Originally Posted by Brian Rush

When a person says "Iraq cooperated with Al Qaeda", you think there's a possibility that he means something other than the obvious interpretation, eh?

Since there isn't any "obvious interpretation," he has to. Whatever he meant isn't at all clear from that vague and plastic phrase.

There isn't any obvious interpretation? Vague? Plastic? I stand aghast at the sheer sophistry. Speak English much?

Whatever!

Every day, another dot for Brian to erase in his ongoing battle for... whatever! We'll see what Hijazi reveals (see below). Of course, Brian can always choose to trust the former Iraqi regime's word over the current U.S. administration's, and disbelieve anything Hijazi reveals while in custody, no matter how many American experts declare the revelations valid.

Former Iraqi Spy Chief Taken Into Custody


Although Hijazi was not on the most-wanted list, he is "the biggest catch so far," former CIA (news - web sites) Director James Woolsey told CNN. "We know this man was involved with al-Qaida."

In December 1998, while ambassador to Turkey, Hijazi traveled to Afghanistan (news - web sites) and reportedly met with Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), according to U.S. officials who cite the meeting as evidence of an Iraqi link to al-Qaida.

Iraqi officials denied Hijazi met with bin Laden. The main exile group that opposed Saddam — the Iraqi National Congress — contends Hijazi was the key link between Saddam's regime and bin Laden's terrorist organization.

Aziz — who had been Saddam's deputy prime minister — was being questioned Friday, a day after surrendering to U.S. forces. American officials hope Aziz and Hijazi will give up information about the fate of Saddam and the status of any illegal weapons programs.

There isn't any obvious interpretation? Vague? Plastic?

Yes, exactly.

I stand aghast at the sheer sophistry.

Well, you're the expert on that subject.

We'll see what Hijazi reveals

Yes, I suppose we will. It might even have something of substance -- quite unlike anything you've posted to date.

Well Clark, Boomers can suck my balls. I dont care what they think. Perhaps I should care as they run the culture for now, but I think I managed to avoid much of their influence during my formative years (I remember being by myself a lot, I never made bad decisions, just was on my own a lot) and yet was expected to do well all at the same time. It has been commented on this board a few times that the first few years of a hero generation are very very radical, and I think that is reason why. You can call me a Mill all you want, but I'm not one, at least not a stereotypical one. I don't trust the government, for starters.

Originally Posted by Clark W. Griswold

A.Los, Leados,

I have no generational connection. Where do I regularly see my peers where we can someone act one way or another? I live in a multigenerational situation. My generation is obviously X by default due to my birth and my peer group, but still how do we react?

Like I said in other forums it is not the reality but the interpretation of reality. Boomer parents want a Heroic Millennial generation and that is what the press and media will show them. Boomers drive the culture. The culture is manufactured to their liking.
They wanted to shit on Xers because they were going through post-youthitis and they got a whole generation to dismiss as ineffectual and whiny for the rest of their lives. Now they want to see their kids (and I am the child of Boomers but I am not somehow part of "their kids") grow up to be perfect.
Sarah Hughes, Jessica Lynch, from the Baby on Board to the Baby in the well to the heroic fighter against those swarthy Iraqis, that is what they want that is what they will get.
Whatever date is convenient for 4T begining (and I don't feel 4T but maybe because I live in Europe) will be chosen and the cycles pretty much fit. At the speed things are going it may be very likely that a Hero generation is born even in the crisis.
People argue over math and cycles, but the average life span still is about 75 years, and 2003 is 74 years from 1929. I am not sure if we are in a phoney fourth (which it feels like) or a real 4th but i am not troubled by Math.
Bottomline, Bomers want their class of 2000, they want their Millennial heros, and they will get them, one way or another.
That is just how the culture functions. You try to rebel and you wind up a misunderstood anarchist smashing up Starbucks or an "alternative rocker" that doesn't sell records, but is popular amongst youth nontheless.

Here is a little fuel for the fire.
KABOOM!

Originally Posted by justmom

Here is a little fuel for the fire.
KABOOM!

Good one, mom. Brian better get a bigger eraser' he can't erase the dots quickly enough.

For those who failed to click on "KABOOM!":

The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden



The Telegraph found the file on bin Laden inside a folder lying in the rubble of one of the rooms of the destroyed intelligence HQ. There are three pages, stapled together; two are on paper headed with the insignia and lettering of the Mukhabarat.

