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: 14515
Comments: 257
FYI....very interesting indeed.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#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.
“All of us should treasure his (John Dillinger) Oriental wisdom and his preaching of a Zen-like detachment, as exemplified by his constant reminder to clerks, tellers, or others who grew excited by his presence in their banks: "Just lie down on the floor and keep calm."” --- Robert Anton Wilson “Intelligence is the capacity to receive, decode and transmit information efficiently. Stupidity is blockage of this process at any point. Bigotry, ideologies etc. block the ability to receive; robotic reality-tunnels block the ability to decode or integrate new signals; censorship blocks transmission.” --- Robert Anton Wilson
synchronicity ping.
“All of us should treasure his (John Dillinger) Oriental wisdom and his preaching of a Zen-like detachment, as exemplified by his constant reminder to clerks, tellers, or others who grew excited by his presence in their banks: "Just lie down on the floor and keep calm."” --- Robert Anton Wilson “Intelligence is the capacity to receive, decode and transmit information efficiently. Stupidity is blockage of this process at any point. Bigotry, ideologies etc. block the ability to receive; robotic reality-tunnels block the ability to decode or integrate new signals; censorship blocks transmission.” --- Robert Anton Wilson
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
seriously
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush hmmm... is right
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush I was thrown off LP as well - hmmmm
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
LP was always so dopey that I don't believe that I ever joined - at least, I hope that I didn't.
Many posters were thown off LP, but none with BAC's posting history.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush In light of this information,if this was my site, I would dump BAC.
Find the 1 pixel gif in this post, scrapper. ROTFLOL! Maybe its the dot at the bottom of the exclamation point. Try clicking it. ROTFLOL!
So where's your 1 pixel gif hidden? ROTFLOL! (Mines the dot under the exclamation point.) Woe to any who respond to my laughing. ROTFLOL!
Careful, honway. Don't click the dot at the bottom of the ROTFLOL!
Ex-FRaudster chemanus better known as Brer Rabbit on ElPee went waaaaay out of his way to pretend to be my friend and smoothly tried to get my home address so he could mail me some "great homemade cheese." "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may know peace." -Thomas Paine In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these. 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.
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may know peace." -Thomas Paine In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these. I hate the fact that we must remain so distant on these forums. I really think there are some good people that I interact with on the net, but...one never knows. Whenever some mentions a 'meetup', I always have "something else to do", indeed!
He has been on my BZ list since about 1 day after his appearance here on this forum. Indeed, he wouldn't have a place on any forum of mine.
Prudence in these treacherous times is never to be criticized. I agree completely. Meetings violate the principle of LEADERLESS RESISTANCE. Groups will always expose you to infiltration...and incarceration. Why on earth should we make it easy on these fascist jackboot clowns???
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may know peace." -Thomas Paine In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these. "Army of One"!!! /chuckle
i've met and made some very good friends from the forums.
Not quite. Read up on the term and you'll find that's not correct. These times call for clandestine methods which is all I will say on the subject. I too have made some wonderful friends on THIS forum...that's it. The other forums I wouoldn't trust as far as I could spit.
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may know peace." -Thomas Paine In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these. I have too, but not from this type of forum.
You can't get more "clandestine" that operating solo... Trust no one other than your pets. People suck!
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!
I really think there are some good people that I interact with on the net, but...one never knows. Whenever some mentions a 'meetup', I always have "something else to do", indeed! Prudence in these treacherous times is never to be criticized. I agree completely. Pretty paranoid if you ask me. All a gubmint agent would have to do is hotlink a photo of their server to get your IP address and then head over to your internet service provider with a National Security Letter or a subpoena and they would have your name and address before lunch time. And that's if it's the FBI. The NSA gets it piped in directly. I say fuck 'em. I'm not gonna skulk around in fear because of some gubmint goober in a bad suit and cheap shoes. Besides, they aren't going to do anything with the likes of us anyways. As long as the sheep keep grazing, there isn't much need for the powers that be to stir things up. They may cull a few resisters from the herd from time to time to make an example of, but the odds of being that person are pretty slim for the time being. PS: All that being said, there are sometimes when I drift into a melancholy mood and think they could probably load us into boxcars by the thousands and no one would give a shit.
I'm wondering if it's not happening here, My machine has intermittent problems while browsing this website, but when I'm not, it's fine. I am beginning to believe that there are elements at work here who quite frankly should not be here for the good of the site, and the protection of other people's privacy.
Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.
I'm not "skulking" around in fear but I'm not stupid either. Randy Weaver, perhaps, could give you some of the pluses and minuses on excepting people into your circle and inviting them into your home. Do as you may, I'm quite content and justified with my "paranoia". Keeps me on my toes, the scopes clean and hammer ready.
I would.
PS: All that being said, there are sometimes when I drift into a melancholy mood and think they could probably load us into boxcars by the thousands and no one would give a shit. I would. "..... load us into boxcars by the thousands ...." I believe you BAC, on this, I believe you!
It's one thing to make a buddy and quite another to saw off a shotgun for them. You have to wonder just how bright was Weaver. I mean if a dude keeps bugging me to saw off a shotgun for them, I say "is your fucking arm broken" and point them to the nearest ACE Hardware. "Hacksaws are in aisle 4, good luck with that."
BeAChooser: I would. That's a sweet answer to Smokin's reverie. I wonder if you really meant the sentiment you expressed. I sense you are worried the majority of thumbs are pointing down. I don't have much experience with you but your legend preceded you here. Why are you here? You take so much abuse - you admit it and no one denies it, so that's the puzzle, why are you here? You could set up your own blog if you wanted to educate "lurkers" or "visitors" or you could post at the countless neocon blogs you source - why here at 4um wherein no one shares your perspective and you present yourself as a target? What do you get out of it? And it seems more than unusual that you'd be banned from LP for something so insignificent - what was it? criticizing GWB for his open borders policy or something minor like that? Is that all it took to push the LP mod over the edge? It seems so strange. Can you explain it better to me. And no I don't think anyone here believes you are part of a "Zionist conspiracy" - your words, not ours - but the timing of your departure and odd things coming up at LP - well it's all unsettling. What say you?
Randy's a dear friend of mine and my husband's. Incidentally, there's going to be a Ruby Ridge special on the Nat'l Geographic channel on March 13th. Randy said they interviewed him on his back porch for 5 1/2 hrs for it. They also interviewed Sarah, his daughter, Gerry Spence, and "the other side." He doesn't know how it's going to be spun as they've not given him a copy of the finished product.
BAC has always worked with 'handlers;' they set his rules. BAC broke the rules, a while back - got badly caught in a lie - and he lost most of his technical support. In the world of Psyops, you NEVER get caught in a lie; BAC blew it. He used to be one hell of a tough intellectual opponent. Until his handlers decided to give him a lesson, I thought I was up against a single mind. He's still "hooked-up," though. He'll mind his P's-n-Q's, until the Iran operation goes down. Then, you'll see his true colors.
I did. Not in the least. I've already told you. So visitors to FD4UM see both sides of certain issues. I don't mind. It actually helps me prove a point. The difference of opinion makes for a better debate. Intellectual stimulation and the satisfaction of knowing someone out there might appreciate hearing both sides of certain allegations. I don't see why either should bother you enough to want me gone. This should answer your question: http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=45230&Disp=75#C75 Oh Goldi's problem with me goes way back. Ask SKYDRIFTER. See above link. No, some of them have actually indicated they think I'm part of some zionist conspiracy. Indeed. What say you?
I say I'd like more straight answers from you. a. You could set up your own blog if you wanted to educate "lurkers" or "visitors" or you could post at the countless neocon blogs you source - why here at 4um? Intellectual stimulation can be gotten at aforementioned places. What's in it for you at 4um? b. Who accuses you of being part of a Zionist Conspiracy? Rubbish. That you are a neocon - yes, that's obvious. That you maybe a cyber police plant, well that's the question isn't it. c. Where would you post if you got banned here?
I don't think so because he really did annoy Goldi over a period of years and she's banned a lot of posters. IMO a real spook would pretend to be something they are not, like post a lot of inflammatory articles about Israel or Jews in an attempt to incite people. I think BAC is just obsessed with 911, and can't stand thinking that his govt would lie to him. There are some people like that.
People suck! I've thought that very same thing at times.
Hell, even my dogs will lie to me now and then, but they are just 'white lies'. Like, "I'll bark that I hear something outside so you will get off the computer and play with me for awhile"...
On the contrary, they are much like FD4UM was before I joined. They often practice group think. I think I answered that. Jethro Tull called me a Zionist. And he most certainly believes there is a conspiracy. And so does SKYDRIFTER and he called me a "Mossadite piece of shit". And that's just one of several threads. Guess that depends on your definition. And that is? Well then you might be in real trouble. But rest easy. I'm not your problem. I don't intend to do anything that should get me banned.
I don't think you're a spook, but when you behave in an arrogant manner towards others it makes them angry. This forum is too small, and there are many, many forums out there that it wouldn't be worth it to have spooks. As I said I would be more leery of posters who only pop by to post inflammatory articles, using the Borat method. No one here really fits that.
I know the government lies to me all the time. Sometimes its for my own good. Sometimes it is not. As to being obsessed with 911, I suppose I plead guilty. But then if that were a crime we'd almost all be behind bars.
I'm not, except on Halloween. Correcting misinformation and posting facts and sound logic is not arrogance.
Honestly, I'm really trying to be helpful around here.
I can vouch for that as well. Goldi got sick of their fights from way back. I think BAC's for real he's just got a difficult personality and does not always debate honestly. Red Jones can tell you the same as he was there too.
Like, "I'll bark that I hear something outside so you will get off the computer and play with me for awhile"... Or "Give me a treat, or some of your food, I want it NOW!"
You probably don't see it, but I think that's what the main problem is.
People suck! I have to agree.
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may know peace." -Thomas Paine In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these. Let us all pray for Randy, and that someday, those responsible for his losses will pay dearly at the end of a long rope.!!! Nite all...
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may know peace." -Thomas Paine In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these. Maybe its the dot at the bottom of the exclamation point. Try clicking it. ROTFLOL Looser never did explain the meaning of This Post on ElPee to me BeALooser posted on 2006-12-07 00:30:59 ET And it just so happens on the same thread, on this post there was an image posted by none other than...Looser. Coincidence? You be the judge...
Sounds like a self-esteem problem. In what case is being lied to for your own good?
Who is suggesting you are part of a Zionist conspiracy? You do put a lot of effort into bending over backwards for the government in regard to 9/11 and the war in Iraq, but you never mention Israel. hmmmm... LOL!
God is always good! I would like to believe that, but I sure wouldn't bet on it.
God is always good! I would. But would you do anything about it? If our government really did that would you fight them, or continue to make excuses for them.
God is always good! Yet you believe their fairy tale about 9/11. LOL!
God is always good! After wiping the tears from my eyes, and regaining my composure, all I can say is... YOU ARE A KOOK!
Ooser got banned because he was badgering Goldi on a amnesty bill thread to ban Uncle Bill, Scivener, TwentyTwelve, and any other "kooks" he could think of, including me.
I read part of that LP exchange, and came across this post by BeAChooser to you: 137. To: AGAviator, ALL (#135) What's important, Looser, is not who my friends are I suspect who YOUR friends are is very important. BeAChooser posted on 2006-12-07 00:29:28 ET Reply Trace BeAChooser, what is that suppose to mean? Also I find it curious how the citizens of Iraq were armed to the teeth, I do remember through the years seeing photos of men, ordinary men, holding and shooting machine guns. There seemed to be no gun control laws like we have in America, and I remembered reading that in Iraq having lots of guns was part of the culture. Reading BAC's post #134 on that thread got me to thinking about that, how there were so many guns and ammunition all over Iraq. It's just unusual in a dictatorship situation for the citizenry to have so many weapons, so many guns of all kinds available to them.
Thats all that anyone will ever need to know about your mentality. "Sometimes its for my own good." What an idiot.
You must not own any cats. :-)
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.
Tell your masters I will help Putin destroy America....
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Here is precisely what happened, folks: http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=45230&Disp=75#C75
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.
And within 6 months both the Battle of the Coral Sea and the Battle of Midway were won, and within 18 months the person responsible for Pearl Harbor - Admiral Yamamoto - was located and killed. And all because the American media supported that war. Yup. BWAHAHAHA!
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.
We could sustain a lot more than that, but we can't sustain the monetary costs per day for this war. The Federal Reserve can print all the money it wants too, but there are consequences for doing so.
God is always good! And how many Americans had died in the first 6 months? With any end for the war still years away? How much of Americas resources were being spent on the war with any end years away? And fighting over what? Some tropical islands with no resources whatsoever? And if the American media reported those deaths, those expenses, and the costly progress of the war the same as they've reported Iraq, do you honestly think American morale would have been as high as it was? Or would America have been talking about suing for peace to end the nightmare?
What did you mean when you said that to AGAviator on that LP thread?
We sustained far more than those monetary costs in WW2. WW2 cost 130 percent of GDP. Even at AGAviator's two trillion, the Iraq war would only be a 5 to 10 percent of current GDP.
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...
Did you read the thread in question, Diana? The answer lies within...
Thousands and thousands of islamo-fanatics have been created by American support of Israel, invading Afghanistan and invading Iraq. They have every right to attack us there. It's their land, not ours, you fucking nitwit.
False.
Yes I read that long thread, but that's a cryptic answer. So what did you mean, first he said it's not important who his friends are, then you gave him that somewhat ominous answer and I wondered what you meant by that. And when Scrapper2 said something about being taken away in a boxcar, and you said you would care, did you mean you'd care as in you'd be against it, that you would want no harm to come to her or did you mean you'd care in that you'd be all for it? Sometimes you're not real clear on those issues.
You're living in a dream world. Go read some newspapers from the time. The fact is, within 6 months the US was on its way to winning because they had some political and military leadership who knew how to lead. Oh yeah, and the President at the time was a Democrat! ROTFLAMO!
Not the issue. AGAviator claimed we could NOT sustain such losses. 300,000 plus dead and missing in WW2 proves that isn't true. It is true. Didn't you pay any attention to the news? The terrorists were even convicted of the plot. One of those convicted was al-Zarqawi. Not the question. What would you have done about al-Zarqawi if he'd killed a few hundred or thousand Americans in such a plot (not to mention tens of thousands of Jordanians) given that Saddam wasn't doing anything to curtail his activities? Well, that's your opinion. Again, your opinion. Opinions are a dime a dozen. So are "advisors".
Well let's see, 2 trillion divided by 10 trillion per year for 3 years. Yep ... 5 to 10 percent of GDP.
First of all, it wasn't scrapper who said that and second, yes, I'd be against it.
But at what cost? To win the war they spent over 300,000 American lives and a fantastic percentage of the GDP. Over what? A few islands? And a case can be made that we forced the Japanese into attacking us when we cutoff their access to oil. What right did we have to do that?
Yes it was SmokinOps, just testing (!). I guess you don't want to answer about AGAviator's friends.
You're so full of yourself. Only this year's GDP is "current."
You're changing the subject. The war was not won or lost because of the media or the Democrats. In fact, the Democrats were the party in power.
a. Oh my, do I detect seething white hot anger in the ever so polite and civil, BeAChooser, because I used the name of Precious ( aka Israel) in vain? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Do you wuv Israel, BAC, so much that you believe American citizen-soldiers should fight and die in ME wars for Israel's benefit? Please answer my question. b. As for Philip Zelikow's position and stature... I got news for you, Boozer, Philip Zelikow is not just a run of the mill "advisor" as you would like the lurkers/visitors to think. Professor Philip Zelikow was appointed by the President of the U-S-A ( the highest elected officer in the land)to be the Executive Director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on America in September 2001 - the 9/11 commission. Professor Zelikow is a big shot. Get it, BAC? Also, Professor Zelikow is Jewish American so don't try to claim he is a KKK white supremacist or an anti-semite ( favorite character assassination techniques). "...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 September 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of September 11 and the future of the war on al-Qaeda. "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..." c. Also, the highly esteemed Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, from U of Chicago and Harvard, just published a research study in March 2006 that confirmed what Zelikow said - the Iraq invasion was mainly for Israel's benefit. Israel refuses to sign a mutual defense treaty with America. It would appear that Israel can't be bothered to fight and die for America. Nice.
It's their land, not ours, you fucking nitwit. Ummm, not to BOT a brain they don't. The very act of defending your nation, or even seeking to defend your nation with modern weapons is "aggression" to the BOT brain and the DCniks. Indeed- defending your country from American invasion (which, BOTS believe "the people" of these weakling countries actually want to be invaded and bombed by America as we are that good and bring utopia where ever we go) is itself seen as "terrorism" and therefore illegitimate. Any resistance to American military aggression is evil to the BOT. The enemy subhuman and thus deserving of no rights or quarter- meat to be murdered or tortured to death at a whim. To the BOT- America, by definition cannot wage an immoral or evil war because BOTS believe (and this is why they are not conservatives at all but radicals and fascists) that America is destined to bring the world into a "New Age"- some believe chosen by GOD to do this while others just think of it in Proto Marxian terms as "inevitiable". They see history as drawing to a climatic close- and America is leading the charge of progress into a bright perfect peaceful future. Thus- any who opposse America in this most noble of God or Providence given quests for the betterment of Humanity are "Evil". Thus to even raise arms in defense of your nation, your city, your town, even your family . . . from American arms is the act of vermin scum who must be exterminated from the face of the earth. BOTS don't view Moslems as enemies per se- but as literally vermin to be wiped away if they don't submit. Their precious DC can literally do no wrong (oh- they sometimes bitch about taxes but they don't mean it). Oh sure- there are "mistakes" and "war is hell" stuff. But they are never ever "Systematic" and never ever does America "mean" to kill a whole lot of people. It is just that the terrorists make them do it . . . Oh well- you get the idea.
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.
(Reuters) - Tomas Young was 22 years old and working as a waiter for a Kansas City-area eatery in 2001 when attacks on the World Trade Center spurred him to a patriotic act. "I wanted to go to Afghanistan to exact some retribution on the people who attacked us," said Young, who joined the Army days after the September 11 attacks. Today, the 27-year-old is paralyzed from the chest down because of a bullet he took in Iraq, not Afghanistan. He spends his days trying to convince others not to enlist -- part of a growing movement of Iraq war veterans, military family members and others determined to stop a war they see as ill-advised and possibly illegal. He's been brainwashed by the media, according to the 'bots.
Parse all you want (it's so Clintonesque). 2 trillion dollars over the period of the war so far is less than 10 percent of total GDP during that time. Here's an interesting webpage: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php That has a chart showing military spending as a percentage of GDP from 1940 to 2003. It shows that during the course of WW2, the US spend over 45% of total GDP on the war during that time. So to suggest this war is not affordable but WW2 was doesn't seem logical.
My, haven't they changed.
No war is affordable, but especially this one one where every penny spent is a penny wasted.
You're the one whose parsing. You took this year's GDP and multiplied it by 3, Bubba. What's more, military spending does not tell the whole picture of military- related expenses included in other departmental budgets. Last but not least, after WW II the US economy went on a tremendous growth spurt because America had some undeveloped resources, and also plenty of manufacturing and contstruction jobs. No such possibility exists today, because nearly all the manufacturing jobs have been exported to foreign countries due to the greed and incompetence of both the corporate managers and the Republibot politicians they've bought.
