US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

Well spoken ican711nm.

0 Replies

icant, If the following statement is your idea of relevance and debate, you don't understand anything.

ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.

When evidence is provided, you don't answer.

You are tiresome with your repeated non-relevant statements. You will get in return what you reap.

Your baseless opinions about what you think you know are mostly obnoxious refrains with links that has very little if any credibility.

I'm sure most people do not bother reading your long, boring, posts; I sure don't.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

icant, If the following statement is your idea of relevance and debate, you don't understand anything.

ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.

When evidence is provided, you don't answer.

You are tiresome with your repeated non-relevant statements. You will get in return what you reap.

Your baseless opinions about what you think you know are mostly obnoxious refrains with links that has very little if any credibility.

I'm sure most people do not bother reading your long, boring, posts; I sure don't.

I shall parse this statement of mine for you in the hope you can, if you permit yourself, understand its relevance.

ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.

<ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY> means exactly what it says. The allegations you made in the above post (some of which you made before) are not supported by you with any evidence or relevant examples whatsoever. When asked for same you do not supply evidence or relevant examples. Instead you supply only a repetition of the same allegations or additional allegations (like this time).

<baseless opinions> You opine my evidence is invalid, but you do not say why you think so, or provide any evidence or relevant examples to support your opinion. In that regard your opinions are baseless.

<compulsive fantasies> Your continuing absence of evidence or examples suggests to me (at least) that you are suffering from some kind of manic adherence to your beliefs regardless of your lack of evidence or relevant examples to support your beliefs. So I employ the euphemism "compulsive fantasy" to better express the phrase manic adherence. I readily concede that there may be other explanations. For example, you may simply possess insufficient comprehension of the terms evidence and examples and there is no manic aderence involved whatsoever.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:
icant refuses to see it, but this administration does everything in its power to silence people like professor Sami al-Arian. That's the danger of Bushco that icant will never understand.

ican't wrote: The professor was indicted by a grand jury composed of American cirtizens. The professor was not convicted by a jury composed of American citizens. None of that represents "this administration [doing] everything in its power to silence people like professor Sami al-Arian."

ci wrote: ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.

I wrote: Sami Amin Al-Arian (b. January 14, 1958) is a Palestinian-American computer engineer and university professor who was arrested by the United States government in 2003 for his alleged involvement in the funding of terrorists. On December 6, 2005, after 13 days of deliberations, he was acquitted on eight of 17 counts, including criminal charges related to immigration violations, supporting terrorism and perjury and immigration violations, while the jury remained deadlocked on the others. He remains in custody pending a decision on whether to retry him on the deadlocked charges. Dr. Al-Arian's lead defense attorney is Linda Moreno. [1] My following post: "Another from CNN:

FBI charges Florida professor with terrorist activities
Seven others named in 50-count indictment
Thursday, February 20, 2003 Posted: 11:58 PM EST (0458 GMT)

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
icant refuses to see it, but this administration does everything in its power to silence people like professor Sami al-Arian. That's the danger of Bushco that icant will never understand.

ican't wrote: The professor was indicted by a grand jury composed of American cirtizens. The professor was not convicted by a jury composed of American citizens. None of that represents "this administration [doing] everything in its power to silence people like professor Sami al-Arian."

ci wrote: ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.

I wrote: Sami Amin Al-Arian (b. January 14, 1958) is a Palestinian-American computer engineer and university professor who was arrested by the United States government in 2003 for his alleged involvement in the funding of terrorists. On December 6, 2005, after 13 days of deliberations, he was acquitted on eight of 17 counts, including criminal charges related to immigration violations, supporting terrorism and perjury and immigration violations, while the jury remained deadlocked on the others. He remains in custody pending a decision on whether to retry him on the deadlocked charges. Dr. Al-Arian's lead defense attorney is Linda Moreno. [1] My following post: "Another from CNN:

FBI charges Florida professor with terrorist activities
Seven others named in 50-count indictment
Thursday, February 20, 2003 Posted: 11:58 PM EST (0458 GMT)

Please explain how these examples you provided are relevant to your claim that "this administration does everything in its power to silence people like professor Sami al-Arian. That's the danger of Bushco that icant will never understand."

