You've left out a few steps...

Post #57,348 by bepatient 10/17/02 11:37:11 AM Reply	You've left out a few steps... ...and a few years of violating those steps. Oh...and we haven't invaded Iraq >yet< either. BUT...my take is the announcement was made to do >exactly< what your snide comment implies...show the huge incosistency in policy should the US choose to invade IRAQ. Look folks...its an Axis of Evil PR campaign...it would make Wag-Ed proud. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #57,382 by Brandioch 10/17/02 3:42:27 PM Reply	There you go again. Making claims without supporting them. You've left out a few steps... ...and a few years of violating those steps. No mention of what, specific, steps I left out. BUT...my take is the announcement was made to do >exactly< what your snide comment implies...show the huge incosistency in policy should the US choose to invade IRAQ. "imply"? How clearly can I state it? How many times have I repeated it? It's all about the OIL!!! Another country WITHOUT OIL can do EXACTLY the same thing that the US CLAIMS Iraq is doing and even ANNOUNCE that they're doing it! But we won't invade. We will NOT invade. We will seek "peaceful" solutions to the problem. It is about the oil. It has always been about the oil. It will always be about the oil. And N.K. has demonstrated in no unclear terms that the US is attempting to justify the invasion of Iraq with lies. I know that will piss off some people who have managed to convince themselves that we aren't going after Iraq because of the oil, but that's just too bad for them.
Post #57,472 by bepatient 10/17/02 11:44:19 PM Reply	Excuse me... ...for mistaking you for someone with half a brain. I'm willing to wager that most everyone else understood those steps to be the UN resolutions and their subsequent violation..steps that have not yet been taken with NK. But I should know better than to enter any thread where you are..because even if I somewhat agree with your position you act like an asshole. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #57,496 by Brandioch 10/18/02 9:15:58 AM Reply	Like I said, no specifics from you. I'm willing to wager that most everyone else understood those steps to be the UN resolutions and their subsequent violation..steps that have not yet been taken with NK. So, the basis is the UN? But if the UN doesn't sanction an invasion, we'll invade anyway. Or are you implying that it isn't the ACTIONS that are the issue -but- That it is the UN's RESPONSE to those actions. Again, that would make sense if we were willing to NOT invade unless the UN sanctioned it. Nope. This is, has been, and always will be, just as I've said before A L L A B O U T T H E O I L
Post #57,534 by bepatient 10/18/02 11:59:08 AM Reply	What t f ever. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #57,529 by Silverlock 10/18/02 11:38:01 AM Reply	Partial agreement I understood your meaning, but I think the analogy fails for other reasons. Didn't S.K. have an agreement in place not to continue development of nukes? (leaving aside anything that had already been developed). "A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor." -- Hunter S. Thompson
Post #57,547 by Brandioch 10/18/02 12:33:11 PM Reply	Yes, they did.
Post #57,563 by bepatient 10/18/02 1:40:43 PM Reply	Agreement with US, Japan and SK...no UN activity. The agreement also allowed inspectors...which were then never allowed in country. Difference with Iraq is there doesn't seem to be any hard evidence of NK sponsored terrorism. Additionally NK has no recent history of using womd against its own. They are not in the oil belt. There has been no UN activity nor resolution demanding the end of the NK missile program. Big strategic difference...NK has missiles and targeting systems that are of significantly longer range than those in Iraq. The timing of the announcement is, imnsho, a PR attempt against the US. Pretty effective one too. All because we spoke in "threatening terms"...which is one of the things Shrub has done so far that I completely disagree with...naming names beyond the "you are with us or against us" statement. Unnecessary and destabilizing. This is evidence. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #57,580 by Silverlock 10/18/02 2:06:04 PM Reply	This time I agree with all but one. Difference with Iraq is there doesn't seem to be any hard evidence of NK sponsored terrorism. I have only heard the assertion from the bush mob that Iraq has ties to terrorism. All other groups with credibility (like the bush mob has any credibility) state the opposite. Not saying they don't but there is no "evidence" that I know of that has been presented anywhere to say they do. The propraganda is working Bill. "A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor." -- Hunter S. Thompson
