See other Miscellaneous Articles
Title: LP owner allows poster to plant 1-pixel gifs in order to track LP users
Source:
Libertypost
URL Source: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/ ... .cgi?ArtNum=179683&Disp=16#C16
Published: Mar 9, 2007
Author: add925
Post Date: 2007-03-09 14:17:36 by F.A. Hayek Fan
Keywords: None
Views: 8910
Comments: 257
FYI....very interesting indeed.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 174.
#1. To: Hayek Fan (#0)
don't need a crystal ball to see that place as a spook front. and here we were just talking about weird shit, 'they talk of days for which they sit and wait, when all will be revealed' Led Zeppelin, Kashmir. again, the old control paradigms evaporate in the face of novelty.
Wow! You maybe right, gengis, about spooky spooks operating on or perhaps even running (?) LP. I wonder if lurkers in addition to LP posters are nabbed by this sly gif ploy. Holy moley. Good thing for you, BAC, that you were thrown off LP by Goldi and you came here to 4um or you could be part of a spook operation...hmmm....or you would be part of a spook op...or you are part of ...hmmm... A. And more... 26. To: Scrivener (#23) The meat of it starts here: http://69.55.11.240/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=178235&Disp=192#C192 After I caught PA hiding a one pixel .gif in his post, one of his responses to me was, "The question is, what are you hiding? What do you think you are hiding or hiding from?" The old "if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't mind me snooping around in your business." Also here: http://69.55.11.240/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=178117&Disp=115#C115 s2m seen2much posted on 2007-03-08 10:56:54 ET Reply Trace B. AND more.... 19. To: add925, PatrioticAmerican, seen2much, liberator, goldi-lox, Johnny99 (#17) What gives? Why the use of these imbedded images? Whats their purpose? Mighty suspicious, indeed. How companies track surfers The most common way to track surfers is a combination of images (sometimes called beacons, 1-pixel GIFs, tracking GIFs and so forth) and cookies. Company X’s website will have an image embedded in it. The image is hosted by Tracker Inc, so every time you view a page on Company X’s site, Tracker Inc gets a request for an image. The request typically contains encoded information. As a simple example, when you request http://www.companyx.com/shoppi ngcart.html, your browser might also request an image from http://www.trackerinc.com/tracker.gif? cartitem=ipod40gb. At the same time, your browser gets a cookie set on it, such as globalid=1234. This cookie identifies you when you go to Company Y’s website. Scrivener posted on 2007-03-09 14:05:47 ET Reply Trace
hmmm... is right
I was thrown off LP as well - hmmmm
Many posters were thown off LP, but none with BAC's posting history.
In light of this information,if this was my site, I would dump BAC.
BAC's false story about being "thrown off LP" was a set-up and coordinated with "goldilicks"...whoever he or she REALLY is..to give him an excuse to come here and invade. He is a spook and agent provacteur. I would BAN him if I owned this forum as well. As it is, all should BOZO him immediately.
ROTFLOL! Here's the real story, folks: http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=45230&Disp=75#C75 Isn't it amazing that so many FD4UM members are anxious to get rid of a poster who has been courteous, who hasn't labeled anyone or called anyone a name while at FD4UM, who hasn't been the least bit vulgar, who has posted hundreds of sourced facts about topics that should be of interest, and who has been willing to debate their accuracy whenever challenged? Instead of responding in kind, FD4UMers have used the bozo filter in large numbers to avoid reading any of those posts, have thrown out mountains of adhominems and directed rivers of vulgar language at that poster, have begged that poster to leave, have called for his banning, and are now suggesting without any proof whatsoever that he's part of some zionist conspiracy. ROTFLOL! Beware the dot!
THe reaction to you is not about whether you call somebody names. It's about your obnoxious, thread-spamming, and frequently irrelevant remarks which you repeat over, and over, and over, and over - combined with a shameless acceptance of any claims the Bush Administation has to make explaining its actions.
Like this one?
Your use of that chart on this thread is a perfect example of your thread- spamming. Carry on, fuckwit.
No, it's actually a perfect example of you not knowing what you are talking about and being unwilling to be corrected when you are wrong.
No, that would be these BeALooser posted on 2006-11- 07 02:13:00 ET BeALooser posted on 2006-11-07 19:39:19 ET BeALooser posted on 2006-11- 08 12:51:48 ET BeALooser posted on 2006-11- 08 12:51:48 ET BeALooser posted on 2006-11-09 10:28:44 ET So I accidently wrote billion instead of trillion a few times BeALooser posted on 2006-11-12 20:25:08 ET” “I suspect all of us at one time or another in the heat of a debate [!!] have switched billions and millions and even trillions. BeALooser posted on 2006-12-01 19:19:29 ET BeALooser posted on 2006-11-12 22:48:21 ET” BeALooser posted on 2006-11-13 00:00:34 ET BeALooser posted on 2006-11-13 00:00:34 ET BeALooser posted on 2006-11-13 00:00:34 ET BeALooser posted on 2006-11-13 00:25:26 ET BeALooser posted on 2006-11-13 00:25:26 ET Yet, intelligent people [!!] still knew what I meant. Still could see my point. They could tell I just transposed two similar words in the rush to respond to you BeALooser posted on 2006-11-30 14:39:06 ET "You tell us when that civil war happens because so far there is no sign of it." BeALooser posted on 2006-06-30 01:48:13 ET "Iraqi units made up of Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis are routinely operating together quite well" BeALooser posted on 2006-06-30 01:48:13 ET "American soldiers are going to die whether we are in Iraq or not. That's one of the facts the American public needs to face.." BeALooser posted on 2006-12-28 13:30:47 ET “I think you are a K**K if you think a country this size can't sustain 9 KIA a day in a global war."
No, unlike you I immediately acknowledged that I incorrectly wrote billion instead of trillion the moment it was pointed out. And of course, everyone on those threads knew what I had meant to say anyway. You, however, INSISTED that chart showed a 16 percent drop in housing prices despite multiple attempts to point out "the obvious". True. You really think this true? Well how in the world did we manage to stay in a war that cost America 300,000 dead and missing over a 3 year period?
b. Well how in the world did we manage to stay in a war that cost America 300,000 dead and missing over a 3 year period? a. Uh...why would our soldiers die whether we were in Iraq or not? You mean our soldiers would die eventually at old age around 75-80 like every one else? Or do you mean if our soldiers were not in Iraq your heroes, the war monger DC elites, would just have them fighting another useless war for lies elsewhere? b. Uh...hello, BAC, anyone home? We fought in World War II along with 2 other allies, who suffered incredible losses, against nations with standing armies in uniforms that had declared war on us. Iraq did not declare war on us. Why should we be wanting to sustain a loss of 9 KIA a day for a nebulus war with no end in sight that we started for lies? Not to mention the fact that we are the laughing stock of the universe for having caused this war and our so called "coalition of the willing" ( say what?) pals are dropping off like flies because their own public are so pissed off at being a part of this Iraq invasion for Israel/Halliburton/Exxon charade.
Thousands and thousands of islamo-fanatics have gone to Iraq ... and died there. If they weren't attacking us there, they'd likely be causing trouble elsewhere. BEFORE we invaded Iraq, al-Zarqawi, operating out of Iraq, was plotting attacks against US allies and Americans. One such plot hoped to kill every American in the US embassy in Amman. What would you have done about him and his associates, given that Saddam was showing no willingness to stop him? The why is not the issue here. AGAviator (and you?) object to the notion that this country could sustain 9 KIA a day for years and years? Why in my opinion, that is just as silly as AGAviator claiming housing prices went down 16% in that graph I posted.
The why is not the issue here. AGAviator (and you?) object to the notion that this country could sustain 9 KIA a day for years and years? Let me be clearer to you - why SHOULD we sustain 9 KIA American citizens for a war for lies? Your Zarqawi tale ( even if it were true) did not give us authority to invade Iraq, which was no threat to our nation. We invaded Iraq for Israel mainly and the defense industry and oil industry were served as secondary interests. Our American citizen soldiers should not be fighting and dying at 1 KIA per day never mind 9 KIA per day for the national security interests of a foreign nation, which does not even want to sign a mutual defense treaty with America. BeAChooser, do you feel our American soldiers should die for Israel's national security interests? http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23083 "IRAQ:War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser" ...Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security. The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States. Zelikow made his statements about ”the unstated threat” during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president. He served on the board between 2001 and 2003. ”Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation. ”And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said Zelikow...
