With apologies to Scott, he's making at least as much sense as many of you.
Don't just troll, try and add something. What arguments are unclear? You see, if you explain what's unclear, someone can reiterate and clarify their point.
Nearly two years ago, following deadly attacks on our country, we began a systematic campaign against terrorism. These months have been a time of new responsibilities, and sacrifice, and national resolve, and great progress.
America and a broad coalition acted first in Afghanistan, by destroying the training camps of terror, and removing the regime that harbored al Qaeda. In a series of raids and actions around the world, nearly two-thirds of al Qaeda's known leaders have been captured or killed, and we continue on al Qaeda's trail. We have exposed terrorist front groups, seized terrorist accounts, taken new measures to protect our homeland, and uncovered sleeper cells inside the United States. And we acted in Iraq, where the former regime sponsored terror, possessed and used weapons of mass destruction, and for 12 years defied the clear demands of the United Nations Security Council. Our coalition enforced these international demands in one of the swiftest and most humane military campaigns in history.
Bush isn´t doing much to educate people of the nature of the link between Saddam and 911.
Also notice that the war is defended with the same WoMD rhetoric as usual. But this time all he is saying is Saddam "had" them. Yesterday? 12 years ago?
Two dozen members of Osama bin Laden's family were urgently evacuated from the United States in the first days following the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, according to the Saudi ambassador to Washington.
Wrong.
-- EXACTLY what is wrong with this? I see nothing wrong.
Reuters "news"
quote:
Members of Osama bin Laden's family were allowed to fly out of the US shortly after the September 11 terror attacks ...
Wrong.
-- EXACTLY what is wrong with this? I see nothing wrong.
NYT source
quote:
"In the first days after the attacks on Sept. 11, the Saudi Arabian ambasador to Washington, Prince Bandar ibn Sultan, supervised the urgent evacuation of 24 members of Osama bin Laden's extended family from ther United States ...
Wrong.
-- EXACTLY what is wrong with this? I see nothing wrong.
"First days" does not mean "the day" it means in the immediate period following 911.
So, Scotty boy, do you deny there where secret flights during the period of grounding or not?
Do you deny that the people in discussion were evacuated from the US in the period following 911 or not?
My main point being that Hussein was/is very predictable in terms of how he will react with the media, the kinds of things he will say, etc. He was interested in playing the "media game" with the west and in gaining popularity from other neighboring nations.
From my perspective, it seems unlikely that the man leading North Korea today is deeply interested in photo opportunities, public opinion in neighboring countries, or anything else we might be used to. He cares about one thing above all else: perpetuating the regime started by his Father, and about the opinion of the North Korean people (and no one else).
Therefore, the usual media tactics employed by Bush & Friends might easily end up backfiring in a bad way. This man is anything but predictable as Hussein mostly was. Indeed I saw evidence that he may be the bipolar sort; calm and calculating one moment, on the brink of inciting a horrible war the next. I think for him, watching the regime and propaganda machine he and his father built fail, would be more distasteful than watching than millions of N. Koreans die (due to any sort of large scale conflict).
Dead North Koreans can be made into heros and martyrs very easily in North Korea. The country is so isolated and so well indoctrinated, none dare oppose the party line. There is no "satellite feed" streaming into N. Korean televisions -- where there are televisions at all. There is no internet, no international radio, no competing networks.
AFAICT, there is one and only one source of information: the government. IOW, most N. Koreans aren't even to the point of wondering: should we question the government? When you have been taught since age 4 that your leader is your father, you accept that what he tells you is the truth.
Again, very scary stuff. Much higher level of indoctrination than in Iraq or other oppressed nations we know. It's very 3rd Reich-ish stuff. Hitler youth and all that... very similar.
The Bush Administration had better study this nation and their foreign policy options very carefully, or we're going to end up with a problem much more serious than Iraq or 9-11 ever was. And I'll say it again in 3 days if you want me to.
[email protected] think 'our" Scotts on these boards are such zealots that they're actually quite entertaining. Like watching monkeys trying to fit a round peg in a square hole.
