More Documentation Linking SH and the Taliban

[masterblaster72 0]

lol...I wanted to point that out myself, but I was just trying to make nice :)

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

March 06 ABC
http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1

Weekly Standard the 7th of this month
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=4152&R=ECBB75F8

Not too hard hum? How about another one
http://www.almanar.com.lb/story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=651276

China Daily Anyone?
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-06/15/content_618195.htm

LOL. Only one of these articles that you state is related to the article the thread is about. Two articles are about the al-Zarqawi documents indicating the Al Qaeda plot to start a US/Iran war. One is about the possibility Russia gave Iraq our war plans prior to the invasion. Only the weekly standard piece deals with the article that this thread pertains to.

Do you always do such rigorous research?

Laughs on you as these are the same documents. didn't read them huh....

Full content link posted to Quade in this thread if you care to read it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

Quote

March 06 ABC
http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1

Weekly Standard the 7th of this month
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=4152&R=ECBB75F8

Not too hard hum? How about another one
http://www.almanar.com.lb/story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=651276

China Daily Anyone?
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-06/15/content_618195.htm

LOL. Only one of these articles that you state is related to the article the thread is about. Two articles are about the al-Zarqawi documents indicating the Al Qaeda plot to start a US/Iran war. One is about the possibility Russia gave Iraq our war plans prior to the invasion. Only the weekly standard piece deals with the article that this thread pertains to.

Do you always do such rigorous research?

Hey, at least he didn't quote the National Enquirer Newsmax this time.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

March 06 ABC
http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1

Weekly Standard the 7th of this month
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=4152&R=ECBB75F8

Not too hard hum? How about another one
http://www.almanar.com.lb/story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=651276

China Daily Anyone?
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-06/15/content_618195.htm

LOL. Only one of these articles that you state is related to the article the thread is about. Two articles are about the al-Zarqawi documents indicating the Al Qaeda plot to start a US/Iran war. One is about the possibility Russia gave Iraq our war plans prior to the invasion. Only the weekly standard piece deals with the article that this thread pertains to.

Do you always do such rigorous research?

Hey, at least he didn't quote the National Enquirer Newsmax this time.

I love NewsMax

because you hate it so much

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Zipp0 1]

Screw that.

No, I just caught him trying to pull a 'Fox News' on us...... ie. My proof is right here - and point to a source that proves absolutely nothing.

My Rumsfeld/Saddam pic was more proof that Rumsfeld is a terrorist than his articles were proof for his story.

See.... I'll post it again:

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[freethefly 6]

Exactly what does this prove? Stand back and take a wide angle view of how we came to the point that we are at now.

The US is in a cold war with Russia. Russia wishes to control Afghanistan. The US supports and trains Afghani Freedom Fighters (Bin Laden being one of them). Russia loses the Cold War (still on, only off the radar). US and Russia shake hands. US abandon the Freedom Fighters and dubs them "Terrorist". They form the Taliban and now have a beef with the US.
US supports the Shah of Iran. There is a coup and he is overthrown. Iranian college students take control of the embassy.
US supports Saddam and supplies biological and chemical warfare componets. Saddam and Iran do not see eye to eye. US has a beef with Iran and supports Iraq. US says nothing at all about the use of chemical attacks on Irans "humanwave attacks". US views Saddam as a friend. Saddam decides he needs more shoreline to conduct oil export. Attacks Kuwait. US oil interest balks. US attacks Iraq and cut ties with Saddam. US imposes embargos on Iraq. There is a Kurdish uprising and a failed assination attempt on Saddam. Saddam uses chemicals to revenge the attempt and to stop the uprising. US says nothing. Iraq falls into dispair. The Taliban is causing havoc in Afghanistan. Bin Laden attacks the US. US puts on a small show in Afghanistan and then shifts the majority of its resources to Iraq claiming that Iraq is the greatest threat. Saddam is toppled and no WMD's are found. US changes reason for the attack. The Taliban is gaining control in Afghanistan as it's US placed government is but a front. Anti American sentiments are now even stronger in the Middle East. The US claims it will revenge the deaths of its fallen soldiers and continues to send more. The insurgents will kill more. The US will kill more insurgents. We are now trapped on a spinning wheel with no end in sight.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[freethefly 6]

Quote

I've found more evidence -- a picture showing both of them together, no less

Oh, Wendy, Wendy, Wendy... are you trying to spark a riot...