One of BAC's many lies lifted from the Weekly Standard which he repeats endlessly. CIA Report Concludes No Saddam, Zarqawi Ties Post-Iraq invasion intelligence concluded there was no relationship between Saddam Hussein's regime and the al Qaeda terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi, casting doubt on President Bush's statements as recently as last month that there was a link. A report released yesterday by the Senate intelligence committee said the CIA concluded last year that the Zarqawi-Saddam nexus did not exist. "Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi," the bipartisan report concluded. It focused on comparing prewar intelligence on Iraq with post-invasion information from seized documents and interrogations of Saddam regime figures. After all, that would be bad for morale. Now I can pretty much guarantee that Looser is going to come up with some lame brain, off-the-wall excuse about why this story is not true and why his Weekly Standard botshill drivel should be taken as Gospel. And that is why (s)he has no respect on this site.
Are you trying to deny that before we invaded, al-Zarqawi, operating out of Iraq, plotted attacks against US allies and Americans? Because I can provide a dozen articles from numerous sources indicating that the terrorists convicted of a plot in Jordan that was supposed to kill tens of thousands with a chemically laced bomb testified to those assertions. *********** http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_6_30.html "Jordan CW Plot Suspect Admits Meeting with Zarqawi A suspect in a foiled plot to detonate a chemical weapon in Jordan met beforehand in Iraq with fellow defendant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to discuss the planned attacks, according to a videotaped confession played in court yesterday (see GSN, June 23). The tape shows defendant Azmi al-Jayousi confessing that he planned to carry out attacks in Jordan, the Associated Press reported. “I met with Abu Musab in Baghdad, who told me that a man called al-Jubouri will be the contact man between me and Abu Musab,” said Jayousi, one of 13 suspects in an alleged plan to attack Jordanian intelligence agency headquarters in Amman. Jayousi also admitted to agreeing to kill Lt. Col., Mahmoud Obeidat, a military prosecutor. “Abu Musab sent me [$70,000] and weapons with the so-called Jubouri as well as detonators to kill the prosecutor with a telecommunications device if we don’t succeed in shooting him,” Jayousi said on the tape. A second tape played in court showed how the defendants made the chemicals and explosives they intended to use against the intelligence service and other sites in Amman (Associated Press, June 29). *************** http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/world/11961452.htm "In his televised confession, Al-Jayousi said his group had plotted the chemical attack under instruction from al-Zarqawi." **************** http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/terencejeffrey/2004/05/05/11586.html "Four surviving alleged terrorists were shown in videotaped statements. Their self-professed leader was identified as Azmi al-Jayyusi. "In Herat (Afghanistan), I began training for Abu Musab," Jayyusi says in a translation published by the BBC. "The training included high-level explosives and poison courses. I then pledged allegiance to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and agreed to work for him without any discussion. After the fall of Afghanistan, I met al-Zarqawi once again in Iraq. "In Iraq, Abu Musab told me to go to Jordan along with Muwaffaq Udwan to prepare for a military operation in Jordan," said Jayyusi. Once he was in Jordan, Zarqawi sent him money via couriers, said Jayyusi. "He also supplied me, through messengers, with forged passports, identity cards and car registrations and all that is necessary."" ************** http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184927,00.html Jordan Sentences Al-Zarqawi to Death in Absentia Wednesday, February 15, 2006 AMMAN, Jordan — A Jordanian military court on Wednesday sentenced to death nine men, including Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, for a plot to carry out a chemical attack against the kingdom. Al-Zarqawi and three others received the death penalty in absentia. But the plot's alleged mastermind, Azmi al-Jayousi, and four co-defendants were in the courtroom when the judge handed down the sentence for the 2004 plot, which security officials foiled before it could be carried out. "Bin Laden's organization is rising and we will be back!" the defendants shouted after the sentencing, referring to the Al Qaeda terror network led by Usama bin Laden. The court sentenced two of the 13 defendants to prison terms of between one and three years, and acquitted another two defendants. After the sentencing, the convicted men turned on one of the acquitted, a Syrian, and accused him of being an informer. They threatened to kill him, but they did not attack him in the dock. The 13 men — Jordanian, Syrian and Palestinians — were charged with conspiring to attack various sites in Jordan by setting off a cloud of toxic chemicals that would have killed thousands of people, according to prosecution estimates. The prosecution told the court that al-Zarqawi sent more than $118,000 to buy two vehicles which the plotters were to use in the attack. Suicide bombers were to drive the vehicles, loaded with explosives and chemicals, into the grounds of the General Intelligence Department in Amman and detonate them, prosecutors said. The plot also planned to attack the U.S. Embassy, the prime minister's office, and various intelligence and military court officials, the indictment said. The indictment said that when investigators conducted an experiment with small amounts of the chemicals found with the defendants, it produced "a strong explosion and a poison cloud that spread over an area of 500 square meters (yards)." From the geographical data that mastermind al-Jayousi had collected, it appeared he aimed to kill thousands of people in the chemical attack, the indictment said. Eight of the defendants were accused of belonging to a previously unknown group, "Kata'eb al-Tawhid" or Battalions of Monotheism, which security officials say is headed by al-Zarqawi and linked to Al Qaeda. The eight were also charged with conspiring to commit acts of terrorism and possession and manufacture of explosives. Previously, Jordan's military courts have condemned al-Zarqawi to death in absentia for the 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman and for a failed suicide attack on the Jordanian-Iraqi border in 2004. **************** http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4838076/%20 Jordan militants confess to 'chemical' plot Alleged al-Qaida suspects wanted to kill 80,000 The Associated Press Updated: 7:08 p.m. ET April 26, 2004 AMMAN, Jordan - Al-Qaida plotted bombings and poison gas attacks against the U.S. Embassy and other targets in Jordan, two conspirators said in a confession aired Monday on Jordanian state television. Azmi al-Jayousi, identified as the head of the Jordanian cell of al-Qaida, appeared Monday in a 20-minute taped program and described meeting Jordanian militant Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi in neighboring Iraq to plan the foiled plot. A commentator said the plotters wanted to kill “80,000” Jordanians and had targeted the prime minister’s office, intelligence headquarters and the U.S. Embassy. Another Jordanian suspect, car mechanic Hussein Sharif Hussein, was shown saying al-Jayousi asked him to buy vehicles and modify them so that they could crash through gates and walls. U.S. officials have offered a $10 million reward for al-Zarqawi’s capture, saying he is a close associate of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden and is trying to build a network of foreign militants in neighboring Iraq to work on al-Qaida’s behalf. His whereabouts are unknown. ... snip ... “I have pledged loyalty to Abu-Musab to fully be obedient and listen to him without discussion,” al-Jayousi said in the Jordanian television segment. He said he first met al-Zarqawi in Afghanistan, where al-Jayousi said he studied explosives, “before Afghanistan fell.” He said he later met al-Zarqawi in Iraq, but was not specific about when. The videotape also showed still photographs of al-Jayousi and nine other suspects. The commentator said four of those pictured had been killed in clashes with security forces. Al-Jayousi said he received about $170,000 from al-Zarqawi to finance the plot and used part of it to buy 20 tons of chemicals. He did not identify the chemicals, but said they “were enough for all the operations in the Jordanian arena.” Images of what the commentator said were vans filled with blue jugs of chemical explosives were included in the broadcast. Hussein, the car mechanic, said he met al-Jayousi in 1999 but did not clearly say when the terror plans were laid out. The bearded Hussein, looking anxious, said al-Jayousi told him the aim was “carrying out the first suicide attack to be launched by al-Qaida using chemicals” and “striking at Jordan, its Hashemite (royal family) and launching war on the Crusaders and nonbelievers. Officials said they had arrested the suspects in two raids in late March and early April. Last week, officials said four other terror suspects believed linked to the same conspiracy were killed in a shootout with police in Amman. Government officials have said the suspects plotted to detonate a powerful bomb targeting Jordan’s secret service and use poison gas against the prime minister’s office, the U.S. Embassy and other diplomatic missions. Had the bomb exploded, it could have killed at least 20,000 people and wrecked buildings within a half-mile radius, the officials have said. No trial date has been set in the case. Airing suspects’ confessions before their trial is unusual in Jordan. In 1998, six men accused of affiliation with a militant group confessed on television to planting a bomb that exploded outside an Amman hotel. Five years later, a court found them innocent. The unusual move may be an attempt to answer critics who claim the government has exaggerated the terror danger to justify tightening security. Officials in Jordan, a moderate Arab nation with close ties to the United States and a peace treaty