Psychoanalysis is obviously not your forte. I don't believe I've ever actually used those techniques. Could setting up strawmen be one of your favorite debating techniques? But let's see what one can find on Zelikow that doesn't involve the KKK or charges of anti-semitism. Well first, because he was executive director of the 9/11 Commission, I'll bet he doesn't think bombs/missiles/DU/energybeams/nukes brought down the WTC or damaged the Pentagon. Should I use him as a reference when debunking those accusations? I also bet he doesn't think Bush lied us into war. And found this from none other than Zelikow regarding your assertion: ********** http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n10/letters.html From Philip Zelikow In their essay ‘The Israel Lobby’, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt invoke comments made by me as evidence for a controversial assertion of their own concerning the motives for the US invasion of Iraq (LRB, 23 March): Readers may find it interesting to know what I actually said and how Mearsheimer and Walt appear to have misused my comments. My talk was on 10 September 2002 at a 9/11 anniversary symposium. I argued that possession of nuclear (or biological) weapons by Saddam Hussein would be very dangerous. Reflecting on my White House work during the Gulf War in 1990-91, I did point out that I believed then, and later, that the most likely direct target of an Iraqi WMD attack would be Israel, but that policymakers had no wish to emphasise this. That said, any US or European government, in 1991 or later, would rightly have regarded an Iraqi nuclear attack on Israel – or on any other country – as a horrific prospect they would do much to prevent. Neither of these conclusions – that Saddam’s possession of nuclear weapons would be dangerous, or that Israel might be most directly threatened by such weapons – was especially remarkable. These things were understood in 1991. Iraq tried very hard to pull Israel into that war and its politics, ultimately even bombarding Israel with ballistic missiles. The coalition laboured successfully to thwart Saddam and keep Israel out of that war. None of this, though, bore on the question of what to do about a possible Iraqi WMD programme in 2002. On that issue – whether or when the US ought to go to war with Iraq – I expressed no view in my September 2002 talk, or on any other public occasion during those years. Nor did I try to explain why the Bush administration went to war, either in 2002 or after the invasion in 2003 or 2004. And in those years I had little special knowledge of those motives. My work on the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (from which I resigned in February 2003) had not involved Iraq. So how did my views wind up in Mearsheimer and Walt’s essay as evidence that Bush went to war in part for Israel? In 2004, local reports of my September 2002 comments were discovered by the Inter Press Service. To put it mildly, that body has a strong political point of view. It circulated on the web an article headlined ‘War Launched to Protect Israel – Bush Adviser’. Without any evidence other than the old September 2002 quotes, the article’s lead was: ‘Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.’ The claim has bounced around the internet ever since. Mearsheimer and Walt cite this article, which they found in Asia Times Online, as their source for my comments. The original slur did not deserve a response, but the situation is different when it is repeated by two accredited scholars, and endorsed by publication in the LRB. The claim still has three holes. First, like most of the world, I did think that, if Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear weapons, this would endanger the interests of America and the world in several ways, including the direct threat of a possible strike on Israel. Second, I did not state an opinion about whether this should be a cause for war in 2002-03. Third, I did not state an opinion – or even have any special knowledge – about the motives of the Bush administration in going to war in 2003. I hope that readers will contrast these points with what Mearsheimer and Walt wrote in the passage quoted above. Readers will also notice that the passage leads with a reference to the ‘Lobby’, of which I am clearly presumed to be a part. There is no evidence for that either. Philip Zelikow *********** Well ... I guess the above letter from Zelikow shows the falseness of that claim and casts further doubt on the credibility of those two "esteemed" professors. I'm surprised you hadn't seen this letter, scrapper. It was linked in the very first hit I encountered when I used my web browser with the search phrase "Philip Zelikow". Gee ... wish I wasn't on a self-imposed laugh ban.
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?
But I gave you the benefit of the doubt and included all 2 trillion of your claimed costs. Shall we use the expenses as of this point? The same is true of the listed WW2 costs. Gosh ... we've been in a tremendous growth spurt while the Iraq has been going on. Gee ... are you callously suggesting that was worth 300,000 American lives? Then why has the GDP been growing by leaps and bounds of late. And you, of course, believe that putting democRATS in charge with their let's-tax-em philosophy will help economic growth.
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'. ;)
YES!!!!!! Include Mr. Foxx Snooze.....
And Nuttery is waay too cute for the evil the vicious NeoCommies, the idealogical children of Trotsky, have implemented and caused throughout the world.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush true, robin.
So are denying this plot occurred? That there was a trial in Jordan? That video tape was shown on the mainstream media of terrorists confessions? That they were convicted? If so, christine, you are only proving you and the members of 4um are out of touch with reality. Do a browser search. MSNBC, CNN, CSPAN and numerous other sources reported this plot and its outcome. I included an MSNBC link above. Some of the above are Associated Press articles. Here's a report from USATODAY http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-04-18-jordan-terror_x.htm Here is one from CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/ Here is one from CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/26/world/main613825.shtml Surely you aren't claiming that all these sources reported this and yet NOT ONE source has come out to say they just made it up. Or do you have one you'd like to offer us? (I have to tell you, christine, that I'm working hard to stifle a hearty laugh. But I'm still hoping for *some* civility from your side.)
a. I would have done nothing. If the Israelis wanted Zarqawi dead, let them have killed him. If the Israelis wanted Saddam dead, let them have killed him. The Israelis are no strangers to political assassinations. Why should America invade sovereign nations on Israel's behalf to get 2 people Israelis wanted dead? b. You are breaking your own self-espoused 02/10/07 forum posting rule. And quoting from BOTshillmedia like National Review and Fox News is offensive, not informative. Wake up, boozer, you're not on freaker republic anymore - at 4um we are familiar with the aforementioned neocon Bibles and have rejected them for what they are - lie factories. You want to diseminate that garbage to impress your imaginery net pals, open your own blog and do it there to your heart's content. Don't do it here. Keep in mind that AGAviator and myself could shut you down in a heart beat - if we ignore you, you would have no "dialogue" - so if you could care less about respecting christine and her free speech stage, let me clue you in, your ability to promote your canned proIsraelDCwarmonger claptrap is hanging by a thread. Shape up or your voice will soon be a voice no one sees or hears because your posts will have no replies and ergo they will disappear from net visibility at 4um. >http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=45230&Disp=75 "I'm also not going to engage in long debates, taking apart posts line by line." c. You have not answered my question. Do you American citizen soldiers should fight and die in wars for Israel's benefit? Keep in mind - amongst other things, Israel refuses to sign a mutual defense treaty with America.
Even after he masterminded a plot to kill EVERYONE in the US embassy in Amman? Let me break my newest vow. ROTFLOL! We will see ... Well gosh ... it was just toooooo tempting. I think I answered that question by showing you and Mearsheimer were misleading regarding Zelikow.
http://prisonplanet.tv/articles/june2004/062504falseflag.htm http://www.waronfreedom.org/lowdownonlondon.html Today’s fiction was a "secret" group affiliated - oh how wonderfully convenient - with Al Qaeda and Al Zarqawi. Yet the state-owned BBC itself found that Al Qaeda does not even exist, in its documentary film, The Terror Myth. And just yesterday Dahr Jamail wrote of his trip to the town of Zarqa, on the trail of the fabled Zarqawi. The man's family believe he died years ago, and no recent photos exist. Certain is only that the mythical Zarqawi’s base of operations always pops up wherever the Americans want to attack. Fallujah, Samarra, who do you want to bomb tomorrow?
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Gee ... wish I wasn't on a self-imposed laugh ban. I read all the letters of American Jews that disputed or attacked Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt's study findings, including Philip Zelikow's. Duh. And why are we not surprised? I got news for you - other Jewish Americans whom one might consider to be unorthodox voices in the Jewish academic community all did their perfunctory letters or articles or statements to dismiss M&W research paper including Dr. Finkelstein and Dr. Chomsky. Btw,you can also read wikipedia's article on Zelikow and what he said at the Foreign Intel Conference and how he later back pedalled. It's not so hidden an event, Inspector Clouseau- BAC. Regardless, where's the incongruity to what I said earlier? I showed that Zelikow was the first and a very high up person in DC political affairs to say that the Iraq War was for Israel's benefit and Mearsheimer and Walt later published a study that confirmed what Zelikow said. If Zelikow tries to recant what he said - uh how does that take away from M&W's research paper? Their text was 40 pages long and their bibliography with a host of various sources was 38 pages long. Zelikow was one of hundreds of sources of information for their paper. Btw, here's the full text of the article I quoted Zelikow's statements, which you did not read obviously. It puts his remarks in very good context. http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23083 IRAQ: War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser By Emad Mekay WASHINGTON, Mar 29 (IPS) - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East. 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. The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state. The administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel, neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to ward off accusations that it derailed the ”war on terrorism” it launched after 9/11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no direct threat to the United States. Israel is Washington's biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of three to four billion dollars. Even though members of the 16-person PFIAB come from outside government, they enjoy the confidence of the president and have access to all information related to foreign intelligence that they need to play their vital advisory role. Known in intelligence circles as ”Piffy-ab”, the board is supposed to evaluate the nation's intelligence agencies and probe any mistakes they make. The unpaid appointees on the board require a security clearance known as ”code word” that is higher than top secret. The national security adviser to former President George H.W. Bush (1989-93) Brent Scowcroft, currently chairs the board in its work overseeing a number of intelligence bodies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the various military intelligence groups and the Pentagon's National Reconnaissance Office. Neither Scowcroft nor Zelikow returned numerous phone calls and email messages from IPS for this story. Zelikow has long-established ties to the Bush administration. Before his appointment to PFIAB in October 2001, he was part of the current president's transition team in January 2001. In that capacity, Zelikow drafted a memo for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on reorganising and restructuring the National Security Council (NSC) and prioritising its work. Richard A. Clarke, who was counter-terrorism coordinator for Bush's predecessor President Bill Clinton (1993-2001) also worked for Bush senior, and has recently accused the current administration of not heeding his terrorism warnings, said Zelikow was among those he briefed about the urgent threat from al-Qaeda in December 2000. Rice herself had served in the NSC during the first Bush administration, and subsequently teamed up with Zelikow on a 1995 book about the unification of Germany. Zelikow had ties with another senior Bush administration official -- Robert Zoellick, the current trade representative. The two wrote three books together, including one in 1998 on the United States and the ”Muslim Middle East”. Aside from his position at the 9/11 commission, Zelikow is now also director of the Miller Centre of Public Affairs and White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia. His close ties to the administration prompted accusations of a conflict of interest in 2002 from families of victims of the 9/11 attacks, who protested his appointment to the investigative body. In his university speech, Zelikow, who strongly backed attacking the Iraqi dictator, also explained the threat to Israel by arguing that Baghdad was preparing in 1990-91 to spend huge amounts of ”scarce hard currency” to harness ”communications against electromagnetic pulse”, a side-effect of a nuclear explosion that could sever radio, electronic and electrical communications. That was ”a perfectly absurd expenditure unless you were going to ride out a nuclear exchange -- they (Iraqi officials) were not preparing to ride out a nuclear exchange with us. Those were preparations to ride out a nuclear exchange with the Israelis”, according to Zelikow. He also suggested that the danger of biological weapons falling into the hands of the anti-Israeli Islamic Resistance Movement, known by its Arabic acronym Hamas, would threaten Israel rather than the United States, and that those weapons could have been developed to the point where they could deter Washington from attacking Hamas. ”Play out those scenarios,” he told his audience, ”and I will tell you, people have thought about that, but they are just not talking very much about it”. ”Don't look at the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but then ask yourself the question, 'gee, is Iraq tied to Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the people who are carrying out suicide bombings in Israel'? Easy question to answer; the evidence is abundant.” To date, the possibility of the United States attacking Iraq to protect Israel has been only timidly raised by some intellectuals and writers, with few public acknowledgements from sources close to the administration. Analysts who reviewed Zelikow's statements said they are concrete evidence of one factor in the rationale for going to war, which has been hushed up. ”Those of us speaking about it sort of routinely referred to the protection of Israel as a component,” said Phyllis Bennis of the Washington-based Institute of Policy Studies. ”But this is a very good piece of evidence of that.” Others say the administration should be blamed for not making known to the public its true intentions and real motives for invading Iraq. ”They (the administration) made a decision to invade Iraq, and then started to search for a policy to justify it. It was a decision in search of a policy and because of the odd way they went about it, people are trying to read something into it,” said Nathan Brown, professor of political science at George Washington University and an expert on the Middle East. But he downplayed the Israel link. ”In terms of securing Israel, it doesn't make sense to me because the Israelis are probably more concerned about Iran than they were about Iraq in terms of the long-term strategic threat,” he said. Still, Brown says Zelikow's words carried weight. ”Certainly his position would allow him to speak with a little bit more expertise about the thinking of the Bush administration, but it doesn't strike me that he is any more authoritative than Wolfowitz, or Rice or Powell or anybody else. All of them were sort of fishing about for justification for a decision that has already been made,” Brown said. (END/2004) Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
Setting Iraq aside for the moment, I'm asking you an important question on foreign policy: Do you believe American citizen soldiers should fight and die in wars for Israel's national security benefit? Consider that Israel has consistently refused to sign a mutual defense treaty with America.
Oh really (tilting one's head to the side and speaking in a high squeaky voice)... Perhaps you did not read Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt's reply to Philip Zelikow's back pedalling letter. This one is for you, BeAChooser, a gift from me to you in the sincere hope this may clean out those proIsraelatanycost cobwebs in your BOT brain: The Israel Lobby: Mearsheimer & Walt vs. Phillip Zelikow http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n10/ letters.html#3 London Review of Books, Vol. 28, No. 6, May 25, 2006 From John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt Philip Zelikow claims he did not say in September 2002 that the present war in Iraq was motivated in good part by concerns about Israel’s security. He suggests that our reference to his remarks came from an unreliable source and says we ‘misused’ his comments. He implies that he was talking mainly about the 1990-91 Gulf War, not the US decision to invade Iraq in March 2003. Furthermore, he maintains that he ‘expressed no view’ on ‘whether or when the US ought to go to war with Iraq’. None of these assertions is correct. Emad Mekay, who wrote the Asia Times Online article we referenced, is a well- regarded journalist who worked for Reuters and the New York Times before moving to Inter Press Service, a legitimate news agency. He did not rely on ‘local reports’ in writing his story, but had access to a complete and unimpeachable record of Zelikow’s talk. He repeatedly tried to contact Zelikow while writing his story, but his inquiries were not returned. Below are excerpts from Zelikow’s remarks about Iraq on 10 September 2002 (we have the full text). It shows that 1. he was focusing on the possibility of war with Iraq in 2002-03, not the 1990- 91 Gulf War; 2. he supported a new war with Iraq; and 3. he believed Iraq was an imminent threat to Israel, but not to the United States. Finally. . . I wanted to offer some comments on Iraq. . . . I beg your patience, but I think there are some points that are worth making that aren’t being made by either side in the current debate. The Iraq situation this administration inherited is and has been unsustainable. Ever since 1996 the Iraqi situation has basically unravelled. . . . So then the real question is, OK, what are you going to do about it? How are you going to end up fixing it? And if you don’t like the administration’s approach, what’s the recommended alternative? Another thing Americans absorb, and this administration especially, is the lesson of Afghanistan. Because remember we knew that international terrorist groups were plotting to kill Americans in a sanctuary called Afghanistan. . . [I]n retrospect, it is perfectly clear that only . . . an [American] invasion could reliably have pre-empted the 9/11 attacks, which relied on people who were being trained in that sanctuary . . . So what lesson does one take from that with respect to Iraq? Well you can see the lesson this administration has taken from that example. And so contemplate what lesson you take. Third. The unstated threat. And here I criticise the [Bush] administration a little, because the argument that they make over and over again is that this is about a threat to the United States. And then everybody says: ‘Show me an imminent threat from Iraq to America. Show me, why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us?’ So I’ll tell you what I think the real threat is, and actually has been since 1990. It’s the threat against Israel. 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’s not a popular sell. Now . . . if the danger is a biological weapon handed to Hamas, then what’s the American alternative then? Especially if those weapons have developed to the point where they now can deter us from attacking them, because they really can retaliate against us, by then. Play out those scenarios . . . Don’t look at the ties between Iraq and al-Qaida, but then ask yourself the question: ‘Gee, is Iraq tied to Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the people who are carrying out suicide bombings in Israel?’ Easy question to answer, and the evidence is abundant. Yes, there are a lot of other problems in the world . . . My view, by the way, is the more you examine these other problems and try to put together a comprehensive strategy for America and the Middle East, the more I’m driven to the conclusion that it’s better for us to deal with Iraq sooner rather than later. Because those other problems don’t get easier . . . And the Iraq problem is a peculiar combination at the moment, of being exceptionally dangerous at a time when Iraq is exceptionally weak militarily. Now that’s an appealing combination for immediate action . . . But . . . if we wait two years, and then there’s another major terrorist attack against the United States, does it then become easier to act against Iraq, even though the terrorist attack didn’t come from Iraq? No. . . . [A]t this moment, because of the time we bought in the war against terror, it actually makes it easier to go about Iraq now, than waiting a year or two until the war against terror gets harder again. In sum, it is Zelikow, not us, who is attempting to rewrite history. He was admirably candid in 2002, but not in 2006. John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt
Maybe because Cheney is the keynote speaker? AP: Cheney Challenges 'Anti-War' Lawmakers.
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
That's 10 percent of the biggest economy the world has ever known. During the period of WW2 we were in a severe depression, even 130% of GDP then was less than the 10 percent of today. That 10 percent has done nothing to secure America's future, rather it has created new enemies and more importantly has hurt America's image around the world. At one time it didn't really matter too much what foreigners thought about America, but not today. Today America's economy is heavily dependent on continued foreign investment.
God is always good! Why is Emad Mekay well regarded? What sort of corroboration did he get for his story? Is anyone else at the meeting quoted saying that's what he claims Zelikow said? I noticed in a little search that he and Asia Times have been unwilling to give his source for the supposed transcript he has. Hmmmmmm ... just curious. Why would this unnamed source decide to leak such an explosive story to a relatively unknown journalist working for a relatively unknown news outlet? And most of his articles concern financial matters so again, why him?
It's not the total amount that matters. The WW2 expenditures represented extreme hardship and sacrifice for most Americans alive then. Most got ripped from their current jobs and put to work doing something else. Iraq's costs haven't stopped most Americans today from living the good life without a care in the world. We are still spending fortunes on cosmetics and movies and ... And no one is being told to shut down production of this and produce that. Nothing is being rationed. But if the media had reported WW2 like they've reported the Iraq war, would Americans have been as will to make those sacrifices and send over 300,000 of their own to die above/on foreign soil or in/under oceans?
BeAChooser, let your fingers do the tapping on your keyboard and ask those very questions of the men who referenced Emad Mekay's article and who praised him. Here are the email address(es) you should use: a. John J. Mearsheimer University of Chicago - Department of Political Science j-mearsheimer@uchicago.edu b. Stephen M. Walt Harvard University - John F. Kennedy School of Government stephen_walt@harvard.edu Postscript: To enhance author privacy, SSRN uses software to prevent mechanical harvesting of email addresses. Anonymous users are allowed 3 email address requests each day.
