| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
MAIA repeats two of the same old bullshit baseless Bush-bashing accusations in this thread discussing a book by Douglas Feith. I challenged him on his assertions, and requested he respond to them here in this new thread rather than take the original thread off-topic. For those too lazy to click on the link above and read the thread in question, here is my challenge to MAIA -
Quote:Quote: While we await MAIA's response, if anyone else would like to take a crack at supplying the information I requested, feel free. This is one of those challenges anyone can attempt to address. The more the merrier. Phred
| |||||||
|
Stinky Bum Registered: 12/20/00 Posts: 3,322 Loc: Charm City Last seen: 5 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: You may be correct here in the literal sense, and I don't have any material on the following claim...but at the time of the invasion of Iraq many many Americans saw a connection between Saddam and 9/11. I remember because I was there and I remember screaming until I was red in the face at a lot of war supporters (on TV and in the flesh) that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The Bush administration may have been careful to not make a claim as to any links, but do you deny that the populace drew their own conclusions and that the administration was able to exploit the mass hysteria? -------------------- Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
| |||||||
|
Hello Registered: 11/08/07 Posts: 2,312 Last seen: 3 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: i'd like to take this one up. i agree with you that no administrative member ever directly made reference to Iraq's being responsible for 9-11, but are you really denying the propaganda that so explicitly implied a connection, and left the american public to connect the dots? surely you can see the way this was all worked. i mean, you can nit-pick all you want, but the implication was clear as day. Quote: again, i believe you are correct in that no individual ever made a direct connection between Iraq and 9-11... but can you answer me this, in just one sentence please: do you truly believe that such a connection was not implied in order to gain public support for the war? -------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
| |||||||
|
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS) Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 7,396 Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri Last seen: 4 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
Quote: Oh ... Phred you make look things all black and white, but you know it's not like that. It's not about the amount of freedom taken away from the population. It's the amount of freedom given to the government allowing it to meddle with your privacy. Get it ? I'll give you "stuff" about it anyway: 1 - Privacy and Government Surveillance Government surveillance is nothing new, but the September 11th attacks gave the Bush administration an excuse to expand surveillance programs even further. Ever heard about "biometric signatures of humans" ? http://civilliberty.about.com/od 2 - Where Do They Get These Wonderful Toys? If government surveillance seems like a more frightening idea now than it did forty years ago, when even fewer safeguards existed, then it may be because technology has advanced to a point where the government can surreptitiously collect, and efficiently manage, information on a vast number of Americans. Btw, i love the word "surreptitiously". Means a lot of things you know ... http://terrorism.about.com/od/co 3 - Total Information Awareness In 2002 and 2003, U.S. military officials created a data mining project that looked like something out of a bad science fiction novel: Total Information Awareness, which promised to keep tabs on us all. The fact that its official symbol prominently featured the Eye of Providence didn't help. http://pcworld.about.com/news/Ma 4 - The NSA Surveillance Program In December 2005, the New York Times reported that the Bush administration had been wiretapping private telephone conversations without obtaining search warrants, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The ACLU is currently fighting the program in court, with some success. http://civilliberty.about.com/od 5 - The NSA Universal Telephone Database In May 2006, USA Today reported that the Bush administration is also attempting to compile a universal database of telephone calls made in the United States. http://civilliberty.about.com/b/ 6 - The 2007 Postal Signing Statement In January 2007, President Bush issued a signing statement claiming federal authority to search packages, without a warrant, in "exigent circumstances." Whether this represents a real shift in policy, or simple acknowledgment of the fact that postal inspectors have always claimed this authority, is not yet clear. http://civilliberty.about.com/b/ So, how you can look at this evidence and keep saying "my freedom has not been reduced at all" ? You can, if you keep fooling yourself. Look, i don't give a flying fuck about Bush. He's just a puppet. I mind about the system and the way it has been "preparing" itself this last years. When the shit hits the fan, then you'll know what i mean. The evidence is out there, but if your attitude is of total disbelief then you better stay among the sheep, smiling and cheering about freedom in you own corral. After all, that's what most Americans do ... Quote: I don't know if you really understand the implication of what you're saying because it makes things even worst. You're probably more worried in proving me wrong then proving the US government is a fucking angelical being ! But anyway, then why the hell did you invade Iraq ? To keep terrorism away ? Why Iraq, did it came in the lottery or something ? The "fact" is back to the orifice Phred, as requested. I've got no problem with that. But then the question surfaces, why Iraq ? On what ground do you overthrow a President, kill hundreds of people and start a civil war ? Is that in the book as well ? -------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
|
They were more than happy that the public infer that Saddam was behind 9/11 as a pretext for their war. Tickled pink even. Administration officials repeatedly falsely stated that there were "ties" between Al Qaeda and Saddam leaving the public to connect the dots as you mentioned. The logic was inescapable. "Hmm..lemme see, we know that Al Qaeda carried out the attacks and our enemy Saddam is evidently plotting with Al Qaeda so we need to take him out now."
Seven in 10 people in a poll say the Bush administration implied that Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein were involved in the Sept. 11 attacks against the United States. And a majority, 52 percent, say they believe the United States has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam was working closely with the al-Qaida terrorist organization. http://www.commondreams.org/head -------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
|
You haven't answered phred's question with your links.
Additionally, you're later statements regarding saddam and 9/11 are of questionable relevance. So what if the war was bullshit? What's that to do with anything? Phred: presuming you are correct that the legality of a citizen's conduct wasn't changed, this doesn't refute the point made by MAIA. The government did become more capable of intrusive searches and monitoring after 9/11. Your question misses the mark. Putting a video camera in everyone's house also wouldn't change the legality of our conduct but would suck ass and be more 'domestic control' or whatever. As for the saddam and 9/11 thing: Bush didn't literaly say they were connected. Bush did intent to and largely succeed in communicating this. He lied. It does not matter what the gramatical construction of the statements was: it is clear he intended to ( and did) make these points. I feel there is no innocent explanation for the repeated statements linking the two. You and zappa seem to pick fights with people who often are unwilling to concede the obvious point, but that doesn't really matter. The fact is our president communicated something very seriously incorrect to the nation as justification for the war, intentionally, and no amount of arguing with people who refuse to admit the plain truth that it wasn't literally stated will diffuse the import of this.
| |||||||
|
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS) Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 7,396 Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri Last seen: 4 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
Quote: It's implicit in the answer. Last time i checked, freedom of privacy is still a freedom. I just think Phred's approach to what he depicts as control is just a part of what control is. I agree there's no evidence on a direct influence on liberties like expression or thought (there's your answer i think). But what about freedom of privacy ? There are several forms of control and in any authoritarian system this control is exerted on the population in some way or another. There are more evident and direct ways of doing this, like in a dictatorship. But in a democracy this control has to be made differently and less evident, so it doesn't affect your "liberties". Therefore, they don't control you directly, they gather information about you and the whole population and use it at their will. Information, that's how you win wars nowadays, that's how you drive the masses, create public opinion, the process of communication at its best ! ... and we're fucking inebriated in it and demand more. So said Soren kierkegaard in one of his quotes. But anyway, this is not the real issue anyway. The issue is about the point you're willing to trade your privacy for your security. Does it really worth it ? Remember that politics and politicians come and go but the information is always there. Information about yourself, gathered unwillingly at the disposal of who knows who. This system doesn't trust me, always peaking into my life, why the hell should i trust it ? -------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Rather than go line by line in response to all the replies, I will address them generally here because they are all variations on the same limited themes.
Re the "loss of freedoms" the Bush-bashers wail about: No one has given an example of a loss of freedom because no one can. The best they can do (and it is a feeble "best" indeed) is to admit that, "Yeah... okay... I can still do all the stuff I could do before, but now the government might be watching me do it!" To address this: -- court decision after court decision after court decision has re-affirmed the principle that you do not have a "right" to unlimited privacy. These court decisions were made long before Bush came to power. There are around two dozen specific exceptions to the need for warrants before search, for example. A lot of people think you cannot be searched (or eavesdropped upon) without a warrant first being issued. This is not the case and hasn't been the case for a very, VERY long time. You may not like this reality, but it is reality and has been for decades and decades. Blaming it on Bush just shows a lack of knowledge. -- more importantly, though, no legislation passed by the Bush administration expanded that list of exceptions. The Patriot Act instead was focused primarily at breaking down barriers between various government bureaucracies and at utilizing techniques that had been routinely used by police departments for decades in the case of Mob members and applying them to terrorists. Yes folks, that's right... the government had all these abilities all along (or at least for many many years before 9/11), they just weren't consistently exercising them. As for this ridiculous theory that somehow the master brainwashing wordsmiths in the Bush administration were cleverly writing speeches for every spokesman loaded with subliminal messages that led the American public to believe against their will that Hussein had something to do with it -- -- this is just brainless whining. Some of you point to the fact that many Americans believed (and many believe to this day) that Hussein was involved as some sort of proof these folks came to this conclusion because the American government told them this was the case. Are you all on Datura? Hell, in this forum every few years you will see posts from people giving the percentages of American people who believe Elvis is still alive or that no one has ever landed on the moon or that Winston Churchill was a fictional character. Americans (and Britons and Germans and Frenchmen and Italians and...) need no help from their governments to believe things a hell of a lot less plausible than that Saddam Hussein had a hand in the 9/11 attacks. I wrote a post many years back about this... let me see if I can find it... about a conversation I had here in the Dominican Republic with a bunch of people from about five different countries just hours after the first plane hit. None of us had heard a single word from the American government yet about who they thought was responsible for the attack. Yet every single person in front of the TV screen was positive the attack had been carried out by Muslims. Opinion was divided about whether Hussein was responsible or Khaddafi or bin Laden. Yes... all three names were mentioned. Those people (myself included) made a snap judgment - with no input from Bush whatsoever. Some of us changed our opinions over time as more information became available, but not all of us did. At least two of those people I talked with that day are still absolutely convinced Hussein had some hand in the operation. And no... neither one of them is an American. Finally, as has been exhaustively detailed in this forum in dozens and dozens (perhaps over a hundred by now) of posts, Hussein's Ba'athist regime did indeed have ties to and gave support to numerous terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. I won't bother listing all those links yet again for the fiftieth time since even a cursory search of the forum archives will turn them up. It is one thing to say Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11 operation, it is quite another thing to say he had nothing to do with terrorists. That is just a stunningly witless ignorant assertion to make after all these years. I am not surprised to see that both my challenges remain unfulfilled. I am just surprised that anyone is so uninformed as to trot out all that tired old bullshit yet again. Where the hell have y'all been over the last seven-eight years? Living in a cave? Phred
| |||||||
|
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS) Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 7,396 Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri Last seen: 4 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
Quote: I don't know if i understand you correctly but here it goes: I assume "anything" is about Saddam Hussein and his relationship with 9/11. Now, call me paranoid but i'm no fucking kidding here, something about the war has to do with this "anything". And if the war was bullshit, then it has to do with fucking everything !!! -------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Actually, no, they didn't become more capable. I challenge you to cite a single piece of legislation describing even one new expansion of searches and/or monitoring that was passed into law after September 11, 2001. Quote: See my reply above. First of all, the government hasn't done anything even close to this. Secondly, even if they do ever get around to it (as they already have in the UK), the courts have so far held that it is not a given that this kind of observation of public areas unclear is a restriction of your freedom. Quote: No, he didn't. Not even close. Again, I challenge you to provide some quotes from Bush "linking" the two. Just because he mentions "Hussein" and "9/11" in the same speech doesn't mean he is trying to insinuate Hussein had anything to do with it. Just because he mentions them in the same paragraph, or even in the same sentence doesn't mean he is trying to insinuate Hussein had anything to do with it, either. Look, John, I've made this challenge repeatedly for close to eight years now, and every time someone provides some instance of Bush talking about the two issues and claiming this quote "proves" he is trying to link them, the quotes upon even casual inspection turn out to imply no such thing. What Bush (and all the others) said was that they weren't going to let Hussein get away with his silly shit any more. Not after 9/11. On 9/11 everything changed, especially the US's tolerance for letting crap from malefactors like Hussein slide. That's the only "link" Bush or any other member of his administration ever made between Hussein and the 9/11 attacks - explicit or implicit. I challenge you, John, to provide me some quotes you believe demonstrate the person making the statement is trying to imply that Hussein had something to do with the attacks. Be forewarned that everyone else over the years who has tried to find such a quote ended up just embarrassing themselves, but maybe you'll surprise me. Quote: This is completely, 100 per cent as wrong as it is possible to be. Bullshit, to be blunt. I demand you support this serious allegation with quotes from credible sources, and explanations as to just how the quotes show intent to deceive. Not only was it never literally stated, it was never implied, either. Phred
| |||||||
|
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS) Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 7,396 Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri Last seen: 4 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
Quote: Dear Phred, my sentiments, but you probably won't see both of your challenges ever fulfilled. Not because people can't prove things to you, but because you simply won't believe them. I know it can be frustrating, but "the truth" is a complicated subject and knowing it sometimes means going beyond this layer of controlled information and accepted explanations. Of course it isn't evident ... They're doing a fine job Phred. That's a way of keeping this system running
-------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
Quote: Phred, I was pretty active during the debate prior to the war and especially during the war itself and read quite a bit of the threads here at that time. I am not aware of any which demonstrated any operational ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. You seemed to repeat that claim and were called on that point a few weeks ago by several different people and offered what has become your standard response. http://www.shroomery.org/forums/ I am aware that Saddam's regime had evidently paid some terrorists involved in activites against Israel but none having to do with active planning vs. the U.S. Does anyone know which threads Phred is referring to? -------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Oh... now it's "operational links", is it?
Again, no one in the Bush administration has ever claimed Hussein's minions ever involved themselves in terrorist operations against the US run by Al Qaeda or Hamas or Fatah or Black September or whoever. However, it is indisputable that Hussein's Ba'athist regime provided shelter, funds, and even training to known terrorists. It is also indisputable that Hussein offered bin Laden safe haven when he got the boot from the Sudan. As it happens, bin Laden felt Afghanistan's offer was more to his liking, but that doesn't change the fact the offer was made. Phred
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Quote: That's because neither can be. The first hasn't happened (although who knows what changes will come in the future). The second didn't happen (although those with a limited amount of understanding and rational thought like to claim it did). -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
Quote: I can't speak for everyone else but that has always been the relevant criteria for me. If there is no operational link there is no justification for war. People, even enemies, talk all the time. Talk is talk and actions are actions. Quote: See above. No threat to us. Quote: I don't recall Saddam himself being involved in that meeting. Some Iraqi officials evidently discussed it but of course it never happened and there was no operational relationship there either. -------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
|
MAIA, I agree with you regarding the fact that the iraq war was stupid, but I'm just saying that wasn't at issue in phred's objections (and maybe make another thread if you want to discuss it as it will get complicated)
Phred: The statements I'm relying upon to say that bush intended to justify the iraq war by linking them with the 9/11 attacks as responsible parties (similar to how afghanistan was responsible in the public eye) follow. You make the distinction between bush and his speechwriters in your post, so maybe I've been unclear. I am saying the administration communicated, intentionally, these things. I don't care if the speechwriters did it or if cheney did it or if the janitor did it on their own own initiative or at bush's direction. While I agree with you that studies revealing the american public thought iraq was responsible for 9/11 or that this was the motivation for invasion aren't neccesarily relevant, I do think it demonstrates that it is possible that his comments were harmful (in the sense of misleading the public) in the way that if nobody believed it, regardless of the source, the harm would be difficult to demonstrate. And stuff like this tends to cast doubt on your anectdotal evidence: Quote: http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/03 Quote:bush Quote:2002 State of the Union Quote: Quote:September 2003, bush Quote: Quote: Cheney: Quote: Quote:Sept. 2003 Quote:Sept 2003 Cheney on whether iraq and 9/11 were connected You get teh picture. The fact that they continued saying this stuff and linking the two seems to suggest at very minimum they were using the hatred of the 9/11 hijackers and the arab world to justify invading Iraq, but I think its clear they were trying to link the two as closely as they could without being called, clearly, on it. I like cheney's "we don't know" when pressed in 2003 about the link. Maybe cheney was speaking metaphysicaly, and of course he is correct, but a "no solid link" would seem to be the responsible answer. But I'm sure you'll argue that these were all correct and I'm not sure what I can do to say my interpretation is reasonable. I would ask why you think they continue to link the two in the speeches though, if only temporally. At minimum it seems a misdirection of rage from one arab state to another.
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Good job proving Phred's point.
Not one of those quotes show the administration attempting to link 9/11 with Iraq. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Hello Registered: 11/08/07 Posts: 2,312 Last seen: 3 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: ![]() did you read any of the other posts in this thread? Phred, you didn't answer my question yet: Quote: -------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Quote: Golly gee whiz. Now that you've posted a smiley with a shaking head I've seen the error of my ways and am a true believer! ![]() I read some. They are as ridiculous now as they have always been. You see..... I have this amazing superpower. I can comprehend what I read. I can't help it that so many can not. You (and many others) seem to have a different superpower! The ability to see what they wish to see. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Hello Registered: 11/08/07 Posts: 2,312 Last seen: 3 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: i completely agree, and that's why the mindless hordes watching fox news unknowingly followed the implied logic of the Bush Administration and were led into believing connections existed between Saddam Hussein and 9-11. why else would Bush find it so necessary to consistently name both in successive sentences time and time again. -------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I refuse to accept your argument that The People are too stupid to understand plain English. I expect anyone demanding the right to vote to be obliged to understand, or at least not plead ignorance of, the language. At this point it has become any language but that's another issue. Further, it was never the People, as retarded as you think they are, who were gulled into voting for tis war. You seem to have this utterly childish view that The People ever had any say. They did not, their Representatives, professionals all, many of whom sat on confidential Congressional Intelligence committees, voted for this, or any, war. THE STOOPIT PEEPLES NEVER HAD ANY SAY EVER AND DID NOT HAVE TO BE CONVINCED. There is a reason why he was very careful in his words at all times. That reason is that there are endless gaggles of lawyers parsing every fucking word the President says. What the President says after he is elected is etched in stone. Something the current retard needs to learn. What this current endless and stupid argument is about is that some champions of morons insist that moron language is the language of the realm. It is not. The only person responsible for an ignorant idiot's misunderstanding of plain text is the ignorant idiot. You all have had ample opportunity to be educated. You have no excuse.
| |||||||
|
Hello Registered: 11/08/07 Posts: 2,312 Last seen: 3 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Phred, i'm willing to bet your friends are similar to you in that they are well politically-informed and interested in the world of politics, both global and domestic. Therefore their feelings for a Saddam connection are justifiable. the vast majority of Americans, however, are mindless zombies when it comes to politics, so such a sentiment has no basis. i'd be willing to bet that before 2000, a good size chunk of them wouldn't have been able to even name the country that Saddam was the president of. the idea that Saddam and 9-11 were linked was developed intentionally using these subtle implications. i agree that no one ever directly made the connection, they were very careful of that. but the references in the speeches are undeniable. it is wartime propaganda, pure and simple. -------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Bullshit. Although I certainly agree that most of the electorate are woefully uninformed and, well, not that bright, no one in any legal pronouncement can assume other than a perfect intelligence on the part of the listener. Not ALL of the electorate are idiots. Otherwise we degrade legal arguments to the level of the dumbest possible reader/hearer. And where does that end?