Post #57,594 by bepatient 10/18/02 4:01:31 PM Reply	Well..you could start with... [link\|http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB1031184073773956835,00.html\|this.] You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #57,602 by Silverlock 10/18/02 4:45:05 PM Reply	Pardon me Still wiping away tears of laughter. Did you perchance miss my use of the word 'credible'? Perhaps I should have been more specific, The CIA has said there is no evidence of an Iraq/Al Qaeda link. If news reports are what you want, have you seen those where the intelligence community is infuriated at the bush gang for trying to influence the reports submitted? The reports that don't show a connection. "A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor." -- Hunter S. Thompson
Post #57,615 by bepatient 10/18/02 5:14:44 PM Reply	Is there anything... ...that could be considered credible...ESPECIALLY where the "intelligence" community is concerned? You take what you can get and process it for yourself. I have no personal doubt of Iraqi involvement with the Al-Q network...proof notwithstanding. I had no doubt of it long before the "hawks" felt that I needed to have that opinion. Trusting CIA over Executive...hmmm...sort of like trusting Hannibal more than Dalmer not to snack when you take a nap. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #57,655 by Silverlock 10/18/02 6:41:01 PM Reply	I have many doubts I have no personal doubt of Iraqi involvement with the Al-Q network. Iraq is the most secular of West Asian Countries. OBL is a fundamentalist fanatic. Saddam is brutally repressive to fuundamentalist islam. OBL is rabidly for fundamentalist Islam. See where this is going? "A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor." -- Hunter S. Thompson
Post #57,666 by Brandioch 10/18/02 7:05:44 PM Reply	Been there, done that. You will NOT get anywhere trying to alter someone's religious beliefs with facts. Certain people just KNOW that there's a link. Despite the radically DIFFERENT political/religous ideologies of Saddam and Osama. #1. They are BAD men. #2. They are RAGHEADS. #3. They HATE the US. Therefore, it is only NATURAL that they would be working together. Despite any facts to the contrary and the lack of any evidence showing any connections.
Post #57,683 by bepatient 10/18/02 8:13:06 PM Reply	Oh..right... ...no nation has >ever< supported another with different beliefs against a common enemy. And no Iraqi government official has ever met with any Al Q member or suspected terrorist. Right. You could have tried to cast doubt on intelligence reports stating that Iraqi and Al-Q terrorists have held meetings. Instead you throw charged language around to misrepresent an opinion other than your own. Figures. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #57,776 by Brandioch 10/19/02 12:47:32 AM Reply	What reports? You could have tried to cast doubt on intelligence reports stating that Iraqi and Al-Q terrorists have held meetings. Strange, the reports I recall from the CIA say that Saddam does NOT have any al Queda links. Also, I recall that there were stories about how the current regime has tried to suppress or change reports stating that Saddam doesn't have any links to al Queda. And no Iraqi government official has ever met with any Al Q member or suspected terrorist. You mean like our presidents meeting with Yasser? Again, you have no FACTS to support your beliefs, but you don't need to support them because you KNOW they're right. Instead, you'll just throw around POSSIBILITIES that you MIGHT be correct. That's all the support you need for your beliefs. Like I said, with some people, it's a religion. I'll stick to facts and, so far, there hasn't been ANY credible links between Saddam (secularist) and Osama (religious fundamentalist).
Post #57,805 by bepatient 10/19/02 9:53:22 AM Reply	Re: What reports? [link\|http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2002/2/8/1s.html\|http://www.nti.org/d.../2002/2/8/1s.html] While a connection between an Iraqi intelligence official and a key member of al-Qaeda was confirmed prior to the Sept. 11 attacks, the intelligence community has not, at least yet, indicated it has found evidence of Iraqi support for the group\ufffds terror operations [link\|http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2002/3/19/2s.html\|http://www.nti.org/d...2002/3/19/2s.html] Kurdish officials said Hussein\ufffds regime has had ties to al-Qaeda since 1992 Its not religion, bozo...its documented. And its not Osama to Sadam...its Iraq to Al-Q. I don't expect Sadam and Osama would be sharing to many beers at the corner bar. