Well...

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]

Welcome to IWETHEY!