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

March 06 ABC
http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1

Weekly Standard the 7th of this month
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=4152&R=ECBB75F8

Not too hard hum? How about another one
http://www.almanar.com.lb/story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=651276

China Daily Anyone?
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-06/15/content_618195.htm

LOL. Only one of these articles that you state is related to the article the thread is about. Two articles are about the al-Zarqawi documents indicating the Al Qaeda plot to start a US/Iran war. One is about the possibility Russia gave Iraq our war plans prior to the invasion. Only the weekly standard piece deals with the article that this thread pertains to.

Do you always do such rigorous research?

Laughs on you as these are the same documents. didn't read them huh....

Full content link posted to Quade in this thread if you care to read it

Fuck no, they sure aren't. I guess I have to cite each link individually and explain it to you, to help you understand your misperceptions. Here we go:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1

This article deals with documents from the Iraqi Intelligence archive. There is one article that talks about the possibility of some thin connection with Saddam-AlQueda. There is nothing here about a connection between Saddam and the Taliban, as stated in the Fox article.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=4152&R=ECBB75F8

This article from 2004 pertains to a possible Saddam/Al Qaeda meeting. This has NOTHING to do with a Saddam/Taliban alliance.

http://www.almanar.com.lb/story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=651276

There is ZERO in this story about a Taliban/Saddam connection. NADA.

Here's a quote:

Citing one of the documents, Zarqawi aimed to widen the rift between the United States and Iran with kidnappings and assassinations against US interests falsely attributed to Iran. Rubaie added Zarqawi and his group did not anticipate how powerful the Iraqi security forces are" and said the Iraqi government is now on the attack against al-Qaida.

NOTHING about the Taliban/Saddam connection, sorry.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-06/15/content_618195.htm

This article is also about Al Qaeda seking a US/Iran war. NOTHING about a Saddam/Taliban alliance, which is what the Fox article is about. These are NOT the same documents noted in the Fox article.

Before you tell me to read something again, maybe you should read it for the first time. Oh, and reading comprehension is key....

Zipp0

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[rushmc 23]

There are so many lies in your post I will only respond saying this.

One of the reasons was SH was a threat to the US as he supported terrorist that would harm US people.

Now that link is being established (more all the time over the last year) and all you want to scream about is the US did this and that in the past and there were no WMD's. When documentation starts to show up that prove you wrong you discredit and redirect. (not you specifically)

It gets tiring that only the lefts sources are credible don't you think?

You also have to realize I don't really like Bush all that much. His admin spends to much and he doesn't stand up on the principles he campained on to try and play nice. But I do support his going into Iraq.

I am getting tired.........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

March 06 ABC
http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1

Weekly Standard the 7th of this month
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=4152&R=ECBB75F8

Not too hard hum? How about another one
http://www.almanar.com.lb/story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=651276

China Daily Anyone?
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-06/15/content_618195.htm

LOL. Only one of these articles that you state is related to the article the thread is about. Two articles are about the al-Zarqawi documents indicating the Al Qaeda plot to start a US/Iran war. One is about the possibility Russia gave Iraq our war plans prior to the invasion. Only the weekly standard piece deals with the article that this thread pertains to.

Do you always do such rigorous research?

Hey, at least he didn't quote the National Enquirer Newsmax this time.

I love NewsMax

because you hate it so much

It's impossible to hate Newsmax like it's impossible to hate The Onion. A deliberately distorted view of reality is always good for a laugh.

Editted fur Spelin.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

March 06 ABC
http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1

Weekly Standard the 7th of this month
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=4152&R=ECBB75F8

Not too hard hum? How about another one
http://www.almanar.com.lb/story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=651276

China Daily Anyone?
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-06/15/content_618195.htm

LOL. Only one of these articles that you state is related to the article the thread is about. Two articles are about the al-Zarqawi documents indicating the Al Qaeda plot to start a US/Iran war. One is about the possibility Russia gave Iraq our war plans prior to the invasion. Only the weekly standard piece deals with the article that this thread pertains to.

