Saddam's Files Show 9/11 Link
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/27/100047.shtml
Without knee-jerking, I will say this is very interesting and hopefully, a beginning of some new major arrests and hopefully some more revelations.
Who knows
Does the WSJ have a good record on stuff like this? I have the impression they do.
I am surprised that no-one has mentioned this yet.
Without knee-jerking, I will say this is very interesting and hopefully, a beginning of some new major arrests and hopefully some more revelations.
Who knows
Does the WSJ have a good record on stuff like this? I have the impression they do.
I am surprised that no-one has mentioned this yet.
Comments
Originally posted by Aquatic
Haven't read this yet but let me tell you the WSJ is as far right as you get.
Ok, but I am talking facts. They seem to be good on facts. They can lean any way they want as long as they report the facts, I am good.
Originally posted by NaplesX
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/27/100047.shtml
I am surprised that no-one has mentioned this yet.
No one has mentioned it yet because it's coming from Newsmax and the WSJ.
Originally posted by midwinter
No one has mentioned it yet because it's coming from Newsmax and the WSJ.
Attack the facts not the messenger, You will quote either in a NY minute if it helps your argument, so what is your point.
Does it make any sense or is it bogus?
Why does every thread melt into stupidity around here?
I am being serious, let's all grow up. I will try hard if you do. Deal?
Originally posted by NaplesX
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/27/100047.shtml
Without knee-jerking, I will say this is very interesting and hopefully, a beginning of some new major arrests and hopefully some more revelations.
Who knows
Does the WSJ have a good record on stuff like this? I have the impression they do.
I am surprised that no-one has mentioned this yet.
OMG newsmax... Too funny. Good source, it ranks up there with the WatchTower. Read the article again. It's nothing but conjecture and "Saddam knew a guy who was in a city where other guys were..." No, the WSJ actually has an almost NY post, or Wash Times record when reporting the facts. These three have been know to put Fox News to shame in the realm of creative misleading sentences go. This newsmax (incredible source) is a secondhand rehash of a WSJ editorial?, article? Who knows because Newsmax didn't source it.
Thanks I needed a
Originally posted by ShawnJ
.....show a link between what? I hope you're talking sausages:
Mmmmm sausage.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Why does every thread melt into stupidity around here?
I am being serious, let's all grow up. I will try hard if you do. Deal?
Yeah . . I wonder why?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Ok, but I am talking facts. They seem to be good on facts. They can lean any way they want as long as they report the facts, I am good.
With all due respect, thats a naive assessment of the media. Reporting the "facts" isn't as simple as that. Which facts do they report? Which facts do they not report? Deciding what "facts" to report influences how the public may interpret an article.
In this case, the Newsmax article, hardly a credible source for breaking news, interprets another article for its readership. The headline is a sweepingly strong statement: "WSJ: Saddam's Files Show 'Direct' 9/11 Link." But the claim within the article is much weaker. Apparently, the "link" between "Saddam Hussein's elite Fedayeen military unit and the terrorist attacks" "is being described" as such. Says who? Note the use of passive voice to evade attributing a source for those comments. Exactly like the vague "mistakes were made" language used to evade responsibility sometimes by the speaker.
Furthermore, it's clear how there is a "link" between that one guy and the terrorist attacks. But the article does make it clear how there is a link between an entire Iraqi military unit and the attacks. Nevermind a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, which the sweeping headline promises. And on top of that-- I think the Saddam/Al Qaeda relationship was spoken of in much different and more concrete terms than that. Just revisit any of President Bush's comments on the "link" and you find them pretty far-fetched given what we now know. This really doesn't prove much of anything at all. Not even approaching the level of claims from our leaders in government.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Attack the facts not the messenger, You will quote either in a NY minute if it helps your argument, so what is your point.
I would attack facts if there were any. There aren't. And then, on top of it, the messenger is completely unreliable. He often can't tell the difference between fact and fiction, and anyone who pays attention to what he says can see that he has a pretty clear agenda--and so he is known to either omit or twist the facts when he gives us his message.
And no, I wouldn't quote it in a NY minute if it helped my argument. I've never quoted the lefty equivalent of Newsmax--something like Z Mag or Counterpunch--even though their pieces are FAR more reputable than the tripe that people swallow from Newsmax.
Does it make any sense or is it bogus?
There's nothing there to make any sense OF. That's the problem.
Why does every thread melt into stupidity around here?
It's not every thread. Look closely, and you'll see a pattern.