The issue is whether Zarqawi was in collusion with Saddam. The fact is, that Saddam tried to arrest Qarqawi, and the CIA has stated so much, and a bipartisan panel has confirmed the CIA's assessment. So stop dancing around that issue. Last but not least, if it can be proven, and I am not saying it can, that Zarqawi was in collusion with Ansar-I-Islam, you need to know 2 things (1) Ansar Islam was in the protected Kurdish area, and Saddam could not bring any military force to bear there, and (2) It is quite likely the Kurds had their own agenda in spinning the story of Big Bad Zarqawi. All that spam comes from the same tainted source - a criminal justice system in Jordan where torture is routinely practiced and people will confess to anything the torturers want them to confess to. Now tell me which of those stories had any terrorists saying they met with Saddam and Zarqawi and received instructions from the two of them to carry out this alleged plot. You can't.
Irrelevant. You took this year's GDP and multiplied it by 3, Bubba. Then you accused me of your own "parsing." The government was simpler back then, and the costs had fewer places to get spread around. No we haven't. GM is just about finished making cars in the US, just as one example. Most of the technology jobs are being exported to Asia or India. The war wasn't worth 300,000 American lives. But that's another off-topic remark. The Jews in Roosevelt's administration were pushing for America to get involved in that war, even though Stalin was a far bigger mass murderer than Hitler and Tojo put together. However after the war, most of Europe and a good part of Asia was in ruins. American industry was completely untouched by the war, and had enormous productive capacity that had been used during the war to make war materials and equipment. That productive capacity was then used to promote economic growth in the parts of the world where the war had destroyed just about everything. That economic growth from the productive capacity allowed America to pay back the costs of the war in relatively short order. We're not going to pull another rabbit out of the hat like that one this time. It hasn't. And as I've already told you, GDP's main components include (1) Services, (2) Consumer spending, (3) Government spending, and (4) Are measured in inflated dollars. So take your GDP sophistry and put it where the sun doesn't shine. They should definitely tax the corporate parasites who are exporting jobs and capital overseas. You have any problem with that?
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.
No, the issue is what would you have done about al-Zarqawi killing thousands of people (and probably many Americans) if the plot he organized while in Baghdad had it succeeded, given that Saddam showed no interest in actually keeping anyone in al-Zarqawi's organization in custody? Baghdad was one of the most heavily monitored places in the world (by Iraqi security), yet you folks want us to believe that al-Zarqawi, who is often claimed to be an avowed enemy of Saddam, chose to go there for medical treatment and to hold important meetings on mass casualty terrorist plots against the US and Jordan? Should I be skeptical? No, what they said is they found a document telling Iraq intelligence organizations to be on the lookout for him and another ordering the arrest of 4 (probable) associates of al-Zarqawi who were wanted for crimes (not terrorism). A third document indicated that 3 of the individuals where thought to have gone to Northern Iraq but they did pick up the fourth. The security type who captured him said he was convinced the man was guilty as charged ... and was surprised when higher ups ordered his release. And note that the CIA indicated in a document written before the above documents were obtained that an associate of al-Zarqawi was detained but Saddam himself ordered the release. Right. You get that from here? That's always the way it works with you folks. Ignore/dismiss ANYTHING that doesn't fit your pre-conceived beliefs. Sorry, but there is no indication that the men in question were tortured into confessing. There are tapes of these confessions and they don't look physically coerced. The men were in open court where they were allowed to speak and never denied the confessions. In fact, they boasted about their association with al-Qaeda and threw out threat after threat against Jordan and the west. Strawman. Is that all you have? Say, did you know that al-Zarqawi may have admitted his group was planning to bomb Jordanian Intelligence? There's a voice on a tape claiming to be al-Zarqawi's saying that. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/30/jordan.terror/
And assumed all that 2 trillion you claim Iraq has cost has already been spent. Come on, AGAviator ... can't you even admit that they spent a VERY large portion of the GDP during WW2 on the war and have spent a relatively small fraction of the GDP on Iraq? Can't you even admit that one war totally disrupted the economy and way of life of the average American and the other has not? Can't you even admit that the reporting of the two wars has been significantly different? Is it so hard to admit these facts? Or are you afraid that if you admit even one your whole allegation will come tumbling down? We now make other things. Depends on which technology jobs you are talking about. So if the media had repeatedly told the American public that back in WW2, like they've been telling Americans Iraq isn't worth 3000 American lives, don't you supposed Americans back then might have demanded we sue for peace? And then what would the world have looked like today, AGAviator? See? You folks and the media could have made a similar case to the one you made about Saddam and the other mass murders of our day. Come on, AGAviator ... admit it. If the media had reported WW2 the way they've reported Iraq ... if the internet had been around then so you folks could make these allegations ... don' t you think the end result would have been America suing for peace rather than winning that war? Don't you think the end result would have been the US withdrawing its forces to the border and letting the rest of the world be conquered by the Axis? Oh that's right. You claim that GDP is NOT a measure of economic health. Despite what REAL economists say around the world. Say ... did that chart really say 16 percent? Really??? (south part voice with tilted head) Like Hillary said ... "we're going to TAKE IT from you". Right?
Americans were totally against getting involved in WW2 until Pearl Harbor was attacked. WW2 had been going on for at least 2 years then, and Americans were overwhelmingly against getting involved in it despite the fact that our ally in WW1, Great Britain, was sustaining heavy losses and was on the verge of being defeated by the Nazis. Obviously Great Britain meant more to Americans then than Israel does today, yet they still didn't want to fight for them and help them win against the Nazis. WW1 was already fought to save them and people figured we had sacrificed enough for them. So, "miraculously", Japan makes the most ultimate military blunder ever made by attacking the sleeping giant when it wanted nothing to do with this world war, getting us involved in WW2 and saving Great Britain's hide once again.
God is always good! That's another guy who is full of mystery.
http://prisonplanet.tv/articles/june2004/062504falseflag.htm Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush 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.
You only prove my point, again, Ricky. What you say makes it all the more likely that had the media reported WW2 the way they've reported Iraq, Americans would have wanted to sue for peace to avoid further loss of life and the tremendous disruption of the economy war would entail. And conspiracists would have helped the media by pushing the notions that the government allowed Pearl Harbor to occur and that the US forced Japan into attacking us by cutting them off from vital resources. They would have argued that the War in Europe and in China was of no concern to us. That what we should do is build a wall around America. That pulling our soldiers back would save countless American lives. But I ask you, Ricky, do you think that would have been the end of it had we done that? Would Hitler and Tojo have been content to leave us alone from then on?
Thank you for proving my point about 4um posters, robin.
And this is precisely what we have Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, America’s new “public enemy No 1”is. Zarqawi and his group have been used from the justification for the invasion of Iraq to the latest “barbaric” videotaped beheadings that his group claims to have carried out. The US State Department has increased the reward for his arrest from $10 million to $25 million, which puts his "market value" at par with that of Osama. Interestingly, Al Zarqawi is not on the FBI most wanted fugitives list. http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/topten/fugitives/fugitives.htm ) What follows are excerpts from an in-depth report from The Centre for Research on Globalization that has gone to considerable lengths to document this false flag operation. The complete article can be read at Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush 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.
Food for thought ... According to http://www.lauramansfield.com/j/default.asp, "2002 Iraqi Intelligence Correspondence concerning the presence of al-Qaida Members in Iraq. Correspondence between IRS members on a suspicion, later confirmed, of the presence of an Al-Qaeda terrorist group. A translation of the document shows that the Al Qaeda terrorist that Saddam Hussein’s government had identified was none other than Abu Mus’ab al Zarqawi, who emerged as one of the leading terrorists in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. ... Although the document goes on to outline activities of the group, there is no indication that the Iraqi government took any steps to stop Al Qaeda from operating within Iraq, in clear defiance of international law." According to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1598259/posts "In regards to the Iraqi intelligence documents that discussed Al Zarqawi presence in Iraq, as posted on the Foreign Miliarty Services Office (FMSO) website (document ISGZ-2004-019920 ) it appears that the some in the Iraqi intelligence apparatus provided the accurate information about Zarqawi presence in Iraq with attached pictures of him, but when the information reached the Director or a Director of the Iraqi intelligence he dismissed it as not accurate." Is that not turning a blind eye to al-Qaeda's presence? Perhaps you can explain why there's nothing to really indicate Iraq made an effort to capture al-Zarqawi, despite being told of his presence by the US and Jordan (which, by the way, wished to extradite him to face charges of terrorism). Perhaps the authors of this report can explain a CIA report that indicated that Iraqi regime security forces detained several of al-Zarqawi's group in Baghdad before the war and released at least one of them per the orders from Saddam (see http://www.veteransforpeace.org/CIA_review_finds_100504.htm and http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=12328). That's turning a blind eye. And according to the later article, the WP spoke to a Jordanian security official who "added that documents recovered after its overthrow in 2003 show that Iraqi agents did detain some Zarqawi operatives but released them after questioning. Furthermore, the Iraqis warned the Zarqawi operatives that the Jordanians knew where they were, he said." That's not just turning a blind eye ... that's support. Perhaps you should explain documents that indicate there were al-Qaeda training camps in Iraq ... not just in northern Iraq but near Baghdad. Perhaps you should explain reports like this: http://cgi.warblogging.com/warfarking/mirror/1050418238.html "Guerrilla fighters seen as threat to allied forces, By Bill Gertz, THE WASHINGTON TIMES ... snip ... Conventional military conflict in Iraq is nearly over, but thousands of foreign fighters and supporters of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein remain in the country and pose a danger to U.S. and allied forces, U.S. officials said yesterday. The allies have discovered that Iraq was training or harboring guerrillas from North Africa and throughout the Middle East. Army Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, deputy director of operations for the U.S. Central Command, said the foreign guerrillas are "still threats" even though organized fighting by the Iraqi military has all but stopped. ... snip ... Intelligence reports also indicate that al Qaeda and Hezbollah terrorists remain in Iraq and are a threat to coalition forces. More than 100 al Qaeda terrorists are believed to have been in Iraq before the start of the war, the official said. How about you explain reports like these: ************ http://www.lauramansfield.com/j/031706_iraq.asp "March 17, 2006: Declassified documents from Iraq show 3,000 Saudi and Iraqi mujihideen depart Iraq in Nov 2001 to fight US in Afghanistan The newly declassified documents shed more and more light on the evolution of the violent insurgency in Iraq, and show that Saddam Hussein’s government was aware not just of the presence of Al Qaeda terrorist Abu Mus’ab Al Zarqawi, but also was aware that the Anbar province in Iraq was being used as a launch point for organized groups of jihadis headed to fight the United States in Afghanistan. The document, addressed to the Security Board, Fedayeen Saddam at the office of the Presidency in Iraq, reports what it describes as a “rumor”, says: there is a group of Iraqi and Saudi Arabians numbering around 3,000 who have gone in an unofficial capacity to Afghanistan and have joined the mujahidin to fight with and aid them in defeating the American Zionist Imperialist attack This clearly indicates that Iraq was being used as a transit point or launch point for Saudi Arabian jihadis, as well as Iraqis, who wanted to go join the forces of Osama Bin Laden in Iraq in November 2001, nearly a year and a half before the US and Coalition forces commenced military action against Saddam Hussein’s regime. The sheer volume of “mujahideen” that reportedly departed from the Anbar province, combined with the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq, indicates the presence of an organized Al Qaeda infrastructure within Iraq just a few months after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. ************** http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp Camp Saddam: What we've learned about Iraq's terrorist training camps. by Stephen F. Hayes 04/03/2006, Volume 011, Issue 27 ... snip ... "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went there," said Murtha. "None. There was no connection with al Qaeda, there was no connection with, with terrorism in Iraq itself." This is now the conventional wisdom on Iraq and terrorism. It is wrong. A new study from the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia, paints quite a different picture. According to captured documents cited in the study and first reported in THE WEEKLY STANDARD in January, the former Iraqi regime was training non-Iraqi Arabs in terrorist techniques. "Beginning in 1994, the Fedayeen Saddam opened its own paramilitary training camps for volunteers, graduating more than 7,200 "good men racing full with courage and enthusiasm" in the first year. Beginning in 1998, these camps began hosting "Arab volunteers from Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, 'the Gulf,' and Syria." It is not clear from available evidence where all of these non-Iraqi volunteers who were "sacrificing for the cause" went to ply their newfound skills. Before the summer of 2002, most volunteers went home upon the completion of training. But these camps were humming with frenzied activity in the months immediately prior to the war. As late as January 2003, the volunteers participated in a special training event called the "Heroes Attack." This training event was designed in part to prepare regional Fedayeen Saddam commands to "obstruct the enemy from achieving his goal and to support keeping peace and stability in the province."" Some of this training came under the auspices of the Iraqi Intelligence Service's "Division 27," which, according to the study, "supplied the Fedayeen Saddam with silencers, equipment for booby-trapping vehicles, [and] special training on the use of certain explosive timers. The only apparent use for all of this Division 27 equipment was to conduct commando or terrorist operations." ************** http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/990ieqmb.asp Saddam's Philippines Terror Connection: And other revelations from the Iraqi regime files. by Stephen F. Hayes 03/27/2006, Volume 011, Issue 26 SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REGIME PROVIDED FINANCIAL support to Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda-linked jihadist group founded by Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law in the Philippines in the late 1990s, according to documents captured in postwar Iraq. An eight-page fax dated June 6, 2001, and sent from the Iraqi ambassador in Manila to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Baghdad, provides an update on Abu Sayyaf kidnappings and indicates that the Iraqi regime was providing the group with money to purchase weapons. The Iraqi regime suspended its support--temporarily, it seems--after high-profile kidnappings, including of Americans, focused international attention on the terrorist group. ... snip ... One Iraqi memo, from the "Republican Presidency, Intelligence Apparatus" to someone identified only as D4/4, makes the case for supporting the work of the Qaddafi Charity Establishment to help Abu Sayyaf. The memo is dated March 18, 2001. "1. There are connections between the Qaddafi Charity Establishment and the Abu Sayyaf group in the Philippines; meanwhile, this establishment is providing material support to them. The short response, two days later: "Mr. Dept. 3: ... snip ... ON MARCH 26, 2003, as war raged in Iraq, the State Department's Matthew Daley testified before Congress. Daley, the deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, told a subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee that he was worried about Abu Sayyaf. "We're concerned that they have what I would call operational links to Iraqi intelligence services. And they're a danger, they're an enemy of the Philippines, they're an enemy of the United States, and we want very much to help the government in Manila deal with this challenge," Daley told the panel. Responding to a question, Daley elaborated. "There is good reason to believe that a member of the Abu Sayyaf Group who has been involved in terrorist activities was in direct contact with an IIS officer in the Iraqi Embassy in Manila. This individual was subsequently expelled from the Philippines for engaging in activities that were incompatible with his diplomatic status." This individual was Hisham Hussein, the second secretary of the Iraqi Embassy in Manila. And Daley was right to be concerned. ... snip ... Interestingly, an Abu Sayyaf leader named Hamsiraji Sali at least twice publicly boasted that his group received funding from Iraq. For instance, on March 2, 2003, he told the Philippine Daily Inquirer that the Iraqi regime had provided the terrorist group with 1million pesos--about $20,000--each year since 2000. ... snip ... A new and highly illuminating article in Foreign Affairs draws on hundreds of Iraqi documents to provide a look at the Iraq war from the Iraqi perspective. The picture that emerges is that of an Iraqi regime built on a foundation of paranoia and lies and eager to attack its perceived enemies, internal and external. This paragraph is notable: "The Saddam Fedayeen also took part in the regime's domestic terrorism operations and planned for attacks throughout Europe and the Middle East. In a document dated May 1999, Saddam's older son, Uday, ordered preparations for "special operations, assassinations, and bombings, for the centers and traitor symbols in London, Iran and the self-ruled areas [Kurdistan]." Preparations for "Blessed July," a regime-directed wave of "martyrdom" operations against targets in the West, were well under way at the time of the coalition invasion." Think about that last sentence. *************** http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1618519/posts 2003 Document: Saddam Ordered To Treat The Arab Feedayeen Terrorists The Same As Iraqi Soldiers Posted on 04/20/2006 2:00:22 PM PDT by jveritas Document ISGQ-2004-00060580 is a memo that contains a direct order form Saddam Hussein in the middle of the war asking to treat the Arab Feedayeen i.e. the non Iraqi Foreign Arab Terrorists as equal as the Iraqi soldier in salary and benefits and not just any soldier but like those in the Special Forces. These are the same Arab terrorists who stayed in Iraq after the removal of the regime and caused those horrible attacks mostly on innocent civilians. This document is a follow on another document where the Iraqi were training Foreign Arab terrorist since the year 2000 (please see those two translations: Document: Iraqi Intelligence To Train Arab Feedayeen Terrorists In the Year 2000 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1617431/posts Document: Saddam Regime Training and Using Foreign Arab Terrorists As Suicide Bombers. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1600367/posts ). The extremely strong connection between Saddam and Terrorism is something that we need to tell the whole world about it, because for this reason alone we would have all the right to remove this Terrorist Regime after the 9/11, we just cannot afford to live with it. ************** http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3378 Case Closed From the November 24, 2003 issue: The U.S. government's secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. by Stephen F. Hayes ... snip ... 25. Investigation into the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000 by al Qaeda revealed no specific Iraqi connections but according to the CIA, "fragmentary evidence points to possible Iraqi involvement." 26. During a custodial interview, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi [a senior al Qaeda operative] said he was told by an al Qaeda associate that he was tasked to travel to Iraq (1998) to establish a relationship with Iraqi intelligence to obtain poisons and gases training. After the USS Cole bombing in 2000, two al Qaeda operatives were sent to Iraq for CBW-related [Chemical and Biological Weapons] training beginning in Dec 2000. Iraqi intelligence was "encouraged" after the embassy and USS Cole bombings to provide this training. ... snip ... 27. According to sensitive CIA reporting, . . . the Saudi National Guard went on a kingdom-wide state of alert in late Dec 2000 after learning Saddam agreed to assist al Qaeda in attacking U.S./U.K. interests in Saudi Arabia. ... snip ... "The Czech counterintelligence service reported that the Sept. 11 hijacker [Mohamed] Atta met with the former Iraqi intelligence chief in Prague, [Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir] al Ani, on several occasions. During one of these meetings, al Ani ordered the IIS finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office." And the commentary: "CIA can confirm two Atta visits to Prague--in Dec. 1994 and in June 2000; data surrounding the other two--on 26 Oct 1999 and 9 April 2001--is complicated and sometimes contradictory and CIA and FBI cannot confirm Atta met with the IIS. Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross continues to stand by his information." It's not just Gross who stands by the information. Five high-ranking members of the Czech government have publicly confirmed meetings between Atta and al Ani. The meeting that has gotten the most press attention--April 9, 2001--is also the most widely disputed. Even some of the most hawkish Bush administration officials are privately skeptical that Atta met al Ani on that occasion. They believe that reports of the alleged meeting, said to have taken place in public, outside the headquarters of the U.S.-financed Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, suggest a level of sloppiness that doesn't fit the pattern of previous high-level Iraq-al Qaeda contacts. Whether or not that specific meeting occurred, the report by Czech counterintelligence that al Ani ordered the Iraqi Intelligence Service officer to provide IIS funds to Atta might help explain the lead hijacker's determination to reach Prague, despite significant obstacles, in the spring of 2000. (Note that the report stops short of confirming that the funds were transferred. It claims only that the IIS officer requested the transfer.) Recall that Atta flew to Prague from Germany on May 30, 2000, but was denied entry because he did not have a valid visa. Rather than simply return to Germany and fly directly to the United States, his ultimate destination, Atta took pains to get to Prague. After he was refused entry the first time, he traveled back to Germany, obtained the proper paperwork, and caught a bus back to Prague. He left for the United States the day after arriving in Prague for the second time. ... snip ... 31. An Oct. 2002 . . . report said al Qaeda and Iraq reached a secret agreement whereby Iraq would provide safe haven to al Qaeda members and provide them with money and weapons. The agreement reportedly prompted a large number of al Qaeda members to head to Iraq. The report also said that al Qaeda members involved in a fraudulent passport network for al Qaeda had been directed to procure 90 Iraqi and Syrian passports for al Qaeda personnel. The analysis that accompanies that report indicates that the report fits the pattern of Iraq-al Qaeda collaboration: "References to procurement of false passports from Iraq and offers of safe haven previously have surfaced in CIA source reporting considered reliable. Intelligence reports to date have maintained that Iraqi support for al Qaeda usually involved providing training, obtaining passports, and offers of refuge. This report adds to that list by including weapons and money. This assistance would make sense in the aftermath of 9-11." Colin Powell, in his February 5, 2003, presentation to the U.N. Security Council, revealed the activities of Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Reporting in the memo expands on Powell's case and might help explain some of the resistance the U.S. military is currently facing in Iraq. 37. Sensitive reporting indicates senior terrorist planner and close al Qaeda associate al Zarqawi has had an operational alliance with Iraqi officials. As of Oct. 2002, al Zarqawi maintained contacts with the IIS to procure weapons and explosives, including surface-to-air missiles from an IIS officer in Baghdad. According to sensitive reporting, al Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a U.S. occupation of the city, suggesting his operational cooperation with the Iraqis may have deepened in recent months. Such cooperation could include IIS provision of a secure operating bases [sic] and steady access to arms and explosives in preparation for a possible U.S. invasion. Al Zarqawi's procurements from the Iraqis also could support al Qaeda operations against the U.S. or its allies elsewhere. 38. According to sensitive reporting, a contact with good access who does not have an established reporting record: An Iraqi intelligence service officer said that as of mid-March the IIS was providing weapons to al Qaeda members located in northern Iraq, including rocket propelled grenade (RPG)-18 launchers. According to IIS information, northern Iraq-based al Qaeda members believed that the U.S. intended to strike al Qaeda targets during an anticipated assault against Ansar al-Islam positions. The memo further reported pre-war intelligence which "claimed that an Iraqi intelligence official, praising Ansar al-Islam, provided it with $100,000 and agreed to continue to give assistance." ... snip ... The memo contains only one paragraph on Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, the Iraqi facilitator who escorted two September 11 hijackers through customs in Kuala Lumpur. U.S. intelligence agencies have extensive reporting on his activities before and after the September 11 hijacking. That they would include only this brief overview suggests the 16-page memo, extensive as it is, just skims the surface of the reporting on Iraq-al Qaeda connections. Other intelligence reports indicate that Shakir whisked not one but two September 11 hijackers--Khalid al Midhar and Nawaq al Hamzi--through the passport and customs process upon their arrival in Kuala Lumpur on January 5, 2000. Shakir then traveled with the hijackers to the Kuala Lumpur Hotel where they met with Ramzi bin al Shibh, one of the masterminds of the September 11 plot. The meeting lasted three days. Shakir returned to work on January 9 and January 10, and never again. Shakir got his airport job through a contact at the Iraqi Embassy. (Iraq routinely used its embassies as staging grounds for its intelligence operations; in some cases, more than half of the alleged "diplomats" were intelligence operatives.) The Iraqi embassy, not his employer, controlled Shakir's schedule. He was detained in Qatar on September 17, 2001. Authorities found in his possession contact information for terrorists involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 embassy bombings, the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, and the September 11 hijackings. The CIA had previous reporting that Shakir had received a phone call from the safe house where the 1993 World Trade Center attacks had been plotted. The Qataris released Shakir shortly after his arrest. On October 21, 2001, he flew to Amman, Jordan, where he was to change planes to a flight to Baghdad. He didn't make that flight. Shakir was detained in Jordan for three months, where the CIA interrogated him. His interrogators concluded that Shakir had received extensive training in counter-interrogation techniques. Not long after he was detained, according to an official familiar with the intelligence, the Iraqi regime began to "pressure" Jordanian intelligence to release him. At the same time, Amnesty International complained that Shakir was being held without charge. The Jordanians released him on January 28, 2002, at which point he is believed to have fled back to Iraq. Was Shakir an Iraqi agent? Does he provide a connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11? We don't know. We may someday find out. But there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans. *******************
Whooping it up with the black ops boys ... Whooping it up with the black ops boys ... Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Posts someone who thinks Doug Rokke is an expert in DU. Someone who has bozo'd herself rather than see both sides of a debate.