They show correspondence between Mukhabarat agencies over preparations for the visit of al-Qa'eda's envoy, who travelled to Iraq from Sudan, where bin Laden had been based until 1996. They disclose what Baghdad hopes to achieve from the meeting, which took place less than five months before bin Laden was placed at the top of America's most wanted list following the bombing of two US embassies in east Africa.

Perhaps aware of the sensitivities of the subject matter, Iraqi agents at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin Laden, using white correcting fluid. The dried fluid was removed to reveal the clearly legible name three times in the documents.

One paper is marked "Top Secret and Urgent". It is signed "MDA", a codename believed to be the director of one of the intelligence sections within the Mukhabarat, and dated February 19, 1998. It refers to the planned trip from Sudan by bin Laden's unnamed envoy and refers to the arrangements for his visit.

A letter with this document says the envoy is a trusted confidant of bin Laden. It adds: "According to the above, we suggest permission to call the Khartoum station [Iraq's intelligence office in Sudan] to facilitate the travel arrangements for the above-mentioned person to Iraq. And that our body carry all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden."

Aww Steve. Your guys "found" some evidence. Ain't it sweet?

Thing is, John, none of these dots needs "erasing" because none of them means very much.

OK, there were negotiations going on between al-Qaeda operatives and the Iraqi intelligence agency. Is that supposed to be a big surprise? There were negotiations going on at one time between the U.S. government and Nazi Germany, too. Does that implicate Roosevelt in the Holocaust?

Show Iraqi compliance in the September 11 attack. Don't show Iraq "working with" al-Qaeda unless what they worked on was an attack on the United States. Anything else is irrelevant.

Way to move that goalpost, Brian!

A while ago, it was "who cares about other terrorist groups. It's Al Qaeda that matters!"

This is so tedious now. I'll let you have the last word...

Originally Posted by I Know My First Name Is Steven

Way to move that goalpost, Brian!

A while ago, it was "who cares about other terrorist groups. It's Al Qaeda that matters!"

This is so tedious now. I'll let you have the last word...

John,

You are so awesome. Exactly. It is tedious. So tedious that waging a war over it would be a total waste of resources and lives. You'll find more Al-Qaeda connections with the American suburbs than you will in Iraq, or Syria for that matter. Why waste our time? Aren't there more pressing matters? Was it really worth tearing up our international alliances over, or causing this split in America, just because Bushy wanted his war in March when the weather was just right, and not August?
This is lame-o. I feel bad for all of our "heroes" fighting against the "evil tyrants."
Way to go John. Way to kill 167 troops in uniform, and 1500 civilians (at least).

Way To Go,

J.Barrera

Way to move that goalpost, Brian!

Way to haul out those fallacies, John! Way to treat this like a football game instead of a discussion, John!

Geez, you caught me on a technical foul. I'm impressed. Not.

With respect to Iraq and terrorists as a justification for war, there are now, always have been, and always will be only two ultimate goalposts: 1) Did the Iraqi government contribute materially to the 9/11 attack? And: 2) Was the Iraqi government planning to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists? Score a "yes" on either of those and the war is justified.

I think I've made that clear.

We know al-Qaeda was behind 9/11, so if you show Iraq involved with some other terrorist group, I can say that group had nothing to do with 9/11. But if you show some Iraqi "involvement" (there's another of those vague and plastic terms) with al-Qaeda, that alone doesn't make your case. What kind of "involvement" specifically? Where's Iraq's complicity in the 9/11 attack?

Show that and you win. Fall short of that by any amount, and you have nothing.

Similarly: Showing that Iraq possessed WMD (still not done, by the way) and had "ties" of some kind to terrorists does not show Saddam planned to connect the two together. Possession of WMD, and documents showing said intention, or else captured Iraqi WMD in the hands of terrorists, would do the trick. Nothing else.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Way to move that goalpost, Brian!

Way to haul out those fallacies, John! Way to treat this like a football game instead of a discussion, John!

I can hardly imagine the real John Wayne bothering to argue with the wall like this. Nor for so long.

Perhaps a new handle is in order here for Mr. Wayne? Something along the lines of Mr. Buckley, or Mr. McGovern? Either, depending on which side of the aisle one chooses, would fit much better, Mr. Wayne. Then your debate with the wall might appear more shall we say, reasonable?