I am being serious, let's all grow up. I will try hard if you do. Deal?
It's funny, actually, that you have harped on the level of maturity on these fora lately, since one of the reasons I came here (after MFI self-destructed) was that the boards were filled with older, more knowledgeable people than on Mac boards like Macnn. What baffles me, frankly, is that you have people here who are EXTREMELY informed on a wide range of subjects and yet, when they consistently discredit claims you make (not all, but many), you wonder why it is that you get jumped from left (me, Shawn, Giant, etc) and right (faust9, most notably) every time you say anything.
To be honest and fair, I suggest that if it bothers you so much that you get attacked when you post, stop posting about foreign policy for a little while. It seems pretty clear from your posts that you get your news and commentary from a fairly limited range of sources and all of them seem to be pretty heavily biased (indeed, this thread is pretty indicative of your inability to judge the reliability of even right-wing sources). The people who are attacking you read multiple sources from a wide, wide range of political camps. I suggest that, at least for the immediate future, you try to broaden your reading habits and thinking about foreign policy. Read the Times, read the WaPo, read the International Herald Tribune. If you want to use right-wing sources, at least use reputable ones. Read Andrew Sullivan and The New Republic. Hell, read anything by George Will or William Safire or Robert Novak. If you want the serious left wing, read The Guardian (click on "commentary") or Counterpunch or Z Mag. There are, in addition, tons and tons of blogs out there offering all kinds of commentary on all of this. I suggest that you start with the right-wing Instapundit and the left-wing Daily Kos and Atrios--or even Josh Marshall. Maybe take a solid week and listen to nothing but Air America Radio.
Seriously.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
With all due respect, thats a naive assessment of the media. Reporting the "facts" isn't as simple as that. Which facts do they report? Which facts do they not report? Deciding what "facts" to report influences how the public may interpret an article.
In this case, the Newsmax article, hardly a credible source for breaking news, interprets another article for its readership. The headline is a sweepingly strong statement: "WSJ: Saddam's Files Show 'Direct' 9/11 Link." But the claim within the article is much weaker. Apparently, the "link" between "Saddam Hussein's elite Fedayeen military unit and the terrorist attacks" "is being described" as such. Says who? Note the use of passive voice to evade attributing a source for those comments. Exactly like the vague "mistakes were made" language used to evade responsibility sometimes by the speaker.
Furthermore, it's clear how there is a "link" between that one guy and the terrorist attacks. But the article does make it clear how there is a link between an entire Iraqi military unit and the attacks. Nevermind a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, which the sweeping headline promises. And on top of that-- I think the Saddam/Al Qaeda relationship was spoken of in much different and more concrete terms than that. Just revisit any of President Bush's comments on the "link" and you find them pretty far-fetched given what we now know. This really doesn't prove much of anything at all. Not even approaching the level of claims from our leaders in government.
I read the WSJ article, and you are right it is a little bit vague. But Newsmax did a good job at reporting on it.
It sounded to me that this was a preliminary report on some information from some insiders. So that is the way I took it. I did not accept any of the anonymous stuff as fact, but it does sound intriguing, no?
We shall see, I suppose.
Originally posted by midwinter
I would attack facts if there were any. There aren't. And then, on top of it, the messenger is completely unreliable. He often can't tell the difference between fact and fiction, and anyone who pays attention to what he says can see that he has a pretty clear agenda--and so he is known to either omit or twist the facts when he gives us his message.
And no, I wouldn't quote it in a NY minute if it helped my argument. I've never quoted the lefty equivalent of Newsmax--something like Z Mag or Counterpunch--even though their pieces are FAR more reputable than the tripe that people swallow from Newsmax.
There's nothing there to make any sense OF. That's the problem.
It's not every thread. Look closely, and you'll see a pattern.
It's funny, actually, that you have harped on the level of maturity on these fora lately, since one of the reasons I came here (after MFI self-destructed) was that the boards were filled with older, more knowledgeable people than on Mac boards like Macnn. What baffles me, frankly, is that you have people here who are EXTREMELY informed on a wide range of subjects and yet, when they consistently discredit claims you make (not all, but many), you wonder why it is that you get jumped from left (me, Shawn, Giant, etc) and right (faust9, most notably) every time you say anything.
