Consider this

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]

Welcome to IWETHEY!