Please assume here for the sake of simplifying your argument that the jury has found or a jury will in future find the accused innocent of each and every charge.

Do you have evidence or relevant examples that the FBI was not itself actually convinced their charges against the accused were valid?

Do you have evidence or relevant examples that Bush or Chenney or members of Bush's cabinet were personally involved in anyway whatsoever in pursing the indictment of the accused?

Do you have evidence or relevant examples that the indictment of the accused was pursued by lower levels of the administration by putting pressure on the FBI to pursue indictment of the accused?

Do you have evidence or relevant examples that the administration did not possess the power to incarcerate the accused in some secret location in order to silence him or deprive him of a fair trial by jury?

Do you have evidence or relevant examples that the administration did anything to deprive the accused of a fair trial by jury?

Evidence or relevant examples of any one or more of these will be sufficient for me to reconsider the validity of your allegation.

0 Replies

You still haven't learned about the thousands of Muslms, all Arab Americans, who were denied legal counsel when they were brought to jail. Let's see, that was Bush in the white house when that happened. When Wilson contradicted the message of this administration about WMDs, they outed his wife, a undercover CIA agent. When General Shinseki disagreed with this administration about the number of troops that would be needed in Iraq after major combat operations, this administration disagreed, and fired him. All the active generals of today doesn't disagree with anything this administration says - for fear of their military career. All this is old and common information that only people like you ignore.

0 Replies

You said a grand jury indicted professor al-Arian. That was contradicted by the Wikipedia and CNN articles that I provided. It said United States Government and FBI; that would be this administration.

0 Replies

But ofcoarse, you'll ignore this too!

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

You said a grand jury indicted professor al-Arian. That was contradicted by the Wikipedia and CNN articles that I provided. It said United States Government and FBI; that would be this administration.

Where in the articles you referenced does it say the accused was tried without an indictment by a grandjury, after it heard the government's charges? The grandjury as well as the trial jury are appointed by government.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

You still haven't learned about the thousands of Muslms, all Arab Americans, who were denied legal counsel when they were brought to jail. Let's see, that was Bush in the white house when that happened. When Wilson contradicted the message of this administration about WMDs, they outed his wife, a undercover CIA agent. When General Shinseki disagreed with this administration about the number of troops that would be needed in Iraq after major combat operations, this administration disagreed, and fired him. All the active generals of today doesn't disagree with anything this administration says - for fear of their military career. All this is old and common information that only people like you ignore.

Even if I were to assume all your allegations in this post were true, I am unable to see how they are relevant to your earlier allegation we were discussing:

"this administration does everything in its power to silence people like professor Sami al-Arian. That's the danger of Bushco that icant will never understand."

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

But ofcoarse, you'll ignore this too!

What will I ignore?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
You still haven't learned about the thousands of Muslms, all Arab Americans, who were denied legal counsel when they were brought to jail. Let's see, that was Bush in the white house when that happened. When Wilson contradicted the message of this administration about WMDs, they outed his wife, a undercover CIA agent. When General Shinseki disagreed with this administration about the number of troops that would be needed in Iraq after major combat operations, this administration disagreed, and fired him. All the active generals of today doesn't disagree with anything this administration says - for fear of their military career. All this is old and common information that only people like you ignore.

Even if I were to assume all your allegations in this post were true, I am unable to see how they are relevant to your earlier allegation we were discussing:

"this administration does everything in its power to silence people like professor Sami al-Arian. That's the danger of Bushco that icant will never understand."

By the way, this has been proven false: "When Wilson contradicted the message of this administration about WMDs, they outed his wife, a undercover CIA agent." Yes, they outed Wilson's wife as did Wilson himself did first. But his wife hadn't been an under cover agent (i.e., covert agent) for more than five years when she was outed. This according to the special prosecutor.

0 Replies

Cice (i.e., c.i.), let's meanwhile get back on point. Please tell me specifically which evidence referenced in the following you think is false or unreliable and why you think it false or unreliable:

I have repeatedly posted a preponderance of evidence supporting the following allegations.

Al Qaeda and the al Qaeda religion are a deadly threat to a major part of humanity. Al Qaeda must be exterminated or it will attempt to exterminate that major part of humanity that chooses not to adopt the al Qaeda religion. Anyone or government that abets al Qaeda, is likewise a deadly threat to that same part of humanity.