To be honest and fair, I suggest that if it bothers you so much that you get attacked when you post, stop posting about foreign policy for a little while. It seems pretty clear from your posts that you get your news and commentary from a fairly limited range of sources and all of them seem to be pretty heavily biased (indeed, this thread is pretty indicative of your inability to judge the reliability of even right-wing sources). The people who are attacking you read multiple sources from a wide, wide range of political camps. I suggest that, at least for the immediate future, you try to broaden your reading habits and thinking about foreign policy. Read the Times, read the WaPo, read the International Herald Tribune. If you want to use right-wing sources, at least use reputable ones. Read Andrew Sullivan and The New Republic. Hell, read anything by George Will or William Safire or Robert Novak. If you want the serious left wing, read The Guardian (click on "commentary") or Counterpunch or Z Mag. There are, in addition, tons and tons of blogs out there offering all kinds of commentary on all of this. I suggest that you start with the right-wing Instapundit and the left-wing Daily Kos and Atrios--or even Josh Marshall. Maybe take a solid week and listen to nothing but Air America Radio.
Seriously.
Well, thank you. But I do read all kinds of sources and have read stuff from all of those places that you mentioned. You may want to know that I try to learn something from everything I read, and usually do.
Did you not notice how I worded the initial post? I did not say "Ha, you guys were wrong, see HERE'S THE PROOF." I said it was interesting. That is it. I also thought that if it is true, it may lead to more arrests, which I think we all would agree would be good, no?
Why attack me, I did not write the stuff. I simply stated it was interesting. I just don't know what you guys want. Am I supposed to only post things you agree with? Is that the requirement?
You see, I like debate and I don't want to go where everyone agrees with me, that would be truly boring, don't you think?
I don't know why I ask if that is what you want your posts seem to state it pretty clearly.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well, thank you.
You're welcome.
But I do read all kinds of sources and have read stuff from all of those places that you mentioned.
Good. I'm glad. You should keep doing so.
You may want to know that I try to learn something from everything I read, and usually do.
Good.
Did you not notice how I worded the initial post? I did not say "Ha, you guys were wrong, see HERE'S THE PROOF." I said it was interesting. That is it. I also thought that if it is true, it may lead to more arrests, which I think we all would agree would be good, no?
You're right. You did very carefully word the post. The problem is that the story itself stems from a widely discredited Laurel Mylroie theory that Iraq was behind the first WTC bombing in '93. It also stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of al Qaeda--that such a terrorist act would require state sponsorship. Finally, any attempt to find an Iraq/al Qaeda connection must necessarily be an apology for the neoconservatives for whom this war in Iraq (and not the one in Afghanistan so much) has been the chance to test a grand theory.
Why attack me, I did not write the stuff.
I didn't attack you. When I attack you, believe me. You'll know it.
I simply stated it was interesting.
Yes. You did. And everyone who has responded has pointed out--to varying degrees--that it actually isn't really all that interesting.
I just don't know what you guys want. Am I supposed to only post things you agree with? Is that the requirement?
You can post whatever you want, man. Seriously. But this isn't an echo chamber. When you write things, when you make claims, when you make arguments, you need to be prepared for the possibility that you'll be attacked for what you've said. I've merely tried to give you some better sources so that you can be more in line with the kinds of things folks around here seem to read and from where folks around here tend to draw their posts.
You see, I like debate and I don't want to go where everyone agrees with me, that would be truly boring, don't you think?
I think that if you like debate you shouldn't complain when people debate you.
I don't know why I ask if that is what you want your posts seem to state it pretty clearly.
I don't know what this means, actually. I think you mean that my post indicates you should only get your news from certain left-leaning sources, which simply isn't true and is a gross misinterpretation of what I wrote. I was very careful to give you both liberal and conservative sources. If, as you said, you read these sources, you would know that.
Cheers
Scott
http://www.economist.com/ (good right leaning but fair)
http://news.google.com/ (eclectic)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/default.asp (very right wing rehash commentary)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/ (leans right but again pretty fair reporting)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/ (gotta love the BBC)
http://www.latimes.com/ (gotta balance my day out)
http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/index.html (money and news)
http://news.ft.com/home/us (more greenback news)
http://www.independent.co.uk/ (conservative press from across the pond)
http://www.reuters.com/ (most news can be found here. Good reports always get the parrot act)
I hit most of these every day, usually several times a day. Plus The times, Wash Post, CNN, and MSNBC. To hell with Fox News.
