Realisticly any country could be considered a thread. France, Britain, China, Mexico, Malaysia, whoever. The key is the definition of threat. If we go by Bush's definition, there's no way in hell Iraq was a threat to the U.S. or U.S. interests.
By any generic definition I'd say Iraq certainly wasn't the greatest threat to the U.S. or U.S. interests. There are many more countries that would be put on a list ahead of Iraq. By most realistic calculations Iraq would be very far down on the list.
I don't know how you can stand up straight. You must be perpetually dizzy from spinning.
Somewhere in there you admit that he is a threat, I think,
So once again, the issue is not "was he a threat?" but to what degree he was a threat? You guys seem to be arguing just to argue.
The president seems to think that the possibility of rogue nations passing WMD was the real threat. here is a small snippet from the famed SOU speech that is often overlooked.
"Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation."
If you want to argue about wether or not we will find WMD in Iraq, that is worth talking about. But to say the threat was not there is to Ignore what SH has declared over and over. "The harvest in the Mother of Battles has succeeded ... the greater harvest and its yield will be in the time to come..." or "The Arab countries should be asking themselves,'Who will fire the 40th missile against Israel?'" or "We will chase [Americans] to every corner at all times. No high tower of steel will protect them against the fire of truth." or "Does [America] realize the meaning of every Iraqi becoming a missile that can cross to countries and cities?" or "One chemical weapon fired in a moment of despair could cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands."
Laurie Mylroie in "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein´s Unfinished War against America," tracks four different acts of terrorism against the US she says has saddam's fingerprints on them. here is a link to a review if you can't get your hands on it;
The phrase "imminent threat" was used many times by many people to summarize the Admininstration's position. The LA Times headline I linked to, showed that, and it's not something from just recently since it has become a matter of debate, but a year ago, when reporting on the State of the Union speech.
And, as long as you are checking out spinsanity, check out
Well, I guess you don't care what the President actually said, then. You and many others are pursuing a failed argument. As soon as someone takes the time to go back and read the transcript they see you are spinning. "He said the words "imminent threat" so that means he thought Iraq was an imminent threat", works with only fellow radical liberal democrats that hate this president. Plucking a few words out of a sentence to twist the meaning and then implying that you know better than him what he was thinking, even though context proves you wrong, is just silly.
In recent months, Democrats have criticized President Bush for claiming that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed an imminent threat to the United States. Ted Kennedy said it. Wes Clark said it. And plenty of others have, too.
But now Republicans say it?s a bum rap. A chorus of conservative columnists and talk-show hosts claims that nobody in the administration ever said any such thing.
?No member of the administration,? conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan recently wrote, ?used the term ?imminent threat? to describe Saddam Hussein?s Iraq. No one. ? [Wesley] Clark is repeating a lie that has been thoroughly exposed on the Internet and elsewhere, a lie that even The New York Times has stopped repeating.?
Could this possibly be true? Could all our memories be so faulty?
In a word, no.
Let?s start by looking at what the president?s spokesmen said about the ?imminent threat? claim before things in Iraq started going sour.
Last October, a reporter put this to Ari Fleischer: ?Ari, the president has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth.?
Fleischer?s answer? ?Yes.?
In January, Wolf Blitzer asked Dan Bartlett: ?Is [Saddam] an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home.?
Bartlett?s answer? ?Well, of course he is.?
A month after the war, another reporter asked Fleischer, ?Well, we went to war, didn?t we, to find these ? because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn?t that true??
Fleischer?s answer? ?Absolutely.?
I could go on. But I trust you get the point.
It?s true that administration officials avoided the phrase ?imminent threat.? But in making their argument, Sullivan and others are relying on a crafty verbal dodge ? sort of like ?I didn?t accuse you of eating the cake. All I said was that you sliced it up and put it in your mouth.?
The issue is not the precise words the president and his deputies used but what arguments they made. And on that count, the record is devastatingly clear.
To call something an imminent threat means that the blow could come at any moment and that any delay in confronting it risks disaster. Webster?s defines ?imminent? as ?ready to take place; especially: hanging threateningly over one?s head.? That gets it just about right. The White House described the Iraqi threat as a sword over our heads, a threat we had to confront now.
With this in mind, consider a few more examples.
Here?s how Vice President Cheney described the threat in August 2002: ?What we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is give in to wishful thinking or willful blindness.?
A month later, Bush called Iraq an ?urgent threat to America.?