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: If you say so. They sure didn't attempt to seperate them, and america sure didn't seem to care which towelhead country the bombed or which scarf-wearing person they harrased during that time. Quote: The people do have say, its the basis for the republican legislature system. Whether you expect something or not is irrelevant, the electorate associated the two as a result of bush's comments and the media and others parroting them. In any case, this is off point re: the representatives. I'm arguing what bush did and why, not what effect it had on the legislature. Quote: you continue to argue whether it was logical for the people to conclude iraq and 9/11 were related on the basis of the president's statements, but I have no idea what the point is. I'm arguing what happened and why, not what was logical or wahtever. Why you seem to believe I excuse the legislature and electors that supported this clusterfuck I have no idea. I've said repeatedly it was one of the more idiotic aspects of obama's platform: "I hate the war, but I will support it at every opportunity (whilst on the national stage) and then take credit for withdrawing the troops on the timetable the previous administration established and act like I did jack shit" Quote: Several of your arguments seem to suggest I dispute that bush didn't directly say 9/11 and iraq were connected causually. I don't.
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 6 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
Your question about individual liberties after 9/11 is framed incorrectly. Liberties are not restricted to having the "freedom to", but also include "freedom from". In this case, individual liberties have been reduced by various warrantless monitoring methods.
| |||||||
|
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS) Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 7,396 Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri Last seen: 4 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
Quote: Superiority complex The term "superiority complex", in everyday usage, refers to an overly high opinion of oneself; in psychology, it refers to the same sort of attitude. However in psychology, it is considered that the attitude is actually a way of hiding (or compensating for) feelings of inferiority. The term was introduced by psychologist Alfred Adler in a series of books, including "Understanding Human Nature" and "Social Interest". Those exhibiting the superiority complex commonly project their feelings of inferiority onto others whom they perceive as lessers, possibly for the same reasons for which they themselves may have been ostracized. Accusations of arrogance and cockiness can be made by others when referring to an individual exhibiting a superiority complex. Behaviors related to this mechanism may include an exaggeratedly positive opinion of one’s worth and abilities, unrealistically high expectations in goals and achievements for oneself and others, persistent attempts to correct others (regardless of whether or not they are actually correct), vanity, extravagant dressing (intent on drawing attention), excessive need for competition, pride, over-sentimentality and affected exaltation, snobbishness, a tendency to discredit others' opinions and over-forcefulness aimed at dominating those considered as weaker or less important. Both the superiority and inferiority complex can be found together as different expressions of the same pathology and both complexes can exist within the same individual. -------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
| |||||||
|
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS) Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 7,396 Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri Last seen: 4 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
Quote: It seems you've found some truth. Of course Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The US invaded Iraq to get their oil and to have an excuse to spend millions on armament. They called it "war on terror", i call it "war on error". -------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
No, not a superiority complex.
Merely the ability to read and comprehend. But hey, if that's what it takes for you...... -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 6 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
Since when did the US get oil?
| |||||||
|
Barred Spiral Registered: 02/03/03 Posts: 2,468 Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Quote: This. If you even look at the context of MAIA's original quote, it said nothing about being able to do something legally after 9/11, it was talking about "Big Brother" style monitoring. The problem is that Phred rephrases the arguments made against the Bush administration so that it fits a very specific, impossible to prove threshold. Instead of asking for something that fits the description of "Big Brother", as MAIA mentioned, he asks for something "which makes illegal any action a US resident could have performed before 9/11". Of course, most of the Big Brother type changes either reflect an intrusion on civil liberties, or are directed towards "enemy combatants", a phrase they use to apply to anyone they come across in Iraq & other places in the region. We all know the various programs - databases of every single e-mail on the internet, it's known that they've been collecting data that clearly is in violation of privacy laws. Not enough? Consider that soldiers who were calling to their wives had their phone calls monitored and recorded, and this meant the government peaking into the private sex lives of soldiers. Some of the recordings were kept. Sick stuff. One only needs to bring up Abu-Grahib to see the kinds of things that doesn't apply to this rule of "American citizens only". Examples such as pouring phosphoric acid on detainees, pounding a detainee's wounded leg with collapsible metal baton, jumping on a leg with a wound shot to the point where it won't heal properly, sodomization of detainees with a rod... all of this is free from criticism because it doesn't fit within the parameters Phred has laid out. Finally, here's one that actually fits your mold: The process of extraordinary rendition is now acceptable, and Habeas Corpus has been suspended by the Military Commissions Act. Look at the case of Khaled el-Masri. Detained, extradition, and beaten pretty badly. Technically, there's nothing stopping the government to do this to any U.S. citizen. One might say, "Habeas Corpus" doesn't apply to "enemy combatants", but the real question is, if an American citizen was arrested in this fashion, what right would he have to challenge his arrest? There are other examples as well, such as José Padilla, who was an American citizen. Quote: Again, this has changed from "Saddam was one of the responsible" to "Hussein WAS responsible for 9/11". The burden of proof shifts from demonstrating that the Bush administration tied Iraq & al-Qaeda as being responsible for 9/11, to having to demonstrate that Bush said it was specifically Saddam. At any rate, what Phred doesn't seem to get is that this isn't about explicit statements, it's about how subtle they were in making people associate Iraq & al-Qaeda. They were very organized in how they prepared their statements. They had faulty intelligence which they could use to make the connection that there were ties, and that this might lead up to Saddam giving bin Laden a bunch of bio/chemical weapons. That was the major threat, and it's what we were told. It's all a game of "I get to define counter-arguments in anyway I choose". We were told that Saddam Hussein was developing biological & chemical weapons which he could give to al-Qaeda. We were told the reason we had to invade was because our lives were in danger. We were told that we couldn't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud. We were told it was a slam dunk case. And when we didn't find WMDs, the argument changed to liberating the people of Iraq (some will correctly argue that "liberation" was a listed reason before no WMDs were found, however this was much lower in priority, considering the threats the Bush administration made about what Saddam could do to us). It's this constant switching of arguments which is the only constant in this whole thing. But there were plenty of quotes where they attempted to link al-Qaeda & Iraq. The intention was to give them enough political capital to where they could justify the invasion. They didn't need to explicitly say that Saddam was behind 9/11, they just needed to associate the two. "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda." (http://www.factcheck.org/articl - This is not true what so ever, and all the evidence that they used to justify this turned out to be extremely weak, and often from uncredited sources. The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. If Iraq and al-Qaeda had a real, working relationship, and al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11, by association, aren't they implying that Iraq had involvement in this? The Congressional Resolution Authorizing Force Against Iraq also contains text which shows the extent to which they falsely linked al-Qaeda to Iraq: Source: http://www.policyalmanac.org/wor acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 Furthermore, members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq. Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens. I know Phred is probably going to respond that the text technically says "including those who planned", so it doesn't necessarily mean al-Qaeda. Or that al-Qaeda had members in Iraq, so that technically it is true. This line of defense is just denial. It's pretty clear and explicit that they're tying Iraq into al-Qaeda, when, of course, the two wanted nothing to do with each other. The one instance that's always mentioned is that al-Zarqawi was receiving medical treatment from Saddam, and that he was staying in Baghdad. I'm going to preempt that argument and point out that Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, a man who Collen Powell referred to as evidence that Saddam was aiding & teaching terrorists, turned out to be a fraud, and the CIA even retracted it. Yet, to this day, I hear otherwise bright men like Christopher Hitchens quote this as justification. It goes to show that sometimes, even when something proved to be false, and has been retracted, it still finds some people to fool. The problem is that for Phred to place any blame on the Bush administration requires a full out confession. Even though almost all the intelligence that was used to justified the war turned out to be pulled from obviously shady sources. the point of argument is to try and catch people up on a word game. It's become a game because it's much easier to focus on a strawman argument when the information we all know by now pretty much invalidates the entire premise of the war. Note the language Phred uses Quote: I did a couple searches and couldn't find a thing. I've never seen any credible evidence that Iraq in any way supported al-Qaeda. And I don't include anything as small as al-Qaeda just happening to have members in Iraq, or the one time bin Laden & Saddam had contact (the only real contact between them was when one of Saddam's guys met with bin Laden in '95, but he was told "that he should not see bin Laden again". If you're claiming there are ties between Iraq & al-Qaeda, I'd like to see a link to the threads with this info. Finally, I notice this self-aggrandizing, arrogant attitude about this whole thing. From Phred: Quote: Phred, you make this sound like game. I thought your challenges were actually pretty well fulfilled. That is until you make yourself judge and automatically reject any substantive argument. The game works like this - you put out a carefully worded challenge, people accept and provide counters, finally, you determined that because the example doesn't fit the wording to an exact interpretation, you declare yourself winner and claim you are undefeated. I, for one, am not buying this act. More importantly, Phred seems to have more outrage for very minor differences in interpretations than he does over torture, innocent people losing their lives, and the fact that the entire basis for the war was built on discredited information. Unless you're one of those wackos out there who still point to retracted information, or still really do believe Agent Curveball, all of that outrage seems displaced. Quote: "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes." (President George W. Bush, State Of The Union Address, 1/28/03) -------------------- The very nature of experience is ineffable; it transcends cognitive thought and intellectualized analysis. To be without experience is to be without an emotional knowledge of what the experience translates into. The desire for the understanding of what life is made of is the motivation that drives us all. Without it, in fear of the experiences what life can hold is among the greatest contradictions; to live in fear of death while not being alive.
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Quote: Do words like "imagine" or "this time" not mean a fucking thing to you? There is nothing in that quote that states or implies what you wish it to. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Hello Registered: 11/08/07 Posts: 2,312 Last seen: 3 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
luvdemshrooms,
the intention is clearly to generate a non-existent correlation between the two in people's minds. why is this so hard to comprehend? "imagine another 9-11 with Saddam's backing!! We must get him!!" it is nothing more than invoking the fear and anger caused by 9-11 to garner support for capturing and executing Saddam Hussein, which clearly causes the unknowing masses to incorrectly correlate the two. -------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
| |||||||
|
Stinky Bum Registered: 12/20/00 Posts: 3,322 Loc: Charm City Last seen: 5 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Not really a valid comparison because no president ever utilized massive fervor over the belief that elvis is still alive to muster enthusiastic support for an invasion of another country. My question to you remains the same. Do you deny that the Bush administration recognized and exploited the widely held belief that there was an Iraq/9/11 connection to get support for their agenda to begin the war? -------------------- Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: What actual administration quote do you have wherein the Bush administration tied Saddam Hussein to the attacks on 9/11? None. You have nothing except an endless pile of nonsense about "misleading" statements. The main argument is that the American people are too stupid to understand a plain sentence. This is certainly true of very many but by no means all. I find the biggest indicator that the American people are dangerously stupid is that a large portion of the population has bought into the notion, bleated about by professional obfuscators, that Bush did in fact say Saddam was responsible. That is the criminal misinformation campaign. A large portion of the American people believes that Bush made that connection because liberal anti-war morons have been lying to them for years that he did so. Not because Bush lied. They believe it because of liberal lies about Bush. The plain fact of the matter is that Bush made no such statement and liberals have simply made it up that he did. Kangaroo court at it's finest. Then we have the other issue involving the stupidity of the general population. Large segments of the population are not stupid per se. But most people are only superficially informed about politics or news in general, which news is overwhelmingly controlled by anti-Bush forces. And that's fine if that's what they want to be. However, that does not in any way, shape or form dictate that the President should address the nation with a consideration of that. He must not accede to the diminished expectations inherent in the demand that even the dumbest and most detached of citizens must be considered when framing an argument. You do not defend your dissertation by speaking to the examiners as if they were in grade school. No politician should be required to speak down to the level of the least intelligent listener. President Beef Supreme, anyone? We're not all liberals, you know. Some of us can actually understand the words we hear.
| |||||||
|
Barred Spiral Registered: 02/03/03 Posts: 2,468 Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: You are missing the point. My entire post was about how the argument got rephrased by Phred from "Bush made people associate Iraq & 9/11" to "Saddam was responsible for 9/11". Of course I understand what "imagine" & "fucking not this time" means. It means he's trying to fear people into thinking that Iraq could cause another 9/11. He's making the connection that if he doesn't get the ability to declare war on Iraq, that it would mean another 9/11. The point of that quote wasn't to prove that Bush said that Saddam was the one responsible, it's to prove that Bush was intentionally trying to get people to erroneously associate 9/11 & Saddam. The fact that he's replacing the hijackers with Saddam shows that Bush was trying to feed off of people's fear of 9/11, with a fear of Saddam Hussein. Basically, you missed the entire point of my post. Quote: I knew this would be the response. Here's a direct quote that I think proves that Bush was trying to mislead the public into associating Saddam with al-Qaeda. "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda." (source) How about when Condelliza Rice claimed that Iraq had provided "some training to al-Qaeda in chemical weapons development". (source) But none of that will be good enough for any of you. Why? Because it doesn't overtly state that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. The burden of proof is held so high that it can't be satisfied. Subtly and nuance mean nothing to you. There are PLENTY of quotes which show that Bush was trying to use the fear people had over 9/11, and apply it to Saddam Hussein. That's undeniable. But you want to set the standard to a point where he would have had to explicitly said Iraq was THE one responsible for 9/11. Seriously, saying that Saddam Hussien aided, trained, and protected al-Qaeda is enough. None of it is true, and it's saying that Saddam had a part in 9/11, even if doesn't explicitly say that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. I know that won't be good enough for you because you don't want it to be good enough. You're unsinkable ducks.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/13/09 Posts: 3,259 |
| ||||||
|
Surprising that no one has come up with concrete answers yet, even a cursory glance at the Patriot Act will reveal goodies. I have work to do at the moment, but for a quick glance:
"Section 219 (Single-jurisdiction search warrants for terrorism) amended the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to allow a magistrate judge who is involved in an investigation of domestic terrorism or international terrorism the ability to issue a warrant for a person or property within or outside of their district" This allows the government to cherrypick the judges they want to use. Im sure you will argue that this still fulfilles the 4th amendment, however as per your challenge, here is the first of many changes. "Section 215: Access to records and other items under FISA FISA was modified by section 215 (Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) to allow the Director of the FBI (or an official designated by the Director, so long as that official's rank is no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) to apply for an order to produce materials that assist in an investigation undertaken to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. The act specifically gives an example to clarify what it means by "tangible things": it includes "books, records, papers, documents, and other items". It is specified that any such investigation must be conducted in accordance with guidelines laid out in Executive Order 12333 (which pertains to United States intelligence activities). Investigations must also not be performed on U.S. citizens who are carrying out activities protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Any order that is granted must be given by a district court judge or by a magistrate judge who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to allow such an order to be given. Any application must prove that it is being conducted without violating the First Amendment rights of any U.S. citizens. The application can only be used to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. citizen or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. This section of the Patriot Act is controversial because the order may be granted ex parte, and once it is granted — in order to avoid jeopardizing the investigation — the order may not disclose the reasons behind why the order was granted. In order to protect anyone who complies with the order, FISA now prevents any person who complies with the order in "good faith" from being liable for producing any tangible goods required by the court order. The production of tangible items is not deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context. As a safeguard, section 502 of FISA compels the Attorney General to inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate of all such orders granted. Every six months, the Attorney General must also provide a report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate which details the total number of applications made for orders approving requests for the production of tangible things and the total number of such orders either granted, modified, or denied." Meaning? This makes it far easier for the government to demand records, this is where the initial scare of being put under surveillance for checking out books at a library came from. A quote from the ACLU, which I know will be tossed as biased from the OP, however Im too lazy at the moment to go through the section and post relevant sections, later I shall ACLU response to Section 215 "Section215 of Patriot Act does cover library records. It authorizes the government to more easily obtain a court order requiring a person or business to turn over documents or things “sought for” an investigation to protect against international terrorism. Business records include library records. Both Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act records demands and national security letters (which cover more limited categories of records, including, according to the government, some types of library records relating to Internet access) can be used to obtain sensitive records relating to the exercise of First Amendment rights, including the reading habits of ordinary Americans. For example, a records demand could be used to obtain a list of the books or magazines someone purchases or borrows from the library. Moreover, the government can obtain medical records containing private patient information. The government can also obtain records and lists of individuals who belong to political organizations if it believes the organization espouses political rhetoric contrary to the government. While both national security letters and section 215 records demands cannot be issued in an investigation of a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident if the investigation is based “solely” on First Amendment activities, this provides little protection. An investigation is rarely, if ever, based “solely” on any one factor; investigations based in large part, but not solely, on constitutionally protected speech or association are implicitly allowed." Section 213, or the sneak and peak section. Sneak and peak warrants were legal in the past, meaning law enforcement could search premises without notice to the owner for a period of, as defined by the courts, 7 days. The Patriot Act changed this 7 day rule to an 'indefinite reasonable time.' How has this been used? I refer you to Brandon Mayfield http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bra This wikipedia page is unfortunately not quite full of as many details as should be there, however the gist is there. He was detained after a sneak and peak warrant and held for a time without access to counsel or his family. Fortunately the FBI was later forced to admit its wrongdoings by admitting to basically fabricating evidence for its own ends. Thank god for the Ninth Circuit my friends. Sections of the Patriot Act struck down as unconstitutional 1.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ame " In September 2004, Judge Victor Marrero of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York struck down the NSL provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. This prompted Congress to amend the law to allow limited judicial review of NSLs, and prompted the government to appeal the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. " 2.) "In Humanitarian Law Project v. Ashcroft [18], the court held that specific phrases in Title 18 Section 2339A, as amended by the Patriot Act section 805(a)(2)(B), violated First Amendment free speech rights and Fifth Amendment due process rights. Section 2339A criminalizes providing "material support or resources" to terrorists and defines material support as including, inter alia, "expert advice or assistance." [19]The plaintiffs in the case sought to provide support to lawful support to organizations labeled as terrorist organizations. The court agreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that the phrase “expert advice or assistance” was vague and it prohibited protect speech activities, such as distributing human rights literature or consulting with an attorney [20]. The court noted that the Patriot Act bans all “expert” advice regardless of the nature of the advice, [21] which assumes that all expert advice is material support to a terrorist organization. Moreover, the court held that the phrase violated due process by failing to give proper notice of what type of conduct was prohibited. [22]" Section 209: Seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants "Section 209 (Seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants) removed the text "any electronic storage of such communication" from title 18, section 2510 of the United States Code. Before this was struck from the Code, the U.S. government needed to apply for a title III wiretap order[15] before they could open voicemails, however now the government only need apply for an ordinary search. Section 2703, which specifies when a "provider of electronic communication services" must disclose the contents of stored communications, was also amended to allow such a provider to be compelled to disclose the contents via a search warrant, and not a wiretap order. According to Vermont senator Patrick Leahy, this was done to "harmonizing the rules applicable to stored voice and non-voice (e.g., e-mail) communications".[16][17]" Meaning? This is a change from beforehand as per the OP request to find such changes. The meaning speaks for itself however. I have no expectation that any of this will be considered as fulfilling the OP challenge. Later on tonight maybe Ill dig into this document, and others more deeply, remember the law is there for you to read, don't rely on pundits
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Quote: No, there would have been no correlation between the two had those screaming about it been more honest. Anyone with a grasp of language and with no axe to grind can see this clearly. The fact remains no-one that I am aware of in the Bush administration claimed any such thing no matter how you might wish it were so. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Quote: Perhaps if you had one to make............ Edit: Wrong individual quoted. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers Edited by luvdemshrooms (03/31/09 05:23 PM)
| |||||||
|
Hello Registered: 11/08/07 Posts: 2,312 Last seen: 3 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
![]() ok then -------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
| |||||||
|
Hello Registered: 11/08/07 Posts: 2,312 Last seen: 3 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: by the way, i never said that, i think you were trying to quote Twirling -------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Quote: Sorry for the error. It's fixed.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Barred Spiral Registered: 02/03/03 Posts: 2,468 Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Wow, wicked burn. Glad to see your debating skills are on the same level as Mrs. Edelman's 6th grade class.
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Quote: A quickly corrected error is a burn in your world? How old are you? -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Barred Spiral Registered: 02/03/03 Posts: 2,468 Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
I made plenty of points. You just choose to ignore them. Either that, or they fly over your head.