I'd spend more time cruising the above. Drop NewsMin as a source if you want to maintain a smidgen of credibility
Originally posted by midwinter
You're right. You did very carefully word the post. The problem is that the story itself stems from a widely discredited Laurel Mylroie theory that Iraq was behind the first WTC bombing in '93. It also stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of al Qaeda--that such a terrorist act would require state sponsorship. Finally, any attempt to find an Iraq/al Qaeda connection must necessarily be an apology for the neoconservatives for whom this war in Iraq (and not the one in Afghanistan so much) has been the chance to test a grand theory.
This where we disagree. I think thugs and criminals find each other. Water tends to find the same plain and all. I feel it is highly probably that Iraq had ties with AQ and/or other terrorist groups. Proving it may be a bit difficult, but to me it seems a small leap of faith.
Originally posted by midwinter
I didn't attack you. When I attack you, believe me. You'll know it.
I wasn't necessarily referring to you, but your comment explaining attacks.
Originally posted by midwinter
You can post whatever you want, man. Seriously. But this isn't an echo chamber. When you write things, when you make claims, when you make arguments, you need to be prepared for the possibility that you'll be attacked for what you've said. I've merely tried to give you some better sources so that you can be more in line with the kinds of things folks around here seem to read and from where folks around here tend to draw their posts.
I think that if you like debate you shouldn't complain when people debate you.
Debate is not exactly what I would call what goes on around AO, in particular the political threads, would you?
Why do I have to read what others read? Is that a requirement? I hope that's not what you mean. Giant has tried that tactic. It doesn't wash with me. I'm an independent thinker and refuse to conform to that requirement. If I read something you did, fine. If not, don't question my intellect or smarts, that's silly. Ask me nice and I will probably do it just to be able to talk about a certain point. Diplomacy, is not necessarily a bad thing.
By the way I am not asking something that I am not willing to apply to myself. For what it's worth.
Originally posted by midwinter
I don't know what this means, actually. I think you mean that my post indicates you should only get your news from certain left-leaning sources, which simply isn't true and is a gross misinterpretation of what I wrote. I was very careful to give you both liberal and conservative sources. If, as you said, you read these sources, you would know that.
Once again I was directing that at others that are reading the post, (the usual attackers). Some make it obvious that opposing opinions are not welcome.
Originally posted by faust9
A couple of sources which I frequent:
http://www.economist.com/ (good right leaning but fair)
http://news.google.com/ (eclectic)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/default.asp (very right wing rehash commentary)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/ (leans right but again pretty fair reporting)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/ (gotta love the BBC)
http://www.latimes.com/ (gotta balance my day out)
http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/index.html (money and news)
http://news.ft.com/home/us (more greenback news)
http://www.independent.co.uk/ (conservative press from across the pond)
http://www.reuters.com/ (most news can be found here. Good reports always get the parrot act)
I hit most of these every day, usually several times a day. Plus The times, Wash Post, CNN, and MSNBC. To hell with Fox News.
I'd spend more time cruising the above. Drop NewsMin as a source if you want to maintain a smidgen of credibility
Great links and descriptions, really.
However, let's look at what you said here:
You have laid out YOUR preferences for news outlets. You have stated YOUR bias toward YOUR choices.
Really that is cool and I have no real problem with what YOUR choices are.
But don't you think it is a little arrogant to suggest that YOUR choices are the only ones that are credible? That a person can only glean credible news from YOUR choices? No offense intended. You don't have to answer, it is a rhetorical line of questions.
Once again, I do read all of those. As a matter of fact I read whatever I run across if it applies to what I am looking for or if something piques my interest. I actually read first judge last. I guess that is wrong way according to you, Am I reading to much into your post? I hope so.
It is, in my humble opinion, by FAR the best English language news magazine in the world. Read that every week and you'll know more about the world than you care to.
If, like me, you are personally far to the left of their editorial position, you'll still love it cuz it is honest and smart.
Plus: gotta love the anonymity.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Some make it obvious that opposing opinions are not welcome.
Generally, I know no one here of any political persuasion who thinks that. In fact, I would claim all members post here expecting to encounter rigorous debate and not only opposing opinions, but also multiple viewpoints on a particular matter. I believe I posted before about your tendency to compare things in "black and white" when "shades of gray" describe a situation much better.
Originally posted by GregInMex
Just to endorse The Economist:
It is, in my humble opinion, by FAR the best English language news magazine in the world. Read that every week and you'll know more about the world than you care to.
If, like me, you are personally far to the left of their editorial position, you'll still love it cuz it is honest and smart.
Plus: gotta love the anonymity.
I did read something from them a while back, and if memory serves it was as you described. I will check it out more closely. Thanks for the review, it seemed very honest and forthright.