with Israel, say the kingdom has been repeatedly targeted by al-Qaida and other militant groups. ********* http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135670,00.html Sunday, October 17, 2004 AMMAN, Jordan — Jordan's military prosecutor indicted Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the most wanted insurgents in Iraq, and 12 other alleged Muslim militants Sunday for an alleged Al Qaeda linked plot to attack the U.S. Embassy in Amman and Jordanian government targets with chemical and conventional weapons, government officials said. The foiled plot was first revealed by Jordan in April. Lt. Col. Mahmoud Obeidat summoned nine of the 13 terror suspects who are already in custody and read them the charges in the indictment, the officials told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. Four suspects, including al-Zarqawi, are still at large and will be tried in absentia, the officials said. The trial was expected to begin in early to mid November. Al-Zarqawi and his Tawhid and Jihad group are blamed for a string of bombings and other attacks in Iraq and kidnappings and slayings of foreign hostages, including three Americans who were beheaded. Security officials have said the militants were plotting to attack the Jordanian prime minister's office, the secret service agency, the U.S. in Jordan and other sites. Security officials and some of the detainees, in televised confessions, have said the plot was linked to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network. Azmi al-Jayousi, the alleged mastermind of the cell who was captured in April, has confessed to military prosecutors the group was planning a chemical attack, the officials said. The military court is expected to grant a 10-day grace period this week for the four fugitives to surrender — a process which precedes the opening of the trial. In Jordan, charges become formal when read aloud at the opening of the trial. The charges on seven counts include conspiring to commit terror attacks in Jordan, possessing and manufacturing explosive material and affiliation with a banned group, the officials said. The group in question has been identified as Kata'eb al-Tawhid, Arabic for the Battalions of Monotheism, a previously unknown cell said to be linked to Al Qaeda. If convicted on all counts, the defendants could be sentenced to death. Jordan first announced in April it had foiled the terrorist plot blamed on al-Zarqawi. On April 20, four additional suspects were killed in a police shootout and most members of the Jordanian cell were arrested. Jordanian authorities said then the suspects had plotted to use chemicals and explosives to blow up vital institutions, including Jordan's intelligence department — an attack that could have killed thousands. Al-Jayousi, the alleged mastermind, and some other detained suspects had said in televised confessions the plot was hatched and financed by al-Zarqawi. In an audiotape posted on the Internet in May, a man who identified himself as al-Zarqawi acknowledged his group was behind the plot in Jordan but he denied it involved chemical weapons. U.S. officials have offered a $25 million reward for al-Zarqawi's capture. He is suspected in about a dozen high-profile attacks in Iraq, including last year's bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad. Moroccan authorities believe he may have helped guide the Madrid train bombings. His group is believed to be behind the killings and beheadings of foreign hostages in Iraq including three Americans. U.S. and Jordanian authorities say he funded the Oct. 2002 assassination of a U.S. diplomat in Jordan. Jordan, a key Arab ally of the United States and a peace partner to Israel, has been targeted by Al Qaeda and other terrorists. Twenty-two Islamic extremists were convicted of plotting to attack U.S. and Israeli tourists during the kingdom's millennium celebrations. ************ Zarqawi 'chemical bomb plot' trial postponed after lawyers fail to show AMMAN (AFP) Wednesday December 22, 2004 The trial of Iraq's most wanted man, the fugitive Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and 12 other people accused of plotting a chemical attack in Jordan was postponed for the second week in a row after defence lawyers failed to show up. The case was adjourned to December 29 because court-appointed lawyers for four of nine defendants, including alleged ringleader Azmi Jayussi, did not attend the hearing, judicial sources told AFP. The trial opened December 15 but was disrupted and adjourned when Jayussi and his co-defendants refused to address the court in protest at their detention conditions. Eight of the suspects are behind bars, one is out on bail while Zarqawi -- a Jordanian-born Islamist who has a 25-million-dollar US bounty on his head for a string of attacks in Iraq -- and two others are on the run. Prosecutor Mahmud Obeidat levelled seven charges against the group in October, including conspiracy to commit terror attacks in Jordan , making explosives and possession of weapons. The group is specifically accused of plotting, on Zarqawi's orders, an attack on the intelligence agency using trucks loaded with 20 tonnes of chemicals that could have killed 80,000 people and injured 160,000 others. The prosecution said the attack planned for west Amman was part of a larger conspiracy, including hits on the prime minister's office as well as the US embassy in Amman. The charge sheet released in October did not mention these two targets. The defendants are also accused of belonging to an illegal organisation named as Kataeh al-Tawhid (Unification Brigades) and of links to Zarqawi. The 13 men, including three Syrian nationals one of whom is on the run, face the death penalty if convicted. Zarqawi was sentenced to death by the state security court in April for the October 2002 murder of a US diplomat in Amman. He is also charged in another court case that opened earlier this month in which he and another Jordanian suspect are accused of plotting to attack the Jordanian embassy in Iraq and unspecified US targets there. *********** http://www.nti.org/d%5Fnewswire/issues/2005/2/24/26d8fb80%2Da4d1%2D4de8%2Db790%2Da631a4b7a4d3.html From Thursday, February 24, 2005 issue. Jordan Chemical Plot Defendants Request Execution Nine men being tried in Jordan for allegedly plotting a foiled chemical attack asked yesterday to be put to death rather than let the trial continue, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Dec. 15, 2004). “God, and no one else, is our master. We wish to be executed,” the defendants shouted in court, according to AFP. “The verdict is ready, so why put us on trial,” said the suspects, who could be sentenced to death if convicted of planning to attack the Jordanian intelligence agency with 20 tons of chemicals that could have killed up to 80,000 people. The men are suspected of belonging to the outlawed Kataeb al-Tawhid (“Unification Brigades”) group and of having connections to terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, AFP reported. All nine denied the charges after they were read aloud in court, according to AFP (Agence France-Presse/Khaleej Times, Feb. 23). *********** http://www.nti.org/d%5Fnewswire/issues/2005/4/21/b3156726%2D58b2%2D447b%2Dae27%2D7669bf04a708.html From Thursday, April 21, 2005 issue. Suspects in Jordan Chemical Plot Had Instructions for Attack, Witnesses Say at Trial Suspects in a planned chemical weapons attack in Jordan possessed instructions on preparing germ and conventional weapons, witnesses said yesterday at the trial of the alleged plotters (see GSN, Feb. 24). Nine of the 13 suspects are in custody, while Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and three others are being tried in absentia, the Associated Press reported. Targets of the foiled attack have been reported to include the Jordanian intelligence agency and the U.S. Embassy in Amman. Police officers found “a dossier in Arabic containing detailed steps on manufacturing explosives and bacteriological poisons” at a safe house in Amman, said Sgt. Mohammed al-Omari. The house also contained handwritten instructions on military training and poisons. Information on weapons and military tactics were kept on compact discs and computers, AP reported. “There was a file headlined ‘the culture of sabotage,’ which outlined ways to destroy buildings, bridges, railways, and telephone and electricity networks, and how to dismantle security barriers, attack airports, carry out assassination and spread epidemics, like typhoid and malaria,” said Lt. Muthana al-Qatan, an intelligence agency computer technician. He acknowledged that the information might have come straight from the Internet (Jamal Halaby, Associated Press, April 20). *********** http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_5_5.html May 5, 2005 Al-Qaeda Planned Chemical Attack on U.S. Naval Base in Spain, Terror Cell Member Says Angry Outburst Halts Jordan Chemical Attack Trial The trial of 13 people suspected of plotting a chemical attack last year in Jordan was halted yesterday following an angry outburst by the defendants that included a death threat and thrown shoes, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, April 21). Nine suspects are in custody, while Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and three others are being tried in absentia for foiled strikes on sites believed to include the U.S. Embassy in Amman and the Jordanian intelligence agency. Lead suspect Azmi al-Jayousi became enraged yesterday during testimony from a forensic doctor on the wounds suffered by four additional plotters killed in a shootout with police in April 2004. Jayousi threw his slippers at lead judge Col. Fawaz Buqour, and then told the three-judge panel “Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi will chop off your heads and stuff it up your mouths, you God’s enemies.” A 10-minute recess did not calm the defendants, AP reported. “The blood of our brothers will not go wasted,” defendant Ahmad Samir yelled as the trial resumed. Samir also told military prosecutor Lt. Col. Mahmoud Obeidat to, “Await death … for you are God’s enemy.” Other defendants yelled or spoke from the Koran. All subsequently turned their back on the judges, kneeled and began to pray, AP reported. Al-Jayousi and two other defendants were removed from the courtroom. That failed to bring order, so Buqour adjourned