Strawman. Is that all you have? Unbelievable. Your whole sthick is based on an alleged Saddam-Zarqawi link. Then when I ask for you of any proof of that Saddam-Zarqawi link, you call it a "strawman." Tell me all you have about Saddam actually being connected with Zarqawi. Then tell me why you claim to know more than the CIA and the US Congress.
Zarqawi was not killed for 3 years. That's a pretty spectacular failure to get someone who you are claiming was so dangerous. Oh, and by the way. Where's Bin Laden, if the purpose of invasions is to kill or capture people who are "continuing to plot and fund terrorist attacks."
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.
I made no claim that Saddam met with the terrorists who carried out the Jordan bomb plot. So that was a strawman. Is that all you have?
Actually, that shows how difficult he was to capture. One reason he was dangerous. And perhaps it shows how much help he must have had amongst the Iraqis of the insurgency. Saddam's insurgency. Because those are the folks he must have been hiding amongst. Perhaps dead. You seen a video of him since Tora Bora? Prior to that he LOVED to make videos of himself.
You're saying that you never claimed that there was a Saddam-Zarqawi link? Well ............?
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?
You want to play the strawman game too?
Please answer the question.
Weakened by war, they most certainly would have if they were sensible, but of course they weren't.
God is always good! Tell me which of those stories had any terrorists saying they met with Saddam and Zarqawi "Strawman. Is that all you have?" Unbelievable. Your whole sthick is based on an alleged Saddam-Zarqawi link. I made no claim that Saddam met with the terrorists who carried out the Jordan bomb plot. So that was a strawman. Is that all you have? You certainly have been making noises like Saddam and Zarqawi had some kind of connection. But if all you have is Zarqawi knew some people in Iraq, you can say the same thing about him knowing people in Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Yeman, Algeria, and Egypt. So you haven't explained to us why it is so important to invade Iraq and take 3 years to capture Zarqawi, when Saddam himself wanted to capture Zarqawi, but not invade Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen, Algeria, and Egypt. In other words, if you want to claim you are not making a case for a Saddam-Zarqawi link, then you have nothing for invading Iraq. Nada. Zip. Zilch. And what's more, then Zarqawi has become your straw man. I've already told you, I don't supply proof to trolls. Now let's see those WMD's. I'm betting you won't be able to supply them.
Please answer the question.
He was difficult to capture by a foreign army who does not know the culture and the language and makes enemies by its actions. Says who, you and your arm? After more than a trillion dollars and 5 1/2 years, all you can come up with is "perhaps?" "Is that all you have?"
Here's the original quote. 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?" (1) Zarqawi was not "operating out of Iraq" that was under Saddam's control any more than he was operating out of Jordan, Yemen, or any other country where he had followers. (2) Except for Afghanistan, the US had not invaded any other country Zarqawi has affiliates in, so Beachooser's claim he was not alleging a Saddam connection with Zarqawi reeks of intellectual dishonesty. (3) Saddam had an arrest warrant out for Zarqawi, so the claim that "Saddam was showing no willingness to stop him" is a bald-faced lie. (4) You can make the same statements about the Zarqawi "operating out of Iraq" and the US "showing no willingness to stop him" for the 3+ years since April 2003 to the middle of last year that American forces did not capture or neutralize Zarqawi. (5) Even the US military admits that most of the Iraqi insurgents are local, not foreigners, so the insinuation that conditions in Iraq are caused by international jihadists is also intellectually dishonest.
Zarqawi was not killed [by the Americans] for 3 years. That's a pretty spectacular failure to get someone who you are claiming was so dangerous. Actually, that shows how difficult he was to capture. One reason he was dangerous. What it actually shows is that Zarqawi felt safer in an Iraq under American occupation than he felt in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, or Iran. What's more, during those 3 years his group killed thousands of people and carried out hundreds of attacks. Now compare that with many people did Zarqawi's groups kill under Saddam.
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. Let's see that arrest warrant. I'm betting you won't be able to supply one. I've already told you, I don't supply proof to trolls. Now let's see those WMD's. I'm betting you won't be able to supply them. Interpol media release 28 December 2005 Arabic Español Français Interpol issues red notice for Al Qaeda’s Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi Algeria requests notice in connection with diplomats’ murder LYON, France – Interpol has issued an international wanted persons notice for Ahmad Fadil Nazal Al-Khalayleh (alias Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi), one of the world’s most notorious terrorist suspects, wanted by police in several countries for a series of attacks on behalf of Al Qaeda. The Red Notice was issued at the request of Algeria, through the Interpol National Central Bureau, which is seeking Al-Zarqawi’s arrest in connection with the kidnapping and murder of two Algerian diplomats in Iraq in July 2005. Al-Zarqawi is also wanted by authorities in Germany, in Iraq in connection with a series of terrorist offences, and in Jordan where he has claimed responsibility for attacks and bombings, including the triple bombs in Amman in November that killed more than 50 people. Interpol Red Notices are distributed to all of Interpol’s 184 member countries using the organization’s global police communications system. They serve to communicate to the world’s police that a suspect is wanted by a member country and request that the suspect be placed under provisional arrest pending extradition. Earlier in December, Interpol published the first Interpol-United Nations Security Council Special Notices for four individuals, including Al-Zarqawi, who are the targets of UN sanctions against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Those notices are aimed at helping a United Nations Security Council committee to carry out its mandate regarding the freezing of assets, travel bans and arms embargos aimed at groups and individuals associated with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. 'We congratulate Algeria for being the first country to take the important step of requesting an Interpol Red Notice against Al-Zarqawi,' said Interpol Secretary General Ronald K. Noble. 'This will decrease the likelihood that such a notorious suspect will be able to evade detection.' http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/PressReleases/PR2005/PR200551.asp
Saddam allowed terrorists safe haven in his country (like the 1993 WTC bomber). Saddam supplied terrorists with money (for example, the al-Qaeda in the Phillipines and the palestinians). Saddam freed suspected associates of al-Zarqawi even after they were captured and even though those who captured them thought them guilty of the crime they were suspected of having committed. Saddam applauded the 911 hijackers. Saddam continued contacts with al-Qaeda after 9/11. al-Zarqawi not only sought medical treatment in Baghdad but he and an entourage of dozens of other al-Qaeda operated out of Baghdad for many months planning mass casualty attacks against the US and its allies. Are you sure?
In other words, you don't have any proof of an arrest warrant. You just made that up. (or misremembered).
Yes he was. The terrorist captured in Jordan admitted they met with al-Zarqawi IN BAGHDAD and they had to have met with him there BEFORE THE INVASION since they say they didn't return to Iraq after going to Syria before the invasion. The only intellectual dishonesty around here is yours. See #1. Which curiously enough, you seem unable to prove. More examples of your "intellectual dishonesty". By the way, Zarqawi is now DEAD. US troops killed him. The opinion of the US military is actually divided on this point.
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?
do you want me for a sunbeam?
If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering Joan. - Tom Frost
Hahahaha, you almost made me puke.
If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering Joan. - Tom Frost
What an interesting term! Is there another kind, or is this another element of disinformation and psyops, on the order of "pro-active?" You're active or inactive; what's this "Pro" crap?
I think Zarqawi was a simple baker or something from Amman who because he was poor only had that one picture of himself that we kept seeing. He probably died, and the military decided to use his identity and turn him into this fierce super-terrorist for our benefit. They won't need to create anymore terrorists though because the actions of the US in the mideast have created a whole lot at this point that wouldn't have existed otherwise.
Before you raise him to sainthood, Diana ... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060800299.html "His real name was Ahmed Fadhil Nazar al-Khalaylah, an identity that he abandoned several years ago when he renamed himself after his home town, Zarqa, an industrial city 17 miles northeast of Amman. He grew up in a family of modest means and was a troublemaker from an early age, dropping out of high school and repeatedly getting into drunken brawls, intelligence officials said." http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/eng_n/zarqawi.htm " Ahmad Fadheel Nazaal al-Khalaylah (“Abu Musab al-Zarqawi” is his nom de guerre) was born in Zarqa, Jordan in October 1966. He came from a large family belonging to the trans-Jordanian Bani Hassan tribe, which is known for its loyalty to the royal Hashemite family. He grew up in the al-Ma’ssoum slum, was an indifferent student and spent most of his time in the municipal cemetery (located opposite his home), which served as his playground. He was known for being rebellious, got left back at school and turned into a juvenile delinquent, even spending time in jail."
I'm not doing any such thing. I just said if he did exist he was probably some simple guy who died and then had a new identity created for him. How do you know that stuff above isn't made up? If he got into drunken brawls, hey wait, I thought Muslims are forbidden to drink alcohol.... Don't be doing things like accusing me of making Zarqawi out to be a saint; we don't want Aaron from LP to be tying up the Homeland Security phone lines again.
And a zoom-zoom sha-boom-boom to you, pervert.
If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering Joan. - Tom Frost
Speaking of bin Laden videos, do you view the "confession" video as authentic?
Speaking of bin Laden videos, do you view the "confession" video as authentic?
Speaking of bin Laden videos, do you view the "confession" video as authentic?
Only if videos I film under duress are legally admissable. /Wait...no...
If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering Joan. - Tom Frost
The one I'm talking about is the one that Bush used as evidence that bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks. Here's an image that compares the real bin Laden to the one in that video.. The one on the right is the real bin Laden, where the one on the left is the one in the "confession video". Notice anything wrong?
Howdy Ho!
If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering Joan. - Tom Frost
Hey asswipe. When you post your off-the-wall drivel, such as your Zarqawi strawman, and your totally dishonest "What would you do about Zarqawi" when Bush himself did nothing about Zarqawi, you're insulting the intelligence of anyone who reads it. Either you're saying they're stupid enough to be blind to your obvious twisting and spinning, or you're saying you don't consider them worthy enough of a serious answer. Kind of like farting loudly instead of replying when someone asks you a question. So fuck you, troll. Interactions with you are not about *debate* because you are fundamentally intellectually dishonest, and debates have rules and principles which you continually flout. You've been rebutted soundly time and time again with facts and basic logic, and your only reply is to change channels and bring up other argument(s) and hope you can wear others down with your sheer volume of unrelenting bullshit. You'll never admit you've been wrong, and you'll never modify your position. Instead your posts are nothing more than a form of mental masturbation, where you take it as a challenge to distort and twist any arguments and facts that go against your own agenda, and mis-construe them into something they are not. And when you insult people by not bringing your "A" game, you've earned all the insults you receive in response, and then some. So fuck you, troll.
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.
Notice anything wrong? I couldn't believe they actually tried to pass that off as real.
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?
That's pretty funny and a good way to describe it!
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!"
I believe there are 2 sides and not just 1 that want war in the Middle East. The majority of the world's Muslim population wants to get on with their daily lives just like all other people everywhere else and does not want war. However among them there is certainly a minority that claims its violent actions are sanctioned by that religion. And the actions of this country over the last few years have been to increase the power and influence of that violent minority.
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!
Thanks. BushCo's follies is an uproarious bundle of sight gags and Vaudevillian punch lines, and the constant repetition of themes such as calling the one Pentagon officer who tells the truth a "liar" while pretending that the world doesn't know how Moe Bush, Larry Cheney, Curly Rumsfeld (with an occasional episode featuring "Shemp" Wolfowitz) browbeat, threatened, bullied and fired every officer (who didn't have the good fortune to recently retire) and civilian employee who was tempted to speak truthfully. And, the army's own expert returned from Iraq with his dying team and soon to be failing health and reported that there should be an immediate and permanent moratorium on the use of DU, and he too was called a "liar" by our resident shill. And, the army physician who examined and treated(?) him refused to document the effects of DU, and from this we can be absolutely certain of two things; Maj. Rokke had no reason to lie, and the doctor is under orders to avoid documenting the effects of DU. And what did shill boy say? Why, there's no documentation to support the diagnoses of DU sickness in any service people, or the estimated 500,000 Iraqi babies who were affected. And, what about the ALA guard unit who upon return from Desert Storm suffered a 67% rate of profound birth defects, including children born with no eyes, arms or brain stems? Well, because a FOX is guarding the hen house instead of serving a watchdog media role, these and other stories of sick and dying around the world just don't exist. (BushCo understands the power of national news and media images all too well. Just as they arranged for the "spontaneous" demonstration to pull Saddam's statue down to bounce off of satellites, they arrange to have DU stories that quote credible sources or show deformed babies strangled in the media nursery along with any parent reporters who can't take hints.) And, at the mere suggestion that our president, the most weasely, corrupt, blatantly evil in our nation's history would lack the character to admit something as devastating as the truth about DU, his shills recoil in horror at the assertion that he's lied about anything! These folks think it's just coincidence that bad news stories never saw daylight even as stories labeling Wilson, Plame and Ritter as " Democrat fibbers" and "Bush haters" all of whom are natural born "liars" fly from mainstream media sources to Mom and Pop's TVs, papers and radios at the speed of lie! So, as near as I can discern the culprits fall into two main groups-the deliberate disinfo artists who float these turds of "Bush truths" and the followers, some of whom can't understand the manipulation and some who won't. Either way we've passed the point of no return and the republic has peaked and begun its decline as predicted by "Poor Richard" and others who knew history better than Bush knew how to use daddy's influence to avoid learning anything while in college, and the rest of his adult life. In fact it's a point of considerable pride with George. "Whatever the rules are they don't apply to me. My daddy is CIA and the most influential importer of all of Air America's clients, and he can make governors' and senators' planes corkscrew into the earth on the sunniest, blue bird flying days. And , if you make fun of my speech and grammar your kids may be run over. Maybe not today but, when I leave office I'll have lots of spare time and a list of things to do...." BushCo shills can find nothing bad to say about him, and their one size fits all reply is, "Just another Bush hater!" without ever explaining why he's so universally despised. The good news is, once Bush no longer needs these shills they'll be in the same boat (or rail car) as the rest of us. And then we can only hope that their stubborn belief in Bush's infallibility will expose them. And then those of us who are so inclined can show them Christian love and forgiveness, assuming that such displays aren't against the law by then.
no, i can't. there is the view count on each thread, but there's no way of knowing who specifically is lurking.
True. But that doesn't change the fact that the bin Laden "confession" video was an obvious fake, yet was used by Bush and Cheney as "proof" that bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks.
I can't believe anyone was stupid enough to think it WAS real. Obviously, those that released it knew ahead of time that the majority of Americans ARE that dumb.
al-Zarqawi is dead. Thank you again for proving my point about what passes for *debate* here at 4um.
