There are a lot of people who can't be bothered to comment on these type of posts.
Obviously you are not one of them.
never pull low......unless you are
lummy 4
why does this article have next weeks date on it?
Quote
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
11/24/2003, Volume 009, Issue
I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1
turtlespeed 226
QuoteHey. I read the L.A. Times every day. What's that make me?
A willing participant in the misinformation industry.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
I had to pick some one to respond to, but I am not picking on you bill. I just hit respond...
Anyway, I think Mich is on to something. If you read the article carefully, and the DoD's response, they are clearly implying the was Old news, and there is New news.
I have heard, but will not back up because I need to find my sources that the "New" information is NOT nessesarily "Innacurate" but instead just unsubstanciated. Which means it isn't "Not true (sorry double negative) But instead it is not backed up.
If it is at some time proven that there is a definate link between SH and UBL/AQ Does that mean then that people who watch Fox News are actually MORE informed thatn those who don't??? Bill, Kallend?
Really though... I don't believe there is a 9/11 link to SH, but I do definately believe there is a UBL->SH link.
"My Enemies enemies are my friends!"
PS- I didn't spell Check... I refuse to.
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
Anyway, I think Mich is on to something. If you read the article carefully, and the DoD's response, they are clearly implying the was Old news, and there is New news.
I have heard, but will not back up because I need to find my sources that the "New" information is NOT nessesarily "Innacurate" but instead just unsubstanciated. Which means it isn't "Not true (sorry double negative) But instead it is not backed up.
If it is at some time proven that there is a definate link between SH and UBL/AQ Does that mean then that people who watch Fox News are actually MORE informed thatn those who don't??? Bill, Kallend?
Really though... I don't believe there is a 9/11 link to SH, but I do definately believe there is a UBL->SH link.
"My Enemies enemies are my friends!"
PS- I didn't spell Check... I refuse to.
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You've been taking lessons from Bodypilot90, haven't you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heh, heh. I just post'em.
^5
billvon 3,090
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>If it is at some time proven that there is a definate link between SH
> and UBL/AQ Does that mean then that people who watch Fox News
>are actually MORE informed thatn those who don't??? Bill, Kallend?
It would certainly make them better guessers.
>I don't believe there is a 9/11 link to SH, but I do definately believe
>there is a UBL->SH link.
There are almost certainly links between UBL and SH. The issue is - are they stronger than the US links to UBL and SH? Don't forget, we once gave military assistance to SH so he would kill Iranians for us; we did this even as he used chemical weapons against them. We supported radical islamic terrorists during the 80's - we were hoping the Mujahideen would kill Russians for us. Pat Robertson was a business partner of Robert Taylor, a corrupt dictator who hid Al Qaeda operatives before and after 9/11.
Imagine, if you will, the storm of righteous indignation that would arise if a picture emerged showing Saddam Hussein shaking hands with Bin Laden, even one from a long time ago. It would be the evidence everyone was looking for. Instead we have pictures like the one below. That means we not only have to find a connection between OBL and SH, but find a stronger one than we had ourselves.
> and UBL/AQ Does that mean then that people who watch Fox News
>are actually MORE informed thatn those who don't??? Bill, Kallend?
It would certainly make them better guessers.
>I don't believe there is a 9/11 link to SH, but I do definately believe
>there is a UBL->SH link.
There are almost certainly links between UBL and SH. The issue is - are they stronger than the US links to UBL and SH? Don't forget, we once gave military assistance to SH so he would kill Iranians for us; we did this even as he used chemical weapons against them. We supported radical islamic terrorists during the 80's - we were hoping the Mujahideen would kill Russians for us. Pat Robertson was a business partner of Robert Taylor, a corrupt dictator who hid Al Qaeda operatives before and after 9/11.
Imagine, if you will, the storm of righteous indignation that would arise if a picture emerged showing Saddam Hussein shaking hands with Bin Laden, even one from a long time ago. It would be the evidence everyone was looking for. Instead we have pictures like the one below. That means we not only have to find a connection between OBL and SH, but find a stronger one than we had ourselves.
I know we supported him, but IMO it was something we had to do at the time. (I know that opens the debate for... UBL felt it was something he had to do etc)
I don't think it would be a big deal. I think it would just confirm the suspicions a lot of people had. Hey, the way I see it, we didn't NEED UBL connections or even WMD to go after SH.