Sixty-nine percent of Americans said they thought it at least likely that Hussein was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to the latest Washington Post poll. That impression, which exists despite the fact that the hijackers were mostly Saudi nationals acting for al Qaeda, is broadly shared by Democrats, Republicans and independents.
The great irony of this is that it was the war on Iraq that brought Hussein's people and al Qaeda together.
Guys, pointing out gaping holes in Scott's logic is easy enough; no need to personally attack him.
Scott, being conservative and defending the current admin's lies and blunders are two very different things. Heck, some republican's have been vocally critical of the president.
The great irony of this is that it was the war on Iraq that brought Hussein's people and al Qaeda together.
From Bush's speech, now its all about the war on terrorism. Equally ironic is the fact that the Bush invasion of Iraq has destroyed the global alliance against terrorism formed after 911.
I'm sorry. I got bored with this thread and just now came back. For those that can't read and understand the major problem with most of the "journalism" about this event is that they say the bin Ladens et. al. left the country in "the days" (delightfully ambiguous amount of time) when we have no solid information on when they were allowed to leave. Maybe VF will shed some light on it.
well if you read the link to the story i posted from the national review the fbi only got "day-of-departure" interviews with the bin laden 24. to bill carter that was sufficient, but to a good american citizen (me)
it seems hardly that, especially since the family probably was funding al queda, directly or indirectly, which doesn't matter as equal offenders have had accounts frozen and been prosecuted.
the other thing i don't particularly understand is how come no one wants
to take responsibility for the allowance of their departure. certainly their safety could have been protected while they were detained for suitable interviews.
the national review is also specific as to when they left. "one week after the bombings" the 18th.
Those who think Saddam had anything to do with 9-11 are contradicted by evidence that includes 'the bleeding obvious' (aka logic).
Al-Qaeda were a threat to Saddam's regime.
Why do people insist on what they do NOT know? What has been "bleeding obvious" is that Saddam and Bin Laden have long shared a common anti-American purpose. According to this article (published last February in the WSJ) by the mid 1990s the Iraqi government no longer saw Al Qaeda as a threat to it's power.
Quote:
... As long ago as the bombing of the U.S. military offices in Riyadh in 1995, a November 14 Agence France Presse report from Baghdad quoted an official Iraq newspaper as saying, "The Tigers of the Gulf have shaken the Saudi throne and made Washington tremble." It praised the emergence of a "secret Saudi opposition movement" and predicted "dramatic events" in the country. A core bin Laden goal is of course to oust the U.S. from Saudi Arabia and topple its monarchy.
More recently, and eerily, a July 21, 2001, commentary in the Iraqi publication Al-Nasiriya praised bin Laden: "In this man's heart you'll find an insistence, a strange determination that he will reach one day the tunnels of the White House and will bomb it with everything that is in it."
The article recounts bin Laden's attacks on U.S. targets and U.S. efforts "to pressure the Taliban movement so that it would hand them bin Laden, while he continues to smile and still thinks seriously, with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House."
The commentary is ominously prescient, especially since it could never have appeared without official sanction. "Bin Laden is a healthy phenomenon in the Arab spirit," it continues, speaking about his goal to "drive off the Marines" from Arabia. Most eerily of all, the writer adds that those Marines "will be going away because the revolutionary bin Laden is insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting. That the man... will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs." Is that a reference to Sinatra's "New York, New York"? Did Saddam know what would happen two months later?
I don't know whether or not Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 and neither do you, Harald.
Comments
could you also dispute this view of the events found in the national review?
(while you're there friends, you can join the conservative book club! take 3 books for a dollar each.)
Originally posted by Scott
Just because people believe something doesn't mean they were misinformed. Saddam had many good reason to attack the US.
Some people believe OJ is innocent even though there is nothing to suggest he is.
Sigh.
Scott.
Scott, Scott, Scott.
You're getting silly now.
Stop trying to further this far fetched idea with no substance.
Originally posted by Matsu
With apologies to Scott, he's making at least as much sense as many of you.