My most recent post of a preponderance of evidence that supports these allegations will be found at:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1704043#1704043

Al Qaeda moved into Iraq December 2001 (after 9/11/2001 and after the USA invasion of Afghanistan October 2001) and established new training camps there. Al Qaeda grew substantially by the time of our invasion of Iraq in March 2003, because Saddam's government tolerated (i.e., harbored) al Qaeda in Iraq.

My most recent post of a preponderance of evidence that supports these allegations will be found at:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1705085#1705085

Regardless of why Bush decided to invade Iraq, his decision to do so was a fortunate decision for humanity.

0 Replies

Of course, Ican711nm is correct. His viewpoint has also been stated by the foremost US interpreter of Islam and Muslims-Professor Bernard Lewis who has told us in many of his writings that a small fringe of Islam seeks to re-establish the Caliphate in the world. Lewis claims that this splinter group looks to solidify Islam in the world since it is the will of Allah that the world embrace Islam. IF FORCE AND TERROR ARE NECESSARY, THESE FANATICS ARE WILLING TO DIE FOR ALLAH, according to Professor Lewis.

0 Replies

"Yes, they outed Wilson's wife as did Wilson himself did first. But his wife hadn't been an under cover agent (i.e., covert agent) for more than five years when she was outed. This according to the special prosecutor."

EVIDENCE, please.

0 Replies

Valerie Elise Plame Wilson[1] (born April 19, 1963 in Anchorage, Alaska) is a United States Central Intelligence Agency officer, who was identified as a CIA operative in a newspaper column by Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. The ensuing political controversy, commonly referred to as the Plame affair, or the CIA leak scandal, led, in late 2003, to a Justice Department investigation into possible violation of criminal statutes, including the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.

Resulting from the October 2005 investigation, one of President George W. Bush's closest assistants on national security, and Chief of Staff for the Vice President Dick Cheney, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, is now indicted on perjury and obstruction of justice.

0 Replies

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Newspaper columnist and CNN co-host Robert Novak said Monday that while he learned the identity of a CIA operative from administration officials, there was "no great crime" and that he was not the recipient of a planned leak.

Novak, a nationally syndicated columnist who writes for the Chicago Sun-Times and co-host of CNN's "Crossfire," said he learned of Valerie Plame's identity as he was preparing a column to be published July 14.

That column looked at the role of Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, in investigating claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions -- specifically reports that Iraq had tried to buy uranium ore in Niger and elsewhere in Africa.

President Bush made the assertion in his 2003 State of the Union address as part of the rationale for going to war, attributing the report to British intelligence. The information was later discredited as being based at least in part on forged documents, and the White House has since backed off the statement.

Wilson, who was acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq just before the Persian Gulf War of 1991, alleges White House officials revealed his wife's identity to Novak in retaliation for his exposing flaws in prewar intelligence on Iraq.

"Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this," Novak said on "Crossfire." "There is no great crime here."

Novak said Monday that he was working on the column when a senior administration official told him the CIA asked Wilson to go to Niger in early 2002 at the suggestion of his wife, whom the source described as "a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction."

Another senior administration official gave him the same information, Novak said, and the CIA confirmed her involvement in her husband's mission.

In his column, Novak attributed the information about Plame's involvement in Wilson's trip to Africa to two unnamed senior administration officials.
"They asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative and not in charge of undercover operators," Novak said.

The Washington Post quoted a "senior administration official" in a story Sunday as saying that two top White House officials disclosed the identity of Wilson's wife in calls to at least six Washington journalists. Novak was the only recipient of the information who published it, the Post reported.

Wilson at one point suggested that senior Bush adviser Karl Rove could have been behind the leak, which the White House denied. He backed off that assertion somewhat Monday, accusing Rove of at least condoning it.

Wilson described the leak as a punitive move, noting that Novak's column appeared one week after he had written an op-ed article in The New York Times that was critical of the administration's handling of intelligence on Iraq.

"I think it comes out of the White House political office," Wilson said.

Novak said Monday that he will not reveal the names of his sources.