The fact of the matter is, SH broke the cease Fire agreement after desert storm. And as per said cease fire, we were justified to attack.
Chris
PS- A UBL-SH connection would help shut up a lot of critics across the world.
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
QuoteImagine, if you will, the storm of righteous indignation that would arise if a picture emerged showing Saddam Hussein shaking hands with Bin Laden, even one from a long time ago.
I don't think it would be a big deal. I think it would just confirm the suspicions a lot of people had. Hey, the way I see it, we didn't NEED UBL connections or even WMD to go after SH.
The fact of the matter is, SH broke the cease Fire agreement after desert storm. And as per said cease fire, we were justified to attack.
Chris
PS- A UBL-SH connection would help shut up a lot of critics across the world.
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
Michele 1
Quotewhy does this article have next weeks date on it?
Lots of periodicals (monthlies, weeklies, etc.) date things ahead for some reason I never understood. Recently, there was that big stink about the Jessica Lynch "nudie" photos that Larry Flynt was going to publish in the February issue of (which mag does he publish, anyway??), but the mag will be out in January.
I dunno why - maybe Jessica (not the nudie Jessica, our own favorite editor Jessica) can explain it better than that most ambiguous attempt I just offered...but it's a normal and usual publishing thing.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
QuoteInstead we have pictures like the one below. That means we not only have to find a connection between OBL and SH, but find a stronger one than we had ourselves.
I knew there was a reason to hang Pat Robertson!!!
kallend 2,118
QuoteI know we supported him, but IMO it was something we had to do at the time. (I know that opens the debate for... UBL felt it was something he had to do etc)
QuoteImagine, if you will, the storm of righteous indignation that would arise if a picture emerged showing Saddam Hussein shaking hands with Bin Laden, even one from a long time ago.
I don't think it would be a big deal. I think it would just confirm the suspicions a lot of people had. Hey, the way I see it, we didn't NEED UBL connections or even WMD to go after SH.
The fact of the matter is, SH broke the cease Fire agreement after desert storm. And as per said cease fire, we were justified to attack.
Chris
PS- A UBL-SH connection would help shut up a lot of critics across the world.
Go read Matthew 7:1 - 7:3 for a biblical perspective.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
I am not a religious man... Don't have a bible handy.
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
Remster 30
Quotemaybe Jessica (not the nudie Jessica, our own favorite editor Jessica)
And why couldnt our own favorite editor Jessica also be Nudie Jessica?
Remster
kallend 2,118
QuoteI am not a religious man... Don't have a bible handy.
Jesus tells us not to be hypocrites. Since GWB wears his religion on his chest, you'd think he would have read this.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
vonSanta 0
The joys of the internet:
Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Mat 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
This is actually a pretty cool passage, although it has its flaws.
Santa Von GrossenArsch
I only come in one flavour
ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst
Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Mat 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
This is actually a pretty cool passage, although it has its flaws.
Santa Von GrossenArsch
I only come in one flavour
ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst
billvon 3,090
>I know we supported him, but IMO it was something we had to do at
> the time. (I know that opens the debate for... UBL felt it was
> something he had to do etc)
Not so much that; everyone feels their actions are "correct". It does make us hypocrites for going after Saddam for paying the families of suicide bombers though. We gave many hundreds of times the amount of money to terrorists when we wanted them to kill for us.
>The fact of the matter is, SH broke the cease Fire agreement after
>desert storm. And as per said cease fire, we were justified to attack.
And I think if we had just said that, instead of making up stuff about WMD's, we'd be in much better shape now.
> the time. (I know that opens the debate for... UBL felt it was
> something he had to do etc)
Not so much that; everyone feels their actions are "correct". It does make us hypocrites for going after Saddam for paying the families of suicide bombers though. We gave many hundreds of times the amount of money to terrorists when we wanted them to kill for us.
>The fact of the matter is, SH broke the cease Fire agreement after
>desert storm. And as per said cease fire, we were justified to attack.
And I think if we had just said that, instead of making up stuff about WMD's, we'd be in much better shape now.
QuoteAnd I think if we had just said that, instead of making up stuff about WMD's, we'd be in much better shape now.