Do you always do such rigorous research?

Hey, at least he didn't quote the National Enquirer Newsmax this time.

I love NewsMax

because you hate it so much

It's impossible to hate Newsmax like it's impossible to hate The Onion. A deliberately distorted view of reality is always good for a laugh.

Editted fur Spelin.

So you must not like Rueters, AP or others because Newsmax, like Drudge, gets more than half of thier articles from outside sources.

You are a funny person.........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[freethefly 6]

Quote

There are so many lies in your post I will only respond saying this.

These chains of events are well documented.

Quote

One of the reasons was SH was a threat to the US as he supported terrorist that would harm US people.

Only after he invaded Kuwait did he fall out of favor with the US. If he had not done so he would still be on good terms with the Feds, most likely.

Quote

It gets tiring that only the lefts sources are credible don't you think?

I find both sides to be equally creditless. The best source for for the truth is:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/
and, also, having been there. The carrier I was on, USS Okinawa LPH3, spent plenty of time off of Iran in the early 80's. Ronald Reagan destroyed my faith in government with the Iran/Contra dealings.

Quote

You also have to realize I don't really like Bush all that much. His admin spends to much and he doesn't stand up on the principles he campained on to try and play nice. But I do support his going into Iraq.

All but going into Iraq, I agree.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

There are so many lies in your post I will only respond saying this.

These chains of events are well documented.

Quote

One of the reasons was SH was a threat to the US as he supported terrorist that would harm US people.

Only after he invaded Kuwait did he fall out of favor with the US. If he had not done so he would still be on good terms with the Feds, most likely.

Quote

It gets tiring that only the lefts sources are credible don't you think?

I find both sides to be equally creditless. The best source for for the truth is:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/
and, also, having been there. The carrier I was on, USS Okinawa LPH3, spent plenty of time off of Iran in the early 80's. Ronald Reagan destroyed my faith in government with the Iran/Contra dealings.

Quote

You also have to realize I don't really like Bush all that much. His admin spends to much and he doesn't stand up on the principles he campained on to try and play nice. But I do support his going into Iraq.

All but going into Iraq, I agree.

A simple example of where you are going wrong is Iran Contra. Look into what happened there with out looking at any of the main outlets, you will be surprised I think

Also you think the site you post in non-biased?

Ok....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Only after he invaded Kuwait did he fall out of favor with the US.

Well, that seems a good reason to fall out of favor, doesn't it? Aren't a lot of others using the same argument against the US????

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Actually, I think Fox's BS reporting is exactly why they're the #1 news outlet -- the sensational and partial commentary and the baiting with loaded questions adds entertainment value that other news outlets have not offered.

It depends on which form of "news" you're talking about. If you're referring to their shows, you'd be exactly correct in your assessment of Fox. Their shows range from central to right in their bias. Fox and Friends is about as far right as a show can get.

However, their delivery of "updates on the half hour" by all those babettes is mostly just reporting, same as the rest of the cable news channels. They don't leave out stories -- good or bad -- for the advantage of any political party.

If you think they omit national stories to support the right, I'd love to see an example.

. . =(_8^(1)

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Well, that seems a good reason to fall out of favor, doesn't it? Aren't a lot of others using the same argument against the US????

The very reason he went in is the reason he fell out. He would had done much better by forging trade agreements with Kuwait and would had saved his country the problem they are facing today. Saddam, no doubt, was a tyrant. Should the US have invaded? No. How can it reasonably be justified when there are many others like him that the US turn a blind eye to and give favorable status? China tops the list for human rights violation and enjoys favorable status. Viet Nam is also on the list and has recently became favorable. Threats such as North Korea are free to persue their nuclear ambition. Why no invasion of that country. On a technical view point we are still at war with N. Korea. A cease fire of more than 50 years. Iran will continue to persue their ambition regardless of the US's position on them doing so. Will an invasion there set things right? This planet is on a bad road going nowhere and the people who have the controls need to pull over and talk before it all goes up in flames.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Also you think the site you post in non-biased?