This is what it's come down to. Rather then discussing substance, it's just attempts at personal jabs. And we're only 3 pages in.
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Quote: Let's see where the personal jab originated shall we? . Quote: -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Barred Spiral Registered: 02/03/03 Posts: 2,468 Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
You do realize you were the one to say, "Perhaps if you had one to make............" (referring to making points)
Obviously you could have actually addressed what I was saying, but you chose to make a joke. Enough of this. It's too ridiculous to continue.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/13/09 Posts: 3,259 |
| ||||||
Quote: I forgot to include a section on what NSL's are and why the Supreme Court ruled the added Patriot Act powers as unconstitutional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat "A National Security Letter (NSL) is a form of administrative subpoena used by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation and reportedly by other U.S. Government Agencies including the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense. It is a demand letter issued to a particular entity or organization to turn over various record and data pertaining to individuals. They require no probable cause or judicial oversight. They also contain a gag order, preventing the recipient of the letter from disclosing that the letter was ever issued. The gag order was ruled unconstitutional as an infringement of free speech, in the Doe v. Ashcroft case." "Once passed in 2001, section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act greatly expanded the use of the NSL, allowing their use in scrutiny of US residents, visitors, or US citizens who are not suspects in any criminal investigation. It also granted the privilege to other federal agencies, presumably to allow the department of Homeland Security the same ability to use NSLs. In January 2007 the New York Times reported that both the Pentagon and the CIA have been issuing National Security Letters. [3] The USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization statutes passed during the 109th Congress added specific penalties for non-compliance or disclosure." "In a concurring opinion, Judge Richard Cardamone of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that he suspected "a perpetual gag on citizen speech of the type advocated so strenuously by the government may likely be unconstitutional."[16][17] and that a ban on speech and an unending shroud of secrecy concerning government actions "do not fit comfortably with the fundamental rights guaranteed American citizens"[16] and could serve as a cover for official misconduct." "In his 103-page opinion, Judge Marrero wrote that the law permitting such NSLs was “the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values.” Marrero said the indefinite gag order associated with NSLs violated the First Amendment, the lack of judicial oversight or review was contrary to the separation of powers guarantee, and that the secrecy requirement was so intertwined with the rest of the provision regarding NSLs that the entire provision was unconstitutional." "Perhaps one of the biggest controversies involved the use of NSLs by the FBI. Because they allow the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order they were criticized by many parties.[211][212][213][214] In November 2005, BusinessWeek reported that the FBI had issued tens of thousands of NSLs and had obtained one million financial, credit, employment, and in some cases, health records from the customers of targeted Las Vegas businesses. Selected businesses included casinos, storage warehouses and car rental agencies. An anonymous Justice official claimed that such requests were permitted under section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act and despite the volume of requests insisted "We are not inclined to ask courts to endorse fishing expeditions".[215] Before this was revealed, however, the ACLU challenged the constitutionality of NSLs in court. In April 2004, they filed suit against the government on behalf of an unknown Internet Service Provider who had been issued an NSL, for reasons unknown. In ACLU v. DoJ, the ACLU argued that the NSL violated the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because the USA PATRIOT Act failed to spell out any legal process whereby a telephone or Internet company could try to oppose an NSL subpoena in court. The court agreed, and found that because the recipient of the subpoena could not challenge it in court it was unconstitutional.[132] Congress later tried to remedy this in a reauthorization Act, but because they did not remove the non-disclosure provision a Federal court again found NSLs to be unconstitutional because they prevented courts from engaging in meaningful judicial review" Sorry for the clutter, I think the challenge has been met however.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
|
I don't think the challenge has been met. Phred asked for things you could do beforehand that you can't now. I don't see in skimming your post where you identified such. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
This may explain your surprise at not finding his question answered. Of course there are things you could do then and can't now, but that's not really the point, they aren't all that substantial to my knowledge. The issue is that the question isn't relevant and narrows the scope of hte inquiry unreasonably. I do appreciate your effort in compiling that overview though. Of course phred's question is silly as it doesn't refer to what the original poster claimed, squarely, and is tacitly stating that only legality of citizen's conduct is what we need be concerned with, which is silly. Phred: Do you support either version of the PATRIOT act? Why?
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Of course you knew it would be the reply. It's called a Cluebattm and I wield it mightily. Quote: "Burden of Proof"? This is not a court of nebulous eyewitness testimony or dubious DNA results. A sentence is a sentence and its great glorious bulk is there for all to see. Both of those sentences are completely 100% accurate and I was in no way misled to think they implied anything other than what they said. You may have been duped but I wasn't. Why are you copping to being such a fool? Don't you feel the least bit embarrassed? Anent to all that, what continues to be ignored is that the American People didn't have to be sold on anything. They were not involved in the decision making process at all. Quote: No. I want the standard to be the English language and a plain text reading. All the semiotic criminals who steal the meaning of an utterance for their own nonsense interpretation are just that. Idea thieves. Do you not understand that your argument boils down to whining that you were too stupid to understand a plain sentence and went crawling through endless fields of intellectual undergrowth until you actually did manage to find yourself entangled in an imaginary bush of many prickers? Quote: Actually, those things are true. Well, I don't think anybody said he did protect AQ, just that he offered to. Irrelevant to THIS discussion. THIS discussion is all about one thing, whether the American People should be expected to understand a simple sentence. The argument you make boils down to one hideous miasma of intellectual torpor. You are either too stupid to understand a sentence or you are too dishonest to accept its meaning.
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
|
You must understand that politician's statements are always to be taken at face value.
There is never any intent to mislead as politicians are known for being completely straight forward in all their utterances. -------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
| |||||||
|
The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
They are only completely honest if conservative. It's the truth, I would never lie about it.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/13/09 Posts: 3,259 |
| ||||||
Quote: Well I would appreciate you reading it all before making such a judgment. There are instances of being able to do things previously that you couldn't after the bill was passed, they are plain as day in the wording up there. If you want I can condense it into some bullet point structure that we Americans seem to want everything into nowadays. I recommend you read what I wrote, and also read the Patriot Act itself or summaries of it. Very important piece of legislation
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/13/09 Posts: 3,259 |
| ||||||
|
Log in to view attachment
Well just briefly I'll describe one scenario, in fact the last one I listed, you could do this with any I wrote down. In Humanitarian Law Project vs. Ashcroft a group of people were giving legal advice on human rights law and UN law to groups designated as terrorists groups. For instance a Kurd rebel group was being helped by them in only peaceful manners. They previously were allowed to help them because they are exercising their 1st amendment right to merely point out the law and facts in the law. After the Patriot Act added that helping terrorists included "expert advice or assistance" they were worried they would be prosecuted. This matter went to the courts as described above and the courts struck that they could help these 'terrorists groups' as the phrase "expert advice or assistance" is impermissibly vague.
Of course I know I will hear flack that this 'humanitarian' group was aiding these 'terrorist' kurds, the point remains however that previously they could exercise their 1st amendment rights, later they could not until the courts ruled part of the patriot act unconstitutional. Don't buy into the pundits, I have attached the judgment.
| |||||||
|
Barred Spiral Registered: 02/03/03 Posts: 2,468 Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Neither of those sentences are accurate! Saddam Hussein never provided chemical weapons knowledge to al-Qaeda, nor did he protect & aid them! If you're going to talk about nebulous eyewitness, at least provide evidence for your claims. This self-righteous "you're a fool and I'm above it" is tiring. Quote: Wow, you are really pretentious. All of that verbal masturbation is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Quote: I thought the "American People didn't have to be sold on anything". For all this talk of understanding sentences and such, you certainly didn't think those two statements out. So far, all I've seen is luvdemshrooms and zappaisgod make attempts at personal insults without providing any backing for their claims. This isn't a discussion at all, it's just an attempt for you guys to flame. If you want to continue this, just provide proof for your claims. I don't care to bother with this attitude and personal insults.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: The 9/11 Commission found that Hussein had indeed provided sanctuary and money to known members of Al Qaeda - one of the 1993 WTC bombers was one, I forget the names of the three or four others at the moment. I will admit I find Arabic names confusing and they don't stick in my mind as well as other kinds of names. I do remember that he also provided safe haven for Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas. And of course he provided monetary incentives for many 'splodeydopes to self-detonate amongst Israelis. Quote: No, it is at the heart of the discussion. One of MAIA's original claims - the reason I set up this thread in the first place - was that the Bush administration said certain things with the aim of gulling the American people into thinking Hussein bore responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. In actual fact, neither Bush nor any member of the Bush administration said any such thing, as this thread has amply demonstrated. What every one of you who is trying to argue otherwise seems to gloss over is the fact - and yes, folks, it is a fact - that every time some reporter or interviewer asked for clarification on the administration's position, the administration member in question always - without exception - immediately confirmed in plain, simple, unambiguous English with no attempt at spin that no, the administration had no evidence leading them to believe Hussein bore any responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. That happened every single time they were asked, folks - whether it was Cheney or Rumsfeld or Rice being asked the question. What kind of nefarious subliminal linguistic manipulation scheme is so fragile the entire edifice could be toppled like a house of cards by the first White House press pool reporter smart enough to ask straight out - "Do you guys think Iraq was involved in this?" Now, the press could have trumpeted these answers in the headlines for days or weeks on end had they so chosen. And in fact, some headlines made a point of mentioning these answers. I remember very clearly one of the old school posters to this forum linking to such a headline and crowing triumphantly that Rumsfeld (I think it was.... might have been Cheney) had "finally been forced into admitting" that Hussein was not involved in the attacks. But of course, no one in the administration had ever said or even implied that he had been, and there was no "forcing" involved at all - the reporter asked a question, Rumsfeld (or whoever) gave a straightforward answer with no dicking around, the question period continued. Luvdemshrooms and zappaisgod are doing nothing more than pointing out the obvious: that those who keep insisting - against all available evidence - that the Bush administration made statements implying Hussein bore responsibility for the 9/11 attacks are either - too stupid to understand simple declarative statements made in their own mother tongue, or are - too blinded by their ideological prejudices to interpret simple declarative statements made in their own mother tongue without projecting into those statements their own preconceptions of what "neocons" would say, or are - too dishonest to admit they do understand simple declarative statements made in their own mother tongue because doing so would blow their feeble arguments out of the water. There are only the three options to choose from, Twirling. There are no others. So which would you prefer to go with? The only "verbal masturbation" going on here is that displayed by those attempting to read into these statements meaning which isn't there. Phred
| |||||||
|
Barred Spiral Registered: 02/03/03 Posts: 2,468 Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I'm going to assume when you talk about 1993 WTC bomber, you're referring to Abdul Rahman Yasin. He was arrested in Iraq and the Iraqi government offered to hand him over to the United States in return for being removed off the U.N. Sanctions ( source ). The article also mentioned that he was trained in Pakistan, not by Iraq. Abu Nidal was arrested and killed by Saddam Hussein, and had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, which is the focus of this discussion. Abu Abbas was sheltered by Hussein, I'll certainly give you that, but I wasn't arguing that Hussein/Iraq never aided terrorists, it's that there is no connection between him and al-Qaeda (no including when he rebuked offers from al-Qaeda, which only shows a lack of a relationship). Quote: I was specifically referring to that one paragraph which seemed to suggest I couldn't understand English or logic. It was a patronizing attempt to make it look like I had no argument, yet it didn't make any arguments of its own. Quote: Your original "challenge" was for anyone to pull up quotes "from any credible source from any member of the Bush administration claiming Hussein was responsible for 9/11". You just said that you started this thread because MAIA claimed that "the Bush administration said certain things with the aim of gulling the American people into thinking Hussein bore responsibility for the 9/11 attacks". Those are two separate claims. Had MAIA claimed that Bush specifically said that Iraq was responsible, I would be agreeing with you because he never said that. But there are plenty of statements which show that the Bush administration was making erroneous claims that Iraq was tied to & supported al-Qaeda. So to ask for quotes which state that Bush said that Iraq was responsible is to miss the point entirely. Quote: Actually, that hasn't been demonstrated. The most evidence you have presented is "I can't remember the guy's name cause it's Arabic". I had to look up the info in order to figure out what you were talking about. Quote: Again, now you're switching back to implying, but the evidence you're looking for is that he specifically said that Iraq was responsible. I've given plenty of quotes where Bush attempted to connect Iraq & al-Qaeda, but the administration was very careful to never say that Iraq was responsible. I freely admit that cause that's not what I'm arguing (I don't want to speak for MAIA). But the fact that every claim that tied Iraq & al-Qaeda together was disproved does mean that they tried to link the two together. Again, I've seen no evidence that Iraq supported al-Qaeda in any fashion. So far it's been, "we've discussed this before, take my word for it", and when I asked for further verification, all I've gotten was, "I can't remember his name". Worse yet, if you're talking about who I think you're talking about, then you're simply wrong since Iraq arrested the guy. The other two you mentioned have nothing to do with al-Qaeda. There is a lot of boasting and self-congratulations about being right without providing any solid information to back up your claims. There is a lot of effort put into insults, but considering the most we've seen is "I can't remember his name", there's not a whole lot to back up those insults. My main point in all this is that the original "challenge" is misleading. At the very least, change it so it matches up MAIA's statements.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Let's review, shall we? Here is a direct cut and paste from MAIA -
Quote: Now you say - Quote: I suggest you re-read MAIA's statement. Go back to the opening post in this thread and read it in context, if you wish, but MAIA's claim is plain - he is saying the Bush administration told the American people that Hussein was one of the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks. This is a bullshit statement, as even MAIA has been forced to admit. But I went further than that - I say not only did the Bush administration never say Hussein was responsible, I say no one in the Bush administration even implied Hussein was one of the people responsible for the attacks. I say that because it was true, as has been amply demonstrated in this thread and in dozens of previous threads by the inability of anyone to come up with any statement from any member of the Bush administration implying Hussein bore any responsibility for the attacks. You haven't provided such a statement either, for the simple reason that there is no such statement to be provided. Quote: Al Qaeda the organization? Nope. Individuals claiming to be members of Al Qaeda? Yep. Again, the 9/11 Committee notes Hussein's offer of refuge to Osama bin Laden himself when bin Laden got the boot from Sudan. Quote: And there were connections, as Time, Newsweek, the NY TImes and the 9/11 Committee pointed out. Quote: I don't know how I can put this without you interpreting as an insult to your reading skills, but I'll give it another go - READ MAIA's claims again. Here it is yet again: Quote: My challenge was that he unearth any claim from any member of the Bush administration that Hussein was one of those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. I haven't the foggiest idea why you believe the challenge does not "match up with" MAIA's false assertion. Phred
| |||||||
|
Barred Spiral Registered: 02/03/03 Posts: 2,468 Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Meh, ok. I think I was mixing up his statements on "Big Brother" which your asking for something which you can't legally do anymore that you could do before 9/11. That is genuinely something that is different from what you were looking for. But I'll coincide he did claim that the administration "told you" that Saddam was one of the ones responsible.
But I still find the arguments that al-Qaeda and Iraq were linked to be completely false. Quote: And why can't you produce any links to them? I already dismissed the one example you gave, and every single article I've read from Time, Newsweek, and the NY Times has relied on information which has since either been retracted, or found to be false. It seems like you're relying on old information which the media has shown to be faulty. Read the 2006 Senate Report of Pre-War Intelligence conclusions: Conclusion 1: The CIA's assessment that Iraq and al-Qaeda were "two independent actors trying to exploit each other" was accurate only about al-Qaeda. "Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support." Conclusion 2: Postwar findings have indicated that there was only one meeting between representatives of Saddam Hussein and representatives of al-Qaeda. These findings also identified two occasions "not reported prior to the war, in which Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qa'ida operative. The Intelligence Community has not found any other evidence of meetings between al-Qa'ida and Iraq." Conclusion 3: "Prewar Intelligence Community assessments were inconsistent regarding the likelihood that Saddam Hussein provided chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training to al-Qa'ida. Postwar findings support the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) February 2002 assessment that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was likely intentionally misleading his debriefers when he said that Iraq provided two al-Qa'ida associates with chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training in 2000.... No postwar information has been found that indicates CBW training occurred and the detainee who provided the key prewar reporting about this training recanted his claims after the war." Conclusion 4: "Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq. There have been no credible reports since the war that Iraq trained al-Qa'ida operatives at Salman Pak to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations." Conclusion 5: Postwar findings support the assessment that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and associates were present in Baghdad from May-November 2002. "Prewar assessments expressed uncertainty about Iraq's complicity in their presence, but overestimated the Iraqi regime's capabilities to locate them. Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi." Conclusion 6: Prewar interactions between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda affiliate group Ansar al-Islam were attempts by Saddam to spy on the group rather than to support or work with them. "Postwar information reveals that Baghdad viewed Ansar al-Islam as a threat to the regime and that the IIS attempted to collect intelligence on the group." Conclusion 7: "Postwar information supports prewar Intelligence Community assessments that there was no credible information that Iraq was complicit in or had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks or any other al-Qa'ida strike..... Postwar findings support CIA's January 2003 assessment, which judged that 'the most reliable reporting casts doubt' on one of the leads, an alleged meeting between Muhammad Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague, and confirm that no such meeting occurred. Prewar intelligence reporting cast doubt on the other lead as well." Conclusion 8: "No postwar information indicates that Iraq intended to use al-Qa'ida or any other terrorist group to strike the United States homeland before or during Operation Iraqi Freedom." Conclusion 9: "additional reviews of documents recovered in Iraq are unlikely to provide information that would contradict the Committee's findings or conclusions. The Committee believes that the results of detainee debriefs largely comport with documentary evidence, but the Committee cannot definitively judge the accuracy of statements made by individuals in custody and cannot, in every case, confirm that the detainee statements are truthful and accurate."
| |||||||
|
Hello Registered: 11/08/07 Posts: 2,312 Last seen: 3 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
Phred, since you have finally started being active in this thread again, i would like to re-issue this question that several members have proposed to you, and which you seem to be trying to ignore.
yes, we all agree no one ever explicitly connected Saddam Hussein and 9-11, but do you truly believe that such a connection was not implied in order to gain public support for the war? i think many of us would like an answer to this, but it shouldn't require much more than a yes or no. i'm sure a sentence or two should suffice. -------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
I'm not ignoring it, fa cryin' out loud - every post I have made in this thread contains the answer, duh!
Of course I don't believe that such a connection was implied in order to gain public support for the war. Again, not only was no such responsibility (on Hussein's part) ever explicitly stated by the Bush administration, it wasn't even implied. How many times have I said that already in this thread? How many more times must I say it before you will be satisfied? Phred
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Quote:My guess is 7. Is there a prize for the closest guess? -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 6 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
Quote:
| |||||||
|
Stinky Bum Registered: 12/20/00 Posts: 3,322 Loc: Charm City Last seen: 5 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: You can say it a million times, but until you make a convincing counter-argument I doubt anyone who lived through the Bush administration as an adult will be "satisfied." Without 9/11 and the ensuing anti-terrorist fervor which was inevitable but exacerbated by the Bush administration, there never would have been enthusiastic support for an invasion of Iraq. It's so obvious that I don't really see why we are even discussing it. -------------------- Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
| |||||||
|
Hello Registered: 11/08/07 Posts: 2,312 Last seen: 3 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
i guess we are discussing it because of a few individual's complete refusal to believe anything of the sort happened.
we all agree no one ever explicitly linked the two together, so the difference of opinion arises in regards to whether or not links were implied, or if, like you said, the anti-terrorism hysteria was taken advantage of to invade Iraq. This is where the real debate lies, and if people can still deny any possibility of such after reading all of the information contained in this thread, then absolutely nothing is going to change these opinions, and the discussion is truly dead and over. ![]() i thought that this post by Twirling really summed up the whole thing well, and am surprised it didn't seem to get any recognition for being so well-constructed and on point. -------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
And what continues to be scrupulously ignored here by the BDS sufferers is that the American people had no say whatsoever in any decision regarding the Iraq war. There was no proposition voted on, no election except for that of their representatives in Congress. The People, that great unwashed and ignorant, easily duped mass of bubbling sheep protoplasm (So Sayeth The Left) simply was not involved in the process. There was no effort to deceive, no intent to deceive, no need to deceive. Not only is there no evidence of deception there is no motivation for it.