the trial. It was not immediately known when the case would resume (Jamal Halaby, Associated Press, May 5). ********** http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/11/94618.shtml?s=ic With Carl Limbacher and http://NewsMax.com Staff Sunday, June 11, 2006 9:42 a.m. EDT Zarqawi Planned to Top 9/11 Attacks The New York Times reports today that before his death, top al Qaeda terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi trained about 300 foreign fighters in Iraq and sent them back to their home countries, where they awaited orders to carry out strikes. But the paper makes no mention of Zarqawi's most ambitious foreign attack plot, which nearly succeeded two years ago: a weapons of mass destruction strike that intelligence officials estimated would have killed 20,000. The death toll planned by Zarqawi would have far exceeded the destruction wrought by Osama bin Laden on Sept. 11. The April 2004 attack, which was all but ignored by the Western press, was foiled at the last minute when Jordanian officials intercepted a convoy of three vehicles near the Syrian border. It's cargo: 23,000 gallons of chemicals, poison gas and explosives. The target: The U.S. embassy in Amman along with the headquarters of Jordan's Intelligence service. The Mideast bureau of the Associated Press reported at the time that Jordanian officials said Zarqawi's crew was planning to use to "a chemical bomb that would have killed as many as 20,000 people and caused large-scale destruction within a half-mile radius." "The terror cell was also apparently planning to carry out simultaneous poison gas attacks against foreign diplomatic missions, including the heavily fortified U.S. Embassy in Amman, vital Jordanian public establishments like the prime minister's office and unspecified civilian targets," the wire service said. Jordan's King Abdullah II confirmed the details of the attack, and publicly thanked his intelligence chief, Gen. Saad Kheir, saying that the arrests of Zarqawi's terrorists had "saved thousands of lives." Had the plot gone forward, Abdullah said, Jordan would have seen "a crime that would have been unprecedented in the country in terms of the size of explosives mounted on the vehicles and the methods of carrying out the attacks or the civilian locations chosen." In confessions later broadcast on ABC's "Nightline," one of the plotters revealed that he began training for the mission in 2001 in Afghanistan. "After the fall of Afghanistan, I met Zarqawi again in Iraq," the al Qaeda operative said. *************** Jaiousi admits meeting with Zarqawi in Baghdad, receiving instructions for attacks Jordan Times 2005 30 June 2005 By Rana Husseini Amman - The main defendant in the case of nine men standing trial for plotting the first chemical attack in the Kingdom, on Wednesday said he met with Abu Mussab Zarqawi in Baghdad to prepare for the alleged attacks. In a videotape confession screened during the trial at the State Security Court (SSC) yesterday, Azmi Jaiousi said he met with Zarqawi and two other men in Iraq. "Zarqawi told me there would be military operations in Jordan soon and we needed to prepare for them... he gave me around $50,000, weapons, explosive devices and instructions to launch attacks. Our first target was State Prosecutor Mahmoud Obeidat," Jaiousi was quoted as saying in the videotape. A second target was a General Intelligence Department (GID) officer who had blue eyes and a white Mercedes, he added. Jaiousi said he infiltrated into the Kingdom from Iraq in February 2002, hidden in a truck, and later met up with the rest of the defendants. Jaiousi also reenacted how he bought chemical substances, electric and electronic equipment and lab devices from shops in the downtown area. The videotape also showed him manufacturing explosives and transporting empty jerry cans into trucks with defendants Husni Sharif and Ahmad Samir. The prosecution is charging that the defendants intended to use these deadly chemical substances in an attack on the GID headquarters. An explosives expert testified recently that if the chemical substances had been mixed with explosives they would have caused burns, suffocation and neurological paralysis. During the screening of the video, the defendants claimed that the prosecution denied them the right of appointing lawyers to be present during the interrogations. Obeidat refuted their claims saying he had informed them of their right for an attorney, but they "turned down his offer." During the two-hour session, Obeidat rested his case opening the way for the defence team to present their evidence. The defence lawyers asked the court for more time to meet with their clients and prepare the defence statements. The tribunal agreed and adjourned the session until next week. The nine men, part of a group of 13 suspects including Zarqawi, are also charged with possessing and manufacturing explosives with illicit intent, and possessing an automatic weapon with the intention of using it illegally. Jaiousi appeared on Jordan Television shortly after his arrest and described how he and other group members had bought and manufactured chemical explosives under the guidance and support of Zarqawi." ********* http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200405030839.asp May 03, 2004, 8:39 a.m. The Syrian Connection Following the evil trails. The central rationale for the invasion of Iraq was not simply the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction — it was the nexus between terrorists, their state sponsors, and WMDs. The anthrax attacks that took place in this country in the fall of 2001 could be an example; they were clearly conducted by terrorists, and involved biological weapons. The perpetrators have not been found. Letters accompanying the attacks stated, "Death to America. Death to Israel. Allah is Great." Nevertheless, investigations have focused on domestic sources since the anthrax was in some cases highly sophisticated and weaponized. The fact that the Kay report mentioned Iraqi anthrax-production capabilities could point in another direction, if the "domestic perp" premise can be overcome. (It is comparable to the premise that the D.C. sniper had to be a disgruntled, white, right-wing Christian — a bad working assumption that ignored the obvious.) The planned al Qaeda attack in Amman that was disrupted by Jordanian security forces is another example of the nexus in action, and a cautionary tale on the complexity of the war on terrorism. This was not the first time al Qaeda has targeted Jordan — their embassy in Iraq was attacked last August and the terrorists have been vocal in their condemnations of the Jordanian government for its cooperation with the United States in the war effort. The plan was to mount suicide attacks on their intelligence headquarters, the prime minister's office, and the U.S. embassy with a truck carrying 20 tons of chemical explosives. The bombing would have raised a chemical cloud for a mile radius and killed an estimated 80,000 people, in a country of 5.4 million. (An attack of that proportion in this country would kill 4.3 million.) The planned al Qaeda attack in Amman that was disrupted by Jordanian security forces is another example of the nexus in action, and a cautionary tale on the complexity of the war on terrorism. This was not the first time al Qaeda has targeted Jordan — their embassy in Iraq was attacked last August and the terrorists have been vocal in their condemnations of the Jordanian government for its cooperation with the United States in the war effort. The plan was to mount suicide attacks on their intelligence headquarters, the prime minister's office, and the U.S. embassy with a truck carrying 20 tons of chemical explosives. The bombing would have raised a chemical cloud for a mile radius and killed an estimated 80,000 people, in a country of 5.4 million. (An attack of that proportion in this country would kill 4.3 million.) Jordanian TV carried an interview with captured members of the attack teams, including the leader of the group, a Jordanian named Azmi al-Jayyusi, a long-time member of al Qaeda. He trained in Osama bin Laden camps in Herat, Afghanistan prior to the fall of the Taliban, under Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who currently is orchestrating al Qaeda attacks against Coalition forces in Iraq. He was given "high level courses in explosives and poisons." After Afghanistan was liberated, Zarqawi ordered al-Jayyusi to Iraq — apparently before Operation Iraqi Freedom. He later infiltrated Jordan with others to plan their attack. Safe houses were procured by a Syrian who worked with Zarqawi. The team began to procure chemicals, they said through companies that used them for other purposes. Al-Jayyusi weaponized the chemicals himself, at small labs in secure warehouses. Money, trucks, forged passports, I.D. cards, and car registrations all came by courier through Syria. So did four of the ten members of the attack teams, three of whom chose to fight to the death with Jordanian security forces. Zarqawi, who claimed credit for having ordered the attack, affirmed the intent to undertake the bombing, but denied that there were chemical weapons involved, saying that the confessions were the result of torture. Another report from Jordan claimed that the chemicals, like the other supplies, came from Syria. It brought to mind the stories that were circulating in the press over a year ago that Iraqi WMDs were being transported in large numbers to Syria. The Iraq-Syrian border is difficult enough to seal now; at the time it was wide open. It would be an interesting development if 20 of the 1,000 tons of chemical weapons that the Blix report found unaccounted for in Iraq turned up in Jordan. The day after the video confessions aired, explosions hit Damascus. A group of four gunmen blew up a parked car in front of the U.N. Disengagement Observer Force building, which had been unused for several years and was then occupied by two homeless families. The men then began shooting randomly and throwing hand grenades, until security forces arrived and killed several of them. Hundreds of demonstrators then materialized, hoisting oversize pictures of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and chanting something about solidarity. ************** So what would you have done about al-Zarqawi given that Saddam did nothing?