Maybe Bill, but think about this...
Don't you think if GWB really thought there wasn't WMD there, but used WMD as an excuse, that we WOULD have found/planted it there to find.
Every day that goes by and we don't find strong evidence, it make me feel more confident that the President and his advisors and the Intel community were pretty sure there was something going on.
In retrospect maybe what Bill Clinton bombed was just a pill factory, maybe there weren't WMD there then or now. Maybe the KAY report is right, and what there really was was an elaborate hoax by the scientist to lead SH to believe he had WMD when in fact there wasn't any.
However, I don't Blame GWB Directly, because I think the evidence he was given he truely believed.
I for one still feel no evidence is not proof that they don't exist. It is instead evidence they haven't been found yet. But that is just how I feel.
Chris
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
billvon 3,090
>Don't you think if GWB really thought there wasn't WMD there, but
> used WMD as an excuse, that we WOULD have found/planted it
> there to find.
Well, I would certainly hope not, but I suppose he could. If anything, I would expect that if he really, truly believed they were there, and they would be found eventually, then he'd plant some. After all, it would get the world off his back, and since the 'real' WMD's will be found soon, the risk of planting a few liters of VX isn't that strong.
On the other hand, if the only WMD's ever found are the ones that the US might plant - and he knew that - he'd never risk it.
>Every day that goes by and we don't find strong evidence, it make
> me feel more confident that the President and his advisors and the
> Intel community were pretty sure there was something going on.
So if we never find them, you will become even more confident that they existed? Hmm. By those standards, I could claim that Bush is protecting OBL himself. Every day that goes by where we don't hear of that link is more evidence that there's really a link there.
>However, I don't Blame GWB Directly, because I think the evidence
>he was given he truely believed.
I think he told his staffers how he wanted the information presented, and he used the WMD excuse because, bureaucratically, it was the one thing he could both get everyone to agree on and the one thing guaranteed to scare americans. I'm sure he had suspicions that Saddam had WMD's (heck, we sold them to him!) but had no concrete evidence.
>I for one still feel no evidence is not proof that they don't exist. It is
> instead evidence they haven't been found yet. But that is just how I
> feel.
At what point would you believe that Saddam had no significant (or usable) WMD's?
> used WMD as an excuse, that we WOULD have found/planted it
> there to find.
Well, I would certainly hope not, but I suppose he could. If anything, I would expect that if he really, truly believed they were there, and they would be found eventually, then he'd plant some. After all, it would get the world off his back, and since the 'real' WMD's will be found soon, the risk of planting a few liters of VX isn't that strong.
On the other hand, if the only WMD's ever found are the ones that the US might plant - and he knew that - he'd never risk it.
>Every day that goes by and we don't find strong evidence, it make
> me feel more confident that the President and his advisors and the
> Intel community were pretty sure there was something going on.
So if we never find them, you will become even more confident that they existed? Hmm. By those standards, I could claim that Bush is protecting OBL himself. Every day that goes by where we don't hear of that link is more evidence that there's really a link there.
>However, I don't Blame GWB Directly, because I think the evidence
>he was given he truely believed.
I think he told his staffers how he wanted the information presented, and he used the WMD excuse because, bureaucratically, it was the one thing he could both get everyone to agree on and the one thing guaranteed to scare americans. I'm sure he had suspicions that Saddam had WMD's (heck, we sold them to him!) but had no concrete evidence.
>I for one still feel no evidence is not proof that they don't exist. It is
> instead evidence they haven't been found yet. But that is just how I
> feel.
At what point would you believe that Saddam had no significant (or usable) WMD's?
" United States Department of Defense
News Releases
On the web: http://www.dod.mil/releases/2003/nr20031115-0642.html
Media contact: +1 (703) 697-5131
Public contact: http://www.dod.mil/faq/comment.html or +1 (703) 428-0711
No. 851-03
IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 15, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DoD Statement on News Reports of al-Qaida and Iraq Connections
News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate."
Whom do you believe, Michele?
I find it laughable that someone like you, Kallend, who is always contending the Bush Administration is lying, would be so quick to believe this denial.
It is probably just a cover story Bush ordered the CIA to put out there after the story was leaked.
Maybe or maybe not. Lets not be so quick to believe the Government.