I fully realize that the Left overinflate their own individual importance. "If only Bush hadn't deceived me I could have stopped this horrible and unjust persecution of one of the great thugs of our time." No, child, you were not asked. And they label me as arrogant. Puhleeze.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Dude, you need to put more zeros on that, as evidenced by the two posts immediately above my latest arrogant brilliance. Children, nobody ever cared what you thought about it. Your counsel was not sought.
| |||||||
|
Stinky Bum Registered: 12/20/00 Posts: 3,322 Loc: Charm City Last seen: 5 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: So you're saying that it doesn't matter whether there was popular support for the war or not? Yeah you're right. It didn't figure at all in the 2004 presidential races no sireee bob. Anyway the point doesn't matter. We're not discussing the political implications of an administration that exploited the people's conception, the challenge was to prove whether or not the administration manipulated the public conception. Quote: As is par for the course, you are the only one in this thread calling the masses stupid. If I had a dime for everytime you described the average american citizen as either stupid or lazy, I would finally be in your tax bracket. Quote: Ridiculous. Every war needs popular support. This is another point that is so obvious its not even worth going into. All one need to do is open a history book to any war that has ever taken place to see the efforts governments or nations go to to ensure their citizens are offered a compelling war story. The current Iraq war is no exception. Terrorists blow up towers. Saddam friend of terrorists. Go get Saddam. The narrative may be true, false, or somewhere in between. But if its not there there is no war. Quote: Quit trollin Quote: Phred asked, actually. That we have a discussion on this. So blame him, not me. -------------------- Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: That is an entirely different kettle of fish and not at all what MAIA claims. Of course there was more support for deposing Hussein after the 9/11 attacks than before, duh! How could there not be? Remember that it had been the official policy of the United States government since 1998 that Hussein's Ba'athist government be deposed. Congress passed the Act to that effect with broad bi-partisan support, it's just that Billy Jeff didn't have a strong sense of urgency about it. He was content to lob a few cruise missiles into empty buildings whenever the Lewinsky affair heated up to a certain level and leave the heavy lifting to his successor. Bush didn't make it a priority of his either. Then 9/11 happened. And everything changed. Quote: The ridiculous thing is that people are still trying to lie about how the Bush administration went about their decision-making. See MAIA's bullshit as a case in point. How anyone can still be trying to peddle this snake oil is just astonishing to me. It was long ago established - like years and years ago - that the Bush administration did not build their case for resuming hostilities with Hussein's Ba'athist regime on any kind of "responsibility" Hussein bore for the 9/11 attacks. Phred
| |||||||
|
Stinky Bum Registered: 12/20/00 Posts: 3,322 Loc: Charm City Last seen: 5 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
Excellent post.
For the record, I'm not out to demonize Bush but I do respond when history is being mis-characterized. Sometimes the two things intersect, however. -------------------- Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Which challenge you and your ilk have failed utterly to meet. Abject failure. And let's review, shall we, the time line of the war vis a vis the Presidential election of 2004. The war commenced in early 2003. Bush made his statements regarding the justification before that time. The Presidential election was held in late 2004. More than 18 months after any speeches were made for it. Eighteen months, during which time there was ample opportunity, some seized some lost, for the anti war dipshits to get their message out that it was fraudulent. Eighteen months for the NYTimes, Newsweek, Time, WaPo, etc to explain to the American People how they had been deceived in a real news article. I exempt the deranged bleatings of the New York Times theater critic turned carnival geek, Frank Rich. He was one of the original "Bush lied" 'tards but no one ever confuses his work as accurate. Are you so paranoid as to believe that the biggest news organizations, which despise anything Republican, were in on the scam? He didn't say it, he didn't imply it and if you were fooled then you, sir, were a fool. Quote:Quote: No, I am not. Every pronouncement by the Bush Deranged that he fooled the people (but not us illuminated ones, OH NO!) is an indictment of the intelligence of the American People. It is you on Far Left who make this argument, not I. My argument is that English is English and whether some people do or do not understand it is irrelevant to an indictment for dishonesty. Either you can find the lying statement or you can't. And you haven't. After all these years that tells me it is a unicorn. A holy grail for the BDS crowd. Keep hunting, I think I saw a snipe whizz by over THERE. Quote:Quote: Although it is debatable about what popular support is necessary for wars to be prosecuted, (highly debatable, in my opinion), I will not be distracted from the point, which point being that there was no deception and you weren't asked your opinion. The only people relevant to the prosecution of this war were members of Congress and they all had the information necessary to choose war. Are you going to contend that they, the only people with an actual vote on the matter, were gulled as well? Quote: I don't troll. I find it a disgusting characteristic of leftards everywhere. Quote: Can you follow a point at all? Phred did not ask your permission to invade Iraq. Nor did anybody else, ever. This continues to reinforce my belief that you cannot read what is written as opposed to inventing your own interpretation of what is written. Phred has addressed this above. Pirates.
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 6 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
Quote:
| |||||||
|
Hello Registered: 11/08/07 Posts: 2,312 Last seen: 3 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: nobody is lying about anything. people are simply providing numerous quotes which they feel demonstrate the administration's attempts to link the two in the public's mind. some feel the quotations clearly demonstrate this, others can't or don't (or don't want to) see it. so it has come down to a difference of opinions, which i agree is different from your original requests. but at the same time, your challenge set the bar impossibly high, you requested proof that did not exist, and thus you set yourself as the predetermined winner of the argument. i get that MAIA may have laid claim that such proof existed, and perhaps wrongly so. however i believe the majority in this thread are attempting to show you that they understand such quotes don't exist, but also that it's not such a pure black-and-white, all or nothing issue. -------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
Perhaps I misunderstand "trolling". I thought it was the act of posting inflammatory rhetoric for the sole purpose of annoying the reader. This I do not do. I post what I post with total disregard for how much it might annoy some faggotty liberal twat. That's just a derivative benefit.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Except MAIA. Quote: And these examples do nothing other than prove my point. None of the quotes provided do any such thing. Quote: No, it hasn't. This isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of people reading into very simple, unequivocal statements things which simply are not there. In other words, people demonstrating their lack of reading (and listening) comprehension. It is not my opinion that the administration never said Hussein was responsible, or that the administration never implied Hussein was responsible, that is fact. Quote: You haven't the foggiest idea of how debate works, do you? I didn't set the bar impossibly high, MAIA did, by claiming something existed which does not in fact exist - statements from the Bush administration stating that Hussein bore responsibility for the attacks. I didn't set any bar, I merely demanded he back up his baseless claim. The fact that he can't back it up is not my doing, but his. Quote: And failing in those attempts. Phred
| |||||||
|
Hello Registered: 11/08/07 Posts: 2,312 Last seen: 3 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
failing because you wont accept their arguments?
-------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 6 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
Quote:
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: It's a religion with you, isn't it? An article of faith. This is why you are marginalized and, to all intents and purposes, ignored. It is eminently easy to expose you as an acolyte and no kind of rational observer of fact, inconvenient as they are
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Quote: Failing because they are wrong. Failing because the facts are against them. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Hello Registered: 11/08/07 Posts: 2,312 Last seen: 3 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: i guess we could rephrase "freedom from" to ' "freedom to" not be subjected to various unconstitutional....' Phred, you still have not addressed this half or your challenge -------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
| |||||||
|
Stinky Bum Registered: 12/20/00 Posts: 3,322 Loc: Charm City Last seen: 5 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: You're really going to argue that justification for the Iraq war is not still a contested issue today, in 2009, much less than during the 2004 presidential election? Really? Did you watch the debates? Do you want to pull up transcripts? No, probably not. Does the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" ring a bell? Do you deny that there was (is) a fear of WMD's that were supposedly in the hands of Saddam getting into the hands of terrorists? Do you deny that this was a factor in the war? Quote: I was never fooled because I never believed Bush's war justifications, implied implicitly stated or otherwise. The whole thing was a fucking farce from day 1. Quote: Nope. You can call a politician a liar without calling the people he lied to stupid. Its easy, and you do it as often as the rest of us. Quote: ![]() Quote: Then debate it. Quote: This is the crux of where I don't agree with you. I personally wasn't asked my opinion of course not no. But I stand by my assertion that a war needs popular support. You're going to have to get busy if you want to prove me wrong. The rest of my argument is that most of the support for the war in Iraq was stirred by the attacks on 9/11 and the American people's belief that a war in Iraq would make the world more difficult for terrorists and would remove Weapons of Mass Destruction from people who sympathize or even arm terrorists such as Al Q'aeda. I don't think the American people are stupid for believing this. I don't think they are stupid because I believe that the administration strategically played off of the 9/11 aftermath to justify an invasion of Iraq. So to dismantle my argument you need to 1) Prove that it doesn't matter whether at all whether or not an administration needs support for a war if they are going to start and sustain it, including a the re-election of that administration. 2) Deny that the administration exploited widely held beliefs that there was a 9/11 Iraq connection. Knowing your strageties, you will probably opt for option 3, in which case you insult me, then the left (earning yourself another eagle badge), and then divert the discussion in some new direction that re-defines the question on the table. Time will tell. Quote: I never contended that anyone was gulled. But I will continue to contend that the Bush administration exploited and exacerbated a post 9/11 anti-terrorist panic to enact a war that would have had little support otherwise. Again, please deny this instead of attacking me as a leftist or an elitist, of which I am neither... Quote: ...Oh wait, you can't. ![]() All in all, I'm getting frustrated because yet again this is turning into two people trying to prove who is right instead of trying to find out where they agree or where the truth is. Again, I'm not representing "the left" and I'm not trying to beat "the right," or prove that Bush is a monster. But it seems very clear to me that after 9/11 the administration saw an opportunity to roll out their plan to depose Saddam, which had been on the table for quite some time as Phred pointed out. That goes beyond Dem vs. Rep administrations and points to a government agenda that had been in place for some time. And that is what is and that is how governments work...you gotta strike when the iron is hot. But I think it is false to say that the Bush administration didn't play the 9/11 card over and over again in relation to the Iraq war, because they did. I think it is false to say that there wasn't a deliberate manipulation of public opinion because there was. That's basically it. -------------------- Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
| |||||||
|
Stinky Bum Registered: 12/20/00 Posts: 3,322 Loc: Charm City Last seen: 5 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: No, that is flaming. Which you usually don't do. Trolling is when you post a comment which tries to bait the reader into an argument. It's a tactic that is useful when instead of dealing with the issue at hand, you want to redirect the argument towards who is better, the left or the right, by calling into question the character of anyone not on your side and therefore implicitly the person you are arguing with. It's very childish, ensures the argument will never reach a healthy conclusion, and perpetuates the partisan stalemate of the political system. An example of this would be: Quote: Personally I enjoy responding to such posts with an eagle badge, such as:
-------------------- Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
| |||||||
|
Hello Registered: 11/08/07 Posts: 2,312 Last seen: 3 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: so when one person tells you why he thinks a quote shows an intention to mislead, and you say no it doesn't, he is automatically wrong? -------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Do you not believe Saddam had WMDs ever? Do you not believe that, if left alone, he would have given them to terrorists? Do you forget that prior to 9/11 there was strong push to end the sanctions against Iraq, most notably pushed in the bought and paid for UN? Does this have one fucking thing to do with the false assertion that Bush claimed Saddam had anything to do with 9/11? You guys simply cannot follow a point, can you? Quote:Quote: As for my own personal self I thought it was long overdue simply based on the irrefutable fact that Saddam was not in compliance with the surrender terms and was in fact guilty of bribing UN officials. I didn't need any ties to 9/11 or smoking gun evidence of WMDs. Theer was more than ample other justification, as laid out. Nonetheless, this has nothing to do with the discussion at heand, which is that the BUsh administration in no way misled anyone, much less anyone with a decision making role. Endo. Quote:More falseness. Prove it or, really, fuck off. Quote:Quote: It is certainly incontestable fact that the American people's tolerance for nitpicking, irresponsible nonsense dissipated in the wake of 9/11. Arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of pin is an indulgence, as was endlessly arguing whether Saddam was compliant enough. He was not ever in full compliance and hence, in my opinion, had to be removed as per the agreement he accepted. Do you not understand that if you don't enforce an agreement every other piece of shit will continue to agree and just keep going about his evil business as if nothing changed? Fuck me you people are so clueless it hurts. But, once again, that is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. Quote: Exploited? What the fuck is that? Are strippers exploited because they get paid to dance or are the viewers exploited because they pay to watch? I can exploit your desire for pizza by selling you one. It is a concept for idiots. NO!, the question is whether there was deception. Quote: Me divert? I laugh out loud at your bald faced perfidy. I have tried very hard, in spite of your endless sidetrips, to actually keep this on the straight and narrow. I didn't inject WMDs into the conversation, you did. Try to stay on point, will ya'. Quote:Quote: And now we have yet again another straw man, goal post change, whatever you want to call it. I didn't need the Bush administration to tell me that my tolerance for bullshit had diminished to microscopic size because of 9/11. Does that mean I exploited 9/11 to get done what I wanted done long ago and for different reasons? According to your paradigm anything is exploited. ANYTHING. This is why I find you ridiculous. But that was NOT THE POINT OF THIS THREAD. This thread is about lying assholes saying Bush misled the country by asserting that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. I'm going to repeat that: LYING ASSHOLES. The plain and simple fact is that he did not do it and I will suck your lover's dick in Macy's window if you can prove it.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: You seem to be ignoring the entire argument. Whenever someone is as sure as you seem to be about the import and intent behind language I think there's reason to be suspicious. Who exactly are you arguing with that the administration never said saddam was linked to 9/11 explicitly and why? It seems like an irrelevant argument to all the serious contrary opinions.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
No, you are ignoring the argument. The argument is that what Bush said is what Bush said and nothing interpretative can change that. I can analyze your posts and state that you are clearly suffering from a mother fixation and feelings of abandonment by your father because you said you wanted more Maypo. Or, you just wanted more Maypo. But in the real world of political announcements and statements the only standard there can be is a plain text reading of what is actually said. What is actually said. We do not need nor desire a legion of interpreters explaining what they think the meaning of "is" is. Or what is news or anything like that. I demand to be treated like an adult and I will thank you very much not to think you have a greater understanding of, well, anything.
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 6 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
It's one of the arguments and the only one that Phred cares to address, unfortunately.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
He made the thread.
Another addendum to my post regarding the "exploited" meme. Did FDR "exploit" Pearl Harbor? Did the North "exploit" the secession? How popular does gluke think the Civil War was? I bet it wasn't real popular on either side.
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 6 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
He did ask the question. He also subsequently ignored it when pointed out that the question itself is flawed and an attempt to frame the debate in an unreasonable manner.
| |||||||
|
Stinky Bum Registered: 12/20/00 Posts: 3,322 Loc: Charm City Last seen: 5 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: He didn't have to. Germany declared war on the US immediately after Pearl Harbor. Quote: Not a valid question. If the North had used the south's secession to invade canada or mexico, then you would have a valid metaphor. But by your own rabid insistence 9/11 and Iraq are as unrelated as black and white. In fact I am surprised someone as committed to celebrating the distance between Al-Qaeda and Hussein as you are would even bring this up. ![]() Quote: Initially, the civil war was supported by both a majority of the public in the south and the north. -------------------- Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: So what? They didn't invade. Hussein declared war on the US years earlier. As did Iran. Quote:Quote: I don't think you need to invent any rabidness on my part so don't. For the incredibly, ponderously slow I will repeat myself "George Bush at no time ever stated that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. Many lying morons have argued that he did. They are liars." I hope that is wondrously clear for you and not fodder for your ersatz parsing. Once again you evidence a complete and utter failure to accept a plain text reading of what I write. Or anything at all. Quote: Link? The South certainly supported secession. I doubt very much that they supported the invasion.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I don't know what you're talking about. I thought this thread was about the retarded lib meme that BOOOOOSH LIED WHEN HE TIED.....
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
|
What redstorm said. Like I said previously: you and phred like to focus on arguing people that refuse to concede on teh issue of whether bush explicitly linked the two in whatever way. It makes an easy target. Here you've continued arguing against them even where they have not continued their participation.
I don't know how you telling me the issue is what bush explicitly said makes it so. I for example have stated that bush communicated something different than what he explicitly said and he did so willingly and intentionally to create support that would have been hard to obtain honestly. And yet you continue the refrain "but he didn't say that" as if his explicit words are what anyone who's taken any effort to make the argument comport with reality has argued (it isn't). And like Redstorm said: Phred made the thread but that doesn't mean he gets to cherry pick the weakest claims (or nonexistant claims) and then argue against those whilst claiming them relevant to the stronger claims. This thread was the product of MAIA's claims- claims which phred hasn't really addressed to well in his initial post in my opinion. It seems you just refuse to address the actual argument I and others are making and instead continue arguing something of questionable relevance (bush didn't explicitly state iraq and 9/11 were related in whatever ways are suggested here)
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 6 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
This.
Quote:
| |||||||
|
Barred Spiral Registered: 02/03/03 Posts: 2,468 Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Quote: So far, I've seen one example of someone who had al-Qaeda connections, and I've shown that he was actually arrested by Saddam Hussein when Phred was claiming he was given shelter. I've yet to see anymore examples, just that various newspapers/magazines/9/11 Committee said that there were. The lack of evidence supplied means that Phred has to drop this original claim. Or he could provide some links and we can take it from there. So far, it's been, "take my word for it", and the little that was supplied turned out to be wrong.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
I will herewith post any legislation related to the entire US tax code enacted since then. The tax code is the single greatest force for oppression in the US there has ever been and is only going to get more so under the Socialist in Chief.
Other than that, it hasn't had the least impact on my life.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: They continue to argue a far worse thing, which is that what they say Bush said is what Bush said. This is evident in the continued position that Bush "exploited" 9/11. A rather stupid notion, in my opinion. Quote: Whoops, there you go making with t3h stoopitzors. I'm going to make my case yet again. Bush is not responsible for the interpretations of his utterances, he is only responsible for his utterances, which are actually quite clear. He is not accountable for any amateur interpreters. Were you one of the duped? If so, let me express my sincere condolences over your failed education. If you weren't one of the duped why do you believe that so many others are stupider than you? And does that even matter? Perhaps you think you should do all of their thinking for them since they are so obviously lacking. I have seen zero evidence presented by any of you to lead me to believe that there was a disinformation campaign. Bush was scrupulously careful, unlike the current asshole, in what he said, knowing full well that the entire weight of the Marxist press was ready to jump on him. Quote: What argument are you making, other than that people are stoopit and it's somehow Bush's fault that a bunch of self appointed interpreters and amateur psychoanalysts are lying fuckholes? I have actually extensively addressed the argument that it was a)exploitative or b)misleading. That argument is and always has been that you cannot and must not assume that your audience is stupid when you are the President. You cannot tailor your speeches with any acquiescence whatsoever to the obfuscating bullshit artists who will opine that you said "pink" when you merely said "red" and then go about selling a 300 page book based on endless masturbatory speculation about how it was actually "salmon pink" when really he just said "red". You have not yet taken over the English language and I will stand ready at the gates to repel the barbarian hordes of amateur and professional "interpreters". He never said Saddam was responsible for 9/11. The endless adoption of "exploited" is foolish and dishonest and meant to deceive, unlike anything you have presented from Bush. If you were misled you were a fool. If you think hordes of Americans were misled then you clearly think them to be of defective intellect. My position is this. There was no attempt to mislead, I was not misled, although most people are less informed than me they were not misled by the President (the NY Times is another issue) and if they were so stupid as to believe that he tied Saddam to 9/11, when he clearly didn't, why should their opinion matter?