Don't just troll, try and add something. What arguments are unclear? You see, if you explain what's unclear, someone can reiterate and clarify their point.
Nearly two years ago, following deadly attacks on our country, we began a systematic campaign against terrorism. These months have been a time of new responsibilities, and sacrifice, and national resolve, and great progress.
America and a broad coalition acted first in Afghanistan, by destroying the training camps of terror, and removing the regime that harbored al Qaeda. In a series of raids and actions around the world, nearly two-thirds of al Qaeda's known leaders have been captured or killed, and we continue on al Qaeda's trail. We have exposed terrorist front groups, seized terrorist accounts, taken new measures to protect our homeland, and uncovered sleeper cells inside the United States. And we acted in Iraq, where the former regime sponsored terror, possessed and used weapons of mass destruction, and for 12 years defied the clear demands of the United Nations Security Council. Our coalition enforced these international demands in one of the swiftest and most humane military campaigns in history.
Bush isn´t doing much to educate people of the nature of the link between Saddam and 911.
Also notice that the war is defended with the same WoMD rhetoric as usual. But this time all he is saying is Saddam "had" them. Yesterday? 12 years ago?
Spin.
quote:
Two dozen members of Osama bin Laden's family were urgently evacuated from the United States in the first days following the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, according to the Saudi ambassador to Washington.
Wrong.
-- EXACTLY what is wrong with this? I see nothing wrong.
Reuters "news"
quote:
Members of Osama bin Laden's family were allowed to fly out of the US shortly after the September 11 terror attacks ...
Wrong.
-- EXACTLY what is wrong with this? I see nothing wrong.
NYT source
quote:
"In the first days after the attacks on Sept. 11, the Saudi Arabian ambasador to Washington, Prince Bandar ibn Sultan, supervised the urgent evacuation of 24 members of Osama bin Laden's extended family from ther United States ...
Wrong.
-- EXACTLY what is wrong with this? I see nothing wrong.
"First days" does not mean "the day" it means in the immediate period following 911.
So, Scotty boy, do you deny there where secret flights during the period of grounding or not?
Do you deny that the people in discussion were evacuated from the US in the period following 911 or not?
Uh because if you do, you need medication.
Originally posted by Harald
Are you talking about GWB here?
No. I was referring Kim Jung Il.
My main point being that Hussein was/is very predictable in terms of how he will react with the media, the kinds of things he will say, etc. He was interested in playing the "media game" with the west and in gaining popularity from other neighboring nations.
From my perspective, it seems unlikely that the man leading North Korea today is deeply interested in photo opportunities, public opinion in neighboring countries, or anything else we might be used to. He cares about one thing above all else: perpetuating the regime started by his Father, and about the opinion of the North Korean people (and no one else).
Therefore, the usual media tactics employed by Bush & Friends might easily end up backfiring in a bad way. This man is anything but predictable as Hussein mostly was. Indeed I saw evidence that he may be the bipolar sort; calm and calculating one moment, on the brink of inciting a horrible war the next. I think for him, watching the regime and propaganda machine he and his father built fail, would be more distasteful than watching than millions of N. Koreans die (due to any sort of large scale conflict).
Dead North Koreans can be made into heros and martyrs very easily in North Korea. The country is so isolated and so well indoctrinated, none dare oppose the party line. There is no "satellite feed" streaming into N. Korean televisions -- where there are televisions at all. There is no internet, no international radio, no competing networks.
AFAICT, there is one and only one source of information: the government. IOW, most N. Koreans aren't even to the point of wondering: should we question the government? When you have been taught since age 4 that your leader is your father, you accept that what he tells you is the truth.
Again, very scary stuff. Much higher level of indoctrination than in Iraq or other oppressed nations we know. It's very 3rd Reich-ish stuff. Hitler youth and all that... very similar.
The Bush Administration had better study this nation and their foreign policy options very carefully, or we're going to end up with a problem much more serious than Iraq or 9-11 ever was. And I'll say it again in 3 days if you want me to.
[Edits made for clarification, spelling]
Originally posted by Moogs
No. I was referring Kim Jung Il.