Forgive me, but every time I see your name, "John Wayne," tagged on another rebuttal ad infinitum I just start cracking up! :wink:

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Thing is, John, none of these dots needs "erasing" because none of them means very much.

OK, there were negotiations going on between al-Qaeda operatives and the Iraqi intelligence agency. Is that supposed to be a big surprise? There were negotiations going on at one time between the U.S. government and Nazi Germany, too. Does that implicate Roosevelt in the Holocaust?

Show Iraqi compliance in the September 11 attack. Don't show Iraq "working with" al-Qaeda unless what they worked on was an attack on the United States. Anything else is irrelevant.

Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!
Louis Carrol

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Perhaps a new handle is in order here for Mr. Wayne?

You have a point there. The Duke would have washed his hands of this a long time ago.

On the other hand, this handle is no more preposterous than "Stonewall Patton", given the kind of stuff we get from that source.

Still, you have a point.

Oh, and Brian has one, too. After all, Iraq may have been working with Al Qaeda on something quite harmless, such as Al Qaeda's annual Bake Sale against Muscular Dystrophy or something. It's not as if Al Qaeda was fixated on attacking Americans or anything.

Originally Posted by justmom

Here is a little fuel for the fire.
KABOOM!

See this

Originally Posted by Justin Barrera

You are so awesome. Exactly. It is tedious. So tedious that waging a war over it would be a total waste of resources and lives. You'll find more Al-Qaeda connections with the American suburbs than you will in Iraq, or Syria for that matter. Why waste our time? Aren't there more pressing matters? Was it really worth tearing up our international alliances over, or causing this split in America, just because Bushy wanted his war in March when the weather was just right, and not August?
This is lame-o. I feel bad for all of our "heroes" fighting against the "evil tyrants."
Way to go John. Way to kill 167 troops in uniform, and 1500 civilians (at least).

This sounds good but does not really get at what a fight against terrorists means.

With respect to the whole war with Saddam Hussein, I think Tony Blair made a better case than Bush did because Tony Blair made the case that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator who was not likely to sit down amicably with UN inspectors and agree to do what the UN has been demanding since the 1991 cease fire. Others have said this more eloquently than I, see for example Thomas Friedman's Column in yeserday's NY times.

With regard to the issue of fighting terrorists, it does not matter whether Iraq had links directly with Al Quaida or not. Terrorists work with any state that will help them and they will work with each other. Although each group is tighly organized, all terrorists have the same goal: create terror by destroying innocent civilians and infrastructure anywhere in order to get political payoff. It does not matter if their goals are reasonable or not because their methods will cause such great disorder that a political body (read nation-state) cannot tolerate this. Nation-states have the obligation to protect their citizens and create a rule of law that allows those citizens to live their lives. If we are in a "war on terror" then the only way to win that war is go after all terrorists and also to make it clear that any dictator or government that supports them is also at risk of being destroyed. That is what Mr. Bush did in Iraq.

It does not matter, either, whether Iraq had direct ties to September 11. September 11 is the event that changed how the United States deals with terrorists and dictators. Before September 11, the United States tolerated terrorist attacks on our armed services embassies and even on our soil. We made some effort to treat these like "crimes" but did not respond as if they were acts of war. Since September 11, the United States has started to treat these as acts of war. This is a definite change in policy that has caused many on this list to believe that we have entered the 4T.

We can argue here until we are blue in the face about whether Iraq had WMDs or not and whether Iraq had direct ties about September 11. But the war with Saddam Hussein happened. I think it happened because of the way in which September 11 changed how Americans view the world. The WMDs and other arguments by the Bush admininstration were justifications but they were not the reasons we went to war.

Originally Posted by Leados

Well Clark, Boomers can suck my balls.

*smiles knowingly at the camera*

I dont care what they think. Perhaps I should care as they run the culture for now, but I think I managed to avoid much of their influence during my formative years (I remember being by myself a lot, I never made bad decisions, just was on my own a lot) and yet was expected to do well all at the same time. It has been commented on this board a few times that the first few years of a hero generation are very very radical, and I think that is reason why. You can call me a Mill all you want, but I'm not one, at least not a stereotypical one. I don't trust the government, for starters.

Originally Posted by Clark W. Griswold

A.Los, Leados,

I have no generational connection. Where do I regularly see my peers where we can someone act one way or another? I live in a multigenerational situation. My generation is obviously X by default due to my birth and my peer group, but still how do we react?