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Quote: When the facts clearly show they are wrong, of course. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/13/09 Posts: 3,259 |
| ||||||
Quote: I have done this with my example of the court case I posted about. People could support a group through legal counsel before, then couldnt afterwards, end of discussion for that example. I also wrote a very large post containing sections of the patriot act that also were relevant to his challenge. Not surprising to me he hasn't commented on them ha, I know his type.
| |||||||
|
Fun guy Registered: 09/15/04 Posts: 16,337 |
| ||||||
|
Phred; how about new passport requirements for air and border travel?
My freedom to Travel In or out of the USA without a passport is gone. not to mention i'm forced to work more to pay for a passport if i want to. on the topic of bush/iraq in my eyes bush never really blamed Saddam for 9/11, but strongly suggested that Saddam was planning another 9/11 like attack in the future. i have to side with phred on that one im just curious, if you don't mind; would everyone state which political party they mainly support? My partisan sense is tingling. i support neither.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Redstorm writes:
Quote: And which of those various warrantless monitoring methods were signed into law after the 9/11 attacks? I noted earlier in the thread that there are close to two dozen instances on the books where a warrant is not required for a search or surveillance (for example). Can you point out the ones which weren't in existence prior to September 11th of 2001? I remind you of MAIA's original claims on this point - Quote: More domestic control. "More" in this context equals an increase of "control" of US residents. Let's ignore for the moment what possible benefit the Bush administration would hope to realize from "controlling" US residents more tightly. Let's just treat it as a given that the Bush administration wanted to exert more control over them. This raises the logical question - "Control over which behavior?" In other words, what did the Bush administration want US residents to do more of or to do less of? Because until you decide which behavior you want to reward and which you want to punish, it's pretty difficult to draft the legislation necessary to achieve those goals. As I mentioned earlier, your argument isn't that there are things you can't do now which you could do then, it's that now when you do those things, the government might be watching. Or listening. Tying this in to MAIA's claims, then, the whole point of the government watching and listening to US residents is to reduce the likelihood of those residents doing things they would do if they thought they weren't being watched or listened to. I await your list of the various new (as in previously non-existent) warrantless monitoring methods which were signed into law after September 11, 2001. Phred
| |||||||
|
Barred Spiral Registered: 02/03/03 Posts: 2,468 Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I can only assume from the lack of a follow up that Phred is conceding and retracting his point about Iraq supporting al-Qaeda. He's replied to multiple other posts so he's had ample time to see and reply to this. So far, his biggest proof for this claim is that various magazines & newspapers said it was true. Sorry, but "take my word for it" is not high enough proof to make an argument off of.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
And I have told you I am not interested in providing all those same links again. This has been done to death years ago. It was done again when the 9/11 Commission released its report, and probably a few times since. You have all the tools to find those threads in this forum - it's not like they're hidden or anything.
I realize it's not your fault you're late to the party, but it's not my fault either. Oh.... wait a minute.... I see by your post history that you were actually active in the Political Discussion forum at the exact same time all this was being thrashed out in great detail! So what's the reason for your memory lapse? Phred
| |||||||
|
Horrible Bastard Registered: 05/22/07 Posts: 2,084 Last seen: 12 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: No it hasn't. -------------------- What can we do to help you stop screaming? Official Mr Shoebat lackey.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Actually, yes it has. All this stuff has been done to death years ago.
It is one thing to ask someone to support his argument the first time it is made. Or even the second time, if it was lightly covered in the first discussion and then never popped up again till a few years down the road. But the question of Hussein's links to terrorists has been covered thoroughly on dozens of occasions, and not just by me. When the 9/11 Commission issued its report, that was the end of it. There were a few die-hards who kept trying to bluster that the Commission had fabricated evidence out of thin air, but they got shut down pretty quick, seeing as how the majority of the Commission's references were to open-source documents, i.e. the reporting of media players such as ABC and CNN and Time and Newsweek and the New York Times, who had been detailing Hussein's involvement with terrorists all the way back to when Clinton won the 1992 election. Hell, some of the articles may have even been before he won... I honestly can't remember now. Did Hussein's minions offer any kind of support to the crew which planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks? I don't know. It doesn't matter whether he did or not, since that crew wasn't the only group of terrorists operating in the world, and it is undeniable Hussein was helping out several others. To try to deny this was the case is just nuts, and would be a source of vast amusement if it weren't so troubling to realize there are still people - after all these years - who won't acknowledge reality. Phred
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
Quote: Evidently the mystery links do not exist or they would have been provided by now. I was here at the time of the debate and there was no such thread I am aware of. There were furious attempts to make that link but none were even remotely successful. -------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
So sorry, but there have been several such threads. Dozens by now, probably. The fact that you were here at the time they were made and undoubtedly read them makes your dishonesty even more appalling.
Phred
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
|
You'll have to do better than that.
![]() I am afraid you are going to have to put up or shut up, Phreddy. I repeat. There were no such threads I am aware of and I was here for most of those debates. If I am mistaken and these threads are as numerous as you say they are then you should have no trouble whatsoever finding one to back your unsupported claim and make your detractors shut up once and for all. For now I can only conclude these links do not exist outside your fertile imagination. -------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Are you familiar with a feature here on The Shroomery called "Similar Threads"?
Phred
| |||||||
|
The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
Why not just link to one and get those whiners off your back?
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
|
Are you familiar with the concept that the burden of proof falls on the one making the claim?
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
| |||||||
|
Horrible Bastard Registered: 05/22/07 Posts: 2,084 Last seen: 12 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Actually, I kinda doubt that, considering even the Bush administration backed off of that claim. You, on the other hand, make these claims, then dismiss any demands for links with spurious claims to prior victory. Kinda laughable, dude. -------------------- What can we do to help you stop screaming? Official Mr Shoebat lackey.
| |||||||
|
Horrible Bastard Registered: 05/22/07 Posts: 2,084 Last seen: 12 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I'm starting to see a pattern, Phred. Tell me when I lose the plot: 1. You make hilarious claims. 2. Someone asks for a link. 3. You state that "this was all over and done with years ago". 4. Everyone laughs at you. 5. You call them dishonest, or threaten their posting privileges (Well, to be honest, I've only seen the latter once, but it was done to me, so I include it). No link is provided (presumably because no such link exists). -------------------- What can we do to help you stop screaming? Official Mr Shoebat lackey.
| |||||||
|
Barred Spiral Registered: 02/03/03 Posts: 2,468 Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I told you that I made numerous attempts at searching for said threads with no avail. If these threads are so readily available, and so convincing, then all you have to do is do a search yourself and link to the thread. You are asking me to take this on assumption, yet, so far, the examples you gave either had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, or in fact, demonstrated that Hussein arrested the guy you claimed he was sheltering. Given these poor examples, expecting me to accept them on faith is absurd. You are making claims that you can not back up, while also requiring those who disagree with you to go to great lengths to prove their case. This is a huge double-standard. Quote: Apparently, unlike you, I've kept up on information that has come out since then which has shown that the sources of information that Bush administration used to build their case for war to be fraudulent, from sources that the intelligence community knew to be sketchy, or worse yet, extracted by means of torture (which has proven to be unreliable). The vast majority of the early information that was in the media around the time of the war, turned out to be false, so this requires a bit more proof then, "I read it in Time magazine". The problem here is that Phred is arguing from a requirement that we all agree on the facts, and that if one disagrees with the facts, they just haven't done the work to find them out. I am challenging you to back up a major claim that Iraq aided al-Qaeda as well as providing them with chemical weapons knowledge. Without demonstrating that, what we have to go with is that Bush & co, in fact, used sketchy information to erroneously tie Iraq to al-Qaeda, and by extension, tying Iraq to 9/11. This is my position, and without actual proof that these claims were true, you can't really sink that argument (the excuse of "everyone thought the intelligence was true is not acceptable because most foreign intelligence agencies knew the sources to be sketchy, such as Germany's distrust of "Agent Curveball"). This does not mean they claimed that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, but rather that the administration used the fear the was caused by 9/11 as a justification to go with war with Iraq. I don't know many people who even deny this, and I talk to people from all across the spectrum. Even the die hard Bush-lovers admit this when I talk to them. But Phred is disputing this, which is fine. What is not fine is the lack of evidence presented to support his claim. You are expecting the people you've "challenged" to provide examples. I provided examples of how the Bush administration made comments which falsely link Iraq & al-Qaeda as a method of shifting blame onto Iraq. As a defense against that argument, you have stated that the allegations were true. I have provided a few examples to back up my case that the connections had no merit. The ONE example you gave me of an al-Qaeda member actually HURT the case for your position. The other two guys you mentioned had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, and one of them was arrested and killed by Saddam Hussein. To use these as examples of connections severely hurts your credibility. It means you didn't do your homework, and you're still refusing to do it while shifting the blame onto me. Considering that the ONE example you've given me turned out to be the exact opposite of what you claimed, expecting me to take this on faith is unacceptable. And the notion that I have a lapse in memory is nothing more than a defensive mechanism. These are just excuses and attempts to shift the blame on me. No more excuses. Either back up your claims or admit that you're wrong.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Which is what MAIA (and everyone else) has failed to do. Phred
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: No, the Bush administration never backed down on the fact that Hussein aided and abetted terrorists. Why should they, seeing as how Hussein aided and abetted terrorists? Phred
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: And I ask you as well... are you familiar with the feature Ythan provided to this bulletin board called "Similar Posts"? Phred
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
Quote: Of course I was referring to YOU and your unsupported claim, Phreddy. So much for honesty. You have utterly failed to provide those links after repeated requests. There's a very good reason for that. THEY DON'T EXIST. -------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: There's a reason Ythan went to the trouble of coding up a feature unique to The Shroomery he calls "Similar Posts". Are you familiar with it? Quote: It is unclear just when Hussein arrested the guy, or even for that matter if he ever was actually under arrest. He certainly wasn't under arrest in 1994. Again, there was the offer of asylum to Osama bin Laden. Osama rejected the offer, but that doesn't change the fact the offer was made. There were other instances as well, as described in previous threads on the subject. And of course, the nominal allegiance of the terrorists Hussein aided to this group or that group does nothing to alter the fact that neither MAIA nor any of the other participants of this thread have been able to back up the two claims I challenged MAIA to back up. Quote: Actually, this turns out not to be the case. In fact, Hussein's connections to various terrorist groups was far more extensive than was known pre-invasion. However, even if this were not the case (and it is the case, but let's pretend otherwise for a few minutes here) it would do nothing other than show that the world's intelligence agencies were mistaken, not that Bush ginned up this stuff out of nowhere. Remember, these links between Hussein and terrorist organizations were being reported in the media long before Bush became president. Quote: And yet gain I must repeat - I never said Hussein aided al Qaeda as an organization. He did, however, provide safe haven and training for several terrorists who were either al Qaeda members at the time or ended up joining al Qaeda at some point in time. See previous threads for details. And again, he extended an invitation to Osama bin Laden to set up shop in Iraq once Sudan was no longer a viable option for ObL and the boys. Quote: Your problem is that you insist on using "terrorist" as a synonym for "al Qaeda". The two are not equivalent. The Bush administration was aware of the difference. Why aren't you? Quote: But I am not disputing this. I have never disputed it! Of course people's opinions on the merits of resuming hostilities with Hussein's regime were different post 9/11 than they were pre 9/11. I have never once in all my years on this forum argued otherwise, and any statement asserting this is my position can only be classified as profoundly dishonest or profoundly stupid. Which would you prefer the readers go with? Dishonest or stupid? Quote: But that's the whole point! You have done no such thing. Quote: I'm sorry... where have you or anyone else backed up MAIA's claims? That is what the thread is about after all, not to determine the nominal allegiance of the terrorists Hussein aided and abetted (which has been done to death in many MANY threads over the years, none of which are difficult to find in the forum archives). Look, if you find the "search" function too difficult to figure out, just use the "Similar Threads" window at the bottom of this page. Phred
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Actually, they do exist. Until about two posts ago there were two of them in the list of "Related Threads" at the bottom of the page. But the program that loads those thread titles into "Related Threads" is a dynamic one, so as new posts are added to the thread, the list will often change. Maybe those threads will reappear, maybe they won't. But the threads exist. They are not hard to find. *edit* Sorry, I mean "Similar Threads" not "Related Threads". My bad. Phred Edited by Phred (04/05/09 12:27 AM)
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
Quote: More excuses and sleight of hand. Anything but the truth. Quote: Oh good. It should take you no time at all to prove you are not full of If you spent half the time locating these threads which you say are "not hard to find" than you do fending off numerous challengers you would save yourself a buttload of time and simultaneously deal a crushing blow to your enemies. Of course you won't do that because you sir are in fact full of .Stop asking people to prove a negative. Be a man and support your claims or stop wasting our time. -------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch Edited by zorbman (04/05/09 01:38 AM)
| |||||||
|
Barred Spiral Registered: 02/03/03 Posts: 2,468 Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: This is a poor excuse. I already said I searched around for it, and none of them contained info I thought was relevant. Rather than sarcasm, why not just go look for the threads yourself and copy & paste the info? Are you telling me you don't know how to use "Similar Posts either, or are you just too lazy? Quote: So the best proof you have of Hussein providing asluym for an al-Qaeda member is that it's unclear when he was arrested? Quote: That claim is largely unsubstantiated, and is sketchy at best. The 2006 Senate Report of Pre-War Intelligence had a number of conclusions, among them were: Conclusion 1: The CIA's assessment that Iraq and al-Qaeda were "two independent actors trying to exploit each other" was accurate only about al-Qaeda. "Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support." Conclusion 2: Postwar findings have indicated that there was only one meeting between representatives of Saddam Hussein and representatives of al-Qaeda. These findings also identified two occasions "not reported prior to the war, in which Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qa'ida operative. The Intelligence Community has not found any other evidence of meetings between al-Qa'ida and Iraq." Furthermore, from the 9/11 Commission source: The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The only information I can find on this supposed offer of asylum was from hard-core right wing blogs which contained broken links. This claim is extremely sketchy, especially with all the counter-evidence. Quote: I've already covered my objections to your "what can't you do post 9/11" challenge, so I'm not going to go over that again. While I will say that you are certainly technically correct that the Bush administration never specifically said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, I do have to question why you have so much outrage when a person claims this when the bigger picture is that the entire basis for the war was based on false pretenses? It seems as if you're cherry picking arguments you know you can win so you don't have to answer for the war as a whole. What's more consequential, the slight difference between claiming that Bush said Iraq was responsible for 9/11 vs. implying that Iraq was connected to al-Qaeda (and therefore, 9/11), or the fact that a war was started on information which had no basis in reality? This has more to do with setting up a strawman then it does with outrage over getting the facts wrong. Quote: More info on this? It's kind of vague. Quote: This "world's intelligence agencies" line is a misnomer. One of the major sources for the case that Iraq had WMD's came from a guy named Rafid Ahmed Alwan, codenamed "Curveball". He was being held by Germany, while Curveball was claiming to have inside information on their weapons labs, which he offered to exchange for citizenship. He had various changes in his stories, and the German agency warned the United States as to the reliability of his information. The CIA was even concerned that he was an alcoholic, along with being a compulsive liar. Many CIA agents have since made statements about how unreliable they knew he was. According to Tyler Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA's European division "everyone in the chain of command knew exactly what was happening." Then there's Ibn Sheikh al-Libby, which was shipped to Egypt and tortured until he basically told them what they wanted to hear. The United States used the info from that as intelligence that Iraq was a threat. Of course, it turned out to not be true because people who are being tortured simply tell people what ever they want to hear so the torture will stop. Hell, I could even point to the Downing Street Memo which explicitly said "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Quote: You're the one who keeps switching it. My point has been that the case prior to the war was that Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda, not terrorists besides al-Qaeda members. Besides, looking at the quotes from the administration, they clearly were claiming a connection between Iraq & al-Qaeda (most of the quotes are from C-SPAN archive. The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. ``He's a threat because he is dealing with al Qaida.'' President George Bush, President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002) Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training,'' President George Bush "We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." The al-Qaeda member they're referring to there is Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who was originally claimed to be given a safe haven and medical attention in Iraq. The CIA in 2006 retracted this, saying that Hussein never had knowledge of his presence there. Remember, this is one of the justifications for the war. Very explicit, and claims that Iraq worked with al-Qaeda as an organization. Not just a few members here and there. Quote: Ok, let me clarify because I don't think I was being specific enough given this comment: Quote: It's not clear to me where you stand on the extent to which the Bush administration used 9/11 and misinformation to put together a case to go to war with Iraq. What I was trying to say, and maybe I wasn't clear enough, was that almost everyone I talk to admits that Bush cherry picked information that he knew to be questionable to tie Iraq with al-Qaeda, and therefore, indirectly, 9/11. Therefore, the President mislead the public into war. Do you dispute that, or do you agree with that statement? Quote: Quote: I gave plenty of quotes from the Bush administration making grossly inaccurate claims about Iraq's relation with al-Qaeda. They're all back there, but I made a few on this reply as well. How else do you interpret the following? Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." Quote: I'm not necessarily backing up MAIA's claims, but there is some clear misrepresentation of the facts on your part. Namely, that you & others have claimed that Iraq/Saddam Hussein had provided aid to al-Qaeda members. Some others have gone in a bit further in their wording - but my main point is that there is a fairly thin line between the fact that the Bush administration didn't explicitly say that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 and the vast number of implied connections to al-Qaeda. We were told lies about weapons development, and the idea that if we didn't go to war, Iraq was going to supply al-Qaeda with nuclear/biological/chemical weapons which they would use to kill Americans. Unfortunately, I think your focus is on that one angle - the fact that it was never explicitly said, when the real outrage is the degree to which the Bush administration misused highly questionable "intelligence" to start a war. Really, what's a bigger deal? The possibility that MAIA made a statement which wasn't completely precise in its wording, or the fact that the information the Bush administration used to justify this war was fraudulent and occasionally obtained through torture? Besides, you said this: Quote: You're clearly saying that people who claim that the Bush administrations implied responsibility are self-diluted and are too blinded by ideology. I think I have a right to challenge that.
| |||||||
|
Horrible Bastard Registered: 05/22/07 Posts: 2,084 Last seen: 12 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Damn, Twirling, don't hurt him!
-------------------- What can we do to help you stop screaming? Official Mr Shoebat lackey.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: It's a matter of principle. The threads exist and you know they exist because you were a frequenter of the Political forum all during the time those threads were new and were having posts added to them on an hourly basis. Now those posts are old news, but they are still there. You read those threads at the time they were active but for some reason which escapes me you now choose to lie about it. It takes almost no effort at all to find the ones which generated the most discussion. I will admit that depending on which search terms you use in The Shroomery search function, you might end up missing some of the more obscure ones, but there is no way in hell it's possible to miss the more prominent ones. Hell, even the completely automated "Similar Threads" algorithm managed to find two of them. And yes, of course I could provide the links to those threads if I wished. But I won't let dishonest debaters set the terms of the debate. The threads exist, all the honest veteran posters are aware of that, so why should I cave to someone using childish tactics? Besides, this thread isn't about the nominal allegiance of the various terrorists Hussein supported, it is about MAIA's bullshit claims. Your attempt to avoid that obvious fact by trying to derail it through an admission of your inability to work a search function is pathetically transparent. Phred
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: You have all kinds of rights, including the right to be foolish, as does Dennis Kucinich. I don't care what Phred is saying, I'm saying that the "implying" you speak is a production of the listener not the speaker. It is manufactured by the listener. There is either a plain text example of Bush saying Saddam assisted in 9/11 or there is not. Implying is what is cited when there is a failure on the part of the interpreter to understand the plain text of an utterance. Or to lie. I'm not going to fisk your entire post but you use something from the Washington Post to suuport this contention: Quote: But that exact same article says this: "But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation." I know Saddam distrusted religious fanatics. No fucking shit. He killed lots of them because they were a threat to him. That does not negate the fact that he did use terrorists, helped terrorists, and only a fucking moron would think that, in extremis, he wouldn't do it again. But, that is OFF TOPIC. Your dismissal of your weak search skills as evidentiary is of no consequence to the continuing argument about whether Bush ever tied Saddam to 9/11. He did not. To say so is a lie and to argue that it was implied reflects only on your own weak perception. Also, nobody fucking asked you whether we should attack or not. There is a reason for that, that reason being that you can't be faithfully expected to understand what you read, what with all your "implying" and "analyzing".