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #57,807 by Brandioch 10/19/02 10:59:41 AM Reply	And there you go again, again. From the sites you linked: There is, of course, the possibility the United States does have such evidence but is holding it until after U.S. forces now in Afghanistan can be positioned to do something about it \ufffd to avoid alerting a regime prior to attacking. Exactly what I said about your methodology. You rely upon the POSSIBILITY that something COULD exist. Typical conspiracy theory religious practice. Nongovernmental analysts say they have seen no such evidence. I like that term. "no such evidence". While a connection between an Iraqi intelligence official and a key member of al-Qaeda was confirmed prior to the Sept. 11 attacks, the intelligence community has not, at least yet, indicated it has found evidence of Iraqi support for the group\ufffds terror operations So, is that similar to our President's meeting with Yasser? Of course, if you had bothered to follow the links on the link you posted, you'd have come across this little gem. [link\|http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/newswires/2002_2_6.html#4\|Here] U.S. intelligence officials said, however, that the United States does not have enough information to prove Iraq has supported anti-U.S. terrorism (see GSN, Jan. 24). The last known Iraqi attempt at terrorism was a failed operation to assassinate former U.S. President George Bush in 1993. Again, your case relies upon non-facts and possibilities. One member of the Iraqi government (and it isn't Saddam) has a "link" to a member of al Queda. Just as our President has a link to Yasser and has publicly met with him. Some recent reports indicated that Iraq could have ties to terrorists, but intelligence officials said the information provided no substantial evidence. After the history or discussions with you, I don't expect you to recognize what "substantial evidence" means. To put it in simple terms: The guys who know this, who study this, say that they have found nothing saying Iraq is supporting Osama. Which is exactly what I've been saying. U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that Mohamed Atta, a leader of the terrorists who hijacked the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, met with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, a mid-level Iraqi intelligence officer, in Prague, but the meeting does not necessarily tie Iraq to the Sept. 11 attacks. Emphasis added. Yes, it is a religion with you. The experts say that there is no evidence that Saddam supports Osama. You sole "link" is a mid-level spy meeting with a terrorist in Prague. A religion is not based upon facts. It is based upon "feelings" and beliefs. You have one fact and you're going to extrapolate from that into an entire conspiracy. While the experts in the matter say that such a conspiracy just does not exist. And its not Osama to Sadam...its Iraq to Al-Q. I don't expect Sadam and Osama would be sharing to many beers at the corner bar. "Iraq" is nothing more than dirt, oil and plants. Only the Iraqi government and so forth can have ties to a group of people. You've floundered so far out of your depth that now you're fantasizing about a secret Iraqi government NOT headed by Saddam that has links to Osama. Or was that a secret Iraqi government NOT headed by Saddam that has links to a secret al Queda cabal NOT headed by Osama? Typical conspiracy religion. And only a true believer would accept such "proof".
Post #57,809 by bepatient 10/19/02 11:12:15 AM Reply	and you too... ...pulling quotes from incorrect contexts..etc... If anyone else cares to take up the discussion..I'll gladly continue.. Not with you. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #57,811 by Brandioch 10/19/02 11:17:38 AM Reply	Tee hee hee [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=57287\|We MUST invade!] Seems to me that YOU are the one that jumped in on MY comment. Like I said, it's a religion with you.
Post #57,813 by bepatient 10/19/02 11:38:32 AM Reply	Sure... ...and Ollie was acting alone too. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #57,815 by Silverlock 10/19/02 11:55:02 AM Reply	No he didn't act alone He traded arms to Iran with the help of many others. But what does that have to do with a Iraq/Al Qaeda connection? Oops. I first assumed you were talking about Oliver [link\|http://www.airborne-ranger.com/ranger/wannabees/OllieNorth.html\|North]. Kukla, Fran and Ollie? Oliver Wendell Holmes? Oliver Stone? Ahhh, I get it. Laurel and Hardy, right? Is there a point aside from the sarcasm? The arguement isn't that humans have a history of working together, it's about the lack of evidence for the specific case of Iraq working with Al Qaeda. "A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor." -- Hunter S. Thompson
Post #57,829 by Brandioch 10/19/02 1:30:31 PM Reply	Shut up! Do NOT mock the Holy Conspiracy. Do you NOT know that if something completely different happened to completely different people with no connection to the current subject... That it PROVES that the Conspiracy is real! Facts are the ENEMY (unless they support the Holy Conspiracy). It is sufficient that the POSSIBILITY exist. And that POSSIBILITY is proven by someone unrelated to the matter at hand doing something unrelated to the matter at hand. #1. Saddam and Osama are BAD MEN! #2. Saddam and Osama HATE THE US! #3. Saddam and Osama are RAGHEADS! #4. Ollie did NOT act alone! Dude, it is so OBVIOUS that someone(s) in Iraq, other than Saddam, is (are) supporting al Queda operations/operatives through a channel(s) other than Osama. I mean, who CARES what the CIA says! The CIA has NOT provided any PROOF that the Conspiracy does NOT exist! They just keep saying that "substantial evidence" does not exist. Ha! Like that means anything!