The next month, he described the threat like this: ?Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. ? Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof ? the smoking gun ? that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.?
Or Fleischer two days after that: ?Another way to look at this is if Saddam Hussein holds a gun to your head even while he denies that he actually owns a gun, how safe should you feel??
Or the president justifying war as it got under way: ?The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.?
For more than six months, Bush and his top deputies told Americans that Iraq posed a grave, immediate and imminent threat. Delay risked horrors like WMD terrorist handoffs or mushroom clouds billowing over American cities.
Some now point to statements in which they seem to declaim the idea of an imminent threat. In the State of the Union, for instance, the president said: ?Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late.?
But here the president isn?t ruling out an ?imminent threat,? but rather just bending the concept out of all recognition by arguing that the threat will be ?imminent? only when we get a formal warning from the potential attackers. And that?s just more of the same rhetorical gobbledygook and obfuscation.
Critics like Sullivan want to put the onus on Democrats to untangle these silly word games if they want to talk about what we all know happened in the run-up to the war.
But that?s just not how it works. Just as they can?t undo what they did, the White House and its supporters can?t undo what they said.
There?s no use denying it. It was only a year ago. We were there. We remember
I don't know how you can stand up straight. You must be perpetually dizzy from spinning.
Somewhere in there you admit that he is a threat, I think,
So once again, the issue is not "was he a threat?" but to what degree he was a threat? You guys seem to be arguing just to argue.
Why don't you address what I said? You think that I admit that he was a threat? Don't be a tool. Anyone in this world is a threat. If that's the burden of proof you need to support a war then we're back to the same scenario we were in before, your psychosis. You can't kill everyone who might be against you unless you're willing to kill everyone. That's insane.
Saddam didn't pay terrorists. Provide some proof if you want to make that connection.
Did you even read my previous reply to you? I do not fear muslims. If anything, I "fear" apathists and pacifists.
Yeah, the one full of rhetoric?
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
The only predisposition i have about the palestinian issue is that these people are being misled and brainwashed by radical factions of the Muslim faith. I don't hate them individually. Would you live over there? I don't see large groups of Americans fighting for tracts of land anywhere in the MI.
If I were POTUS I would declare war on those that are misleading these people; Terrorists and those that support them. Oh BTW I would not want to be POTUS right now. That is a bold move and requires the brass of an old west gun fighter
OK, so you're not against Palestinians but you're against terrorists. But by your definition Palestinians are basically terrorists and a threat, so does that mean we should kill them too?
Brass of an old west gun fighter? You must be starstruck. At least you're willing to admit that Bush's actions are irrational. But unfortunately most people don't realize using the brass of an old west gun fighter is not how civilized intelligent people settle their differences anymore. It is how the terrorists settle their differences of course. Good analogy if I may say so myself.
What we see in these documents is that Bush is relying on the ability to attack a country that is an imminent threat even though Iraq wasn't an imminent threat. Bush wants the definition changed so he can attack behind the veil of an 'imminent threat' without the country being attacked actually being an imminent threat.
These links don't help Bush's case (or yours) at all.
OK, so you're not against Palestinians but you're against terrorists. But by your definition Palestinians are basically terrorists and a threat, so does that mean we should kill them too?
Brass of an old west gun fighter? You must be starstruck. At least you're willing to admit that Bush's actions are irrational. But unfortunately most people don't realize using the brass of an old west gun fighter is not how civilized intelligent people settle their differences anymore. It is how the terrorists settle their differences of course. Good analogy if I may say so myself.
Ok, since you are obviously not as smart as you project, or just like doing the twist, I said the palestinians (obviously not every single one of them) are being led by terrorists. They seem to be going along with whatever bile comes forth from their leaders. Do I suggest killing them? No. What I do suggest is that you attack those coercing them. Bush has done that by removing SH. Maybe the 12 year old palestinian with a rocket launcher is being forced, by whatever means, to kill. Does that make him any less of a threat? Not until those controlling him are removed. I am sure thousands of coerced Iraqis died in the futile fights against the US. They were part of the SH machine like it or not.
Would you quit trying to tie me to some ideology. I was pointing out that it takes some intestinal fortitude to stick to his guns in the face of such vitriolic partisan hatred. I am sure Bush is doing the best he can, just as I suspect any of us here would.
What we see in these documents is that Bush is relying on the ability to attack a country that is an imminent threat even though Iraq wasn't an imminent threat. Bush wants the definition changed so he can attack behind the veil of an 'imminent threat' without the country being attacked actually being an imminent threat.