Poor old Kim Jong Il. He cant get a word in edgeways...Will Durst's view:
KJI: Hey, hey..don't forget us, we're N. Korea and we're really dangerous...
GWB: Ahh, tarnation...*shaddup* over there.
KJI: But, but, but... we're in the axis of evil....
GWB: Nah, you're just one of the hubcaps...
KJI: But......we've got the bomb!
GWB: Yeah yeah yeah, and what you gonna deliver it with? Musk ox?
KJI: No, we got a 3 stage rocket that can hit California!
GWB: California? Oh really?
KJI: Yes
GWB: Let's talk.
Sixty-nine percent of Americans said they thought it at least likely that Hussein was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to the latest Washington Post poll. That impression, which exists despite the fact that the hijackers were mostly Saudi nationals acting for al Qaeda, is broadly shared by Democrats, Republicans and independents.
The great irony of this is that it was the war on Iraq that brought Hussein's people and al Qaeda together.
Read....
and
Enjoy
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/04/po...partner=GOOGLE
Originally posted by Scott
Let' s see
CBS
Wrong.
Reuters "news"
Wrong.
NYT source
Wrong.
So ... it's wrong. When the "news" sources report things that aren't true then they are wrong. It's simple.
Scott, being conservative and defending the current admin's lies and blunders are two very different things. Heck, some republican's have been vocally critical of the president.
Originally posted by BRussell
The great irony of this is that it was the war on Iraq that brought Hussein's people and al Qaeda together.
From Bush's speech, now its all about the war on terrorism. Equally ironic is the fact that the Bush invasion of Iraq has destroyed the global alliance against terrorism formed after 911.
C'mon Scott.
it seems hardly that, especially since the family probably was funding al queda, directly or indirectly, which doesn't matter as equal offenders have had accounts frozen and been prosecuted.
the other thing i don't particularly understand is how come no one wants
to take responsibility for the allowance of their departure. certainly their safety could have been protected while they were detained for suitable interviews.
the national review is also specific as to when they left. "one week after the bombings" the 18th.
Originally posted by Harald
Those who think Saddam had anything to do with 9-11 are contradicted by evidence that includes 'the bleeding obvious' (aka logic).
Al-Qaeda were a threat to Saddam's regime.
Why do people insist on what they do NOT know? What has been "bleeding obvious" is that Saddam and Bin Laden have long shared a common anti-American purpose. According to this article (published last February in the WSJ) by the mid 1990s the Iraqi government no longer saw Al Qaeda as a threat to it's power.
... As long ago as the bombing of the U.S. military offices in Riyadh in 1995, a November 14 Agence France Presse report from Baghdad quoted an official Iraq newspaper as saying, "The Tigers of the Gulf have shaken the Saudi throne and made Washington tremble." It praised the emergence of a "secret Saudi opposition movement" and predicted "dramatic events" in the country. A core bin Laden goal is of course to oust the U.S. from Saudi Arabia and topple its monarchy.
More recently, and eerily, a July 21, 2001, commentary in the Iraqi publication Al-Nasiriya praised bin Laden: "In this man's heart you'll find an insistence, a strange determination that he will reach one day the tunnels of the White House and will bomb it with everything that is in it."
The article recounts bin Laden's attacks on U.S. targets and U.S. efforts "to pressure the Taliban movement so that it would hand them bin Laden, while he continues to smile and still thinks seriously, with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House."
The commentary is ominously prescient, especially since it could never have appeared without official sanction. "Bin Laden is a healthy phenomenon in the Arab spirit," it continues, speaking about his goal to "drive off the Marines" from Arabia. Most eerily of all, the writer adds that those Marines "will be going away because the revolutionary bin Laden is insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting. That the man... will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs." Is that a reference to Sinatra's "New York, New York"? Did Saddam know what would happen two months later?
I don't know whether or not Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 and neither do you, Harald.
Bush is a goddamn liar.
Originally posted by BR
"i don't know" != "clear link"
I didn't write anything about a "clear link".