The documents that GWU provides are directly from the US archives and are presented as they are without bias opinion.

About the National Security Archive

An independent non-governmental research institute and library located at The George Washington University, the Archive collects and publishes declassified documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. The Archive also serves as a repository of government records on a wide range of topics pertaining to the national security, foreign, intelligence, and economic policies of the United States. The Archive won the 1999 George Polk Award, one of U.S. journalism's most prestigious prizes, for-in the words of the citation-"piercing the self-serving veils of government secrecy, guiding journalists in the search for the truth and informing us all."

The Archive obtains its materials through a variety of methods, including the Freedom of Information act, Mandatory Declassification Review, presidential paper collections, congressional records, and court testimony. Archive staff members systematically track U.S. government agencies and federal records repositories for documents that either have never been released before, or that help to shed light on the decision-making process of the U.S. government and provide the historical context underlying those decisions.

The Archive regularly publishes portions of its collections on microfiche, the World Wide Web, CD-Rom, and in books. The Washington Journalism Review called these publications, collectively totaling more than 500,000 pages, "a state-of-the-art index to history." The Archive's World Wide Web site, www.nsarchive.org, has won numerous awards including USA Today's "Hot Site" designation.

As a part of its mission to broaden access to the historical record, the Archive is also a leading advocate and user of the Freedom of Information Act. Precedent-setting Archive lawsuits have brought into the public domain new materials on the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Iran-Contra Affair, and other issues that have changed the way scholars interpret those events. The Archive spearheaded the groundbreaking legal effort to preserve millions of pages of White House e-mail records that were created during the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations.

The Archive's mission of guaranteeing the public's right to know extends to other countries outside the United States. The organization is currently involved in efforts to sponsor freedom of information legislation in the nations of Central Europe, Central America and elsewhere, and is committed to finding ways to provide technical and other services that will allow archives and libraries overseas to introduce appropriate records management systems into their respective institutions.

The Archive's $2.5 million yearly budget comes from publication revenues, contributions from individuals and grants from foundations such as the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. As a matter of policy, the Archive receives no U.S. government funding.

For further information contact Thomas S. Blanton, executive Director of the National Security Archive.

To use the Archive's collections, search www.nsarchive.org, visit our reading room at George Washington University's Gelman Library, or ask your university or public library to subscribe to the Digital National Security Archive published by ProQuest/Chadwyck-Healey.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

How can it reasonably be justified when there are many others like him that the US turn a blind eye to and give favorable status? China tops the list for human rights violation and enjoys favorable status. Viet Nam is also on the list and has recently became favorable. Threats such as North Korea are free to persue their nuclear ambition. Why no invasion of that country.

I don't think we have enough resources, or the public will, to follow your proposal to invade all those countries right away.

And I don't even think your list is complete either.

Maybe you should recommend we deal with each with a custom policy including trade agreements, boycotts, political pressure, etc with actual armed conflict being a last resort type of measure. Either that or many of those would have to be dealt with one at a time at least.

Nope, your proposal isn't practical. An all out war would likely be lost, most certainly with China in the mix and likely without NATO on our side. Just not practical.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[freethefly 6]

Quote

I don't think we have enough resources, or the public will, to follow your proposal to invade all those countries right away.

Invasion was not my proposal.

What I did write;

Quote

This planet is on a bad road going nowhere and the people who have the controls need to pull over and talk before it all goes up in flames.

Quote

And I don't even think your list is complete either.***
I doubt anyone could ever complete this list. Topple one bad government and you only create another.

Maybe you should recommend we deal with each with a custom policy including trade agreements, boycotts, political pressure, etc with actual armed conflict being a last resort type of measure. Either that or many of those would have to be dealt with one at a time at least.

Quote

I think I did with stating that Saddam would had been better off persuing trade agreements with Kuwait. All countries would be better off working with each other than against.

Nope, your proposal isn't practical. An all out war would likely be lost, most certainly with China in the mix and likely without NATO on our side. Just not practical.***

For the record I would only support war as a last resort or if directly attacked, such as was the case with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young