These links don't help Bush's case (or yours) at all.
No you see this admin wants to be preemptive to avoid further terrorist attacks. They have not hid, veiled, disguised, shadowed, covered or cloaked that philosophy. That is plain as day. That is what you are missing. being preemptive to avoid attacks dovetails with the whole not waiting till the threat is imminent idea. Iraq posed a definite threat because it was pursuing WMD and WMD programs. SH openly and repeatedly threatened the US and it's interests and attempted an assassination on a former president.
For god's sake, jimmac, stop the madness....his OWN links (which he says are just some of many) not only don't support his contention, but refute it. And when called on it, he says that he knew you would respond that way, and that you should have found your own links to support his views?
Naples and Spunk really are NEVER going to be swayed form their opinions...I cannot tell if they are simply posting to get a reaction, or if they are truly that myopic about the issues, but it is clear that at this point nobody reading this thread with an open mind is going to be swayed by their arguments, so this truly is a waste of time.
I am not saying there are not reasonable arguments ot be made on that side (although I personally do not find them compelling), but I AM saying that these two simply are not up to the task, or are pulling your leg.
For god's sake, jimmac, stop the madness....his OWN links (which he says are just some of many) not only don't support his contention, but refute it. And when called on it, he says that he knew you would respond that way, and that you should have found your own links to support his views?
Naples and Spunk really are NEVER going to be swayed form their opinions...I cannot tell if they are simply posting to get a reaction, or if they are truly that myopic about the issues, but it is clear that at this point nobody reading this thread with an open mind is going to be swayed by their arguments, so this truly is a waste of time.
I am not saying there are not reasonable arguments ot be made on that side (although I personally do not find them compelling), but I AM saying that these two simply are not up to the task, or are pulling your leg.
Fish
Hey I know! I"m perfectly willing to let this die at this point ( as there isn't anything here ) if everyone else is. However they'll be back on some other thread you know.
The only solution I think is for us all to agree not to respond to them in the future when they come waltzing in here with their nonsense.
Can you do that?
As far as posting to get a reaction? I think that might be part of it. I can't believe anyone could really be that stupid. However there are people out there that won't look at the real situation no matter what. Doing that might mean looking at themselves and reason for years. Most people don't like to reevaluate.
" Rashid Nasser, 30, said his family received $25,000 from Iraq after his brother, Jamal, blew himself up near a Jewish settlement in the West Bank in 2001, killing only himself. Nasser said he is using the money to build a house for his family.
The family of 60-year-old Ahmed Hamdouni, who was killed in fighting in the Jenin refugee camp last year, said it spent the $10,000 Iraqi stipend to help two of his children stay in medical school. "It's a small amount of money, but it helps," said Majed Hamdouni, 17. "
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
Realisticly any country could be considered a thread. France, Britain, China, Mexico, Malaysia, whoever. The key is the definition of threat. If we go by Bush's definition, there's no way in hell Iraq was a threat to the U.S. or U.S. interests.
By any generic definition I'd say Iraq certainly wasn't the greatest threat to the U.S. or U.S. interests. There are many more countries that would be put on a list ahead of Iraq. By most realistic calculations Iraq would be very far down on the list.
I don't know how you can stand up straight. You must be perpetually dizzy from spinning.
Somewhere in there you admit that he is a threat, I think,
So once again, the issue is not "was he a threat?" but to what degree he was a threat? You guys seem to be arguing just to argue.
The president seems to think that the possibility of rogue nations passing WMD was the real threat. here is a small snippet from the famed SOU speech that is often overlooked.
"Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation."
If you want to argue about wether or not we will find WMD in Iraq, that is worth talking about. But to say the threat was not there is to Ignore what SH has declared over and over. "The harvest in the Mother of Battles has succeeded ... the greater harvest and its yield will be in the time to come..." or "The Arab countries should be asking themselves,'Who will fire the 40th missile against Israel?'" or "We will chase [Americans] to every corner at all times. No high tower of steel will protect them against the fire of truth." or "Does [America] realize the meaning of every Iraqi becoming a missile that can cross to countries and cities?" or "One chemical weapon fired in a moment of despair could cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands."
Laurie Mylroie in "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein´s Unfinished War against America," tracks four different acts of terrorism against the US she says has saddam's fingerprints on them. here is a link to a review if you can't get your hands on it;
http://www.meib.org/articles/0101_irbr.htm
There seems to me, a link to terrorism. Oh yeah, Don't forget he paid palestinian terrorists to kill innocent Israelis.