The govt thought about it and realized that their own "turism experts" (dutiful friendlies like former state department Zionist Robert H. Kupperman and former FBI profiler Clint VanZandt-the guy who told us that the Beltway Sniper was a white militia type-you know, a gun lovin', tax hatin' joo baitin' sumbitch. Oh wait. Thatz mee! :)) taught us that terrorists always claim responsibility for their dasdardly deeds for reasons which you are already well aware. And 9/11 was the first time in the history of terrorism as we define it (violence or threat of same to effect political change) that no one had stepped forward. And, govt has invested considerable intellectual capital programming us to believe that fearless, fanatical Muslims can't wait to get to Allah. And, this "responsibility vacuum" was an embarrassment for those charged with the continuity of the infotainment at places like Freeperville. So, the fact that the "fanatical Islamist" the govt wanted to finger didn't claim responsibility, (for good reason-he didn't do it) left this gaping spall that needed some of "BushCo's Patented PR Epoxy" (an improved version of P.T. Barnum's formula for successful repair of disbelief) so the govt's shills would have something to work with. I mean, even folks who aren't inclined to be mistrustful of govt thought it was darn suspicious that no one claimed responsibility for 9/11, and even more suspicious that Bin Laden hadn't crowed about it since the govt said that A) he's a fanatical Muslim, and B) he despises the Great Satan, and C) he supposedly pulled it off! (And talk radio has partnered devoutly religious Shi'ite Osama with his secular Sunni enemy Saddam-The Sunnis and The Shia don't mix, but most Americans know nothing of this and can't weigh the unlikelihood of this happening. But, our govt can't let a little thing like irreconcilable religious differences stop them from using 9/11 to vilify everyone and every war in every theater that otherwise has no justification. In fact Osama had denied 9/11 involvement, and that kind of news has a way of getting back to the wrong people. Thankfully his denial wasn't in English on tape and Al-Jazeera had nothing to show the world, and, The Good Lord in his infinite wisdom working through public schools made America mostly illiterate and in so doing he keeps the numbers of informed persons down to firing squad-manageable levels. BUT, when the president received a letter from the LIVING WITH DOWN SYNDROME ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA signed in crayon by a million people and questioning the events of that terrible day, he decided that even a bad video with a bad double and a bad translation is better than nothing. Like the Warren Commissioners before them BushCo has decreed that the laws of physics don't apply when inconvenient, so, "they" just added the bad doppelgänger Bin Laden confession video to the list of things that Americans with any professional and/or financial connection to fedgov had better not examine too closely or question ever if they value their livelihoods, their families and their kneecaps. Is this a great country or what? Where else can a man like me sprout from humble Southern stock and grow up to accuse the most powerful creature in the world of being the most evil lizardman to ever slither from the primordial ooze?
just wow! :P
You broke the code; GREAT!
Great rant....... HOWSUMEVER, might I remind one and all that when you are listing anything about the 'terrorists', you MUST always remember to list that D) he hates us for our freedoms! Got it? Sheesh..........and here I was thinkin youse about as smart as them eye-stein pepples. :)
Jihadists expect to die, stupid twit. What's important is to keep them from killing other people. Under Saddam, he didn't. Under American occupation, he killed thousands. Idiotic non-responses like the one you made above, like "Zarqawi is dead" when he expected to die in the first place, are insults to any one with half a brain who reads them. When you insult other people on a site that already doesn't like you, expect the same in return.
Exactly how does one debate a Republican party member who still believes that the U.S. had to invade Iraq so to avert a nuclear catastrophe?
Jews and their pets - click me
;)
I know I'm stating the obvious, but it's therapeutic for me.
I guess you missed my point. Unless you think the strategy in the entire middle east should be pull out. Abandon any allies in the region. Yankee Go Home. Oh, wait! That is what you think. Right? Did the war against Germany result in fewer German soldiers ... before we won? Did the war against Vietnam result in fewer North Vietnamese soldiers? Did the cold war result in smaller Soviet forces ... before we won? Could it be that you are trying to look at this in too simplistic a fashion? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece "DESPITE sectarian slaughter, ethnic cleansing and suicide bombs, an opinion poll conducted on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq has found a striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants. The poll, the biggest since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003, shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services." On the contrary. That was the claim of many of those now on your side of the Iraq war debate. It was a claim based on experts in epidemiology at the UN and WHO. It was a claim blessed by none other than the Lancet, whom you've defended on numerous occasions. Well first of all, he wasn't "protected by the United States Air Force". Second, there was no more guarantee that bombing the camps in Northern Iraq would kill al-Zarqawi than there was that bombing bin Laden's camps would kill bin Laden. They did that remember? And a few years later was 9/11. But eventually they found and killed him. Were it up to you, he'd still be running around free ... plotting, planning and murdering. Perhaps tens of thousands. I notice that you didn't deny my assertion that you'd NOT have bombed al-Zarqawi's camps if it had been up to you. That you'd NOT have put men on the ground to make sure he was dead. No, instead you would have sounded the retreat and pulled all American influence out of the Middle East and the rest of the world. On the contrary ... they've exposed who you are AGAviator. I notice you haven't denied my assertion that you'd NOT have bombed the camps in Northern Iraq, if you'd have been President at the time. Just has you'd not have gone to the aid of Kuwait in 1991. I'm sorry AGAviator, but the readers of this thread should should know that you think we have no business being in the ME at all. That we should just abandon all allies there and withdraw all influence we have ... all contacts we have. Then they'll have no reason to attack us. Right? And I notice that you don't deny my assertion that you don't think the WOT is real. You think it is just as phony as what the many links I've provided say about al-Zarqawi. Right? Folks should know that too. Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists. If you think so, you don't know the meaning of the term "safe haven". There is no place in Iraq where they can go that we won't strike if we find out about them. A far cry from the days of Saddam, when terrorists were even operating in Baghdad under the nose of Saddam to attack us. Make up your mind. Is it sectarian violence or al-Qaeda terrorists who are responsible for the killing of most innocent Iraqis? Or would you claim its us? What's the problem, AGAviator? Don't you know who his source is? Now that's not true. A US diplomat was murdered by al-Zarqawi when Saddam was still in power. And al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad at the time. Thanks for demonstrating once again how 4umers debate ... those, that is, that don't hide behind bozo filters to avoid debate entirely.
That's right, 4umers. Withdraw behind a bozo filter like HoundDawg. Nothing like living in a world of self-delusion where only one side of the debate is even heard. It makes one feel so superior and self-confident. ROTFLOL!
Got it? Sheesh..........and here I was thinkin youse about as smart as them eye-stein pepples. : Some days are more about style and I indulge myself, hopefully with the understanding of others. And, you're right. They hate us for our govt's freedom to select a country and exercise the freedom to slaughter them all, plunder their antiquities, contract their mineral rights away for profit and power, and take any discussion of morality off the table because Israel wants it and ....Hell, I shouldn't have said that. Because Israel wants it no explanation should be offered, period. If I'm still in shock and trying to get my mind around the truth then I'm a handicapped excuse for an American. Real Americans don't faint at the sight of rivers of blood. And they don't demand explanations for piles of bodies.
*tick tick tick* Bush ran in and disarmed the detonator with only seconds to spare! What a guy! A man's man! (If you're Jeff Gannon ;) )
Doesn't wash, AGAviator. The reason you don't supply proof for much of what you claim is that you CAN'T. Good, I hope you try. Just like you've tried (and failed) here. Go ahead, AGAviator, insult anyone who might chance upon this website. I wouldn't dream of doing that. I just want them to know what's really going on here. And dig a little deeper than just accepting the nonsense you folks post and claim on topic after topic.
Just curious, Christine. How many different folks actually visit 4um on an average day? Compared to the number of members. You must have statistics like that. I'm just wondering how big this "pretend" audience is?
I like him enough in a weird kind of way when he is not being too rude. He is fun to try to pin down and you have to admire his tenacity though I get angry with him sometimes. Christine can you restore his ROTFLOF! privilages as it took away from his much-needed humorous side.
FYI in 06 we had 13,101,026 hits
Never happened. Post ANY source that actually confirms what Rokke claims about his credentials, time in Iraq and the condition of his team. Go ahead. Yet he did. Clearly did. On multiple occasions. So why did he lie, Dawg? I never said any such thing. Strawmen seem to be all your side has, Dawg. Estimated by whom? *Dr* Rokke? A guy who LIES? Certainly no health physicist has estimated that. Nor any other peer reviewed credible source. Oh by all means link us to the source of this claim.
So what's the view count on this thread, christine. Are the folks posting to it the only one's reading it?
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! That's my vote for what it's worth.
Nope..
Oh! I thought that has been taken away.
ROTFLOL!
Actually, he did. And he planned to kill many more while still under Saddam. If we hadn't invaded, the attack on Jordan would still have occurred ... and perhaps succeeded since then he would been able to monitor the planning more carefully instead of spending most of his time RUNNING from Coalition forces looking for him. And then tens of thousands would have died including everyone in the US embassy in Amman. How many Americans would that have been, AGAviator? I haven't insulted anyone while on this site. I've been most courteous. Just like now. Even at LP I never really insulted people. I just pointed out the truth about them. Some were liars. Some were democRATS. Some didn't like America. In each case, there were clear reasons to think those assertions were right. But I never used foul language. I never called insulted the intelligence of someone unless they'd already insulted mine (and even then I often ignored their insults). And now even posting facts to 4umers is considered an insult. Go figure. ROTFLOL!
Strawman. Is that all 4umers have in their debate toolkit?
Wow! So the hundred or so 4um members are either really addicted to this site or there are quite a few lurkers stumbling onto the site from time to time.
christine never took away my ROTFLOL! privleges. I agreed to reduce the usage of the term to see if she was right ... that 4umers would become more civil to me if I did. So far it looks like christine was wrong.
Christine, is it time to "pretend" BAC is still a poster here - he is "disrespecting" you!
HD:And, the army's own expert returned from Iraq with his dying team BAC: Never happened. Post ANY source that actually confirms what Rokke claims about his credentials, time in Iraq See my post #121 in the following thread: http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=48191&Disp=122#C122 "Idiocy in D.C., Progress in Baghdad"
That's a fact - whether or not you approve, or not, asshole! Not that he wouldn't have loved to be the culprit; but he had no involvement, beyond the propaganda that your slimy lot prefers, BAC.
The Devil's Advocate. ROTFLOL? Excellent job.
Israel is getting US into WWIII.
Furter proof of your stupidity, as if it were needed. You actually want to claim the US has "allies" instead of nations using us? What a dimwit. Were we "winning" when the number of German, and Soviet soldiers was increasing, numbskull spammer? Don't bother to read your own blurbs, do you... Not surprisingly, the divisions in Iraqi society were reflected in statistics — Sunnis were more likely to back the previous Ba’athist regime (51%) while the Shi’ites (66%) preferred the Maliki government. And your claim that "thousands dying week in and week out when Saddam was in control" is dubious to put it mildly. You have no shame, do you, to quote the Lancet. He was. Bush also refused to send in Special Forces. After he had done what he set out to do, and after getting tens of thousands of new followers as the result of the invasion. Bullshit. I don't need to reply to your arm-waving, off-topic hypotheticals. Dream on. You've been soundly whacked over Bush not doing anything about Zarqawi for years, and you've been whacked about Zarqawi not killing people when Saddam was in power. So what's your response? Wave your arm and declare yourself a winnner. That exposes you for who you are. I don't reply to your off-topic hypotheticals. We have no allies, and only a fool would maintain otherwise. I don't need to. And your pretend "folks" should know that you're engaging in one of your patented off-topic sideshows. More people are dying of terrorists in Iraq than have ever died when Saddam ruled Iraq. Terrorists expect to be killed themselves. The fact that more are being killed is irrelevant. Terrorism has increased and is increasing. All of the above are contributing factors to the unnecessary deaths in Iraq. The exact numbers are irrelevant. It's irrelvant, like most of your comments. One US diplomat. And says who? Interactions with you are not debate. They're about you taking things off topic, spamming, and demanding more and more and more proof whenever you get impeached. And about you thinking people are stupid enough that you can throw your non- answers at them and not get called on it. So...Fuck you, troll.
Your spam, and non-answers scream at people saying they're stupid. So don't play coy with me, boy.
You win! You win!
Pay attention, SKYDRIFTER ... I'm not the one claiming that outside of its members, 4um just has a "pretend" audience.
Post a link to what you claim. You may just be making it up same as Rokke made up his "health physicist" credential.
Oh I see - now you want to smear me, not just DR. Rokke. Well, I can't say I'm surprised - so much for your promise to be polite and civil. Ahem. There goes yet another promise to christine and freedom4um posters. Drum roll - are there any promises left from the list you gave us in February that you have not broken yet - zero, I'll bet. See post my #145 on this thread for instructions on how to obtain copies of Dr. Rokke's military records and letter of introduction to Captains Armstrong, Brannon, Carter who served on Operation Desert Shield - 3 different Med Grps. Toodles, boozer. http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=48191&Disp=145#C145
I'm not the one claiming that outside of its members, 4um just has a "pretend" audience. You are not 4um, spambot. You have a *pretend* audience. Have I made myself clear?
BAC: "I'm not the one claiming that outside of its members, 4um just has a "pretend" audience." BAC, you fuck-head, Christine informed you of the audience stats - that's not the stuff of "pretend!" {Christine, you need to get BAC's undivided attention. He's not learning.}
WOW! That's awesome! Congratulations! I had no idea so many people were visiting this site.
God is always good! Spam non-answers repeatedly, post after post. Call the other person or his source a liar. Demand additional proof. Change the subject. That's all you have.
According to the people of Iraq, yes. http: //www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece Poll: Most Iraqis Live in Fear of Violence 4 Years After Invasion There was very little trust in U.S. and British troops. By a ratio of more than 4-to-1 — 82%-to-18% — Iraqis surveyed said they had little confidence in coalition forces. That means 51% of Iraqis - more than a majority - say Maliki is either worse, just as bad, or refused to answer. And that means things are getting better to a 'botspammer. Meanwhile, 90% of Iraqis say they live in fear of their safety, and by 4 to 1 they don't trust either US or British forces. You've been whacked again, troll.
Smear Rokke? No, just tell the whole story. Smear you? No, I just wanted you to post a link to the material you were claiming about his military career so we could know where you got it. I'm sorry if I offended you by suggesting the link might not exist. Maybe you should just have cited Wikipedia to begin with? Why don't you just post a link to my promise so readers can make their own judgment regarding my civility and politeness ... in the face of what has decidedly not been civil or polite behavior by most 4umers.
From the poll you cited:
Spam aside BAC, do you deny Rokke's credentials? Well .....? C'mon, asshole, take a position here.
More Poll Results By a 2-1 margin, Iraqis called those efforts "ineffective." The lack of security and basic utilities have made daily life more difficult. "I don't attend the college regularly for security reasons," says Ibrahim Mahdi Al Husaini, 19, a Sunni student. "There is no electricity, so how can I study?" He is uncertain whether he'll be able to finish his studies and unsure whether he can manage to leave Iraq. "Overall I am depressed all the time," he said. About 33% saw "effective" reconstruction efforts, while 67% — 15 percentage points higher than in a similar ABC News survey taken in November 2005 — called them "ineffective." Nearly one in 10 said they hadn't seen any reconstruction efforts You were saying?
Iraqis by 43%-36% said life was better than before the invasion.
Where? And even if that were true, are you aware that 43% means 57% - a majority - believes otherwise?
#223. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#221) Spam aside BAC, do you deny Rokke's credentials? Well .....? C'mon, asshole, take a position here.
Don't you believe your own poll? This is from the poll your source cited: *********** 2. Compared to the time before the war in spring 2003, are things overall in your life much better now, somewhat better, about the same, somewhat worse or much worse? 3/5/07 11/22/05 2/28/04 ************* Now the interesting thing about the above is that you were still against the war back in 2/28/04 when 59% of the populace said things were better and only 19% said things were worse than during Saddam. Leading one to wonder if you really do care about what the Iraqis think.
Your reply is a typical performance of your convoluted mental processes. Your original statement was an allegation that thousands were dying under Saddam and asking are "things" worse. In that context, a person with normal English comprehension will interpret "things" as referring to life-and-death issues. Given that context, I said "things" are worse and cited a recent poll saying that almost 90% of Iraqis fear for their personal safety. An incredibly disturbing number to anybody with a conscience - which rules you out. Then you bring in a poll that says that slightly less than half of Iraqis like their Prime Minister, many of them because he's a member of their ethnic group. So now your definition of "things" has changed from its former life-and-death and personal safety, to "Do you like the current political leader in Baghdad." But now in your latest cyber-dropping, "things" has once again changed to "Overall in your life," as in "How do you feel about everything in general" from from its former life-and-death, and then politics. So you really have said nothing of any substance, because your definitions change every time you post. Finally, your citing 59% of the populace saying that "things were better in 2004" does not address the issue of whether 59% of the populace welcomed the foreign invaders and occupiers at that time. Because they didn't. "Things were better in 2004" could mean nothing more than "Do you have more consumer goods because the economic embargo against Iraq has now been lifted." So you're just serving up more loads of your off-topic, beside-the point spam, that is your stock in trade.
ROTFLOL! Talk about "convoluted mental processes".
Glad you're so easily amused, Looser. You're just getting your own meandering mental masturbations read back to you. AGA: According to the people of Iraq, yes...[Cites poll saying 9 out of 10 Iraqis now fear for their personal safety]. BeAWeasel: But my poll here says that 49% of Iraqis like their new Prime Minister. AGA: The same poll says by a margin of 4 to 1 that Iraqis don't like US or British troops in their country. BeAWeasel: But the poll also says that 43% of Iraqis think that "things in your life are better now than before." AGA: 43% happens to be less than half, which means that more than half believes the contrary. BeAWeasel: 2004 58% say life is better, 2005 51% say life is better, 2006 43% say life is better. AGA: What do less than half liking the Prime Minister, and less than half saying that life in better in general, have to do with "things getting worse" with respect to people dying. BeAWeasel: ROTFLOL! AGA: Up yours, troll. One more time, BAC: Spam aside BAC, do you deny Rokke's credentials? Well .....? C'mon, asshole, take a position here. {Yeah, asshole, I'm talking to you!}
Thank you for taking the time to further expose the dishonesty of BAC.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
I don't believe I've ever written that. Refresh my memory of when I did.
Says a poster who bozo'd herself to protect herself from reading my half of the discussion. I'm sure she has all the facts.
Perhaps you're right. Could have been the day shift in Tel Aviv... ROTFLAMO!