Post #57,812 by Silverlock 10/19/02 11:35:54 AM Reply	Consider this 1. The US has a vast intelligence gathering community. After 9/11, many of the other intelligence communities of the world shared data related to terrorism with the US. Out of this huge pool of data, don't you think it likely that if there were convincing evidence of Saddam's involvement with Al Qaeda, it would have been presented by now? C'mon Bill, they are trying to sell a war fer chris'sake. 2. Our intelligence community has specifically presented a report saying that Iraq has no verifiable connection with Al Qaeda. Our congress critters are saying they are not convinced. Our media is not convinced or where are the headlines blaring "Saddam bankrolling Osama!"? As for this-- ...no nation has >ever< supported another with different beliefs against a common enemy. Discounting a point that was not made? I am going to have say my first ever 'Bzzzt. Strawman' but I'll address it anyway. Yes the 'enemy of my enemy' argument has merit. I still see no convincing evidence that in this case it applies. and this-- And no Iraqi government official has ever met with any Al Q member or suspected terrorist. I assume you are referring to the meeting in Prague between Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent. Didn't happen according to the Miami [link\|http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/3170624.htm\|Herald] (I use a media source since you have infered you don't trust our intelligence services) and [link\|http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20020513.shtml\|others.] "A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor." -- Hunter S. Thompson
Post #57,814 by bepatient 10/19/02 11:46:16 AM Reply	I'm not tallking... ...about a simple link to cover Sept 11. And I don't think we should invade Iraq...just for the record (because some will try and invent one for me) But through multiple channels and from multiple sources a pattern of Iraqi involvment with Al-Q exists. Do Saddam and Osama have similar beliefs? No. Do they have similar objectives? Yes. Would Saddam want to make samn sure any involvement would be plausibly deniable at his level. Damn straight. There are just as many examples of the US government doing exactly the same thing. The "anti-hawks" will use these examples regularly to make the point that we (the US) are not blameless for the hate instilled against our country...but I use that same pattern recognition in this case and y'all are jumping up and down telling me the CIA (puleaze) doesn't agree with me so I must be wrong? WTF is wrong with that picture? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #57,816 by Silverlock 10/19/02 12:05:44 PM Reply	Let's not get off on a tangent I believe this subthread got going because of [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=57580\|this] response to your statement about "hard evidence". I stated that IMO there is no "hard evidence". If you want to talk about patterns, fine. You still haven't convinced me in regards to "hard evidence". "A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor." -- Hunter S. Thompson
Post #57,879 by bepatient 10/19/02 9:05:29 PM Reply	Well... are we futzing around because of the "hard" in that statement? Are we toying around this point because you consider NK and Iraq to be identical situations? Or are we denying any and all reports linking Iraqi officials to Al Q? I don't think Hussein or Iraq had any direct involvement with 9/11...but if you subscribe to the "with us or against us" argument...they are definitely in the latter category...through association and support of the group. However, you could have pictures of Saddam and Osama french kissing and that would still not justify a pre-emptive strike by the US...in my nsh opinion. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #57,899 by Silverlock 10/19/02 10:17:41 PM Reply	Some answers are we futzing around because of the "hard" in that statement? Yes. You made a several assertions in your original post. I disagreed with one. You tried to show I was wrong in my disagreement. I don't think you succeeded. If that qualifies as 'futzing', so be it. Are we toying around this point because you consider NK and Iraq to be identical situations? No. See above. Or are we denying any and all reports linking Iraqi officials to Al Q? No. Just the one I assumed you were referring to. Do you know of any others? "A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor." -- Hunter S. Thompson
Post #57,905 by bepatient 10/19/02 10:47:59 PM Reply	Hmmm [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=57805\|I've posted a couple.] If your looking for pictures or something, thats not gonna be there. We have other intelligence groups giving us reports that there is an association. Anything recent should be considered tainted...all because of high propoganda value. Some is still likely to be true. Again...this is not saying that they aided in planning or funding any specific acts of terror against the US. Without this specific evidence, there is no justification for the current stance of our government...which is why I don't support it. It is another thing entirely to discount all other reports of training assistance and asociation just because >our< guys can't find a smoking gun linking them to anti-US acts of terror. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #57,950 by Silverlock 10/20/02 11:16:58 AM Reply	I guess I wasn't clear enough The meeting in Prague is what I was disagreeing with (your first link). Other reports I have seen cast doubt on it. I hadn't heard of the claims by "Kurdish officals" and an Iranian smuggler (your second link). That does not quite reach the level of hard evidence IMO. I find it hard to believe that Saddam, with his known record of repression on Islamic fundamentalists, who he believes are a threat to his rule, would support Al Qaeda. I find it hard to believe that the bush gang wouldn't present other evidence if it had any for reasons I've stated previously. What I have seen reported is not convincing. Now that you have provided the 2 links from the same organization, I now have a grand total of 2 reports to base my opinion on. So how about you stop with the "any and all" crap. That's not what I've said and you know it. "A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor." -- Hunter S. Thompson