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Sure, I read that.
The phrase "imminent threat" was used many times by many people to summarize the Admininstration's position. The LA Times headline I linked to, showed that, and it's not something from just recently since it has become a matter of debate, but a year ago, when reporting on the State of the Union speech.
And, as long as you are checking out spinsanity, check out
this article.
Well, I guess you don't care what the President actually said, then. You and many others are pursuing a failed argument. As soon as someone takes the time to go back and read the transcript they see you are spinning. "He said the words "imminent threat" so that means he thought Iraq was an imminent threat", works with only fellow radical liberal democrats that hate this president. Plucking a few words out of a sentence to twist the meaning and then implying that you know better than him what he was thinking, even though context proves you wrong, is just silly.
Silly word games and weapons of mass destruction
In recent months, Democrats have criticized President Bush for claiming that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed an imminent threat to the United States. Ted Kennedy said it. Wes Clark said it. And plenty of others have, too.
But now Republicans say it?s a bum rap. A chorus of conservative columnists and talk-show hosts claims that nobody in the administration ever said any such thing.
?No member of the administration,? conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan recently wrote, ?used the term ?imminent threat? to describe Saddam Hussein?s Iraq. No one. ? [Wesley] Clark is repeating a lie that has been thoroughly exposed on the Internet and elsewhere, a lie that even The New York Times has stopped repeating.?
Could this possibly be true? Could all our memories be so faulty?
In a word, no.
Let?s start by looking at what the president?s spokesmen said about the ?imminent threat? claim before things in Iraq started going sour.
Last October, a reporter put this to Ari Fleischer: ?Ari, the president has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth.?
Fleischer?s answer? ?Yes.?
In January, Wolf Blitzer asked Dan Bartlett: ?Is [Saddam] an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home.?
Bartlett?s answer? ?Well, of course he is.?
A month after the war, another reporter asked Fleischer, ?Well, we went to war, didn?t we, to find these ? because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn?t that true??
Fleischer?s answer? ?Absolutely.?
I could go on. But I trust you get the point.
It?s true that administration officials avoided the phrase ?imminent threat.? But in making their argument, Sullivan and others are relying on a crafty verbal dodge ? sort of like ?I didn?t accuse you of eating the cake. All I said was that you sliced it up and put it in your mouth.?
The issue is not the precise words the president and his deputies used but what arguments they made. And on that count, the record is devastatingly clear.
To call something an imminent threat means that the blow could come at any moment and that any delay in confronting it risks disaster. Webster?s defines ?imminent? as ?ready to take place; especially: hanging threateningly over one?s head.? That gets it just about right. The White House described the Iraqi threat as a sword over our heads, a threat we had to confront now.
With this in mind, consider a few more examples.
Here?s how Vice President Cheney described the threat in August 2002: ?What we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is give in to wishful thinking or willful blindness.?
A month later, Bush called Iraq an ?urgent threat to America.?
The next month, he described the threat like this: ?Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. ? Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof ? the smoking gun ? that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.?
Or Fleischer two days after that: ?Another way to look at this is if Saddam Hussein holds a gun to your head even while he denies that he actually owns a gun, how safe should you feel??
Or the president justifying war as it got under way: ?The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.?
For more than six months, Bush and his top deputies told Americans that Iraq posed a grave, immediate and imminent threat. Delay risked horrors like WMD terrorist handoffs or mushroom clouds billowing over American cities.
Some now point to statements in which they seem to declaim the idea of an imminent threat. In the State of the Union, for instance, the president said: ?Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late.?
But here the president isn?t ruling out an ?imminent threat,? but rather just bending the concept out of all recognition by arguing that the threat will be ?imminent? only when we get a formal warning from the potential attackers. And that?s just more of the same rhetorical gobbledygook and obfuscation.
Critics like Sullivan want to put the onus on Democrats to untangle these silly word games if they want to talk about what we all know happened in the run-up to the war.
But that?s just not how it works. Just as they can?t undo what they did, the White House and its supporters can?t undo what they said.
There?s no use denying it. It was only a year ago. We were there. We remember
Originally posted by majorspunk
Leave it to Bunge. He's figured it out. Mix France, Britain, China, Mexico, Malaysia, and whoever into the pot, and there you have it.