Your sources: NewsMax, FoxNews, Townhall, NationalReview = NEOCONS R US. I think we need to include 'BeAChooser' as one of our keywords for the new 4 Category, 'Neocon Nuttery'. ;)
BAC is doing his usual tap-dancing around the real issue and hoping his loads of neocon spam will obscure that fact. Saddam tried to arrest Zarqawi and there are photos of the arrest warrant floating around on the web. Probably on http://antiwar.com. Now it is possible that Zarqawi tried to hook up with some terrorists, however those Ansar-i-Islam terrorists would have been in the Kurdish "No Fly Zone" where they were protected from Saddam by the United States Air Force. As I've posted, the trials in Jordan come from a criminal justice system where torture is routine. In fact, the US "renditions" people to Jordan with the expectation that the Jordanians will torture them profusely. There are very good reasons why legitimate legal systems abhor the use of torture to interrogate people, and getting false information from people being tortured is at the very top of those reasons. Last but not least, the issue is whether Saddam and Zarqawi were in collusion. The CIA and a bipartisan panel have concluded they were not, and any and all allegations they were, are false. So just because Zarqawi may have had any acquaintances in Iraq is totally beside the point. Saddam wanted to arrest Zarqawi. It's as silly as saying that Zarqawi has allies in Iraq today, so the Americans are in collusion with Zarqawi.
Did he REALLY try? No there aren't. There were no photos of any arrest warrant because there was no "arrest warrant". It's more than possible. Terrorists on trial in Jordan admitted to being al-Qaeda, being funded by al-Zarqawi, and having met with al-Zarqawi in Baghdad. There is no indication these individuals were tortured to make the admissions they did. They didn't appear tortured in the videos or in court. In open court with foreign journalists in attendance, they did not change their story. They did not claim they'd been tortured into making false admissions about al-Zarqawi. They continued to claim they were were al-Qaeda. Just be honest, AGAviator ... you wouldn't believe what they admitted to on tape even if the Pope himself had done the questioning. No, the issue is not that. The issue is what you would have done had we not invaded and al-Zarqawi continued to plot and fund terrorists attacks like the one in Jordan. And by the way, this wasn't the first terrorist attack that he was convicted of planning nor the first where he claimed to be behind it. Remember the bombing of the hotels in Jordan later on when al-Zarqawi was still at large after the invasion? No one (except perhaps you and those like you) believes that anyone other than al-Zarqawi was behind that. al-Zarqaw was indeed an evil person. The CIA reported in a separate report that an al-Zarqawi terrorist was arrested and then released on orders from Saddam. And your bipartisan panel was the usual Senate joke. The SIC report stated that the "regime did not ... snip ... turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi." That clearly isn't the case when captured Iraqi documents and CIA intelligence indicate the arrested of a member of his group who the arresting officer was convinced was guilty but who was ordered released by higher authority. Not when those acquantances plotted to kill twenty thousand people including everyone in the US embassy in Amman. Not when those acquantances were caught redhanded with the vehicles, explosives and chemicals they were going to us in the attack. You forget that this is a War On Terror. Let's see that arrest warrant. I'm betting you won't be able to supply one. Yeah, right.
Concerning BAC's contention that Zarqawi and Saddam were pals - BAC is working off out dated and debunked sources from Newsmax and Weekly Standard etc. Here, BAC, I'll bring you up to speed - while you were sleeping, there was a 9/11 Investigative bipartisan committee that toally debunked any co-operation between Saddam and OBL or Saddam and Zarqawi and in March 2003 George Tenet testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee and confirmed that Zarqawi did not have any relationship with Saddam. Zarqawi had a relationship with the Kurds - specifically Ansar al-Islam. Saddam did not have any relationship with OBL - OBL contacted him about providing a place for training camps in Iraq, but Saddam did not respond to OBL because some of OBL's followers were anti-Saddam. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812- 2004Jun16.html "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed" June 17, 2004 The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq. But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding. The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." ...In March, in a statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Tenet described Zarqawi's network as among groups having "links" to al Qaeda but with its own "autonomous leadership . . . own targets [and] they plan their own attacks." Although Zarqawi may have cooperated with al Qaeda in the past, officials said it is increasingly clear that he has been operating independently of bin Laden's group and has his own network of operatives. The other group, Ansar al-Islam, began in 2001 among Kurdish Sunni Islamic fundamentalists in northern Iraq, fighting against the two secular Kurdish groups that operated under the protection of the United States. At one point, bin Laden supported Ansar, as did Zarqawi, who is believed to have visited their area more than once. Tenet referred to Ansar as one of the Sunni groups that had benefited from al Qaeda links. ...The commission staff, in yesterday's report, said that while bin Laden was in Sudan between 1991 and 1996, a senior Iraqi intelligence officer made three visits to Sudan, and that he had a meeting with bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden was reported to have sought training camps and assistance in getting weapons, "but Iraq never responded," the staff said. The report said that bin Laden "at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan." Yah, so anyways, sorry BAC but another neocon warmongering lie bites the dust. Man you shouldn't take such long sleepybyes - you miss a lot of news that way.
I didn't say that, of course, which demonstrates how desperate you've become in this debate. I suppose like AGAviator, you think that all those captured al-Qaeda were coerced into saying that al-Zarqawi was the mastermind of their plot and even met some of them in Baghdad. I suppose you think there were coerced into saying they hoped to kill tens of thousands of Jordanians and all those in the US embassy in Amman. Actually, it claimed that Iraq's regime didn't turn a blind eye to al-Zarqawi but a CIA report and captured Iraqi documents prove that is false. They captured an associate of al-Zarqawi's and released him on orders from a high ranking official (the CIA even said it was Saddam himself). That is indeed turning a blind eye. Please ... a definition of "collaborative". Does it include the murals that Saddam put up showing him applauding the impact of the planes into the WTC towers? How was it that an Iraqi newspaper owned by one of Saddam's sons was able to get an interview with bin Laden shortly before 9/11? According to http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/05/september11/main520874.shtml, "The lawsuit alleges that Iraqi officials were aware, before Sept. 11, of plans by bin Laden to attack New York and the Pentagon. ... snip ... "We have evidence Iraq knew and approved of the Sept. 11 targets," he said. It relies in part on a newspaper article published July 21, 2001, in Al Nasiriyah, 185 miles southwest of Baghdad. The law firm provided The Associated Press with a copy of the article written in Arabic and an English translation. According to the lawsuit, a columnist writing under the byline Naeem Abd Muhalhal described bin Laden thinking "seriously, with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert, about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House." The columnist also allegedly wrote that bin Laden was "insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting," a possible reference to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. The lawsuit says a former associate of Muhalhal contends the writer has been connected with Iraqi intelligence since the early 1980s. It also says Muhalhal was praised by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in the Sept. 1, 2001, issue for his "documentation of important events and heroic deeds that proud Iraqis have accomplished." Kreindler said Muhalhal had advance knowledge of al Qaeda's specific targets on Sept. 11 and that "Iraqi officials were aware of plans to attack American landmarks." Muhalhal also wrote in the paper, which btw was owned by Saddam's son Qusay, that Bin Laden would "curse Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs", apparently a reference to the song New York, New York. Mulhalhal went on to write that, “The wings of a dove and the bullet are all but one and the same in the heart of a believer." which perhaps references an airplane attack." But then the commission never did explain the odd coincidence of Atta's hijackers residing only a few miles from the first anthrax case or where Atta was that week in April when a Czech informant said he saw Atta meeting with a top Iraqi case officer named al-Ani in Prague. It never did explain the coincidence that al-Ani's day calendar listed a meeting with a "hamburg student" on the day in question and Atta's travel documents all listed his occupation as "hamburg student". Truth is that the commission got a lot wrong. Why they didn't even get the collapse time of the WTC towers correct.
I didn't say that, of course, which demonstrates how desperate you've become in this debate. So BAC wants to make a Saddam-Zarqawi connection, then changes the subject and says that Saddam's relationship with Zarqawi was unimportant. But you're desperate. Now the new botshill talking point is there were alleged terrorists in Iraq when Saddam was in power. But now there are there more terrorists inside Iraq now than there were in 2002.