Post #57,957 by bepatient 10/20/02 1:05:26 PM Reply	Ok The meeting in Prague never happened. And you keep believing that 2 groups with different beliefs would not associate. I have no such illusion. In the end...where the rubber hits the road...we both think our (US) current course of action is incorrect. So we can bicker about details...or move on. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #57,963 by Brandioch 10/20/02 1:57:27 PM Reply	There you go again, again, again. And you keep believing that 2 groups with different beliefs would not associate. I have no such illusion. Mr. Bill (Strawman) Pathetic. No one is saying, has said, will say, that groups with different beliefs will not associate. What has been said, repeatedly, is that there is NO EVIDENCE that such is the case here. Again, you base your position ENTIRELY on "possibly" and "maybe" and "could be". Which is exactly what the Conspiracy Religions do. Since people completely unrelated to the current subject, did something completely unrelated to the current subject, that PROVES that your position is correct.
Post #57,967 by bepatient 10/20/02 2:34:57 PM Reply	Whatever you say. Amen brother. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #57,832 by Brandioch 10/19/02 1:50:01 PM Reply	"WTF is wrong with that picture?" Simple, you cannot process information that does not agree with your religion. There are just as many examples of the US government doing exactly the same thing. The "anti-hawks" will use these examples regularly to make the point that we (the US) are not blameless for the hate instilled against our country...but I use that same pattern recognition in this case and y'all are jumping up and down telling me the CIA (puleaze) doesn't agree with me so I must be wrong? Emphasis added. Yes, there are specific examples of the US governments behaviour. Specific and documented. Those examples establish a pattern. Now, you attempt to take the US pattern and say that it applies to Iraq in this case. Yet you have no specific examples of Iraqi behaviour to support that pattern. Because the US has done so, you claim that Iraq has done so. Your support for this claim is based, not in facts, but in the POSSIBILITY that Iraq COULD have done so. Al Capone cheated on his taxes. Al Capone killed people. Mr. X cheates on his taxes. Therefore, Mr. X MIGHT also be a murderer. He might, he might not. And the logic is flawed. But you will never understand that.
Post #57,876 by bepatient 10/19/02 8:37:52 PM Reply	Sure I can. You must have mistaken me with yourself...someone who can't seem to realize that he isn't right 100% of the time...sad for you that you think the rest of the world are idiots when the truth is so much closer to home. There are specific and documented cases of Iraqi officials meeting with or associating with Al Q terrorists either directly or through other organizations...much like out our own association with Al Q during the Soviet invastion of Afghanistan. But you choose to deny that...not because its not plausible...but simply because it opposes my statement and you can toy around with pretenting to know, even remotely, what my "religious" beliefs are. Yep...just to be an asshole. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #57,901 by Brandioch 10/19/02 10:27:56 PM Reply	Once again, you are wrong. There are specific and documented cases of Iraqi officials meeting with or associating with Al Q terrorists either directly or through other organizations...much like out our own association with Al Q during the Soviet invastion of Afghanistan. Fine, then link to them. You can keep claiming that they exist, but until you provide the links, they're just in your imagination. But you choose to deny that...not because its not plausible...but simply because it opposes my statement and you can toy around with pretenting to know, even remotely, what my "religious" beliefs are. Again, it is simple to prove me wrong. Just provide the links that state what you say they do. I'm going to go on the record here and say that such links do NOT exist. Therefore, you will NOT be able to provide them. Although you will continue to claim that you COULD provide them. There are specific and documented cases of Iraqi officials meeting with or associating with Al Q terrorists either directly or through other organizations...much like out our own association with Al Q during the Soviet invastion of Afghanistan. Again, provide links. The CIA has said that they haven't found ANY "substantial evidence" linking Saddam to al Queda. You claim that there is such evidence. You must have mistaken me with yourself...someone who can't seem to realize that he isn't right 100% of the time...sad for you that you think the rest of the world are idiots when the truth is so much closer to home. Again, it is sooooo simple to prove me wrong. Just provide the evidence that the CIA says does not exist. It doesn't get much easier than that. Then you would PROVEN that I was wrong. Instead, what "evidence" do you provide? Your reference to Ollie acting alone. ooooooooookay. The problems with you religious types is that you can't distinguish between a fact and your fantasy.