24. To: war (#20) You're response should have been directed by Milo Bloom... Sorry ... my mistake ... Still waiting for that UBL interview... war, I got the idea there was an interview from sources like this: BeAChooser posted on 2003-09-19 16:09:25 ET Reply Trace #127. To: scrapper2, AGAviator, ALL (#126) * * * According to http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/05/september11/main520874.shtml, "The lawsuit * * * BeAChooser posted on 2007-03-14 1:05:15 ET Reply Trace Private Reply When reviewing the nonsense propaganda jokes spewed by BAC, one is tempted to ask, "Stop me if you've heard this one." Naturally, the link in LP #24 goes nowhere. And BAC would not consider citing the original source material. This propaganda says what he wanted to spew. Let us see how many stretches of the imagination were squeezed in there. this Iraqi journalist, quotes bin Laden as saying he is thinking about bombing the Pentagon after he destroys the White House. Uhhhh... really? Where in the article did the alleged Iraqi intelligence agent Naeem Muhalhal "quote" bin Laden saying he would attack anything? Interview? Where does the article say OBL was interviewed? There isn't even an inferred interview. ========================= This farce got even better in the re-telling at #127. The part in BLUE is not in the CBS article at all. In #24 the newspaper was owned by Uday. In #127, BAC states as fact that it was owned by Qusay. Most sources seem to say it was state run. "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." The quote in blue does not derive from the CBS article and was provided by BAC. There is no evidence provided to support the BAC ASSERTION that the newspaper was owned by Saddam's son Qusay. Uday was known to be a newspaper owner, if not the owner of that newspaper. OBL was really irked by the old country classic, I got tears in my ears from lying on my back crying over you, baby. The "wings of a dove" comment is a statement of Muhalhal to OBL, directly attributed by Muhalhal to himself. It clearly refers to that other old country classic, by Ferlin Husky. When troubles surround us, when evils come [snip] This is clearly a reference to OBL feeling his body growing weak, his spirit was growing numb, and he was just growing weary of dragging that damn dailysis machine all over the Tora Bora mountains. And so, it is clear, in the end OBL had found Jesus in his heart and OBL is now filled with His pure, sweet love, sent down to OBL "on the wings of a dove." ==================================== From the actual article by alleged Iraqi intelligence agent Muhalhal: ----- The phenomenon of Bin Ladin is a healthy phenomenon in the Arab spirit. It is a decision and a determination that the stolen Arab self has come to realize after it got bored with promises of its rulers: After it disgusted itself from their abomination and their corruption, the man had to carry the book of God and the Kalashnikov and write on some off white paper "If you are unable to drive off the Marines from the Kaaba, I will do so." It seems that they will be going away because the revolutionary Bin Ladin is insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting. The assertion about the "arm that is already hurting" is the words of the alleged Iraqi Intelligence agent Naeem Abd Muhalhal. It is a bunch of imaginary propaganda bullshit. It probably originated in the Department of Yellowcake. Like most of the trash that BAC dredges up. NAEEM ABD MUHALHAL ARTICLE PREDICTING 9-11 For Senate text version: Open Congressional Record: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Mr. HOLLINGS. So what you have, in January of 2000, is not only the informant, the CIA had the information. Again, like I said, they did not communicate it. The dots are never going to get joined. I can see poor Condoleezza Rice standing up and saying: We didn't have anything specific. We didn't have anything specific. She will never get anything specific. She will not get a phone call saying, ``We are coming,'' like we have already called Saddam with. We have told him, "We are coming." But that is not the way the world works with the al-Qaida crowd. So right to the point, on July 10, 2001, the FBI learned about the Phoenix, AZ, flight school. A memo was sent to the FBI. But it stopped at midlevel--never communicated to the White House, never communicated to the CIA. Again, the dots not joined. I can tell you that right here and now. Here is a news story from July 21, 2001, before 9/11 of last year, in the Iraqi news. The name of that particular newspaper is Al-Nasiriya. Quoting from it: Bin Ladin has become a puzzle and a proof also, of the inability of the American federalism and the CIA to uncover the man and uncover his nest. The most advanced organizations of the world cannot find the man and continues to go in cycles in illusion and presuppositions. It refers to an exercise called "How Do You Bomb the White House." They were planning it. Let me read this to all the colleagues here: The phenomenon of Bin Ladin is a healthy phenomenon in the Arab spirit. It is a decision and a determination that the stolen Arab self has come to realize after it got bored with promises of its rulers; After it disgusted itself from their abomination and their corruption, the man had to carry the book of God ..... and write on some white paper "If you are unable to drive off the Marines from the Kaaba, I will do so." It seems that they will be going away because the revolutionary Bin Ladin is insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting. In other words, the World Trade Towers. Here, over a year ahead of time in the open press in Iraq, they are writing that this man is planning not only to bomb the White House, but where they are already hurting, the World Trade Towers. I ask unanimous consent to print this article in the RECORD. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: America, an Obsession Called Osama Bin Ladin Osama Bin Ladin says that he took from the desert its silence and its anger at the same time. He has learned how to harm America and has been able to do it, for he gave a bad reputation to the Pentagon as being weakened in more than one spot in the world. In order to follow one step taken by Bin Ladin America has put to work all its apparatus, its computers and its satellites just as the governor cowboy of Texas has done. Bin Ladin's name has been posted on all the internet sites and an amount of $5 million dollars has been awarded to anyone who could give any information that would lead to the arrest of this lanky, lightly bearded man. In this man's heart you'll find an insistence, a strange determination that he will reach one day the tunnels of the White House and will bomb it with everything that is in it. We all know that every age has its revolutionary phenomenon. In Mexico there was Zapata. In Bolivia there was Che Guevara, during the seventies came out Marcos and the Red Brigades in Italy, the Baader Meinhof Gang in Germany and there was Leila Khaled the Palestinian woman and others. They all appeared in violence and disappeared quietly. During the nineties Bin Ladin came out in the open having been completely overtaken in his mind by the robbery happening to his country and its treasurers. For him it was the beginning of the revolution. For this endeavor he mobilized everything that he had of money, of investments and Sudan was his first stop. Bin Ladin ended up in Afghanistan where his revolutionary drive pushed this stubborn revolutionary to plan very carefully, and in a very detailed manner, his stand to push back the boastful American onslaught and to change the American legend into a bubble of soap. Because Bin Ladin knows what causes pain to America, he played America's game, just as an oppressed man entertains itself with the thing oppressing him. He countered with the language of dynamite and explosives in the city of Khobar and destroyed two US embassies in Nairobi and Dar al Salaam. America says, admitting just like a bird in the midst of a tornado, that Bin Ladin is behind the bombing of its destroyer in Aden. The fearful series of events continues for America and the terror within America gets to the point that the Governor of Texas increases the amount of the award, just as the stubbornness of the other man and his challenge increases. This challenge makes it such that one of his grandchildren comes from Jeddah traveling on the official Saudi Arabia airlines and celebrates with him the marriage of one of the daughters of his companions. Bin Ladin has become a puzzle and a proof also, of the inability of the American federalism and the C.I.A. to uncover the man and uncover his nest. The most advanced organizations of the world cannot find the man and continues to go in cycles in illusion and presuppositions. They still hope that he could come out from his nest one day, they hope that he would come out from his hiding hole and one day they will point at him their missiles and he will join Guevara, Hassan Abu Salama, Kamal Nasser, Kanafani and others. The man responds with a thin smile and replies to the correspondent from Al Jazeera that he will continue to be the obsession and worry of America and the Jews, and that even that night he will practice and work on an exercise called "How Do You Bomb the White House." And because they know that he can get there, they have started to go through their nightmares on their beds and the leaders have had to wear their bulletproof vests. Meanwhile America has started to pressure the Taliban movement so that it would hand them Bin Ladin, while he continues to smile and still thinks 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 phenomenon of Bin Ladin is a healthy phenomenon in the Arab spirit. It is a decision and a determination that the stolen Arab self has come to realize after it got bored with promises of its rulers: After it disgusted itself from their abomination and their corruption, the man had to carry the book of God and the Kalashnikov and write on some off white paper "If you are unable to drive off the Marines from the Kaaba, I will do so." It seems that they will be going away because the revolutionary Bin Ladin is insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting. That the man will not be swayed by the plant leaves of Whitman nor by the "Adventures of Indiana Jones" and will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs. This new awareness of the image that Bin Ladin has become gives shape to the resting areas and stops for every Arab revolutionary. It is the subject of our admiration here in Iraq because it shares with us in a unified manner our resisting stand, and just as he fixes his gaze on the Al Aqsa we greet him. We hail his tears as they see the planes of the Western world taking revenge against his heroic operations by bombing the cities of Iraq ..... To Bin Ladin I say that revolution, the wings of a dove and the bullet are all but one and the same thing in the heart of a believer.
Well FL Reading the LP crap, It seems to me that ol' Brer Rabbit did his best to show the Flying Monkey Squads of Jew Zionists and Marxists as the owners of the Lllll Pee propaganda site. IMO he did what he set out to do and forced many people to look and think about what he calls rightly the Shadow Government. He also showed up the shilling of the low-life goldi-sally. As a parting series of shots until goldie could claim a timeout when the account was actually retired, he also left many nuggets that do AGITATE for people to look, think and learn. to quote from Brer Rabbit, " The Two-Headed Hydra of the Jewish Zionist-Marxist IS the Shadow Government. This Regime of Dictators will never allow any person like Ron Paul to even be put on the ballot." Probabvly as a lurker, understanding Mr. Rabbit's goals at Lllll Pee , I think he did a pretty damned good job and left a lot of disciples in that Jew Crew Nest of vipers. As a lurker like yourself, let's keep all our fraternal handshakes to ourselves. OK? (-:
Does anyone remember the US Navy Officer that was apprehended in Canada before 9-11, with an envelope? Remember he told the people who took him in to keep it safe, and open it after 9-11? Nobody ever talks about that guy, and nobody ever talks about the contents of that envelope. DOES ANYONE ELSE REMEMBER THAT???
Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.
Yes, I remember..
I missed that story.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/01_25_02_revised_012802_vreeland.html
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
that is an incredible link in 242.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Post #92 "Since 9/11, the GDP of the US has increased by something on the order of 2 TRILLION dollars a year." BeALooser posted on 2006-11- 07 02:13:00 ET Post #111 "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." BeALooser posted on 2006-11-07 19:39:19 ET Post #122 "You made the claim that the 2 trillion dollar increase per year in GDP is mostly government spending." BeALooser posted on 2006-11- 08 12:51:48 ET Post #122 "Yet, the GDP has gone from about 10 billion to about 12 billion a year ... a 20 percent increase" BeALooser posted on 2006-11- 08 12:51:48 ET Post #137 “Obviously I meant $2 trillion" BeALooser posted on 2006-11-09 10:28:44 ET Post #147 So I accidently wrote billion instead of trillion a few times BeALooser posted on 2006-11-12 20:25:08 ET” Post #83 “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 Post #151 “Total government spending… was roughly 2.75 trillion dollars. A 33 percent increase would amount to 900 million BeALooser posted on 2006-11-12 22:48:21 ET” Post #154 "OK. So I was wrong...Big deal. " BeALooser posted on 2006-11-13 00:00:34 ET Post #154 “But it is clearly what I meant" [!!] BeALooser posted on 2006-11-13 00:00:34 ET Post #154 “So my language was sloppy. Sue me." BeALooser posted on 2006-11-13 00:00:34 ET Post #158 “I meant billion. Sue me." BeALooser posted on 2006-11-13 00:25:26 ET Post #158 “I'm just tired" BeALooser posted on 2006-11-13 00:25:26 ET Post #231 You were off by a factor of a thousand. 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 "No one is being fooled by your claiming 9 KIA a day (which isn't close to the actual situation on average, btw) is unsustainable for a country the size of the United States." BeALooser posted on 2006-06-29 19:16:07 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." BeALooser posted on 2007-01-21 17:27:20 ET AGAviator posted on 2007-03-11 4:48:43 ET Reply Trace Private Reply -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I break my self-imposed silence for this brief message: ROTFLMAOATPIMY!!! ROTFLMAOATPIMY!!! ROTFLMAOATPIMY!!! ROTFLMAOATPIMY!!! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! And this is the 'serious poster, who doesn't call names, who only tries to put forth facts and correct 'misinformation', and use reason and/or logic, blah blah blah? Really......... Sure is funny how this person brushes off his faux paux as just a teeny weeny error made in the excitement of the heat of 'debate'.........while it was within the past couple of months this person was excoriating and questioning the credibility of LT. ? Karen Kwatewski's (sp ????) heat of the scared shitless moment in the immediate aftermath of the Pentagon's 9/11 estimated hole size as so horrible/evil/wrong that it should be placed in the category of something akin to having signed and carried out the death warrants of millions of people like Stalin or whomever!! Sheesh......how much more obvious can it get, folks........? He attempts to make a joke out of this forum, and way too many buy into the bullcrappy. There's a dilemma.....let him post and someone has to be on guard 24/7 to try to keep the bullcrappy honest and yet at the same time, a post to this person is what he eats, sleeps, and breathes for--ignore it and you have false bullcrappy [govt. sponsored no doubt] 'facts' spread thru the internet world being paid for by a couple of patriotic ladies. Makes no sense to me. BTW, AGAviator, you've provided information that should be mandatorily posted on every single thing this person posts on this forum. Kudos to you.
I think it's past time for BAC to go. The lies, distortion and thread spamming do NOT add to this 4um in any way. They do expose how the BushBots and the Bush crime family think, but if we want that we can go read Goldi's comments or anyone on FR.
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington
I agree.
Those quotes you posted by BeAChooser are interesting. Some time ago I went over to read on LP, before he got thrown off there, and the comments he was making did not sound like him, I almost wondered if a replacement was taking over for him so he could go on vacation. These comments from him you posted above sound like the "other" BeAChooser. Something fishy there.
I agree completely about BAC, he is pure pioson and is here by design. He should be banned.
Thesis: Official 9/11 story is an unproven conspiracy theory. http://911truth.org http://Justicefor911.org http://summeroftruth.org Probable-cause standards have been met for an unlimited investigation of unsolved crimes relating to the events of Sept. 11, including allegations of criminal negligence, cover-up, complicity or commission of the attacks by US officials and assets of intel services.
Long time since I have seen your handle.
It's not Global Warming, it's Ice Age Abatement.
You didn't read the caveat at the top of the post - did you, stupid? Now you rant about something that makes you look like a BIGGER FOOL than you are. Goldi-Lox posted on 2007-06-03 23:50:25 ET So, old Sally is doing ad hominem attacks. Some moderator/forum owner she is. Elpee, the urinal of the Internet. How nice of her to play the spash guard in it.
Thesis: Official 9/11 story is an unproven conspiracy theory. http://911truth.org http://Justicefor911.org http://summeroftruth.org Probable-cause standards have been met for an unlimited investigation of unsolved crimes relating to the events of Sept. 11, including allegations of criminal negligence, cover-up, complicity or commission of the attacks by US officials and assets of intel services.
Good to see you again my dear. It's always a pleasure to see you. ;-)
Thesis: Official 9/11 story is an unproven conspiracy theory. http://911truth.org http://Justicefor911.org http://summeroftruth.org Probable-cause standards have been met for an unlimited investigation of unsolved crimes relating to the events of Sept. 11, including allegations of criminal negligence, cover-up, complicity or commission of the attacks by US officials and assets of intel services.
They do expose how the BushBots and the Bush crime family think, but if we want that we can go read Goldi's comments or anyone on FR. I agree with Robin and, as I told him, I grew weary of allowing him to use OUR forum for his shilling, lies and propaganda. Further, his entertainment value ceased.
Especially after tom007 started posting about what happened to his nephew and the many others who will be disabled and will suffer for the rest of their lives. BeAChooser showed indeed he is cold-hearted, and sinister by his attitude towards that. I kept giving him the benefit of the doubt, but it finally sunk in that this is not a good individual. It sounds like he is gone from what I am reading here, at one point I would have been unhappy over that as I don't like anyone to be banned, but he was beyond hope, beyond redemption IMO. That part of the brain that has a conscience was missing in him.
I really think there are some good people that I interact with on the net, but...one never knows. Whenever some mentions a 'meetup', I always have "something else to do", indeed! Unfortunately, the spooks never sleep. Your hesitation is a valid and appropriate defense mechanism in these times of treason.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition Ooooooooooser is a ghoul and I have told him so on more than one occaision. His chief value on a forum such as this is as a reminder of what decent people oppose and why.
Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. - Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary
Now I understand having seen how obsessed you are with Brother bun buns in your first posts here. The likelihood is that you are him. You masked that manner of puctuation when you were new here. But then when you were feeling more secure, you went back to the same manner of double spacing your punctuation away from the verbiage in a sentence, much as brerbub bubs does. You also used exactly the same attack points brerrabbit used when arguing with me. Very very few people over the last nine years have been like you and brother bun buns in how you percieve me and attack. There of course is a chance I an wrong in this guess, but I hope you stick around as you no doubt will continue to reval yourself, your true self that is that we all know weel from watching you work at el pee.
Thesis: Official 9/11 story is an unproven conspiracy theory. http://911truth.org http://Justicefor911.org http://summeroftruth.org Probable-cause standards have been met for an unlimited investigation of unsolved crimes relating to the events of Sept. 11, including allegations of criminal negligence, cover-up, complicity or commission of the attacks by US officials and assets of intel services.
Hunh???
#2. To: lodwick (#0)
#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.
#4. To: gengis gandhi (#1)
don't need a crystal ball to see that place as a spook front.
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#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...
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#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...
#7. To: gengis gandhi. all (#2)
#8. To: Destro (#6)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#9. To: robin (#8)
Many posters were thown off LP, but none with BAC's posting history.
#10. To: scrapper2, ALL (#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...
#11. To: Destro, ALL (#6)
I was thrown off LP as well - hmmmm
#12. To: honway, ALL (#9)
In light of this information,if this was my site, I would dump BAC.
#13. To: gengis gandhi, all, christine, lodwick (#2)
Needless to say I did not fall for it. This guy is a spook...no doubt about it..as are most of the LP posters and the "owners."
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
- - IndieTX
#14. To: honway, christine, skydrifter (#9)
(Edited)
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
- - IndieTX
#15. To: IndieTX (#13)
#16. To: IndieTX (#14)
As it is, all should BOZO him immediately.
#17. To: Brian S, BLUEDOGTXN (#15)
(Edited)
Whenever some mentions a 'meetup', I always have "something else to do", indeed!
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
- - IndieTX
#18. To: IndieTX (#17)
Why on earth should we make it easy on these fascist jackboot clowns???
#19. To: Brian S (#15)
#20. To: Brian S, christine (#18)
Army of One"!!!
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
- - IndieTX
#21. To: christine (#19)
i've met and made some very good friends from the forums.
#22. To: IndieTX (#20)
These times call for clandestine methods
#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.
#24. To: IndieTX, Brian S (#17)
I hate the fact that we must remain so distant on these forums.
#25. To: christine (#19)
#26. To: SmokinOPs (#24)
I'm not gonna skulk around in fear because of some gubmint goober in a bad suit and cheap shoes.
#27. To: SmokinOPs, ALL (#24)
PS: All that being said, there are sometimes when I drift into a melancholy mood and think they could probably load us into boxcars by the thousands and no one would give a shit.
#28. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#27)
#29. To: Brian S (#26)
(Edited)
Randy Weaver, perhaps, could give you some of the pluses and minuses on excepting people into your circle and inviting them into your home.
#30. To: BeAChooser (#27)
SmokinOPs: All that being said, there are sometimes when I drift into a melancholy mood and think they could probably load us into boxcars by the thousands and no one would give a shit.
#31. To: Brian S, IndieTx, all (#26)
Randy Weaver, perhaps, could give you some of the pluses and minuses on excepting people into your circle and inviting them into your home.
#32. To: scrapper2, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#30)
#33. To: scrapper2, SmokinOPs, SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#30)
That's a sweet answer to Smokin's reverie. I wonder if you really meant the sentiment you expressed.
I sense you are worried the majority of thumbs are pointing down.
Why are you here?
You take so much abuse - you admit it and no one denies it,
why here at 4um wherein no one shares your perspective
What do you get out of it?
And it seems more than unusual that you'd be banned from LP for something so insignificent - what was it? criticizing GWB for his open borders policy or something minor like that?
Is that all it took to push the LP mod over the edge?
Can you explain it better to me.
And no I don't think anyone here believes you are part of a "Zionist conspiracy" - your words, not ours
but the timing of your departure and odd things coming up at LP - well it's all unsettling.