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
|
Whether you are correct or not that your position has been defended in the past doesn't establish you as being right in this instance.
Without defending your claims you can't really assert that someone is wrong in a reasoned manner. I've seen times in the past, additionally, where your recollection of consensus in a prior discussion seemed different then mine, and I have no way of knowing if that is the case here or not. Regardless, the initial problem here is that your charecterization of MAIA's claim regarding "domestic control" seemed different than what he actually said, and it is kinda irrelevant what his words meant anyways. While his statement might have been wrong, I do think it is accurate that during the bush years the means of law enforcement to evade privacy rights and do searches/seizures without warrants has increased- at least the means have been more formally established in those instances in which they existed in some manner before. The real problem I see is the lack of transparency in some of these means. When discussing things like National Security Letters (talke about Orwellian) or the warantless wiretapping it is quite difficult to refer much to specifics when there are few to be had. While you can rebuff the more overstated and outrageous claims that are all too common (i.e. before Bush you couldn't do this or whatever) it doesn't really effect the meritous claims that their may be signifigant violations of law and that we may not even know what they are. Regardless, the apparent increase in scale and formalization of the procedures along with the tilting of the public discourse to what powers exist rather than if they are being used appropriatly and legally (the real issue) is disconcerting. The public discourse seems to ignore the signifigant issue of how we know the law is being followed even if warantless wiretapping programs can be done legally, and that is a shame and a problem.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
Are you referring to the completely legal warrantless wiretapping that has been going on long before Bush ever took office?
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Best proof? Nope. That would be in the many links contained in the archived threads. However, it is instructive to note that the first information the world received that the guy was even under arrest came only after Bush had sent a couple hundred thousand military personnel to camp out on Hussein's doorstep, and Hussein decided it might be a good idea to try to get them to leave by offering this or that "concession". For all we know, the guy was living in a penthouse in Baghdad on a government pension up until the day Hussein decided it was to his advantage to throw him under the bus. Quote: Oh, hogwash. It was as well substantiated as any other report about Hussein. Here's what the 9/11 Commission had to say about it - Quote: The meetings went on, the report says, until Iraq offered to formalize its relationship with al Qaeda: Quote: Quote: The war wasn't based on false pretenses. But let's for a moment pretend it was (it wasn't, but we're pretending for the next minute or so that it was) - shouldn't MAIA at least have the honesty to identify the correct false pretenses? Do facts not matter? Oh... forget I asked... this is Lefty-world we've entered after all. Quote: I remind you that I have never stated I thought it was correct for Italy and Spain and Australia and England and Poland and the United States and the Dominican Republic and all those other countries to cross over the border of Iraq in March of 2003 with the intent of deposing Hussein's Ba'athist regime. Further, I have stated in this forum at least fifty times since March of 2003 that even to this day I remain unconvinced it was better for those countries to have done what they did when they did it. There are certainly arguments worthy of considering which assert the world on the whole would be a better place if Hussein were still in power in Iraq. However, if one is going to try to make a case against what those countries did in March of 2003, one should make the case using facts, not lies. If it is such a no-brainer that it was wrong to resume hostilities in March of 2003, then opponents of the resumption should have no difficulty making their case without lying. I myself have over the past seven years or so put forward a few reasons why it was a bad idea for those countries to do what they did when they did it. It's just that I didn't use the "Bush lied, people died" nonsense when I was making my case. I didn't have to. Quote: And you still have the facts wrong. It was common knowledge for many years before the 2003 resumption of hostilities that Hussein aided and abetted terrorists. Some of those terrorists were al Qaeda members at the time they were receiving that aid, some joined al Qaeda at a later date. This has been widely reported, both prior to 2003 and after 2003. I cannot comprehend your refusal to acknowledge this reality. A quick Google search will reveal enough material - going back to the early Clinton years - to keep you busy for weeks. For Bush and Cheney to remind their audience what various media organs such as The Guardian, The Herald, ABC news, CNN, the Wall Street Journal, The Telegraph, PBS and more had been reporting for a decade is not "setting up a straw man", Twirling. Quote: Quote: Bullshit. It's not my fault your reading comprehension is less than optimal. I have said from the beginning that Hussein supported terrorists. Yes, some (but not all, obviously) of those terrorists were al Qaeda members, but that is not the point. It makes no fucking difference at all if not a single one of them ever got around to joining al Qaeda. What matters is that they were terrorists. What... you think only al Qaeda has the chops to kill Americans? Do you not know that prior to 9/11, it was not al Qaeda who held the record for killing Americans, but Hezbollah? Terrorists are terrorists. Bush made it quite plain that those states which harbored them would have to accept the consequences of doing so. Quote: Fuck me, but you are one stubborn dude. How have I not made myself clear? The Bush administration made the case for war without using deceptive tactics. They didn't have to use deceptive tactics. There were almost two dozen reasons given by Congress for giving Bush the authority to resume hostilities in Iraq in March of 2003. With so many reasons at hand there was no need to concoct more. Look, I realize you and many others would prefer to see Hussein still in power in Iraq. I get that. I understand it. We all understand it. But make your case based on facts, not on lying about what Bush did or didn't do. If it is such a slam-dunk that Bush was wrong, it should be easy-peasy for you to base your case on something other than this incredibly arcane hair-splitting you are engaging in. "Well see... if you smoke a bowl or two and turn the lights down low and let Cheney's words just sort of wash over you while you're in a zen state, you get a definite sense that he's trying to persuade you that Hussein is the real power behind al Qaeda, dude! Therefore, it is wrong to invade Iraq!" Quote: Of course I dispute it! That's what the whole fucking thread is about, duh! *Facepalm* Bush did no misleading. If he did any "cherrypicking" it was less cherrypicking than had been done for a decade by The Guardian, The Herald, ABC news, CNN, the Wall Street Journal, The Telegraph, PBS, Time, Newsweek, the New York Times and many others. Quote: The same intelligence every other intelligence service in the world also relied on? Okay, fine - if you want to use that as an argument against deposing Hussein, be my guest. You won't be the first to claim that since we can never know when intelligence is 100% perfect, we should never act. But that is not the same argument MAIA was making. And in case you hadn't figured it out by now, I didn't start this thread so we could all argue for the ten thousandth time whether it would be better if Hussein were still running things in Iraq, I started it to show that MAIA - and a distressingly high number of his fellow travellers - still believes bullshit which was debunked years and years and years ago. Quote: And since the Bush administration made no such implication, clearly those people are deluding themselves. Phred
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
Quote: You are the one who is lying and everyone knows it, Phreddy. Everyone also knows the burden of proof falls on the one making the claim. Asking others to prove a negative is a logical fallacy. I thought you were smart enough to realize that. Your increasingly pathetic excuses aren't gaining you any respect here. What a shame we have to put up with moderators such as yourself. No wonder the tone is set so low here with people like you who should know better providing a horrible example. Be a MAN, step up to the plate and prove your claims or shut the hell up. Quote: ![]() I'm sure you could also cure cancer and change the rotation of the planet but for reasons of your own you choose not to. What a man. -------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
The regulars all know who's lying here, zorb, and it ain't me.
Phred
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: I'm referring to the warantless wiretapping that recently made the news, yes. As for whether or not it is legal: see my post. I don't know how we'd conclude the wiretaps are legal, so I'm not sure what this "completely legal" talk is referring to. I'm guessing your aware that it isn't inherently illegal and so are just presuming it is done legally, which is silly.
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
Quote: Wow. You are now a mind reader. Funny how numerous people have been asking you to produce your laughably non-existant links while no one is defending your transparent and clumsy attempts to hide the fact they don't exist. ![]() Just be a man and admit you were wrong. And an apology for calling me a liar to hide your embarrasment over that fact would also be nice, moderator. -------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
The NSA's surveillance of enemy communications in a time of war is not directly relevant to the topics being discussed in this thread unless you are trying to argue this surveillance
- violates the rights of US residents and - that no authority to perform this surveillance existed prior to September 11, 2001. Since neither premise is true, time to move on to something else. Phred.
| |||||||
|
The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
No one moderates themselves. I called Zap dumb and got a warning he calls you a liar and... guess what.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
And an apology for calling me a liar to hide your embarrasment would also be nice, moderator.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
The thing is, I'm not wrong. those threads exist, and are not difficult to find. For a while, two of them were even listed in the "Similar Posts" box at the bottom of the thread. so no... I am not the one lying here.
On the other hand, you are either lying about the extent of your participation in the Political forum or you are lying about your recollection of the threads you have read. There is no other option. So apologize for calling you a liar? Not a hope in hell. And of course, there is no need to depend on just The Shroomery archives in order to find reports in the media of Hussein's aiding and abetting terrorists. It's even simpler to find those reports on the vast intrawebz using Google than it is to find the relevant threads here on The Shroomery using The Shroomery's less sophisticated search engine. Phred
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
Quote: I blew a HUGE bubble while everyone was out of the room. No, really!! ![]() Look, you made the claim, you provide the proof. Stop being so cowardly and asking others to prove a negative. Step up to the plate, oh manly man. -------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: The original claim was something along the lines of the US exerting greater domestic control. I think the NSA program is certainly posited to be among those types of programs exerting that control. Further, I do dispute that the program is necessarily legal, so discussion should continue. I have no idea why you think the authority existing or not prior to september 11th is relevant, but I am saying that Bush's program is widely viewed as amongst those types of things exerting greater domestic control and that it is therefore relevant to this issue. I mean the government theoretically can listen in to speeding violation defendants' phone calls to find evidence that they exceeded the speed limit by 1mph. This authority exists. If they started doing this to every person who gets a speeding ticket I would imagine concerns would be raised, but your criteria is that if the authority existed previously then it isn't relevant to an argument that things have changed- which is silly. So unless this is some official moderator decree or something and the issue is closed, I'm disagreeing with everything you've said and think this is fairly open to discussion. I also disagree with you using your moderator status to decide an issue of a reasonably disputed fact and using that as a premise to close the discussion- if that's indeed what you're doing (like I said it was unclear whether you are saying the thread is closed to this discussion as a moderator or just saying as a poster that it is irrelevant). Edited by johnm214 (04/06/09 12:20 PM)
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: You called me dumb? Another demonstrable lie.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
The FISA court existed long before the Bush adminstration. The NSA data mining is not wiretapping so could you please specifically note the warrantless wiretapping you refer to.
| |||||||
|
Barred Spiral Registered: 02/03/03 Posts: 2,468 Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I've already said that Bush never directly said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. However, he's made plenty of statements falsely linking Hussein with al-Qaeda. Phred was saying that both the people who claimed that Bush explicitly & implicitly blamed 9/11 on Iraq were crazy ideologues. In that quote, I am challenging Phred's assertion that the Bush administration did not build a case for war using the lie that Iraq worked with al-Qaeda, with an implied meaning that Hussein was involved with 9/11. My point is that Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, and when you look at the quotes from Bush about Iraq giving al-Qaeda weapons to create the next 9/11, he's using the threat of 9/11 to justify a war he otherwise he would have never been able to declare. Quote: Yeah, no shit. I'm not denying there have been no contacts, but the contacts basically show that Iraq & al-Qaeda had no operational cooperation. All that quote says is that they had contacts. What's your point? Quote: I gave plenty of quotes showing how Bush associated Iraq & al-Qaeda together. The only angle you have here is that Bush never specifically said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, so you keep coming back to it. Just because you don't understand how the Bush administration built the case for war on false pretenses by tying Iraq with the people who were responsible for 9/11, doesn't mean that Bush never tried to imply that Iraq had a responsibility for 9/11. All of the justifications for the war turned out to be untrue and largely fabricated. This one desperate angle of "you can't prove implication" seems like a way to refocus the debate off of that, and onto something you can say is just a matter of opinion. Quote: Yes, the reason I was never asked if we should have gone to war or not came down to not being expected to understand what I've read. Here is the scenario as zappaisgod sees in 2002: President: We need more input on this matter! Quick! Get me Twirling. He's a guy who posts on the Shroomery. He'll know what to do! Carl Rove: No sir, he can't faithfully be expected to understand what he reads. President: Alright, get me the guy who sings "Let the Eagle Soar". He cracks me up. Carl Rove: Right away, sir.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: But wouldn't calling someone dumb be an adhominem and calling someone a liar be an argument that their statement or logic, rather than their person, is intentionally false? Phred can answer for himself, but it doesn't seem such a wild distinction to me when saying someone is a liar is an argument to their logic or facts and saying they are dumb is an argument to their person. Do you disagree? Seems like that distinction has bee historically observed here and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Zappa, I'll reply once phred clarifies if he's closing that topic or whatever. It was unclear whether he was arguing it to be irrelevant (wrongly in my opinion) or whether he was saying as a moderator that a) these are facts I've decided and b) because I've decided these facts we cannot discuss this issue.
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
Quote: Can you imagine a boxing match where one of the fighters is also the referee? And he's always clinching and holding and hitting below the belt until he gets on the ropes and finds some excuse to end the fight? Nahh. That could never happen. -------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch Edited by zorbman (04/06/09 12:49 PM)
| |||||||
|
The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
Not at the Shroomery it couldn't. They are hand picked by management, highly trained, and then supervised.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
|
My original post included "if indeed that's what you're doing" at the end of that statement.
I don't know if phred was saying as a moderator we cannot discuss that here because he's decided certain facts or if he's arguing that as a poster. To be fair, we shouldn't presume one or the other till he clarifies.
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
|
John, I included your entire statement in light of what you have said.
He has used his role as mod to end threads before when the going got tough. Hopefully we can get a Real moderator in here soon to oversee this "discussion" and Phred can recuse himself or simply resign his post. Sounds like he could use a vacation and I know Politics could use a vacation from him.
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Then this thread should be over as far as your concerned, no? Quote: This just never fucking ends. Build a case to who? YOU? You make me laugh. Quote: Bullshit. First of all Iraq did have contacts with al Q. You do not deny that. Secondly, only a fucking moron would ignore the fact that it was possible that he could have assisted them. Thirdly, he had motivation to do so and a demonstrated willingness to assist terrorists. Fourthly, the only people Bush had to convince were Congress, many of whom were on Intelligence committees and almost all of whom voted in favor of the AUMF. I reiterate, you were never considered. Quote: Quote: Yeah, no shit. I'm not denying there have been no contacts, but the contacts basically show that Iraq & al-Qaeda had no operational cooperation. All that quote says is that they had contacts. What's your point? I do not believe Phred ever said they did have operational contacts. Quote: Quote: I gave plenty of quotes showing how Bush associated Iraq & al-Qaeda together. The only angle you have here is that Bush never specifically said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, so you keep coming back to it. Just because you don't understand how the Bush administration built the case for war on false pretenses by tying Iraq with the people who were responsible for 9/11, doesn't mean that Bush never tried to imply that Iraq had a responsibility for 9/11. You just admitted they had contacts. And all you have ever supplied is that your interpretation of Bush's remarks include an implication not specifically made. Bush is not responsible for your failures to actually understand a sentence and refrain from adding additional meaning. After all, he lacks "nuance", no? Quote: Lie. Saddam was in fact not in compliance with the terms of the surrender. Not even close and definitely not close enough. Quote: The only desperation I sense is the desperation of you to invent meaning where none exists. This is not random conversation we're talking about, it is carefully phrased speeches. They either say exactly what they say or any utterance is susceptible to interpretation by any gang of mental midgets willing to make a post. I reject that. Quote: Quote: Yes, the reason I was never asked if we should have gone to war or not came down to not being expected to understand what I've read. Here is the scenario as zappaisgod sees in 2002: President: We need more input on this matter! Quick! Get me Twirling. He's a guy who posts on the Shroomery. He'll know what to do! Carl Rove: No sir, he can't faithfully be expected to understand what he reads. President: Alright, get me the guy who sings "Let the Eagle Soar". He cracks me up. Carl Rove: Right away, sir. No, that's not my scenario. You were not consulted. Nor was I nor any other ordinary citizen. There was thus no reason whatsoever to attempt to fool anybody. You aren't worth lying to. And Rove is right. You can't be trusted to understand a simple sentence, as you continue to demonstrate over and over again.
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
Quote: The regulars here are well aware of your tactics. You get argued into a corner by a poster armed with facts and a series of links, quotes and citations often from a primary source and your response is invariably "this was discussed already 5 years ago and back then everyone agreed I was right so go searching through old posts so I don't have to substantiate my horseshit arguments." The only source you have given us within this thread is from The National Review, a laughably biased pro-Republican source, while your opponents have hit you again and again with quotes from Congressional Reports and the 9/11 Commission among others. It is unacceptable to just claim facts are true without so much as giving us quotes or sources. If you were trying to present your facts in an academic setting you'd be laughed out of the room. Either put up your facts or shut up.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Zorbman, it's simple, really. When someone falsely accuses me of lying about stuff, I get to point out that the accuser is lying - if in fact I really didn't do the stuff. Pointing that out isn't an "abuse of moderator powers", it's a logical response from anyone in a debate who is falsely accused. One needn't be a moderator to rightfully do this, and one doesn't give up the right to do this when one accepts a moderator position.
In this context, I pointed out that there are many, MANY threads in this forum showing that Hussein supported terrorists. It is public knowledge that he did, and is not a controversial statement. It wasn't a controversial statement even during the Clinton years, let alone post-9/11. All the major media organs had done reports and some of them have even done "special reports" on these connections. It would be beyond belief, then, given the repetitive nature of this forum and the obsession of the Bush-bashers who post here, that somewhere along the line this topic wouldn't have arisen. Lo and behold, not only has it arisen, it has arisen dozens of times - sometimes as a tangent within the body of a thread dealing with other Iraq issues, sometimes in threads dedicated strictly to Hussein's support of terrorists. Every single forum regular who has been here since, say, the beginning of 2003 has seen most if not all of those threads. So for you to claim you haven't seen these threads is either dishonest on the face of it or indicates you pay almost no attention to the threads in this forum when you do deign to honor us with your presence. As I said before, either you are lying to us about how often you read the threads in this forum - in other words your initial visit to the forum was at some point after the majority of the threads on this subject had dropped off the first page or two of the forum and your subsequent visits are so infrequent and your "catching up" of new threads posted since your last visit is so cursory as to be almost non-existent, or you are lying about the threads you have read. There is no third option. Oh... wait. A possible third option is that your memory is so bad that you did actually read the threads in question but now you cannot honestly recall having done so. If that is the case, you are not lying, you are merely suffering from early-onset Alzheimer's Disease and should not be vilified for your medical condition. If that is the case, I apologize for confusing your deteriorating memory faculties with intentional dishonesty. However, in none of the three possible options (yes, even including the memory loss option) is it my responsibility to bump those threads, it's your responsibility to bring yourself up to speed on what the rest of the politically-informed observers in the world have known for years and years - Hussein aided and abetted terrorists. Phred
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
Quote: Way to try to flip the script. You are the one who initially accused me of being "dishonest". http://www.shroomery.org/forums/ Normally when one makes such a serious charge they at least have the common decency to PROVE IT. When called on it you have not even attempted to do so when the burden clearly rests squarely on YOUR shoulders. I guess we should just trust in your authority but in this case the emperor has no clothes. You may be the moderator but you don't get to call people liars without backing it up. Your increasingly desperate attempts to hide your embarrassment over your lack of sources has now included a pathetic attempt to frame me as a liar. My respect for you as both a person and moderator has reached new lows. And I LOVE the absolutely delicious irony discussed in this thread that neocons lie to support their cause and what do we find you doing? The very same thing.