You like to use strawmen instead of valid logic as a debating technique. Established fact. Even the Senate Intelligence Committee recognized this. Who can say how many terrorists there might have been in Iraq now had we not invaded. Certainly the signs are there that Iraq was adopting terrorism as a tactic. During the invasion they found factories for making suicide bombs and camps where terrorists had obviously been trained. They found records showing that Saddam's regime had given safe haven to terrorists who had previously attacked the US (such as one of the 1993 WTC bombers). And al-Zarqawi was definitely expanding operations inside Iraq. They cited a 2002 CIA document saying: "The CIA summarized its overall views of possible Iraqi complicity regarding al-Zarqawi's presence and activities in Iraq as follows: "The presence of al-Qa'ida militants on Iraqi soil poses many questions. We are uncertain to what extent Baghdad is actively complicit in this use of its territory by al-Qa'ida operatives for safehaven and transit. Given the pervasive presence of Iraq's security apparatus, it would be difficult for al-Qa'ida operatives to maintain an active, long-term presence in Iraq without alerting the authorities or without at least their acquiescence." Then, the SCI wrote "The Committee concluded in 2004 that the CIA reasonably assessed that al-Qa'ida or associated operatives were present in 2002 in Baghdad, and in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq. The Committee noted that the CIA approached the issue of safehaven by describing the presence of al-Qa'ida and individuals associated with Ansar al-Islam - mainly the al-Zarqawi network - and explaining why the Iraqi regime likely knew of their presence in Baghdad and Kurdish areas." Now it is true that the report then states: "A postwar CIA assessment on al-Zarqawi notes that both former regime documents and former regime officials show that the IIS did respond to a foreign request for assistance in finding and extraditing al-Zarqawi for his role in the murder of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley. In the spring of 2002, the IIS formed a "special committee" to track down al-Zarqawi, but was unable to locate and capture him. The CIA, the DIA and FBI all reported that no evidence suggests that al-Zarqawi had been warned by a former Iraqi regime element that he had been located in Baghdad by the IIS. The CIA assessed that Zarqawi left Baghdad in the late November 2002." And notes that "During a postwar debriefing with the FBI, a high-ranking Iraqi official stated that in October 2002, the IIS received a request from a foreign government service to locate five individuals who were also suspected of involvement in the Foley murder. According to the official, the IIS Headquarters passed down a written order to locate and arrest these individuals. In early 2003, the IIS successfully arrested one of the individuals, Abu Yasim Sayyem." But after saying documents confirm the above, it says this: "Although Sayyem denied any affiliation with al-Qa'ida or Zarqawi, the IIS officer believed the evidence of criminal activity provided by the foreign intelligence service against Sayyem was compelling. For this reason, the IIS officer was shocked when the Director of his division ordered Sayyem to be released. According to the Iraqi official, the Director of his division told him that Saddam Hussein ordered Sayyem's release." And then after noting that Sayyem claimed he wasn't al-Qa'ida or had affilition with Zarqawi, the report goes on to say this about the other 4 that were sought along with him: "The Iraqi official claimed that he could not recall the names of the four associates of Sayyem sought by the foreing intelligence service. The Iraqi official claimed that the "IIS suspected the four suspects were hiding in Northern Iraq and may have had connections to Zarqawi." Hard to believe Sayyem's denial. Then it states that: "According to the CIA, a former IIS officer believed that Saddam released Sayyem because he "would participate in striking U.S. forces when they entered Iraq." I don't know about you or the SIC, but that sounds to me like Saddam KNOWINGLY allowing someone from al-Qaeda and with an association with al-Zarqawi to remain in Iraq BEFORE the invasion. That sounds like cooperation. That sounds like a direct contradiction to the next statement in the report .. namely that: "In 2005, the CIA assesssed that prior to the war, "the regime did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates." So, let's take a close look at the members of this committee Pat Roberts, Chairman Not a very inspiring group or one above playing political games. There are some mighty liberal and far left members in that list. There are a bunch who clearly ignored the facts during the impeachment of Clinton ... highly partisan in their behavior. There is one who may have been blackmailed during the Clinton impeachment. The Vice Chairman suggested in a memo written before the 9/11 Commission that his party should use the investigations of 9/11 to further their political interests. Let's face it ... it is hard to have a whole lot of faith in a report with the section on post war discovery of chemical munitions doesn't even mention the binary sarin shell that was used as an IED. Or a report that doesn't even discuss the possibility of munitions being moved to Syria before the war. Given the implications of both. It's hard to have faith in a document that doesn't even mention the Jordan chemical bomb plot and what they learned from the admissions of those terrorists. One admission being that they met al-Zarqawi IN BAGHDAD. And that occurred before the invasion. And obviously, the terrorists were able to move around rather freely in Iraq. It's hard to have faith in a report that tells us there was no Atta/al-Ani connection yet blacks out 4 large paragraphs in the portions of the report on that connection (see page 96, 97, 98 and pages 100-101). And while the report says the evidence shows that Atta is unlikely to have been in Prague for a April 9th meeting, it's evidence for this is that Atta checked out of a hotel in Virginia Beach on April 4th, cashed a check in the area on April 4th and rented an apartment on April 11th and his cell phone was in use between April 6 and April 11th in the US. Well, only the later would suggest that and even then, they don't know who used the phone. The hijackers were sharing many other things. And curiously, there is no mention in the report of al-Ani's day calendar containing an entry for a meeting with a "hamburg student", which is what Atta listed as his occupation on his travel documents. And there is no mention of Atta possibly having an anthrax infection, which might have bearing. And the exact same reasons given for Atta not being in Prague apply to his presence in the US at that time. At least there was a witness who says he saw Atta in Prague. There wasn't even a witness to his presence in the US during that time. And one more point, AGAviator. How many terrorists were in Afghanistan before we invaded Iraq or Afghanistan, and before 9/11? Just as many as are claimed to now be in Iraq. You see?
Hey shit for brains. There are more terrorists everywhere there are any terrorists than there were in 2002. Thanks to Bush and his ever-dwindling cadre of shillbot supporters like you. The number of terrorists has not decreased in any countries where they previously were. And the number of terrorists, alleged terrorists, and terrorist incidents has increased exponentially in Afghanistan and Iraq. Terrorist attacks in Iraq routinely kill hundreds week in and week out. There were no such attacks when Saddam was in control of Iraq. What's more, your stupid little straw man about "What would you have done about Zarqawi" should be posed to your butt-buddies in the White House and not to people on this site. Because, the Bush Administration turned down 3 separate requests to attack Zarqawi in Northern Iraq, where he was protected by the US Air Force and beyond Saddam Hussein's reach Miklaszewski wrote that "the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam." That is, the Bush White House let Zarqawi alone so it would have an easier time selling the war in Iraq. Here are some excerpts from the Miklaszewski article: NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself--but never pulled the trigger. In June 2002...[t]he Pentagon...drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.... Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe. The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq. "People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president's policy of preemption against terrorists," according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.... The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it. Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi's operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam. The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late--Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone.
Thank you for proving the fine debating skills of 4um members. Those, that is, that don't bozo themselves to avoid debate ... and that appears to be the majority of them. And there were more terrorists everywhere in 2002 than there were in 2000. And more in 2000 than in 1998. You see my point? It is a war. Has it? The number of folks who went through Bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan before we ever invaded ... before 9/11, in fact ... was tens of thousands. Are there tens of thousands of terrorists in Afghanistan now? Do they control the government? Yet thousands were dying week in and week out when Saddam was in control. So have things really changed for the worse? It's not a strawman. It's a real and serious question that you clearly don't and can't answer. You are just like the democRATS. All talk. You have NO plan for what you would have done about a guy in Iraq who was funding and masterminding plans to kill tens of thousands in Jordan, including many Americans. Would you have just ignored him and his activities? Maybe so since you don't seem to think the threat from terrorists is real. At least in that respect some democRATS show a little more sense. Hey, I'm not saying Bush and his administration didn't make serious mistakes. They did. But at least they finally ended the threat of Saddam and no part of Iraq is now the safe haven ... as some once were ... for terrorists. And his proof for this? What's the name of his source? Perhaps what the Bush administration said is the reality. That after what happened with bin Laden (the bombing of his camps and completely missing him), the administration wanted to end the problem once and for all. By going in on the ground. Again, what would you have done about al-Zarqawi? Am I correct in suggesting that you'd have also been against bombing the camps in Northern Iraq? That you would have been against sending in special forces to take care of them? Perhaps this indeed just another strawman you are putting forth to avoid telling us what you would have done about al-Zarqawi and al-Qaeda in Iraq ... to avoid telling us what you would have done to end Saddam's growing support of terrorists worldwide? Again, what's the source in the administration for this?