#34. To: BeAChooser (#33)
What say you?
#35. To: All (#14)
He is a spook and agent provacteur.
#36. To: Brian S (#22)
Trust no one other than your pets.
#37. To: Diana (#36)
#38. To: scrapper2, Jethro Tull, SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#34)
a. You could set up your own blog if you wanted to educate "lurkers" or "visitors" or you could post at the countless neocon blogs you source - why here at 4um? Intellectual stimulation can be gotten at aforementioned places.
What's in it for you at 4um?
b. Who accuses you of being part of a Zionist Conspiracy? Rubbish.
That you are a neocon - yes, that's obvious.
That you maybe a cyber police plant, well that's the question isn't it.
c. Where would you post if you got banned here?
#39. To: BeAChooser, All (#23)
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.
#40. To: Diana, ALL (#35)
I think BAC is just obsessed with 911, and can't stand thinking that his govt would lie to him.
#41. To: Diana, ALL (#39)
I don't think you're a spook,
when you behave in an arrogant manner towards others it makes them angry.
#42. To: Diana, ALL (#39)
#43. To: BeAChooser, Scrapper2, SKYDRIFTER, Red Jones, christine (#33)
Oh Goldi's problem with me goes way back. Ask SKYDRIFTER.
#44. To: Brian S (#37)
Hell, even my dogs will lie to me now and then, but they are just 'white lies'.
#45. To: BeAChooser (#41)
Correcting misinformation and posting facts and sound logic is not arrogance.
#46. To: Brian S (#22)
Trust no one other than your pets.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
- - IndieTX
#47. To: christine (#31)
(Edited)
He doesn't know how it's going to be spun as they've not given him a copy of the finished product.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
- - IndieTX
#48. To: BeALooser, scrapper2, christine (#10)
Find the 1 pixel gif in this post, scrapper. ROTFLOL!
"My my ... you spent a lot of time formating that post, America Hater. And said NOTHING."
Now how would Looser know how much time - or how little time - I was spending.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#49. To: BeAChooser (#40)
I know the government lies to me all the time. Sometimes its for my own good.
#50. To: BeAChooser (#23)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#51. To: Diana (#35)
I think BAC is just obsessed with 911, and can't stand thinking that his govt would lie to him. There are some people like that.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#52. To: BeAChooser (#27)
>PS: All that being said, there are sometimes when I drift into a melancholy mood and think they could probably load us into boxcars by the thousands and no one would give a shit.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#53. To: BeAChooser (#40)
I know the government lies to me all the time.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#54. To: BeAChooser (#23)
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.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#55. To: scrapper2 (#30)
And it seems more than unusual that you'd be banned from LP for something so insignificent - what was it? criticizing GWB for his open borders policy or something minor like that? Is that all it took to push the LP mod over the edge? It seems so strange. Can you explain it better to me. And no I don't think anyone here believes you are part of a "Zionist conspiracy" - your words, not ours - but the timing of your departure and odd things coming up at LP - well it's all unsettling.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#56. To: AGAviator, BeAChooser (#48)
(Edited)
#57. To: BeAChooser (#40)
I know the government lies to me all the time. Sometimes its for my own good.
#58. To: Brian S (#22)
Trust no one other than your pets.
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#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?
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#60. To: BeAChooser (#11)
#61. To: FormerLurker, ALL (#55)
Ooser got banned because he was badgering Goldi on a amnesty bill thread to ban Uncle Bill, Scivener, TwentyTwelve, and any other "kooks" he could think of, including me.
#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)
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#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
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#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.."
#68. To: scrapper2 (#67)
We fought in World War II along against nations with standing armies in uniforms that had declared war on us. Iraq did not declare war on us.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#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
#70. To: BeAChooser (#69)
(Edited)
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?
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#71. To: AGAviator, scrapper, ALL (#68)
And within 6 months both the Battle of the Coral Sea and the Battle of Midway were won, and within 18 months the person responsible for Pearl Harbor - Admiral Yamamoto - was located and killed.
#72. To: BeAChooser (#56)
I suspect who YOUR friends are is very important.
#73. To: RickyJ, AGAviator, ALL (#70)
We could sustain a lot more than that, but we can't sustain the monetary costs per day for this war.
#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?
#75. To: Diana, AGAviator, all (#72)
What did you mean when you said that to AGAviator on that LP thread?
#76. To: BeAChooser (#69)
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.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#77. To: BeAChooser, RickyJ (#73)
WW2 cost 130 percent of GDP. Even at AGAviator's two trillion, the Iraq war would only be a 5 to 10 percent of current GDP.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#78. To: BeAChooser (#75)
Did you read the thread in question, Diana? The answer lies within...
#79. To: BeAChooser (#71)
And if the American media reported those deaths, those expenses, and the costly progress of the war the same as they've reported Iraq, do you honestly think American morale would have been as high as it was?
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#80. To: scrapper2, AGAviator, ALL (#74)
why SHOULD we sustain 9 KIA American citizens for a war
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
the defense industry and oil industry were served as secondary interests
#81. To: AGAviator, ALL (#77)
"WW2 cost 130 percent of GDP. Even at AGAviator's two trillion, the Iraq war would only be 5 to 10 percent of current GDP."
False.
#82. To: Diana, SmokinOPs, scrapper2, ALL (#78)
And when Scrapper2 said something about being taken away in a boxcar, and you said you would care, did you mean you'd care as in you'd be against it,
#83. To: AGAviator, ALL (#79)
The fact is, within 6 months the US was on its way to winning because they had some political and military leadership who knew how to lead.
#84. To: BeAChooser (#82)
First of all, it wasn't scrapper who said that and second, yes, I'd be against it.
#85. To: BeAChooser (#81)
2 trillion divided by 10 trillion per year for 3 years
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#86. To: BeAChooser (#83)
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#87. To: BeAChooser, All (#80)
(Edited)
Again, your opinion. Opinions are a dime a dozen. So are "advisors".
#88. To: AGAviator (#76)
They have every right to attack us there.
#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
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#90. To: Scrapper2, Burkeman1, BeAChooser (#71)
(Edited)
KANSAS CITY, Missouri
Never mind that someone - unlike Looser - joined the Army, and took a bullet which paralyzed him in a country which never attacked us and posed no threat to us.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#91. To: AGAviator, RickyJ, ALL (#85)
Only this year's GDP is "current."
#92. To: AGAviator, ALL (#86)
In fact, the Democrats were the party in power.
#93. To: BeAChooser (#91)
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#94. To: BeAChooser (#91)
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#95. To: scrapper2, AGAviator, ALL (#87)
do I detect seething white hot anger in the ever so polite and civil
don't try to claim he is a KKK white supremacist or an anti-semite ( favorite character assassination techniques)
Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical . . . The war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The ‘unstated threat’ was the ‘threat against Israel’, Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. ‘The American government,’ he added, ‘doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.’
Washington DC c. Also, the highly esteemed Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, from U of Chicago and Harvard, just published a research study in March 2006 that confirmed what Zelikow said - the Iraq invasion was mainly for Israel's benefit.
#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.
#97. To: AGAviator, ALL (#94)
You took this year's GDP and multiplied it by 3, Bubba.
What's more, military spending does not tell the whole picture of military- related expenses included in other departmental budgets.
after WW II the US economy went on a tremendous growth spurt
because America had some undeveloped resources, and also plenty of manufacturing and contstruction jobs.
No such possibility exists today, because nearly all the manufacturing jobs
due to the greed and incompetence of both the corporate managers and the Republibot politicians they've bought.
#98. To: BeAChooser (#96)
#99. To: christine (#98)
'BeAChooser' as one of our keywords for the new 4 Category, 'Neocon Nuttery'. ;)
#100. To: christine (#98)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#101. To: robin (#100)
#102. To: christine, ALL (#98)
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'. ;)
#103. To: BeAChooser (#96)
So what would you have done about al-Zarqawi given that Saddam did nothing?
#104. To: scrapper2, ALL (#103)
So what would you have done about al-Zarqawi given that Saddam did nothing?
I would have done nothing.
You are breaking your own self-espoused 02/10/07 forum posting rule. And quoting from BOTshillmedia like National Review and Fox News is offensive, not informative.
Shape up or your voice will soon be a voice no one sees or hears because your posts will have no replies and ergo they will disappear from net visibility at 4um.
"I'm also not going to engage in long debates, taking apart posts line by line."
You have not answered my question. Do you American citizen soldiers should fight and die in wars for Israel's benefit?
#105. To: scrapper2 (#103)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#106. To: BeAChooser (#95)
I'm surprised you hadn't seen this letter, scrapper. It was linked in the very first hit I encountered when I used my web browser with the search phrase "Philip Zelikow".
#107. To: BeAChooser (#104)
You have not answered my question. Do you American citizen soldiers should fight and die in wars for Israel's benefit?
#108. To: BeAChooser, All (#104)
I think I answered that question by showing you and Mearsheimer were misleading regarding Zelikow.
#109. To: scrapper2 (#107)
March 12, 2007 -- The America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual meeting today and tomorrow in Washington has been designated a "national security event" by the Department of Homeland Security.
#110. To: BeAChooser (#91)
Parse all you want (it's so Clintonesque). 2 trillion dollars over the period of the war so far is less than 10 percent of total GDP during that time.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#111. To: scrapper2, ALL (#106)
Philip Zelikow claims he did not say in September 2002 that the present war in Iraq was motivated in good part by concerns about Israel’s security. He suggests that our reference to his remarks came from an unreliable source and says we ‘misused’ his comments. He implies that he was talking mainly about the 1990-91 Gulf War, not the US decision to invade Iraq in March 2003. Furthermore, he maintains that he ‘expressed no view’ on ‘whether or when the US ought to go to war with Iraq’. None of these assertions is correct.
Emad Mekay, who wrote the Asia Times Online article we referenced, is a well- regarded journalist who worked for Reuters and the New York Times before moving to Inter Press Service, a legitimate news agency. He did not rely on ‘local reports’ in writing his story, but had access to a complete and unimpeachable record of Zelikow’s talk. He repeatedly tried to contact Zelikow while writing his story, but his inquiries were not returned.
#112. To: RickyJ, ALL (#110)
That's 10 percent of the biggest economy the world has ever known. During the period of WW2 we were in a severe depression, even 130% of GDP then was less than the 10 percent of today.
#113. To: BeAChooser, All (#111)
Why is Emad Mekay well regarded? What sort of corroboration did he get for his story? Is anyone else at the meeting quoted saying that's what he claims Zelikow said? I noticed in a little search that he and Asia Times have been unwilling to give his source for the supposed transcript he has. Hmmmmmm ... just curious. Why would this unnamed source decide to leak such an explosive story to a relatively unknown journalist working for a relatively unknown news outlet? And most of his articles concern financial matters so again, why him?
#114. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2 (#96)
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
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#115. To: BeAChooser (#97)
(Edited)
You took this year's GDP and multiplied it by 3, Bubba.
But I gave you the benefit of the doubt
What's more, military spending does not tell the whole picture of military- related expenses included in other departmental budgets.
The same is true of the listed WW2 costs.
after WW II the US economy went on a tremendous growth spurt
Gosh ... we've been in a tremendous growth spurt while the Iraq has been going on.
Because America had some undeveloped resources, and also plenty of manufacturing and contstruction jobs.
Gee ... are you callously suggesting that was worth 300,000 American lives?
No such possibility exists today, because nearly all the manufacturing jobs
Then why has the GDP been growing by leaps and bounds of late.
The greed and incompetence of both the corporate managers and the Republibot politicians they've bought.
And you, of course, believe that putting democRATS in charge with their let's- tax-em philosophy will help economic growth.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#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'. ;)
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#117. To: AGAviator, ALL (#114)
The issue is whether Zarqawi was in collusion with Saddam.
The fact is, that Saddam tried to arrest Qarqawi, and the CIA has stated so much, and a bipartisan panel has confirmed the CIA's assessment.
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
All that spam comes from the same tainted source - a criminal justice system in Jordan where torture is routinely practiced and people will confess to anything the torturers want them to confess to.
tell me which of those stories had any terrorists saying they met with Saddam and Zarqawi
#118. To: AGAviator, ALL (#115)
You took this year's GDP and multiplied it by 3
GM is just about finished making cars in the US
Most of the technology jobs are being exported to Asia or India.
The war wasn't worth 300,000 American lives.
The Jews in Roosevelt's administration were pushing for America to get involved in that war, even though Stalin was a far bigger mass murderer than Hitler and Tojo put together.
And as I've already told you, GDP's main components include (1) Services, (2) Consumer spending, (3) Government spending, and (4) Are measured in inflated dollars.
"And you, of course, believe that putting democRATS in charge with their let's- tax-em philosophy will help economic growth."
They should definitely tax the corporate parasites who are exporting jobs and capital overseas.
#119. To: BeAChooser (#112)
(Edited)
But if the media had reported WW2 like they've reported the Iraq war, would Americans have been as will to make those sacrifices and send over 300,000 of their own to die above/on foreign soil or in/under oceans?
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#120. To: BeAChooser (#117)
Say, did you know that al-Zarqawi may have admitted his group was planning to bomb Jordanian Intelligence? There's a voice on a tape claiming to be al-Zarqawi's saying that.
#121. To: Diana (#120)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#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.
#123. To: RickyJ, ALL (#119)
Americans were totally against getting involved in WW2 until Pearl Harbor was attacked.
#124. To: robin, ALL (#121)
One of these men is a ruthless international terrorist. The other is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
#125. To: All (#121)
Here’s how it works. The disinformation is circulated to the news media and then the intelligence community creates its own terror warnings concerning the very organizations it has created. In some cases, the disinformation appears in advance, in order to pave the way for an up and coming act of “terror” that roots in a desired political outcome. This problem/solution equation always appears when the war effort is waning and serves to give a face to terror via an expensive advertising campaign.
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#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."
#128. To: scrapper2, ALL (#126)
2. This establishment is one of the Libyan Intelligence fronts.
3. The Tripoli post has indicated that there is a possibility to form what connections are available with this establishment as it can offer the premise of providing food supplies to [Ed: word missing] in the scope of the agreement statement. Please review . . . it appears of intelligence value to proceed into connections with this establishment and its intelligence investments in the Abu Sayyaf group."
Study this idea, the pros and the cons, the relative reactions, and any other remarks regarding this."
#129. To: All (#125)
The Abu Musab al-Zarqawi show
The Abu Musab al-Zarqawi show
1 June 2005
By week’s end the world’s most wanted terrorist – scourge of the occupation and Shiite Muslims, representative of Osama bin Forgotten – gravely wounded in battle, had made his way to the safety of Shiite Iran. Think about that. He manages to get from the west of Iraq, across the war-torn country, through dozens of checkpoints, to seek safety among apostates he had sworn to expunge from the face of the earth. If you believe that, I have a second-hand Nissan Bluebird to sell you. 
Once upon a time, a long time ago, there was a real Zarqawi. Nobody is willing to tell what really happened to him, but at some point before the invasion of Iraq he vanished from the real world and entered the twilight zone of black operations to become a symbol of evil and a master of disguise. Nowadays he hides out in the CIA complex at Langley, Virginia, a basement in Baghdad’s Green Zone, an office in Kuwait … or maybe all three.
Are the black ops boys who script the Zarqawi character having fun? We can only imagine the mirth as they workshop their man’s next adventure over a Budweiser or three, the snickers as they upload his latest message to the internet, the hysterical laughter as they follow the earnest accounts of his evil deeds in the world’s media. With journalists as compliant as this, it must be like shooting fish in a barrel.
For those who haven’t been following the Zarqawi show here’s a synopsis:
The wicked Wahabist first came to notice when Colin Powell tried to coerce the UN into backing the invasion of Iraq. Our man was his key bit of evidence for collusion between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Zarqawi, having lost a leg in combat, had an artificial one fitted in one of Saddam’s hospitals, Powell claimed. Oddly enough, he was said to be hiding out among his bitter enemies in Kurdish-controlled territory, then protected by the US enforced no-fly zone. Really?
After the invasion of Iraq the Coalition Provisional Authority “discovered” a CD containing a letter from Zarqawi to bin Laden in which the dastardly insurgent railed against Iraq’s Shiite majority and outlined his plan to foment civil war in the country. Naturally, Coalition spokesman trotted out this proof of the evil of the Resistance on every possible occasion. Not only was Zarqawi behind every car bombing in Iraq he then went international and masterminded the Madrid train bombing.
Then, just in time to counteract the shock of the Abu Ghraib scandal, Zarqawi beheaded the missing American contractor, Nick Berg. Trouble was, the tin-leg terrorist was seen on the notorious beheading video stepping nimbly forward to wield the knife. Ah, the US spokesmen glibly admitted, maybe his leg wasn’t shot off after all, maybe we were wrong about that. Pity about the 100,000 Iraqis who died in the invasion, but, hey, everybody makes mistakes.
After the Berg job, Zarqawi vanished for a while, before surfacing in Fallujah, where he provided the excuse for the Yanks to flatten the city, with the loss of tens of thousands more lives. There was vague media talk of US troops finding Zarqawi’s torture chambers, but strangely, no pictures or first-hand accounts. Alas, the man himself vanished … to be useful another day.
He popped up in the West of Iraq, near the Syrian border, where he became the subject of the recent Operation Matador. A few more towns were flattened but gosh, no Zarqawi.
Which brings us down to the last week of May, when the world’s press began to run with stories by embedded journalists to the effect that Zarqawi had been wounded in an ambush. At first this stuff was attributed to statements on those mysterious Islamic websites (“the authenticity of which couldn’t be confirmed”) that only embedded journalists get tipped off about and that vanish after a few hours.
The US army spokesman played inquiries with a straight face. “We don’t know whether it’s fact or fiction. He continues to be our number one target”, he said. Naturally.
So did the puppet Iraqi prime minister’s “security advisor” who added: “In all cases there are many probabilities. Maybe he is not wounded and he posted this statement on the internet to say he is wounded and then post another statement to say that he is treated and fine and he is like superman”.
Indeed. Like Superman: mythical figure with fabulous powers.
But then the plot had thickened. By Thursday 26 May the mainstream media were breathlessly reporting that a struggle for succession had broken out within al-Qaeda Iraq Inc., which was leaking like Australia’s Liberal Party during a leadership contest. Half the organization was spending hours on the phone to Western journalists, who were offering direct quotes from a variety of talkative terrorists. Yeah, right. How likely is that?
On that day Donald Rumsfeld, no less, told thousands of US paratroopers that Zarqawi was cornered like Hitler in his bunker (he must have just seen the movie). Even hardened observers like me were thinking the scriptwriters had decided to kill off their creation. Perhaps he’d evaded his pursuers so often they were looking incompetent. Perhaps they were risking making him into a kind of Robin Hood.
But it wasn’t to be. How could they replace an asset as useful as Zarqawi? Even as Rummy was speaking the black ops scriptwriters were moving their prize asset out of harm’s way.
Iran. Yes, that’s it. Let’s get him to Iran. That’s more evidence of Iranian perfidy. Another reason why we should bomb the crap out of them.
Don’t buy the novel folks, wait for the musical.
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#130. To: robin, ALL (#129)
Don’t buy the novel folks, wait for the musical.
#131. To: BeAChooser (#117)
Tell me which of those stories had any terrorists saying they met with Saddam and Zarqawi
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#132. To: BeAChooser (#122)
The issue is whether Saddam and Zarqawi were in collusion.