You haven't said anything of value. You're avoiding the point. Go back and try again.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I don't know how you can stand up straight. You must be perpetually dizzy from spinning.
Somewhere in there you admit that he is a threat, I think,
So once again, the issue is not "was he a threat?" but to what degree he was a threat? You guys seem to be arguing just to argue.
Why don't you address what I said? You think that I admit that he was a threat? Don't be a tool. Anyone in this world is a threat. If that's the burden of proof you need to support a war then we're back to the same scenario we were in before, your psychosis. You can't kill everyone who might be against you unless you're willing to kill everyone. That's insane.
Saddam didn't pay terrorists. Provide some proof if you want to make that connection.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Did you even read my previous reply to you? I do not fear muslims. If anything, I "fear" apathists and pacifists.
Yeah, the one full of rhetoric?
Originally posted by NaplesX
The only predisposition i have about the palestinian issue is that these people are being misled and brainwashed by radical factions of the Muslim faith. I don't hate them individually. Would you live over there? I don't see large groups of Americans fighting for tracts of land anywhere in the MI.
If I were POTUS I would declare war on those that are misleading these people; Terrorists and those that support them. Oh BTW I would not want to be POTUS right now. That is a bold move and requires the brass of an old west gun fighter
OK, so you're not against Palestinians but you're against terrorists. But by your definition Palestinians are basically terrorists and a threat, so does that mean we should kill them too?
Brass of an old west gun fighter? You must be starstruck. At least you're willing to admit that Bush's actions are irrational. But unfortunately most people don't realize using the brass of an old west gun fighter is not how civilized intelligent people settle their differences anymore. It is how the terrorists settle their differences of course. Good analogy if I may say so myself.
Originally posted by FormerLurker
http://www.hillnews.com/marshall/110503.aspx
Wow a whole article based on inferences. I am glad you buy into that whole bit. Just another case of the blind following the blind, I suppose.
Originally posted by Scott
Maybe this will help.
SpinSanity did a review of the rhetoric over "imminent threat".
Sorting out the "imminent threat" debate
What we see in these documents is that Bush is relying on the ability to attack a country that is an imminent threat even though Iraq wasn't an imminent threat. Bush wants the definition changed so he can attack behind the veil of an 'imminent threat' without the country being attacked actually being an imminent threat.
These links don't help Bush's case (or yours) at all.
Originally posted by bunge
Yeah, the one full of rhetoric?
OK, so you're not against Palestinians but you're against terrorists. But by your definition Palestinians are basically terrorists and a threat, so does that mean we should kill them too?
Brass of an old west gun fighter? You must be starstruck. At least you're willing to admit that Bush's actions are irrational. But unfortunately most people don't realize using the brass of an old west gun fighter is not how civilized intelligent people settle their differences anymore. It is how the terrorists settle their differences of course. Good analogy if I may say so myself.
Ok, since you are obviously not as smart as you project, or just like doing the twist, I said the palestinians (obviously not every single one of them) are being led by terrorists. They seem to be going along with whatever bile comes forth from their leaders. Do I suggest killing them? No. What I do suggest is that you attack those coercing them. Bush has done that by removing SH. Maybe the 12 year old palestinian with a rocket launcher is being forced, by whatever means, to kill. Does that make him any less of a threat? Not until those controlling him are removed. I am sure thousands of coerced Iraqis died in the futile fights against the US. They were part of the SH machine like it or not.
Would you quit trying to tie me to some ideology. I was pointing out that it takes some intestinal fortitude to stick to his guns in the face of such vitriolic partisan hatred. I am sure Bush is doing the best he can, just as I suspect any of us here would.
Originally posted by bunge
What we see in these documents is that Bush is relying on the ability to attack a country that is an imminent threat even though Iraq wasn't an imminent threat. Bush wants the definition changed so he can attack behind the veil of an 'imminent threat' without the country being attacked actually being an imminent threat.
These links don't help Bush's case (or yours) at all.
No you see this admin wants to be preemptive to avoid further terrorist attacks. They have not hid, veiled, disguised, shadowed, covered or cloaked that philosophy. That is plain as day. That is what you are missing. being preemptive to avoid attacks dovetails with the whole not waiting till the threat is imminent idea. Iraq posed a definite threat because it was pursuing WMD and WMD programs. SH openly and repeatedly threatened the US and it's interests and attempted an assassination on a former president.