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch Edited by zorbman (04/06/09 01:47 PM)
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: All of those "primary sources" have been dealt with in past threads. Yes, some of those threads were last posted in before you joined The Shroomery, but there have been at least a few threads on the subject since your arrival. Again, the fact that Hussein aided and abetted terrorists is not a controversial claim. It has been common knowledge since the early Clinton years. Even the posters in this thread aren't denying this (since they can't), they are instead quibbling about what came first - Hussein's aid to Mohammed ben Splodeydope or Mohammed ben Splodeydope's pledge of allegiance to al Qaeda. Or they say that "yeah, Hussein provided safe haven and money and training and stuff for these guys, but neither he nor his minions ever went on any actual attacks with them, so hey... it's all cool, mang." What is so sad about this whole debacle is the number of people whining that I won't provide them links to these ancient threads so they can catch up with the rest of the world and finally inform themselves of the fact (and yes, folks, it is a fact) that Hussein's Ba'athist regime was a terrorist enabling regime since at least 1991 if not earlier. It's like you are all so determined to cling to your hope that Hussein was a good guy that if Phred is too exasperated to dig up all this stuff again, you can all heave a deep sigh of relief and mutter, "Thank God I never saw those threads on an internet drug message board. Since Phred won't do it, the only possible conclusion I can draw is that Hussein had nothing to do with terrorists." It's like you're totally helpless without me to spoonfeed you. Yes, I do realize the majority of you are too young to have been watching 60 Minutes and ABC Special Reports a decade and a half ago at the time they were first aired. I do realize you weren't regular readers of Time and Newsweek and The Guardian and The Herald ten years ago, either. But every single one of you knows how to work an internet search engine, and every single one of you professes to have an interest in how Hussein's downfall came about. So some of you don't care enough about the topic to read Feith's book? No surprise there... no one at the Washington Post or the New York Times cares enough either. But it is quite depressing to be shown so clearly your reluctance to spend even half an hour with Google. Quote: But I have done so. Many times in fact. Just not recently. Others have posted stuff addressing it more recently than I have, though. Certainly there has been some posted in the last year, for example. Look - if this were the first time I were being asked to do it, or if the claim I was making was in any way controversial, of course I would provide the sources. But this is such old, public domain, uncontroversial stuff by this point in time that asking me (or anyone else) to post it all again is as ridiculous as some 9/11 Troofer n00b who has just discovered "Loose Change" or "In Plane Sight" popping in here and triumphantly posting the same laundry list of delusional crap that the last Troofer n00b had posted here three weeks earlier, and then crowing he has "stumped" us when none of us here can be bothered debunking their tired old crap for the fiftieth time. And of course, it takes almost as little effort to find those threads as it would take for you to click on a link I provide to one of those threads. As a matter of fact, up until yesterday the "Similar Threads" box had two of those threads in its list. Depending on how the tenor of this thread develops, those threads (and/or several others) might show up in the Similar Threads box again. I suggest you keep your eye on it. Phred
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Sorry, zorbman, if we discard the early-onset Alzheimer's hypothesis, there are only two possible options here :
- either you somehow managed to miss all the many, MANY threads over the years outlining Hussein's support for terrorists, in which case your claim to be a thorough scrutinizer of this board is a dishonest claim or - - you did indeed read those threads but for some reason have chosen to dishonestly claim you didn't. I don't really care which of the two options it is, since the whole thing is a sideshow in any case. Why do I call it a sideshow? Because the exact date Mohammed ben Splodeydope decide to sign up with al Qaeda is completely irrelevant to either of MAIA's claims. Phred
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
|
Produce the threads or kindly shut the fuck up.
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Are you claiming that if Phred doesn't provide links to old threads in the forum archives, this somehow proves Hussein didn't support terrorists?
Just how does that work, zorbman? I mean, I am flattered to be accorded such a position of high authority, but really, now... As for "shut(ting) the fuck up", why is it so few of your posts actually have anything to do with my two challenges to MAIA? Don't you think you should "shut the fuck up" if you can't address the thread topic? Especially when I specifically went to the trouble of generating a separate thread rather than derail MAIA's thread? Now you want to derail this one? Here's a suggestion - if your position is that Hussein didn't support terrorists, do the right thing and start a new thread on the topic, and lay out your case there. Or bump one of the many, MANY old threads. Up to you. Phred
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
|
That is a weak, transparent copout. Either post sources to back up your claims or don't waste our time with unsubstantiated arguments.
Also, suggesting a user has a mental disorder because he disagrees with you is flaming and sets a bad example. As a moderator you should know better. I'm not sure you do since this is not the first time you have done this. Edited by Virus_with_Shoes (04/06/09 02:23 PM)
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
|
Your neglecting other explanations:
1. You are wrong 2. People don't read the entirety of threads et cet Could you please clarify whether you are foreclosing discussion on the matter of the warantless wiretaps as has been asked? Finally, I think you are mischarecterizing the folks who are asking for sources. At least I think that if you are going to say someone is wrong and speculate that they have organic brain disorders you should provide evidence that they are wrong and that you are correct. I'm taking no position on the matter being discussed except to say that there is no reason for you to continue parroting your claims if you don't care to discuss them. If you don't want to discuss them then don't, but don't claim some victory over another and start inferring disorders on the part of all who don't accept "I'm right" as a reasoned rebuttal- as if anyone who doesn't agree with or become aware of your preferred sources is mentally handicapped. This is basically the argument that the more silly portion of the chemtrail/NWO crowd uses: http://www.shroomery.org/forums/ "I know I'm right and you are wrong and I'm not going to say why, but for some reason I'm going to keep responding to every post in the topic saying 'I'm right' though I refuse to discuss the issue. If you really cared you would discover I'm right. The chemtrails must have got to you." This is a discussion board, we discuss. If I wanted someone's assurance that they are correct for reasons they can't provide I'd call my congressman.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Sigh. You too?
Is it your position that every time a n00b 9/11 Troofer who has just discovered "Loose Change" makes a breathless post in here about the amazing "facts" revealed in said awesome video, we must post for the hundredth time the same links debunking the whole sorry mess that have been posted here earlier? Or is it acceptable to just point out it's all bullshit which has been thoroughly debunked already? Again, if this were a controversial claim I was making, of course I would provide links. Or if the startling fact that Hussein supported terrorists was being revealed to the world for the first time ever, then of course I would post links. Or if the information were particularly tricky to find by anyone with actual interest in the subject (as opposed to someone trollishly attempting to score petty nitpicking debating "gotchas"), then of course I would post the links. But none of the above scenarios is applicable here. I am not making a controversial claim, I am simply stating what has been common knowledge for over a decade. Hell, it's closer to two decades now than one decade. And of course, even if no one had ever posted such things in this forum, there is certainly no shortage of sites on the wonderful world wide web which have, none of which are hiding themselves, all of which are readily locatable with the most simple-minded of Google searches. Quote: In this case, though, I am not wrong, as even my opponents in the thread have conceded. Hussein did support terrorists, and yes, we have been around that same mulberry bush many times in this forum over the years. Maybe some people don't read the entirety of threads, but zorbman was very insistent that he was a careful scrutinizer of what is posted here, which is why we should take seriously his assertion that no such threads exist. So no... in the case of zorbman, option 2 is not applicable. Quote: Which warrantless wiretaps? The ones the New York Times claimed with no supporting evidence were being initiated by the NSA? The ones every single appellate court in history has ruled are perfectly acceptable?
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Don't embarrass yourself. I didn't say he is suffering from a mental condition, nor do I believe he is suffering from a mental condition. No one knows better than me that zorbman isn't suffering from early-stage Alzheimer's, he's just being bloody-minded. It was a facetious comment because I knew someone sooner or later would pounce and say, "Gee, Phred, you think you're so smart insisting there are just two possibilities but there is actually a third possibility - he read the threads but he has forgotten by now what they said. These are some pretty old threads we're talking about, after all." Phred
| |||||||
|
Barred Spiral Registered: 02/03/03 Posts: 2,468 Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I haven't posted in a long-ass time. It's ridiculous that I challenged an assertion of yours & asked for you to provide evidence, and you think you can get away with not backing up your case... as a "matter of principal". Quote: Again, your evidence here is a conspiracy theory rather than solid proof of support. You demand absolute proof from MAIA, but apparently, it's ok for you to supply a theory which explains the basis for your claims. Quote: I noticed you left out the last two sentences: But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States. Let's assume that Saddam did in fact make that offer, it still falls way short of the original claim that "Hussein aided al-Qaeda". Given the large number of disproved "Saddam-al Qaeda" connections, this is pretty weak stuff. Compare it to original scenario Bush made about Iraq supplying al-Qaeda with chemical weapons that they could use on the U.S.. And given all the other info about how much Hussein despised religious organizations because they were a threat to his power, and that bin Laden offered his support to Saudi Arabia against Iraq during the first Gulf War, this one offer of asylum seems rather meek. Consider also what the 2008 Senate Commission concluded, "Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support." Quote: I'm not saying MAIA shouldn't. I mentioned that I actually agree that MAIA was inaccurate in claiming that the administration was telling people the Iraq was one of the responsible ones for 9/11. I agree with MAIA's assessment about "Big Brother" type programs, though, and I think MAIA showed that to be the case (your challenge regarding the Big Brother comment was misleading, but we've been over this). But that doesn't also excuse you from having to defend the notion that Iraq supported members of al-Qaeda. And this whole "Lefty-world" nonsense is ridiculous when you consider how far out there the right wing has been over the past 8 years or so. Mind you, the left wing has its nuts too, but to act like this is a problem only associated with the left is just crazy. Quote: I gave a number of quotes made by the Bush administration which showed that their original justification for the war was bullshit. These are not lies on my part. I'm using facts, you just seem to still believing info that has been disproved. Quote: I just did a quick search, and all I saw were cases which have since been disproved, or nebulous links to less credible websites. Yes, it would keep me busy for weeks to wade through all that, but I haven't really seen anything amongst those links that seemed credible. Besides, how am I supposed to agree or disagree on claims that haven't been made? Am I suppose to assume that you know that the al-Zarqawi claims were bogus, or do I waste effort on it if you already know it's bullshit? If I don't know what you're claiming is credible proof, there's no way for me to dissect the information. Quote: Quote: I've never disputed the terrorists part, but yes I am disputing the "members of al-Qaeda" part. And no, you didn't limit it to just "terrorists". Besides, if this thread is about what the Bush administration did & did not say about Iraq & 9/11, it also includes what they said about connections to al-Qaeda, seeing as al-Qaeda were the ones responsible for 9/11. So it does matter if those terrorists belonged to al-Qaeda. That was one of the main reasons for the war! Including the idea that Iraq had WMDs. Quote: I never said that, but that doesn't validate the War in Iraq, ESPECIALLY since the arguments the Bush administration has provided have largely turned out to be discredited. What's important is that the United States was presented a series of arguments by the Bush administration as its case for war. Those arguments have been shown to be completely full of holes. Even Bush admitted it (although Bush blamed the intelligence community when he cherry picked information which was known to be questionable at best). Quote: Quote: I didn't want to assume since you were clarifying other positions. Excuse me if I want to make sure I understand your position before discussing it. Quote: I already provided plenty of quotes that the administration made that we all know to be false! What other evidence do you want?! You chose to ignore those quotes and not reply directly to them, and instead just dismissed them, saying, "Well it doesn't technically say Iraq was responsible, so it's all well and good". Forget about whether or not the Bush administration implied that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. That's opinion, and we're never going to agree on it. What matters is that the arguments that they used to go to war turned out to be based on information that intelligence professionals knew to be lacking credibility. I already gave the examples of Curveball and Ibn Sheikh al-Libby. If you were really interested in debating whether or not the case for war was based on faulty information, you'd respond to those. But you don't. You just go on & on about lefties and such. Quote: Quote: Make up your mind. Quote: Most of the information that we heard parroted in those publications came from the administration. Like with all of the various Iraqi defectors, instead of evaluating their claims, the media just repeated them. A lot of the information those papers/TV outlets used were from the administration itself, so I don't think this says a whole lot. Quote: Quote: Seriously, make up your mind. Is this thread just about MAIA's claims, or is this thread about disputing the idea that Bush administration misled the public into war by making false accusations? Quote: I've provided plenty of quotes which show that the Bush administration falsely link Hussein with al-Qaeda. Instead of trying to prove those claims were true, you ignore them. When I ask for proof from you, I get names of people who either had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, or were arrested by Hussein. On & on this goes.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
|
The wiretaps in the post we both made. Its not a hard question- were you saying to stop as a mod or as a poster? Cuz I think your wrong, and shouldn't decide reasonably disputed facts as a mod and use that to limit discussions, and will answer zappa unless this is some moderator decree.
The nature of what particular posters where claiming is irrelevant- you said they weren't on topic and I think you are wrong. Now are you telling me I cannot reply or are you just giving your opinion as another poster? Quote: You can give your opinion, but you can't claim you have defeated them without showing the factual basis (unless they don't carry their burden of proof). And you probably shouldn't post reply after reply amounting to "I'm right" if you don't want to discuss it. If you don't want to talk about it cuz its rehashed then don't. Give your opinion and move on- but you haven't carried your burden unless you show some facts that establish you are correct.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/13/09 Posts: 3,259 |
| ||||||
Quote: ![]() This forum is unbearable, I made a well thought out researched post addressing Phred's original contention and no one read it. I see this is really just a Pub Part 2, it'd be great to have a political forum where no one is allowed to add in short commentaries with no researched facts. Here is some background, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kat In this case the courts ruled that warrants were needed to intercept domestic phone calls. Anyways it is true that the Supreme Court has made exceptions for warrantless searches. These mainly include border crossings where you can get searched by the police. Other things are people on parole, and international mail. Congress dramatically changed the FISA rules to make it such that the courts become irrelevant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro "The Act removed the requirement for a FISA warrant for any communication which was foreign-related, even if the communication involved a U.S. location on the receiving or sending end of communication; all foreign-foreign communications were removed from warrant requirements, as well. Experts claimed that this deceptively opened the door to domestic spying, given that many domestic U.S. communications passed via non-US locations, by virtue of old telephony network configurations." Anyone who understands how the internet works and routing will understand why this is a problem. The bill authorizes the ability of the NSA to spy on US or non US citizens, one end of the communication 'reasonably needs to be' outside of the country. Here is an excerpt from the law itself "SEC. 105A. Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under section 101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States." Im sure everyone is wondering (probably not really) why this is important. " The removal of the term electronic surveillance from any Protect America Act Directive implied that the FISC court approval was no longer required, as FISA warrants were no longer required. In the place of a warrant was a certification, made by U.S. intelligence officers, which was copied to the Court. In effect, the FISC became less of a court than a registry of pre-approved certifications. Certifications (in place of FISA warrants) were able to be levied ex post facto, in writing to the Court no more than 72 hours after it was made." To address the obvious question of international mail. The difference between phone, internet conversations and mail is that a place of origin is not obvious. The NSA can 'assume' that someone is outside of the US, then spy on all of their conversations. Opening of international mail is quite different in that there is no question of location. Although this is a small point as the real problems with this act are the removal of judicial oversight and ability to search anyone they want.
| |||||||
|
Barred Spiral Registered: 02/03/03 Posts: 2,468 Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Good point! I guess I don't really have to reply to you, then.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
|
Dude, don't come off as so superior. From your post it is clear that zappa and phred know more of this issue than you. That doesn't mean they are correct, I don't think they are in what they have claimed, but it also means you can't claim some superiority.
I read your post and commented that it didn't address phred's question. The power to wiretap doesn't come from the statute, it comes from the president's authority to conduct foreign relations and lead the military. The border exception isn't really an issue per se and neither is the other things you mention. Just try not to get all up on your high horse there guy. These statutes codify the practice but don't create the ability, and so much of your discusion is off point.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/13/09 Posts: 3,259 |
| ||||||
|
This is the main problem I have with this forum, people merely claim you are wrong without anything to back it up. I would have appreciated it if someone had looked at my post, and ripped it to shreds. That would have made my day, I'm not worried about reading the law incorrectly or being in the wrong. I want lively discussion with excerpts from court cases and law.
Your post to me is just a belittlement of myself with no facts to back anything up. You say they know more than me, yet I have seen Zappa make no mention of anything fact related. You say that wiretapping is vested in the presidents ability to lead the military and conduct foreign relations, please go on sir. Why stop at that? Show me in court cases where this power has been interpreted, and show me that it also applies to US citizens. The main problem as I pointed out is that the bill effectively gets rid of the requirements that only the warrantless searching of non-US citizens is acceptable. You act as if suddenly the president has had all along this unknown right to include US citizens on that list. As for the arrogance, eh I had a rough night, Ill tone it down a notch.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: No, but you did post within a day of posts being made in one of the most comprehensive threads covering Hussein's connections with terrorists. You were active in the forum at that time. Most people when they are active in a forum will usually catch up on posts made since their last visit. Besides, if you did miss the threads, so what? The threads were made and they are easy to find. Even if the threads had never been made, there are plenty of other sources which have the same material in them the threads do. That's pretty much what most of the solid content of those threads consist of, really - cut-and-pastes from sources the poster found on the internet. If the thread contributors could find it, so can you. Quote: Reading comprehension, Twirling, reading comprehension. I wasn't answering you, I was answering zorbman. And zorbman, remember, presents himself as such a thorough scrutinizer of this forum that if he can't remember any such threads, why, the only possible explanation is that no such threads exist, by golly! Quote: No, it isn't. The first reports coming out of Iraq said nothing about this guy being under arrest. Quite the contrary - it was reported that he had been given a place to live and money to live on. Then nothing was heard about the guy one way or the other for quite some time until just before crunch time in late 2002 when - Lo and behold! - Hussein claims to be willing to hand him over to the US if Bush will just pack up and go home. Gee... nothing suspicious about the timing there, right? Now, you can believe Hussein changed his mind, kicked the guy out of the house he'd been provided, cut off his stipend and tossed him into Abu Ghraib in 1996 if you want to believe that. Me... I'm gonna want to see some evidence that this was the case. Quote: What's your point? Quote: Fuck me. Why do I even bother replying to you when you won't fucking read what I fucking write? Where did I ever say "Hussein aided al Qaeda" the organization? I didn't say it. However, Hussein most certainly did aid terrorists, some of whom were members of al Qaeda at the time, some of whom later became members of Al Qaeda. Terrorists are terrorists. Not all terrorists who murdered Americans belonged to al Qaeda, you know. Or do you even know? Quote: No you didn't. You are reading into plain and simple English stuff that isn't there. Quote: Then your quick search was inadequate. Quote: But some of the ones supported by Hussein were al Qaeda members, either at the time they were still dealing with him or afterwards. And again, it doesn't matter even if none of them were. Some were, of course, but so what? Terrorists are terrorists. After 9/11 official American policy was that those regimes which harbored terrorists would face consequences. Not regimes which harbored al Qaeda, regimes which harbored terrorists. Quote: It turns out no vast stockpiles of ready-to-go bio and chem warheads were found, yes. That doesn't change the fact that MAIA's claims were bullshit. MAIA's claims weren't about WMD stockpiles, but about Bush claiming Hussein bore responsibility for 9/11. Since you have already repeatedly assured us you agree MAIA's claim was bullshit, why are you still here? Quote: About Hussein's responsibility for 9/11? No you haven't. Quote: And I will say again, if you want to rehash the entire "was it right to go to war with Hussein" can of worms again, do it in another thread. This thread has a very narrow focus - MAIA's bullshit claims about Bush's blaming Hussein for 9/11 and his claims the US government became a "Big Brother" system engaged in "control" of US residents. Quote: The Clinton administration, yeah. Quote: Oh good grief. Again, here is MAIA's claim - Quote: The false accusation here is that Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Bush never claimed that, nor did he imply that. No one in Bush's administration claimed that, nor did he imply that. I give up. You're hopeless. Believe whatever the fuck you want, it makes no difference to my life. Phred
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Remember this thread was specifically created to deal with two bullshit claims. Anything else is outside the scope of the thread. I presume you are trying to claim that the NSA surveillance of enemy communications is somehow an example of MAIA's fictional "Big Brother control" enacted by the Bush administration? Give it your best shot, but I don't see how you can possibly make much of a case seeing as how the Executive has always had not just the right to monitor enemy communications in time of war, but the constitutional obligation to do so. The Executive has had that right since long before Bush sat his ass in the chair behind the desk in the Oval Office, and there are rafts of appellate court decisions reaffirming that right. Quote: I haven't said I've defeated anyone, I have merely pointed out that it has been common knowledge for well over a decade now that Hussein supported terrorists and that plenty of threads in this forum go into considerable detail of the extent of that support. I have also pointed out that it isn't even necessary to depend on archives in The Shroomery to read mainstream media reports describing his support - Google works every bit as well. Better, probably. Phred
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Really? You aren't gonna be all butthurt when it turns out your interpretation of the situation turns out to have been all assbackwards? Really? Really? Then go here, read through it, check all the links and get back to us in a thread other than this one. Better yet, use your reply to bump that thread if you want. That would be easier than making a new one. Phred
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
Quote: I've done a cursory search and found nothing of the sort. Please link one of these so-called threads that will do away with our scepticism.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: A cursory search of the forum or a cursory Google search? Never mind.... doesn't matter. When will you grasp that I don't give a rat's ass about your skepticism? When will it sink in that your lack of search skills is none of my concern? I am unlikely to ever run across you in real life, so it makes no damn difference to me what crap you believe. How can it hurt me? Hell, even some of your fellow travelers in this thread have admitted that Hussein supported terrorists, they're just now reduced to quibbling over how many of them eventually hooked up with al Qaeda. If you want to go on believing Hussein had nothing to do with terrorists, go right ahead. Knock yourself out. Smoke a bowl in celebration. Seriously. Phred
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/13/09 Posts: 3,259 |
| ||||||
|
Ill read through that thread and respond about the warrantless searches if I feel I can add anything new. However relevant to this thread was your assertion that no rights have been taken away during the Bush years. I posted a court case involving a group who could no longer support a 'terrorist' group through legal counsel after the patriot act was passed. This was ruled unconstitutional and represents a right taken away that was then given back under the bush years.
