use them).

I dont think you will find many of these people saying they believed Saddam did not have WMD. But likewise you won't find many of 'em saying they believed he did have them. These were nations that very soon had to proclaim (whether in the SC or in NATO) whether they thought we knew enough to go to war about it - and they refused to say "yes". At quite some political risk.

0 Replies

Poll: over 40% of Canadian teens think America is "evil"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know