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.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#133. To: scrapper2, BeAChooser (#127)
Concerning BAC's contention that Zarqawi and Saddam were pals
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#134. To: AGAviator, ALL (#131)
Tell me which of those stories had any terrorists saying they met with Saddam and Zarqawi
"Strawman. Is that all you have?"
Unbelievable.
Your whole sthick is based on an alleged Saddam-Zarqawi link.
#135. To: AGAviator, ALL (#132)
Zarqawi was not killed for 3 years. That's a pretty spectacular failure to get someone who you are claiming was so dangerous.
Oh, and by the way. Where's Bin Laden,
#136. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#134)
I made no claim that Saddam met with the terrorists who carried out the Jordan bomb plot.
#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
#138. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#136)
You're saying that you never claimed that there was a Saddam-Zarqawi link?
#139. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#138)
You're saying that you never claimed that there was a Saddam-Zarqawi link?
#140. To: BeAChooser (#123)
Would Hitler and Tojo have been content to leave us alone from then on?
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#141. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2, Skydrifter (#134)
(Edited)
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#142. To: BeAChooser (#122)
Let's see that arrest warrant. I'm betting you won't be able to supply one.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#143. To: BeAChooser (#138)
#144. To: BeAChooser (#135)
Actually, that shows how difficult he was to capture. One reason he was dangerous.
And perhaps it shows how much help he must have had amongst the Iraqis of the insurgency. Saddam's insurgency. Because those are the folks he must have been hiding amongst.
Oh, and by the way. Where's Bin Laden,
Perhaps dead. You seen a video of him since Tora Bora? Prior to that he LOVED to make videos of himself.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#145. To: SKYDRIFTER (#143)
"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.
Off the top of my head there are 5 serious flaws in these claims.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#146. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2, skydrifter (#135)
(Edited)
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#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.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#148. To: AGAviator, christine, Zipporah, Rowdee, Robin, Minerva, Diana, kiki (#142)
To: BeAChooser
#149. To: AGAviator, ALL (#141)
You certainly have been making noises like Saddam and Zarqawi had some kind of connection.
Saddam himself wanted to capture Zarqawi
#150. To: AGAviator, ALL (#142)
"Let's see that arrest warrant. I'm betting you won't be able to supply one."
I've already told you, I don't supply proof to trolls.
#151. To: AGAviator, ALL (#145)
(1) Zarqawi was not "operating out of Iraq" that was under Saddam's control
(2) ... snip ... Beachooser's claim he was not alleging a Saddam connection with Zarqawi reeks of intellectual dishonesty.
(3) Saddam had an arrest warrant out for Zarqawi,
(4) You can make the same statements about the Zarqawi "operating out of Iraq" and the US "showing no willingness to stop him" for the 3+ years since April 2003
(5) Even the US military admits that most of the Iraqi insurgents are local, not foreigners, so the insinuation that conditions in Iraq are caused by international jihadists is also intellectually dishonest.
#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.
#153. To: BeAChooser (#152)
#154. To: BeAChooser (#152)
You are just like the democRATS.
#155. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#151)
.... "intellectual dishonesty".
#156. To: BeAChooser, SKYDRIFTER, robin, All (#151)
#157. To: Diana, ALL (#156)
I think Zarqawi was a simple baker or something from Amman
#158. To: BeAChooser (#157)
Before you raise him to sainthood, Diana ...
#159. To: BeAChooser (#157)
Before you raise him to sainthood, Diana ...
#160. To: BeAChooser (#135)
You seen a video of him since Tora Bora? Prior to that he LOVED to make videos of himself.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#161. To: BeAChooser (#135)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#162. To: BeAChooser, Dakmar, christine, AGAviator (#135)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#163. To: FormerLurker (#162)
#164. To: Dakmar (#163)
Only if videos I film under duress are legally admissable. /Wait...no...
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#165. To: FormerLurker (#164)
#166. To: BeAChooser, christine, scrapper2, SKYDRIFTER, dakmar, FormerLurker (#152)
(Edited)
Hey shit for brains.
Thank you for proving the fine debating skills of 4um members.
Those, that is, that don't bozo themselves to avoid debate
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#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?
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#168. To: FormerLurker (#164)
The one on the right is the real bin Laden, where the one on the left is the one in the "confession video".
#169. To: AGAviator (#167)
Has it? Blah blah blah blam spam spam spam spam.
#170. To: HOUNDDAWG (#169)
If you're having fun trying to pin a greased pig then, fine.
#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.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#172. To: FormerLurker (#162)
Speaking of bin Laden videos, do you view the "confession" video as authentic?
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#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.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#175. To: Diana (#170)
#176. To: AGAviator (#174)
Can you as site administrator tell how many people are lurking on BAC's threads?
#177. To: AGAviator (#172)
The majority of the world's Muslim population wants to get on with their daily lives just like all other people everywhere else and does not want war. However among them there is certainly a minority that claims its violent actions are sanctioned by that religion. And the actions of this country over the last few years have been to increase the power and influence of that violent minority.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#178. To: Diana (#168)
I couldn't believe they actually tried to pass that off as real.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#179. To: AGAviator, ALL (#166)
when Bush himself did nothing about Zarqawi
So fuck you, troll
#180. To: FormerLurker, christine, Zipporah, Jethro Tull, rowdee, robin, Diana (#178)
I can't believe anyone was stupid enough to think it WAS real. Obviously, those that released it knew ahead of time that the majority of Americans ARE that dumb.
#181. To: HOUNDDAWG (#169)
#182. To: HOUNDDAWG (#169)
#183. To: HOUNDDAWG, ALL (#180)
I mean, even folks who aren't inclined to be mistrustful of govt thought it was darn suspicious that no one claimed responsibility for 9/11, and even more suspicious that Bin Laden hadn't crowed about it since the govt said that A) he's a fanatical Muslim, and B) he despises the Great Satan, and C) he supposedly pulled it off! (And talk radio has partnered devoutly religious Shi'ite Osama with his secular Sunni enemy Saddam-The Sunnis and The Shia don't mix, but most Americans know nothing of this and can't weigh the unlikelihood of this happening. But, our govt can't let a little thing like irreconcilable religious differences stop them from using 9/11 to vilify everyone and every war in every theater that otherwise has no justification.
#184. To: BeAChooser (#179)
al-Zarqawi is dead.
So fuck you, troll
Thank you again for proving my point about what passes for *debate* here at 4um
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#185. To: BeAChooser (#179)
Thank you again for proving my point about what passes for *debate* here at 4um.
#186. To: christine (#181)
#187. To: SKYDRIFTER (#182)
You broke the code; GREAT!
#188. To: AGAviator, ALL (#167)
You see my point?
Idiot, if your strategy is creating more enemies rather than fewer enemies, it is a failure.
Address the issue, which is the WOT is supposed to result in fewer terrorists, not more.
"So have things really changed for the worse?"
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.
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 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.
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
You've absolutely and totally been refuted.
Iraq is a safe haven for terrorists to this day.
That's why thousands of non-terrorists are dying every month.
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?"
More of your patented intellectual dishonesty.
The facts are that Zarqawi was not killing people when Saddam was in power
Fuck you and do your own research, troll.
#189. To: HOUNDDAWG, ALL (#169)
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.
#190. To: rowdee (#183)
HOWSUMEVER, might I remind one and all that when you are listing anything about the 'terrorists', you MUST always remember to list that D) he hates us for our freedoms!
#191. To: Jethro Tull (#185)
Exactly how does one debate a Republican party member who still believes that the U.S. had to invade Iraq so to avert a nuclear catastrophe?
#192. To: AGAviator, ALL (#171)
That's why I only supply proof when I feel it's appropriate
I will, however, continue to rebut lies, misinformation, and seriously flawed excuses for arguments as I feel like it.
As far as lurkers scanning the thread - BAC's pretend audience
#193. To: christine, AGAviator, ALL (#173)
perfect
#194. To: christine, All (#184)
#195. To: BeAChooser (#193)
#196. To: HOUNDDAWG, ALL (#175)
And, the army's own expert returned from Iraq with his dying team
Maj. Rokke had no reason to lie
And what did shill boy say? Why, there's no documentation to support the diagnoses of DU sickness in any service people
or the estimated 500,000 Iraqi babies who were affected.
And, what about the ALA guard unit who upon return from Desert Storm suffered a 67% rate of profound birth defects, including children born with no eyes, arms or brain stems?
#197. To: christine, ALL (#176)
no, i can't. there is the view count on each thread, but there's no way of knowing who specifically is lurking.
#198. To: Diana, christine, BeAChooser (#194)
Christine can you restore his ROTFLOF! privilages as it took away from his much-needed humorous side.
#199. To: BeAChooser (#196)
Estimated by whom? *Dr* Rokke?
#200. To: BeAChooser (#189)
ROTFLOL!
#201. To: HOUNDDAWG, ALL (#180)
In fact Osama had denied 9/11 involvement
#202. To: AGAviator, ALL (#184)
Under Saddam, he didn't.
When you insult other people on a site that already doesn't like you
#203. To: Jethro Tull, ALL (#185)
Exactly how does one debate a Republican party member who still believes that the U.S. had to invade Iraq so to avert a nuclear catastrophe?
#204. To: Zipporah, AGAviator, christine, ALL (#195)
FYI in 06 we had 13,101,026 hits
#205. To: Diana, christine, ALL (#194)
Christine can you restore his ROTFLOF! privilages
#206. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#193)
I'm just wondering how big this "pretend" audience is?
#207. To: BeAChooser, Hounddawg (#196)
#208. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#201)
In fact Osama had denied 9/11 involvement
#209. To: BeAChooser (#202)
#210. To: BeAChooser (#188)
I guess you missed my point. Unless you think the strategy in the entire middle east should be pull out. Abandon any allies in the region.
Address the issue, which is the WOT is supposed to result in fewer terrorists, not more.
Did the war against Germany result in fewer German soldiers ... before we won? Did the war against Vietnam result in fewer North Vietnamese soldiers? Did the cold war result in smaller Soviet forces ... before we won?
"DESPITE sectarian slaughter, ethnic cleansing and suicide bombs, an opinion poll conducted on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq has found a striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants.
Yet 49% of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam. Only 26% said things had been better in Saddam’s era, while 16% said the two leaders were as bad as each other and the rest did not know or refused to answer.
On the contrary. That was the claim of many of those now on your side of the Iraq war debate. It was a claim based on experts in epidemiology at the UN and WHO. It was a claim blessed by none other than the Lancet
Well first of all, he wasn't "protected by the United States Air Force".
Second, there was no more guarantee that bombing the camps in Northern Iraq would kill al-Zarqawi than there was that bombing bin Laden's camps would kill bin Laden.
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.
But eventually they found and killed him.
Were it up to you, he'd still be running around free ... plotting, planning and murdering. Perhaps tens of thousands.
I notice that you didn't deny my assertion that you'd NOT have bombed al- Zarqawi's camps if it had been up to you.
Your comments about "What would you have done about Zarqawi" are absolutely and totally irrelevant
On the contrary ... they've exposed who you are AGAviator.
I notice you haven't denied my assertion that you'd NOT have bombed the camps in Northern Iraq, if you'd have been President at the time.
That we should just abandon all allies there
And I notice that you don't deny my assertion that you don't think the WOT is real. You think it is just as phony as what the many links I've provided say about al-Zarqawi. Right? Folks should know that too.
Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists. If you think so, you don't know the meaning of the term "safe haven". There is no place in Iraq where they can go that we won't strike if we find out about them. A far cry from the days of Saddam, when terrorists were even operating in Baghdad under the nose of Saddam to attack us.
Make up your mind. Is it sectarian violence or al-Qaeda terrorists who are responsible for the killing of most innocent Iraqis? Or would you claim its us?
What's the problem, AGAviator? Don't you know who his source is?
A US diplomat was murdered by al-Zarqawi when Saddam was still in power. And al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad at the time.
Fuck you and do your own research, troll.
Thanks for demonstrating once again how 4umers debate
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#211. To: BeAChooser (#202)
I haven't insulted anyone while on this site. I've been most courteous. Just like now.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#212. To: HOUNDDAWG (#190)
#213. To: SKYDRIFTER, AGAviator, christine, ALL (#206)
Christine, is it time to "pretend" BAC is still a poster here - he is "disrespecting" you!
#214. To: scrapper2, ALL (#207)
"Post ANY source that actually confirms what Rokke claims about his credentials, time in Iraq"
See my post #121
#215. To: BeAChooser (#214)
Post a link to what you claim. You may just be making it up same as Rokke made up his "health physicist" credential.
#216. To: BeAChooser, SKYDRIFTER (#213)
Pay attention, SKYDRIFTER ...
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#217. To: Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#213)
#218. To: Zipporah (#195)
FYI in 06 we had 13,101,026 hits
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#219. To: BeAChooser (#203)
(Edited)
Strawman. Is that all 4umers have in their debate toolkit?
Split hairs over definitions.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#220. To: BeAChooser, SKYDRIFTER, scrapper2, christine (#188)
(Edited)
"So have things really changed for the worse?"
"Four years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, nearly 9 of 10 Iraqis say they live in fear that the violence ravaging their country will strike themselves and the people with whom they live. Just 5% say they worry "hardly at all" about the safety of those in their household..."
So you cite a poll that says that 49% of Iraqis - less than a majority and the majority of them Shiites - say they prefer Maliki - who is *supposed* to be independent of American control.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#221. To: scrapper2, ALL (#215)
Oh I see - now you want to smear me, not just DR. Rokke.
Well, I can't say I'm surprised - so much for your promise to be polite and civil. Ahem. There goes yet another promise to christine and freedom4um posters. Drum roll - are there any promises left from the list you gave us in February that you have not broken yet - zero, I'll bet.
#222. To: AGAviator, ALL (#220)
Iraqis by 43%-36% said life was better than before the invasion.
#223. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#221)
#224. To: BeAChooser (#222)
Poll respondents also said they've seen little progress on reconstruction as a result of billions of dollars in U.S. aid spent since the March 2003 invasion.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#225. To: AGAviator (#224)
#226. To: BeAChooser (#225)
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#227. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#225)
#228. To: AGAviator, ALL (#226)
"Iraqis by 43%-36% said life was better than before the invasion."
Where?
And even if that were true,
are you aware that 43% means 57% - a majority - believes otherwise?
NET Better 43%
Much Better 14%
Somewhat Better 29%
Same 22%
NET Worse 36%
Somewhat Worse 28%
Much Worse 8%
No Opinion 0
NET Better 51%
Much Better 21%
Somewhat Better 31%
Same 19%
NET Worse 29%
Somewhat Worse 19%
Much Worse 10%
No Opinion 1%
NET Better 56%
Much Better 22%
Somewhat Better 35%
Same 23%
NET Worse 19%
Somewhat Worse 13%
Much Worse 6%
No Opinion 2%
#229. To: BeAChooser (#228)
(Edited)
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#230. To: AGAviator, ALL (#229)
#231. To: BeAChooser, SKYDRIFTER, scrapper2, robin (#230)
(Edited)
BeAWeasel: Thousands were dying week in and week out under Saddam. So have things really gotten any worse?
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#232. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#225)
#233. To: AGAviator (#229)
#234. To: AGAviator, ALL (#231)
BeAWeasel: But my poll here says that 49% of Iraqis like their new Prime Minister.
#235. To: robin, ALL (#233)
Thank you for taking the time to further expose the dishonesty of BAC.
#236. To: BeAChooser (#234)
I don't believe I've ever written that
#237. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2, AGAviator, ALL (#127)
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=23135&Disp=24#C24
http://www.inq7.net/wnw/2002/sep/06/text/wnw_4-1-p.htm, "Lawyers who drafted the suit relied on
an Iraqi newspaper article published on July 21, 2001 in the city of Al Nasiriyah, in which columnist
Naeem Abd Muhalhal quotes bin Laden as saying he is thinking about bombing the Pentagon after he
destroys the White House." Now I assumed that meant an interview took place. But if one didn't, then
you need to explain to me how this Iraqi journalist, writing in a paper owned by Uday, managed to
guess the three US facilities that would be targeted on 9/11, just few months later? Talk about
"coincidences" ... http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47554&Disp=127#C127
[nc - blue font added. All other emphasis as in original.]
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."
On the wings of a snow-white dove
He sends His pure sweet love
A sign from above (sign from above)
On the wings of a dove (wings of a dove)
The body grows weak (body grows weak)
The spirit grows numb (spirit grows numb)
When these things beset us, He doesn't forget us
He sends down His love (sends down His love)
On the wings of a dove (wings of a dove) They still hope that he could come out from his nest one day, they hope that he would come out from his hiding hole and one day they will point at him their missiles and he will join Guevara, Hassan Abu Salama, Kamal Nasser, Kanafani and others. The man responds with a thin smile and replies to the correspondent from Al Jazeera that he will continue to be the obsession and worry of America and the Jews, and that even that night he will practice and work on an exercise called "How Do You Bomb the White House."
The first quote appears as an imaginary conversation OBL might have with al Jazeera.
Open 107th Congress
Open Senate, September 12
Open 15. HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002
Open Page 8525 CR Thomas PDF
September 12, 2002
Pages S8525 - S8526
(By Naeem Abd Muhalhal)
#238. To: FormerLurker (#177)
#239. To: Hayek Fan, *None Dare Call It Treason* (#0)
#240. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#239)
DOES ANYONE ELSE REMEMBER THAT???
#241. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#239)
#242. To: Lady X, To, TommyTheMadArtist (#240)
#243. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#242)
#244. To: AGAviator, robin, Christine, SKYDRIFTER, Diana, HOUNDDAWG, Zipporah, All (#65)
#65. To: BeAChooser (#64) No, that would be these
ROTFLMAOATPIMY!!! ROTFLMAOATPIMY!!! ROTFLMAOATPIMY!!! ROTFLMAOATPIMY!!!
ROTFLMAOATPIMY!!! ROTFLMAOATPIMY!!! ROTFLMAOATPIMY!!! ROTFLMAOATPIMY!!!
ROTFLMAOATPIMY!!! ROTFLMAOATPIMY!!! ROTFLMAOATPIMY!!! ROTFLMAOATPIMY!!!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
#245. To: rowdee, christine (#244)
#246. To: robin (#245)
#247. To: rowdee, All (#244)
#248. To: IndieTX, christine (#14)
#249. To: Ferret Mike (#248)
#250. To: Diana, christine (#247)
673. To: BrerRabbit (#585) You can't read.
#251. To: farmfriend (#249)
#252. To: Ferret Mike (#248)
I think it's past time for BAC to go. The lies, distortion and thread spamming do NOT add to this 4um in any way.
#253. To: christine (#252)
Further, his entertainment value ceased.
#254. To: Brian S, christine, artisan (#15)
I hate the fact that we must remain so distant on these forums.
#255. To: Diana, christine, Beachooser, all (#253)
BeAChooser showed indeed he is cold-hearted, and sinister ... I kept giving him the benefit of the doubt, but it finally sunk in that this is not a good individual.
#256. To: JCHarris, christine (#238)
"Probabvly as a lurker, understanding Mr. Rabbit's goals at Lllll Pee , I think he did a pretty damned good job and left a lot of disciples in that Jew Crew Nest of vipers."
#257. To: Ferret Mike (#256)
you went back to the same manner of double spacing your punctuation away from the verbiage in a sentence
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