Post #57,902 by bepatient 10/19/02 10:34:29 PM Reply	You are so predictable. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #57,940 by CRConrad 10/20/02 7:16:07 AM Reply	And you think that wasn't?
Post #57,956 by bepatient 10/20/02 12:59:45 PM Reply	Quite frankly... I don't give a fuck if it was or not. If I go tit for tat I get bitched at for shift...and Brandi won't accept anything anyway (as evidenced by the last time where his own links screwed his own argument and this time where links have already been provided...he just didn't accept them) So I politely tell him to go stuff..and now I expect a reaction from you and most likely Ashton.. That, my European friend, is exactly what I expected. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #57,961 by Brandioch 10/20/02 1:53:20 PM Reply	"didn't accept them"? If I go tit for tat I get bitched at for shift...and Brandi won't accept anything anyway (as evidenced by the last time where his own links screwed his own argument and this time where links have already been provided...he just didn't accept them) No. The shift occures when you do NOT directly address the PREVIOUS post. Like your comment about Ollie acting alone. I have addressed your links. And Silverlock has provided other links showing that such a meeting did NOT take place. Rather than provide MORE links to support your position, you resort to "possibly" and "maybe" and such crap. The CIA itself says there is no "substantial evidence" to support your allegations. But, instead of dealing with that claim, which I have previously posted, you'll cry about everything else. Deal with the FACTS, not the part where you "know" they are doing it. But, like I said, religions don't need facts.
Post #57,962 by bepatient 10/20/02 1:54:24 PM Reply	yep...right...whatever you say. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #57,964 by Brandioch 10/20/02 2:00:00 PM Reply	And, once again, another discussion ends with you retreating into sarcasm. Because you couldn't find two facts to rub together. Rather than admit you were WRONG, you'll hide behind sarcasm and innuendo. Pathetic.
Post #57,966 by bepatient 10/20/02 2:32:37 PM Reply	Yep...you're right...you're always right. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #57,684 by bepatient 10/18/02 8:13:57 PM Reply	Yes I do. See the first line in my response to whats-his-name. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #57,609 by Ashton 10/18/02 5:03:56 PM Reply	Too sane-appearing to be summarily dismissed Too circumstantial to be a wedge for any way-too-late spook work. A comment like Mr. Fox was suspended by FBI Director Louis Freeh for speaking to the media about the case; he died in 1997. Ms. Mylroie says that Mr. Fox indicated to her that he did not continue to pursue the Iraq connection because Justice Department officials "did not want state sponsorship addressed." merely underscores ingredients of happenstance and personal political guess/manipulation - surely re every incident we ever read about! ie we don't know shit about any actual motivations and lengthy chain of actions re either of the above events. Same as approaching anything like 'proof' of CIA assistance / instigation of the Allende assassination. We are a species of congenital liars: truth-telling is so rare that, each such event is grounds for a Prize - or at least a novel about the 'novel' situation. It's not cynical to suspend belief in most mass stories - just sane. (Bizness, marketing lead the way in this decline, natch; way out in front: lying as an institution - and Billy/Bally be the icons most recognize. And applaud.) Ashton Extra! Extra! John Wilkes Boothe - Lincoln's love-child with a maid from Mary Todd's family estate: another sibling killing!
Post #57,712 by dmarker 10/18/02 9:12:58 PM Reply	Re: Hey!!! - N Korea has both Nukes, and used WOMS N Korea has been using WOMS (Weapon Of Mass Starvation) against its own people - so how does it matter how they kill em - quickly with bio-weapons or slowly with prolonged starvation. Seems to me that WOMS is a durned site worse than WOMD Cheers Doug
Post #57,736 by bepatient 10/18/02 10:33:46 PM Reply	Hmm.. ...can they launch starvation at Japan? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!