Idiot, if your strategy is creating more enemies rather than fewer enemies, it is a failure. You see my point? Then go fight it yourself. Address the issue, which is the WOT is supposed to result in fewer terrorists, not more. According to the people of Iraq, yes. And your claim that "thousands dying week in and week out when Saddam was in control" is dubious to put it mildly. And even if it were true, it is irrelevant, because you were talking about Zarqawi's terrorism - when it suits you. Hey asswipe. Why was Bush "just like the DemocRATS" and turned down 3 separate requests by his own armed forces to attack Zarqawi when he was in Kurdistan beyond the reach of Saddam and protected by the United States Air Force. You're just like Bush. All talk. Right under the nose of the American occupation, Zarqawi actually did kill thousands including many Americans, and not just "plot" to do it as you allege. So you've been rebutted. Your comments about "What would you have done about Zarqawi" are absolutely and totally irrelevant, because (A) Bush himself did nothing about Zarqawi, and (B) Under American occupation Zarqawi actually killed thousands of people, while all you can allege under Saddam is that he was considering doing it, but never actually did it. You've absolutely and totally been refuted. So naturally, you'll come up with more bullshit to try to obscure this fact. Is Bush a democRAT, brainless twerp? Because Bush did nothing about "him and his activities" in spite of being asked by his own armed forces on 3 separate occasions to do something. Iraq is a safe haven for terrorists to this day. And far more of them than there were during Saddam's time. That's why thousands of non-terrorists are dying every month. More of your patented intellectual dishonesty. Get your butt kicked with facts, and demand more proof. Again, what would Bush have done about Zarqawi? The facts are that Zarqawi was not killing people when Saddam was in power, so all your bullshit about Zaraqwi is irrelevant. Fuck you and do your own research, troll.
In response to your "Has it? Blah blah blah blam spam spam spam spam." I'd like to say ROTFLMAO! And demanding an admin source for a quote like, "(We) feared (that) destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut (our) case for war against Saddam." is absurd. The BushCo ops aren't ever going to be caught in a quote like that. But, the obvious and irrefutable truth is BushCo and his cronies wanted this "war", and they phonied up intel and pulled out all stops to sell it. When it suited them they pointed to Saddam's alleged non compliance with a UN resolution, hypocritically ignoring Israel's topping the non compliance list. This fact coupled with the attacks against every legit critic (because there can be no such thing as a legit critic of the war or Israel-their divine right demands it) is all the reason anyone needs to dismiss the shills. Why waste time arguing with lying, murdering, criminals and their facilitators/enablers? If the rules of honest debate and fair play cannot be successfully invoked and if the next morning any points you scored are ignored and the shill is right back on the playbook, then you should assume that any frustration you display is a source of humor for them. I wouldn't give them the satisfaction. If you're having fun trying to pin a greased pig then, fine. But, if you ever expect him to say "Wow, you sure nailed me with that inescapable logic! I concede the point!" then you will be disappointed. He is by his own admission posting for the benefit of casual readers who may scan a post and pick up a tidbit of misinfo then later repeat it. He isn't posting for the benefit of those who may be following your exchanges and keeping score. (You're slaughtering him on points of course) BushCo's constituents and supporters are not known for their keen analytical abilities and intellectual honesty. They're herded like sheep with sound bites and faux patriotism. They won't ever do their homework then conclude that they've been duped. In fact they'll go to their graves believing that Bush is a great "Merken" unless their own Kosher pastors and/or Rush/Sean/Bill tell them otherwise, and that's not likely. So, if you're attempting to defeat a worthy adversary in a stand up fight and he's only concerned with repeating talking points for the benefit of little monkey children who scan the thread (and, what are Bush supporters but immature simians?) then his goal is met and yours isn't. Why don't you try this: I say what I have to say and shill boy simply has to read it because like gay stud/Republican Jeff Gannon he's a "boytoy on a mission". BUT, I don't ever have to suffer his replies because as I told him, unless a "sponsor" thinks his posts are worthy of my time and quotes them then flags me I don't read them at all! In order to be worthy of my time and consideration at least one reasonable, respected member has to consider shill boy's points worthy, or they are in effect filtered for me! Would you have stood up in the White House press room and tried to seriously reply to Gannon's rhetorical, scripted questions? (White House protocol aside of course) Well, shill boy's talking points require no more serious consideration than Gannon's. Nothing anyone could have said could ever mean more to Gannon than his gay relationships with closeted admin officials. He isn't motivated by truth or logic, but rather the soft moaning of his satisfied customers. And by pretending to be a blue suit he was (and probably is) even more attractive to the dirty queers masquerading as "conservatives". And considering how the White House operates, shill boy may be Gannon! Good luck trying to prick holes in the stiff defenses he's erected before you! While you're trying to argue with truth and logic he's waving a stiffy...and neocon talking points....for a bunch of homos! Now, in light of this don't his non sequitur replies make a lot more sense?
I'm long past attempting to debate with this botspammer. That's why I only supply proof when I feel it's appropriate, and principally to impeach the botspammer's contentions. Otherwise I'd be at the computer or the library 24/7 to meet the spammer's demands for proof and more proof. I will, however, continue to rebut lies, misinformation, and seriously flawed excuses for arguments as I feel like it. And try to economize my use of words and my time while doing so. Not really for his benefit, but it does make me a better writer. As far as lurkers scanning the thread - BAC's pretend audience - no one's going to take mountains of words seriously when they continually get rebutted with a few short paragraphs or sentences. Even in presentations to top management the Golden Rule is "Keep It Simple, Stupid." Even more so when the [pretend] audience is not at that level of sophistication. For BAC to allege that anyone scanning this site is going to wade through mountains of his contorted logic, when all that person has to do is skip ahead and see the concise rebuttal, is just further proof of his delusional nature. "ROTFLOL!"
perfect
perfect Let's take this a little futher. Can you as site administrator tell how many people are lurking on BAC's threads? ROTFLAMO!
#176. To: AGAviator (#174)
no, i can't. there is the view count on each thread, but there's no way of knowing who specifically is lurking.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: gengis gandhi, Hayek Fan, robin, christine, Brian S, Neil McIver, aristeides, AGAviator, BeAChooser, bluedogtxn, leveller, Burkeman1 (#1)
don't need a crystal ball to see that place as a spook front.
#5. To: scrapper2 (#3)
Good thing for you, BAC, that you were thrown off LP by Goldi and you came here to 4um or you could be part of a spook operation...hmmm....or you would be part of a spook op...or you are part of ...hmmm...
#6. To: robin, scrapper2 (#5)
Good thing for you, BAC, that you were thrown off LP by Goldi and you came here to 4um or you could be part of a spook operation...hmmm....or you would be part of a spook op...or you are part of ...hmmm...
#8. To: Destro (#6)
#9. To: robin (#8)
Many posters were thown off LP, but none with BAC's posting history.
#14. To: honway, christine, skydrifter (#9)
(Edited)
#23. To: IndieTX, honway, christine, SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#14)
BAC's false story about being "thrown off LP" was a set-up and coordinated with "goldilicks"...whoever he or she REALLY is..to give him an excuse to come here and invade. He is a spook and agent provacteur. I would BAN him if I owned this forum as well. As it is, all should BOZO him immediately.
#59. To: BeAChooser (#23)
Isn't it amazing that so many FD4UM members are anxious to get rid of a poster who has been courteous, who hasn't labeled anyone or called anyone a name while at FD4UM, who hasn't been the least bit vulgar, who has posted hundreds of sourced facts about topics that should be of interest, and who has been willing to debate their accuracy whenever challenged?
#62. To: AGAviator, ALL (#59)
It's about your obnoxious, thread-spamming, and frequently irrelevant remarks which you repeat over, and over, and over, and over - combined with a shameless acceptance of any claims the Bush Administation has to make explaining its actions.
#63. To: BeAChooser (#62)
#64. To: AGAviator, ALL (#63)
Your use of that chart on this thread is a perfect example of your thread- spamming.
#65. To: BeAChooser (#64)
Post #92
"Since 9/11, the GDP of the US has increased by something on the order of 2 TRILLION dollars a year."
"You clearly made the claim that the rise in government expenditures was responsible for the tremendous increase in GDP (to the tune of 2 billion a year) by the end of the five years since 9/11."
"You made the claim that the 2 trillion dollar increase per year in GDP is mostly government spending."