Originally posted by bunge
Saddam didn't pay terrorists. Provide some proof if you want to make that connection.
here are some of many articles available through a quick google search.
http://www.charleston.net/stories/03..._13check.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in543981.shtml
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77248,00.html
http://www.cyberdyaryo.com/features/f2003_0321_06.htm
http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stori...40402032.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/pr...TICLE_ID=28768
http://www.iran-press-service.com/ar...ism_161102.htm
Originally posted by NaplesX
here are some of many articles available through a quick google search.
http://www.charleston.net/stories/03..._13check.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in543981.shtml
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77248,00.html
http://www.cyberdyaryo.com/features/f2003_0321_06.htm
http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stori...40402032.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/pr...TICLE_ID=28768
http://www.iran-press-service.com/ar...ism_161102.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------
" Saddam gives checks to Palestinian families "
-----------------------------------------------------------
The closest one was from Fox News :
-----------------------------------------------------------
" Israel: Iraq Aids Palestinian Terror, But No Links to Al Qaeda "
-----------------------------------------------------------
He gave money to the families of dead terrorists.
That's your proof?
I'm sorry but I think it's you who are the piece of work!
Originally posted by jimmac
-----------------------------------------------------------
" Saddam gives checks to Palestinian families "
-----------------------------------------------------------
That's your proof?
See i knew you would reply that way. Did you do a simple google search on the subject?
There are thousands of articles from the whole range of sources that confirm this issue. That is not enough for you?
Originally posted by NaplesX
See i knew you would reply that way. Did you do a simple google search on the subject?
There are thousands of articles from the whole range of sources that confirm this issue. That is not enough for you?
Provide something a little better than you have. If they're so plentyful out there as you say it should be easy.
Originally posted by jimmac
Provide something a little better than you have. If they're so plentyful out there as you say it should be easy.
8 random links are not enough for you?
Naples and Spunk really are NEVER going to be swayed form their opinions...I cannot tell if they are simply posting to get a reaction, or if they are truly that myopic about the issues, but it is clear that at this point nobody reading this thread with an open mind is going to be swayed by their arguments, so this truly is a waste of time.
I am not saying there are not reasonable arguments ot be made on that side (although I personally do not find them compelling), but I AM saying that these two simply are not up to the task, or are pulling your leg.
Fish
Originally posted by NaplesX
8 random links are not enough for you?
Uh, he gave the money to their families. No links to Al Queda. The title from the one from Fox pretty much invalidates what your trying to find there.
Originally posted by fishdoc
For god's sake, jimmac, stop the madness....his OWN links (which he says are just some of many) not only don't support his contention, but refute it. And when called on it, he says that he knew you would respond that way, and that you should have found your own links to support his views?
Naples and Spunk really are NEVER going to be swayed form their opinions...I cannot tell if they are simply posting to get a reaction, or if they are truly that myopic about the issues, but it is clear that at this point nobody reading this thread with an open mind is going to be swayed by their arguments, so this truly is a waste of time.
I am not saying there are not reasonable arguments ot be made on that side (although I personally do not find them compelling), but I AM saying that these two simply are not up to the task, or are pulling your leg.
Fish
Hey I know! I"m perfectly willing to let this die at this point ( as there isn't anything here ) if everyone else is. However they'll be back on some other thread you know.
The only solution I think is for us all to agree not to respond to them in the future when they come waltzing in here with their nonsense.
Can you do that?
As far as posting to get a reaction? I think that might be part of it. I can't believe anyone could really be that stupid. However there are people out there that won't look at the real situation no matter what. Doing that might mean looking at themselves and reason for years. Most people don't like to reevaluate.
Originally posted by jimmac
Uh, he gave the money to their families. No links to Al Queda. The title from the one from Fox pretty much invalidates what your trying to find there.
You obviously did not read it through. I linked to it because it confirms the link between Iraq and Palestinian terror groups.
You are becoming so very predictable.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You obviously did not read it through. I linked to it because it confirms the link between Iraq and Palestinian terror groups.
You are becoming so very predictable.
-----------------------------------------------------------
" Rashid Nasser, 30, said his family received $25,000 from Iraq after his brother, Jamal, blew himself up near a Jewish settlement in the West Bank in 2001, killing only himself. Nasser said he is using the money to build a house for his family.
The family of 60-year-old Ahmed Hamdouni, who was killed in fighting in the Jenin refugee camp last year, said it spent the $10,000 Iraqi stipend to help two of his children stay in medical school. "It's a small amount of money, but it helps," said Majed Hamdouni, 17. "
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oh, I read through.