Novak also contacted Wilson for the column and was told, "I will not answer any question about my wife," according to a quotation Novak used in the column.

Wilson disputed that in an interview Monday night on CNN's "Paula Zahn Now."

"Bob Novak called me before he went to print with the report and he said a CIA source had told him that my wife was an operative," Wilson said. "He was trying to get a second source. He couldn't get a second source. Could I confirm that? And I said no."

Wilson said he called Novak after the article appeared citing sources in the Bush administration.

"What was it, CIA or senior administration?" Wilson said he asked Novak. "He said to me, 'I misspoke the first time I spoke to you.' "

The Justice Department, at the CIA's request, is investigating whether anyone in the administration broke the law by leaking Plame's name. The White House has said it will cooperate with the investigation.

Such a leak could constitute a felony. According to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, a federal employee with access to classified information who is convicted of making an unauthorized disclosure about a covert agent faces up to 10 years in prison and as much as $50,000 in fines.

CNN's David Ensor contributed to this report.

0 Replies

I am very much afraid that Plame's cover was blown by the Russians and the Cubans long ago. She had not been outside the USA as NOCOR- NON OFFICIAL COVER since 1997 when she returned from her last assignment and married Joe Wilson and had twins.

If a person's status has been revealed by the USA, then Section 422 of the US code kicks in. Examination of Fitzgerald's indictment will show that Libby was not charged with outing Plame but only with having lied about when and from whom he first learned that she worked for the CIA.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Al Qaeda and the al Qaeda religion are a deadly threat to a major part of humanity.

Every terrorist group in the world will claim it's about to change humanity as we know it. Replace "Caliphate" with "Communism", and you have the pamphlets circulated by lEuropes left-wing terrorists of the 70s and 80s, as for example the Rote Armee Fraktion (RAF) in Germany. That doesn't mean the pamphlets are true.

ican711nm wrote:

Al Qaeda must be exterminated or it will attempt to exterminate that major part of humanity that chooses not to adopt the al Qaeda religion. Anyone or government that abets al Qaeda, is likewise a deadly threat to that same part of humanity.

Germany did not exterminate the RAF by bombing Switzerland, where it had not no base but that was kind of in the neighborhood. That's why it didn't. Likewise, America will not exterminate Al Quaeda by invading Iraq, a country where Al Quaeda had no base but that was kind of in the neighborhood too. That's why the invasion made no sense in terms of its stated goals.

ican711nm wrote:

Al Qaeda moved into Iraq December 2001 (after 9/11/2001 and after the USA invasion of Afghanistan October 2001) and established new training camps there.

"What evidence do you have that this happened before the American invasion? What you are linking to is a resolution of Congress saying that members of Al Quaeda were in Iraq. But a) the resolution proves what Congress thought were the facts, not what where the facts. Congress could have been wrong, especially if mislead by bogus intelligence; and b) even if true, the statement "members of Al Queda are known to be in Iraq" does not prove the statement "Al Quaeda moved into Iraq and established new training camps there."

ican711 wrote:

Regardless of why Bush decided to invade Iraq, his decision to do so was a fortunate decision for humanity.

If this is fortune, the majority of humanity would prefer misfortune instead.

0 Replies

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

ican711nm wrote:
Al Qaeda must be exterminated or it will attempt to exterminate that major part of humanity that chooses not to adopt the al Qaeda religion. Anyone or government that abets al Qaeda, is likewise a deadly threat to that same part of humanity.

We have every reason to want to exterminate Al Qaeda. And we must use pressure on any government that shelters or abets its goals. But that has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq.

Quote:

Germany did not exterminate the RAF by bombing Switzerland, where it had not no base but that was kind of in the neighborhood. That's why it didn't. Likewise, America will not exterminate Al Quaeda by invading Iraq, a country where Al Quaeda had no base but that was kind of in the neighborhood too. That's why the invasion made no sense in terms of its stated goals.

Thomas, our stated goal was not to exterminate Al Qaeda. It was to bring to heel a country that had WMD or, alternatively, to secure the blessings of democracy for a country in the Middle East. Pick your goal. The Al Qaeda reason was trotted out when the other goals didn't work for lots of people in the US and abroad.

0 Replies

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know