"Yet, the GDP has gone from about 10 billion to about 12 billion a year ... a 20 percent increase"
“Obviously I meant $2 trillion"
“Total government spending… was roughly 2.75 trillion dollars. A 33 percent increase would amount to 900 million
"OK. So I was wrong...Big deal. "
“But it is clearly what I meant" [!!]
“So my language was sloppy. Sue me."
“I meant billion. Sue me."
“I'm just tired"
You were off by a factor of a thousand.
BeALooser posted on 2006-06-29 19:16:07 ET
BeALooser posted on 2007-01-21 17:27:20 ET
#66. To: AGAviator, ALL (#65)
No, that would be these
"American soldiers are going to die whether we are in Iraq or not. That's one of the facts the American public needs to face.."
“ a country this size can't sustain 9 KIA a day in a global war."
#67. To: BeAChooser (#66)
(Edited)
a. "American soldiers are going to die whether we are in Iraq or not. That's one of the facts the American public needs to face.."
#69. To: scrapper2, AGAviator, all (#67)
Uh...why would our soldiers die whether we were in Iraq or not?
Why should we be wanting to sustain a loss of 9 KIA a day
#74. To: BeAChooser (#69)
BEFORE we invaded Iraq, al-Zarqawi, operating out of Iraq, was plotting attacks against US allies and Americans. One such plot hoped to kill every American in the US embassy in Amman. What would you have done about him and his associates, given that Saddam was showing no willingness to stop him?
#89. To: scrapper2, Burkeman1, BeAChooser, christine (#74)
BEFORE we invaded Iraq, al-Zarqawi, operating out of Iraq, was plotting attacks against US allies and Americans.
Report finds no Saddam, Zarqawi ties
But of course, let's not allow the America-hating media to publish these facts, or the America-hating CIA to investgate them, or a bipartisan America-hating Congressional panel to come to this conclusion.
By Rowan Scarborough and Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
September 9, 2006
#96. To: AGAviator, scrapper2, Burkeman1, christine, ALL (#89)
BEFORE we invaded Iraq, al-Zarqawi, operating out of Iraq, was plotting attacks against US allies and Americans.
One of BAC's many lies lifted from the Weekly Standard which he repeats endlessly.
#98. To: BeAChooser (#96)
#116. To: christine (#98)
(Edited)
Your sources: NewsMax, FoxNews, Townhall, NationalReview = NEOCONS R US. I think we need to include 'BeAChooser' as one of our keywords for the new 4 Category, 'Neocon Nuttery'. ;)
#122. To: AGAviator, christine, ALL (#116)
Saddam tried to arrest Zarqawi
there are photos of the arrest warrant floating around on the web.
Now it is possible that Zarqawi tried to hook up with some terrorists
As I've posted, the trials in Jordan come from a criminal justice system where torture is routine.
the issue is whether Saddam and Zarqawi were in collusion.
The CIA and a bipartisan panel have concluded they were not, and any and all allegations they were, are false.
So just because Zarqawi may have had any acquaintances in Iraq is totally beside the point.
Saddam wanted to arrest Zarqawi.
so the Americans are in collusion with Zarqawi.
#126. To: BeAChooser, AGAviator (#122)
#127. To: scrapper2, AGAviator, ALL (#126)
Concerning BAC's contention that Zarqawi and Saddam were pals
there was a 9/11 Investigative bipartisan committee that toally debunked any co-operation between Saddam and OBL or Saddam and Zarqawi
The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda
"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."
#133. To: scrapper2, BeAChooser (#127)
Concerning BAC's contention that Zarqawi and Saddam were pals
#137. To: AGAviator, scrapper, ALL (#133)
So BAC wants to make a Saddam-Zarqawi connection
Now the new botshill talking point is there were alleged terrorists in Iraq when Saddam was in power.
But now there are there more terrorists inside Iraq now than there were in 2002.
John D. Rockefeller IV, Vice Chairman
Orrin Hatch
Mike Dewine
Christopher Bond
Trent Lott
Olympia Snowe
Chuck Hagel
Saxby Chambliss
Carl Levin
Dianne Feinstein
Ron Wyden
Evan Bayh
Barbara Mikulski
Russell Feingold
#147. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2, Skydrifter, christine (#137)
(Edited)
And one more point, AGAviator. How many terrorists were in Afghanistan before we invaded Iraq or Afghanistan, and before 9/11? Just as many as are claimed to now be in Iraq. You see?
In March 2004, NBC News' Jim Miklaszewski reported that the White House had three times in 2002 turned down a Pentagon request to attack Zarqawi, who then was believed to be running a weapons lab in northern Iraq--in territory not controlled by Saddam Hussein's government.
You lying little troll.
#152. To: AGAviator, ALL (#147)
Hey shit for brains.
There are more terrorists everywhere there are any terrorists than there were in 2002.
The number of terrorists has not decreased in any countries where they previously were.
And the number of terrorists, alleged terrorists, and terrorist incidents has increased exponentially in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Terrorist attacks in Iraq routinely kill hundreds week in and week out. There were no such attacks when Saddam was in control of Iraq.
What's more, your stupid little straw man about "What would you have done about Zarqawi"
Because, the Bush Administration turned down 3 separate requests to attack Zarqawi in Northern Iraq, where he was protected by the US Air Force and beyond Saddam Hussein's reach
In March 2004, NBC News' Jim Miklaszewski reported that the White House had three times in 2002 turned down a Pentagon request to attack Zarqawi, who then was believed to be running a weapons lab in northern Iraq--in territory not controlled by Saddam Hussein's government.
Miklaszewski wrote that "the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."
Here are some excerpts from the Miklaszewski article:
Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi's operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.
#167. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2, christine, SKYDRIFTER, FormerLurker, Dakmar (#152)
(Edited)
There are more terrorists everywhere there are any terrorists than there were in 2002. And there were more terrorists everywhere in 2002 than there were in 2000. And more in 2000 than in 1998.
You see my point?
The number of terrorists has not decreased in any countries where they previously were.
It is a war.
And the number of terrorists, alleged terrorists, and terrorist incidents has increased exponentially in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Has it? Blah blah blah blam spam spam spam spam.
Terrorist attacks in Iraq routinely kill hundreds week in and week out. There were no such attacks when Saddam was in control of Iraq.
Yet thousands were dying week in and week out when Saddam was in control. So have things really changed for the worse?
What's more, your stupid little straw man about "What would you have done about Zarqawi"
It's not a strawman. It's a real and serious question that you clearly don't and can't answer. You are just like the democRATS. All talk.
You have NO plan for what you would have done about a guy in Iraq who was funding and masterminding plans to kill tens of thousands in Jordan, including many Americans.
Would you have just ignored him and his activities? Maybe so since you don't seem to think the threat from terrorists is real. At least in that respect some democRATS show a little more sense.
Because, the Bush Administration turned down 3 separate requests to attack Zarqawi in Northern Iraq, where he was protected by the US Air Force and beyond Saddam Hussein's reach
Hey, I'm not saying Bush and his administration didn't make serious mistakes. They did. But at least they finally ended the threat of Saddam and no part of Iraq is now the safe haven ... as some once were ... for terrorists.
Miklaszewski wrote that "the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."
And his proof for this? What's the name of his source?
Again, what would you have done about al-Zarqawi?
Again, what's the source in the administration for this?
#169. To: AGAviator (#167)
Has it? Blah blah blah blam spam spam spam spam.
#171. To: HOUNDDAWG (#169)
(Edited)
So, if you're attempting to defeat a worthy adversary in a stand up fight and he's only concerned with repeating talking points for the benefit of little monkey children who scan the thread (and, what are Bush supporters but immature simians?) then his goal is met and yours isn't.
#173. To: AGAviator (#171)
As far as lurkers scanning the thread - BAC's pretend audience - no one's going to take mountains of words seriously when they continually get rebutted with a few short paragraphs or sentences. Even in presentations to top management the Golden Rule is "Keep It Simple, Stupid." Even more so when the [pretend] audience is not at that level of sophistication. For BAC to allege that anyone scanning this site is going to wade through mountains of his contorted logic, when all that person has to do is skip ahead and see the rebuttal, is just further proof of his delusional nature.
#174. To: christine (#173)
For BAC to allege that anyone scanning this site is going to wade through mountains of his contorted logic, when all that person has to do is skip ahead and see the rebuttal, is just further proof of his delusional nature.
Replies to Comment # 174. Can you as site administrator tell how many people are lurking on BAC's threads?
End Trace Mode for Comment # 174.