Like I said in other forums it is not the reality but the interpretation of reality. Boomer parents want a Heroic Millennial generation and that is what the press and media will show them. Boomers drive the culture. The culture is manufactured to their liking.
They wanted to shit on Xers because they were going through post-youthitis and they got a whole generation to dismiss as ineffectual and whiny for the rest of their lives. Now they want to see their kids (and I am the child of Boomers but I am not somehow part of "their kids") grow up to be perfect.
Sarah Hughes, Jessica Lynch, from the Baby on Board to the Baby in the well to the heroic fighter against those swarthy Iraqis, that is what they want that is what they will get.
Whatever date is convenient for 4T begining (and I don't feel 4T but maybe because I live in Europe) will be chosen and the cycles pretty much fit. At the speed things are going it may be very likely that a Hero generation is born even in the crisis.
People argue over math and cycles, but the average life span still is about 75 years, and 2003 is 74 years from 1929. I am not sure if we are in a phoney fourth (which it feels like) or a real 4th but i am not troubled by Math.
Bottomline, Bomers want their class of 2000, they want their Millennial heros, and they will get them, one way or another.
That is just how the culture functions. You try to rebel and you wind up a misunderstood anarchist smashing up Starbucks or an "alternative rocker" that doesn't sell records, but is popular amongst youth nontheless.

After all, Iraq may have been working with Al Qaeda on something quite harmless

We have no evidence that Iraq was ever "working with" al-Qaeda on anything, harmless or otherwise. All we know is that negotiations took place. Considering the relations between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government, they may have been holding talks to avert all-out war.

Or not. But the fact that talks took place proves nothing by itself.

Originally Posted by elilevin

Terrorists work with any state that will help them and they will work with each other.

Indeed :o

Is protecting terrorists what US calls its anti-terrorism campaign?

Tehran, April 28, IRNA -- Instead of snaring the terrorists and proving to the world community that it is sincere in its anti-terrorism campaign, Washington has struck a deal with the most hated Iraq-based terrorist Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) to remain stationed in Baghdad and continue their terrorist activities, hit out `Tehran Times' on Monday.

Recent reports have it that the US has reached an agreement with the Iraq-based MKO allowing the armed terrorist organization to remain in Baghdad, retain their facilities, remain armed and continue their terrorist activities from there.

It must be noted that the MKO has been on the US terrorist hit list, is considered a terrorist group by Europe and has a dark record of terrorist activities, the paper pointed out.

The US is "pretending" to be the champion of the international campaign against terrorism ever since the September 11 attacks and is using this as a pretext to attack those countries it thinks support terrorism but with the real intention to seek its own goals.

Info from the US Air Force on the MKO

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less." Louis Carrol

BIN LADEN DEAD




OSAMA bin Laden's supporters yesterday issued a statement on the internet saying he was dead.

The claims, repeated in the Al Bayan newspaper in the United Arab Emirates, said that the al-Qaeda terror chief died when the Americans bombed the Tora Bora mountains in Afghanistan.

The details tally with dates of bombing missions in which US intelligence experts suspected that he may have been killed.

The newspaper's story, headlined, "Yes, Osama bin Laden is dead but the Jihad will continue until Judgement Day'', quotes witness Shahid Ayan saying he perished on December 10, 2001.

He said: "On the 24th night of Ramadan (Dec 10) and at a late hour, there were some scary explosions in the place where Osama bin Laden's cave was.

"The cave was completely erased from the ground and became nothing. This was the only cave of the 15 that was destroyed by an enormous 52ft missile and there is no doubt that bin Laden died.''

Capital punishment turns the state into a murderer. But imprisonment turns the state into a gay dungeon-master.
- Emo Philips

Originally Posted by John Wayne

BIN LADEN DEAD

nah i juz seens thuh dude thuh othur day
he wuz a gittin some wooppee wit hed old lady donn by thuh trane traks.
dead hah! dude laden aint dead he alive dude alive i seens im!

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Immature cartoons deleted...

Like I declared last summer, dude:

"You have become a stupid old, worn out comic strip, Stonewall.
All yellowed around the edges from such extreme bitterness and decay.
Unfunny is the name of it. And you are a cheap caricature of the
very supposed 'garbage' you rail against."


Yep. :wink:

Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
- Emo Phillips