You never responded to said post, or the monstrous post where I wrote up sections of the patriot act that represented changes to the law and involved either rights being taken away or implied rights (such as the right of the government to only have 7 days for a sneak and peak warrant and not an 'indefinite' amount of time). Of course according to John Boy up there, his 'skimming' of my post didnt reveal a completion of your challenge.
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
|
Basically you've just proven that you have no interest in participating in a meaningful debate with facts to back up your claims. Fantastic.
All claims of Saddam and Al-Qaeda collaborating have been thoroughly debunked. Perhaps there is another terrorist network out there somewhere that he may have worked with but none of us here can find it and you are being thoroughly obstructive and seem to be avoiding the question... possibly because you can't furnish any evidence in your defence?
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Chespirito writes:
Quote: I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something here. Were they ever prosecuted or were they merely "worried they would be prosecuted"? Because unless I'm missing something here, I don't see what the problem is. Phred
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Another young'un with less than optimal reading comprehension. Again - for about the fifth time in this thread alone - where did I say Hussein "collaborated" with al Qaeda the organization? All I have ever said is that Hussein supported terrorists, and that some of those terrorists were either already involved with al Qaeda at the time Hussein was supporting them, or they went on to become al Qaeda members at some later date. Phred
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
|
And once again the same old man who doesn't want to defend his arguments.
Quote: Who? When? Sources.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: See the many threads in the archives or Google outside articles. There's certainly no shortage of either. Phred
| |||||||
|
The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
Quote: Your best post ever. -------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/13/09 Posts: 3,259 |
| ||||||
|
They were never prosecuted. And finally the issue of standing comes up, Im glad you brought it up sir because the courts decision has a section on it that is fit for this discussion.
I wont bore you with the criteria for standing as Im sure you are aware of. Ashcroft argued that the plaintiffs have no standing because they were never prosecuted, and also because there was no threat of prosecution. This is a notable distinction, to have standing you do not need to have been prosecuted, the threat satisifes this need. Ashcroft eventually did have to concede that one of the plaintiffs meets this 'threat' of prosecution under the Patriot Act. As Ashcroft conceded, "Dr. Nagalingam Jeyalingam and to a lesser extent Ilankai Thamill Sangam, seek to provide services that at least arguably fall within the statutes reach. " Ashcroft here admits that at least some of the plaintiffs have standing in the court. The court then says that they have standing by satisfying Article 3 requirements. These included 'whether the plaintiffs have articulated a "concrete plan" to violate the law in question' 'whether the prosecuting authorities have communicated a specific warning or threat to initiate proceedings' 'the history of the past prosecution or enforcement under the challenged statute' The court then goes onto explain why they satisfied all of these requirements, noting that the government has been "active in its enforcement of the USA Patriot Act" The point is that true they have not been prosecuted by the Patriot Act, the threat was very real according to both the Attorney General Ashcroft and the Court. All quotes taken from the judgement.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/13/09 Posts: 3,259 |
| ||||||
|
To further explain this component of the standing
"'whether the prosecuting authorities have communicated a specific warning or threat to initiate proceedings'" as I know this is the most important one to you I will quote from the judgement "The Supreme Court has endorsed what might be called a 'hold your tongue and challenge now' approach rather than requiring litigants to speak first and take their chances with the consequences" This is all on page 22 of the judgement which I posted, i hope you read the section on standing. Ultimately as I pointed out the Court sided with the plaintiffs and said that part of the law was unconstitutional because of the wording. I can't imagine how this does not meat your challenge, though Im sure youll explain how.
| |||||||
|
Barred Spiral Registered: 02/03/03 Posts: 2,468 Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I haven't been seriously active as a poster for awhile now. I don't go back and read every thread that I might have missed. This is just insane. Quote: Again, how do I even know which claims you find credible? There are so many that have been discredited that requiring me to dig through old threads is inane. Quote: I know you weren't responding to me. You were still saying that the reason why you haven't posted a link is out of principal. Quote: But lack of evidence can go both ways in this case. There's lack of evidence for the explanation you're giving. And since this situation deals with a claim by you that this man was evidence that Hussein was aiding al-Qaeda/al-Qaeda memebers, the burden of proof is on you. You're shooting yourself in the foot here. Quote: "He's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint." - George Bush My point is that quotes like the above were entirely wrong considering that the 9/11 Commission stated that there was no operational link between the two. Quote: I KNOW, I GET IT. But you're still saying that Hussein aided al-Qaeda members. It's a little word game. You're still making false claims. Besides, you said you deny the idea that the justifications for this war was built on lies. One of the justifications Bush gave was that Hussein aided al-Qaeda. So even following this defense of yours that you're talking about members and not the actual organization, you're still arguing in favor of the idea that the basis for the war was lies. Quote: Fuck me. Why do I even bother replying to you when you won't fucking read what I fucking write? Quote: No evidence presented. And saying I need to do a search isn't "evidence". Quote: Two sides to this. 1. The reasons that were given to justify the war included that Saddam Hussein aided al-Qaeda, and that he had WMDs which he could have also given to al-Qaeda. So of course it's relevant. 2. If we accept the statement that "regimes which harbored terrorists would face consequences" were true, then how do you explain the vast majority of countries out there which didn't face consequences. Especially when you consider that the level of support for terrorists is much higher in other countries. Quote: You do realize every time something which challenges your false assertions comes up, you switch the topic to MAIA's claims (false claim being that the war was based on discredited & cherrypicked information). That's your ace in the hole. Instead of having to answer for it, it's all about MAIA. Quote: Where in that quote did I say Hussein's responsibility for 9/11? My argument is that there was such a high level of false statements which inaccurately linked Iraq with al-Qaeda. The implications are there, even though we're never going to agree on that. But more importantly, the actual reasons given for the war were false, and I gave plenty of quotes which showed just that. Quote: Putting this quote into context: Quote: Quote: So this line about "This thread has a very narrow focus - MAIA's bullshit claims about Bush's blaming Hussein for 9/11" directly contradicts what you said. You even gave me a "facepalm". Quote: There's far more than that. Quote: Fine by me. What I get from all this is that when you were challenged on the assertion that Saddam supported members of al-Qaeda, you couldn't provide any evidence. The little evidence you did provide didn't support your case. When asked for links to these threads, you refused. And despite plenty of quotes which shows the Bush administration falsely linking Iraq with al-Qaeda, you still refuse to accept that there was an implied link between Iraq & 9/11. I suppose that comes down to personal opinion, but there's still plenty of false statements made by the Bush administration. Had you proved those quotes to be correct, more evidence would be in your favor on the issue of "opinion". But since you didn't provide any evidence to support your case, I consider your "challenge" to be a flop. -------------------- The very nature of experience is ineffable; it transcends cognitive thought and intellectualized analysis. To be without experience is to be without an emotional knowledge of what the experience translates into. The desire for the understanding of what life is made of is the motivation that drives us all. Without it, in fear of the experiences what life can hold is among the greatest contradictions; to live in fear of death while not being alive.
| |||||||
|
Horrible Bastard Registered: 05/22/07 Posts: 2,084 Last seen: 12 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Wait. Not backing up your arguments is a matter of principle? LOL. -------------------- What can we do to help you stop screaming? Official Mr Shoebat lackey.
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
Quote: And once again you demonstrate to this entire forum that you're not willing to participate in rational debate. This is the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "NYAAAAAAAAAAA I can't hear you." Impressive.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: No, but for quite a while almost five years ago you were. And a check of your posts reveals that you were posting in the Political Forum a few days before one thread I refer to and the day after as well. If you never bothered reading new threads back then, so be it. I will note again that it wasn't you I was answering, it was zorbman. Quote: The claims that Hussein aided and abetted terrorists. Quote: That's right. Quote: Not shooting myself in the foot at all. Even Wikipedia points out that as of 1994, the guy was not in prison, he was living in a house Hussein provided for him. Did Hussein arrest him at some later date? Maybe. Who knows? We have only Hussein's word that he was even under arrest at the time Leslie Stahl interviewed him. How hard can it be to put a guy in orange coveralls and slap some handcuffs on him? Let's assume he actually was under arrest at the time of the interview? Which credible source shall we turn to in order to find out the date of his arrest? I note you pooh-pooh anything coming out of the Bush administration as untrustworthy. Am I to presume you find no such lack of trustworthiness in Hussein's administration? Quote: Weapons training, funding, and providing safe haven aren't "operational" links. They are simply aiding and abetting, which is all I have said. "Operational" means going on the actual terrorists operations with the dudes carrying them out. Or at the very least, planning out the mechanics of the operations the actual perpetrators will be sent to carry out. I have seen no evidence Hussein's minions were ever let in on the planning of the operations carried out by the various terrorist groups he supported. Quote: No, it isn't a word game at all. The two statements are not remotely identical. I am not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, I am merely pointing out the same thing the Bush administration did - that Hussein was a dangerous man who needed to be stripped of his power because he had a habit of helping out a whole whap of other dangerous men. Men who actually went out and murdered innocent people on a regular basis, some of whom were Americans. At the time Bush was reminding us all of this obvious truth, there wasn't anyone with a brain who honestly thought the 'splodeydopes would be satisfied to let the 9/11 attacks stand as the very last terrorist operation against The Great Satan. It wasn't that Hussein himself was likely to send a bunch of thugs to kill Americans, it was that he made it so fucking easy for others to kill Americans. Quote: But Hussein did aid members of al Qaeda. He even offered Osama bin Laden safe haven in Iraq. How much more aid do you want than that? Quote: Look, I've bent over backwards to address all your side trips and derailings and irrelevancies because that's the kind of nice guy I am. But I don't need to do it forever in this thread. Everything you bring up now has been argued to death dozens of times in the past and I'm sick of it. I'll take it so far out of politeness, but only so far. The fact of the matter is that MAIA's claims have been shown to be bullshit by the fact that - nine pages after I made the two challenges - no one has been able to satisfy them. All the rest of this crap should rightfully have been shut down the first time it was brought up. But just because I wasn't harsh enough to do it the first time it was mentioned doesn't mean I need to run with it for another nine pages. If you can't back up MAIA's assertions, then we're done. It's not an "Ace in the hole", it's reminding you of what the opening post requested. Quote: Then that argument has nothing to do with MAIA's claim, nor does it have anything to do with my challenge. So we're done here. Quote: Oh, Christ on a crutch! It was never up to me to disprove MAIA's claims, it was up to him to support them, duh! All that was necessary for me to do was to call bullshit on his claims and then sit back and wait for someone to support them. The burden of proof was never on me to prove "my case", it was on someone - anyone - to prove MAIA's. As we have seen demonstrated so convincingly, no one has yet done this. So yeah... no one has been able to provide what I challenged them to, so that makes my challenge a flop. In some Bizzaro world somewhere, maybe. Phred
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: If it helps you sleep at night to believe Hussein didn't support terrorists, by all means continue to believe it. Phred
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
|
Keep making yourself look more and more ridiculous by dodging the question. We're all enjoying the show.
| |||||||
|
Barred Spiral Registered: 02/03/03 Posts: 2,468 Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Let's cut this to the point because it's obvious you don't understand most of what I'm saying anyway. You made a challenge for anyone "to provide me some quotes you believe demonstrate the person making the statement is trying to imply that Hussein had something to do with the attacks". My position has always been that the Bush administration made statements which attempted to falsely link Iraq with al-Qaeda, ergo, the implication that Iraq had some responsibility for 9/11. I've yet to see that statement disputed except for you to say that because it's not explicit, it doesn't count (even though you asked for implied). Now it can come down to opinion as to whether the threshold for "imply" means they specifically claimed Iraq was responsible for 9/11, or if the links, associations, and inferences with al-Qaeda implied that Iraq had some responsibility for 9/11. That's a matter of opinion, fine, I get that. The problem comes when you attempt to claim that the statements the Bush administration made were true. If those statements were true it would lend more credence to your claim. However, if those statements are known to be false, it demonstrates that the Bush administration attempted to imply a connection between Iraq, al-Qaeda and 9/11. When I asked you for evidence, you refused to produce any. Finally, you gave me the names of 3 people, 2 of which had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, and 1 of which I showed to have been arrested by Saddam. Now you're arguing that there is the possibility that Saddam might not have arrested him originally, and therefore was aiding him. Again, I'm asking for evidence, and that is conjecture at best, and harmful to your position at worst. I also asked for links to these threads you're talking about so I at least can know what claims you're talking about. Then you made these ridiculous claims that I was a member of the Political forms, so I'd have to have read these threads you're talking about. Then you switch it from "aiding terrorists including al-Qaeda members" to, as you said in that last post, "The claims that Hussein aided and abetted terrorists", which none of us disputed. The whole point is that the Bush administration claimed Iraq aided al-Qaeda. The problem is that you're not backing up any of your claims. You say that since this thread is a challenge to MAIA, you don't have to. But myself & others have provided quotes which prove that Bush & Co. were linking Iraq with al-Qaeda, and therefore an implied link to 9/11. In that context, you need to show that the Bush quotes were valid. Otherwise, what we have is a list of lies about the role Iraq played in al-Qaeda, which certainly imply a certain level of responsibility for 9/11. Think of it this way - had Iraq been training al-Qaeda, as well as providing resources, wouldn't it be safe to say they had a role in 9/11? Even if they weren't the ones directly responsible, it would still imply a large amount of responsibility. So the fact that you can't bother to support your claims with evidence is enough to tell me that you don't want to really discuss this "challenge". You were just trying to play "gottcha!" with MAIA. And when someone took you up on your challenge, you refused to provide support to your claims. The problem is that there is no clear definition of what "trying to imply that Hussein had something to do with the attacks" means. The definition of the word imply is "to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement". So really, the quotes I've provided fit your request because they claim that Iraq supported al-Qaeda, and could lead to further attacks. If you were looking for specific, explicit statements, that would be fine, but you said implied. The other major problem is that you refuse to back up any of your various claims. You use the excuse that myself & others should be able to find the threads, but this is not an acceptable form of logic. This isn't even a debate or discussion. It's just you trying to sit back and enjoy your "challenge". I know I'm not alone in saying that I'm not impressed. -------------------- The very nature of experience is ineffable; it transcends cognitive thought and intellectualized analysis. To be without experience is to be without an emotional knowledge of what the experience translates into. The desire for the understanding of what life is made of is the motivation that drives us all. Without it, in fear of the experiences what life can hold is among the greatest contradictions; to live in fear of death while not being alive.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 10 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
First off Chespirito did fulfill the requirements of the first statement as stated. There were libraries where librarians had posted signs that read "the FBI has not been here today" and removed the sign when the FBI did come to examine their checkout records. Many domestic persons were allowed to be spied on by warrant-less wiretapping that before required approval of a judge. Chespirito did detail what you wanted he showed in law where:
Quote: Obviously if one took out a copy of "the Koran" or "Ecodefense: A field guide to monkeywrenching" may have been under the scrutiny for plotting terrorism. This would severely hamper their freedom. Additionally provisions have been added to allow near life sentences for people convicted of a crime that can be described as any form of terrorism. I can think of one example where one Eric McDavid was given nearly 20 years for plotting but not executing the destruction of a cellphone tower. Elle magazine did a good piece on it, it was on onebigtorrent for a while. Additionally the webmaster of Raisethefist.org was imprisoned for one year as a plea bargain after being charged with 20 years for having instructions for how to make a Molotov cocktail on his website even though he was not responsible for posting the info and he removed it as soon as he was notified. These are major examples of extending the reach and control of government with regard to penalties, for first amendment exercises and mid level property vandalism. Also notable was the imprisonment of internet blogger Josh Wolf, who was imprisoned for not revealing tape that the FBI sopenaed him for with no justification of an individual crime they believed was on it. Because the government wanted the tape to go through it and cherry pick it for activists that they could then question josh about as well as pursue on their own. The documentation on this is quite extensive, in fact you can find a shitload about Wolf on the internet because he was a blogger and he got major media attention. He was on a Frontline episode and the Colbert report. Since Phred doesn't have to source his claims I will leave it to you to find it all. Though if you search up those listed incidents you will likely actually find them. Also while we are on it I'd like to mention the creation of "Free Speech Zones" in population control and the rampant increase in police abuses of protesters that occurred after the Iraq war ramped up protests around the US. If you want to see a real detailing of how bad it has gotten you can see the last bush regime crackdown on protesters at the 2008 RNC. http://www.terrorizingdissent.or It well documents more than a couple abuses by police that were never done ever before, not even in the days of Emma Goldman. The one culminating summation would be a mass arrest where the people were attending a peaceful musical gathering, families in attendance and everything. Nobody was involved in any rioting and suddenly they were surrounded by police and told to leave the area with police blocking the entire area off to exit. Eventually the police mass arrested the whole crowd for disobeying their orders for dispersal and the cherry on top of it all was one man who was arrested and he was charged with inciting a riot. Why? As he had heard the cop say "No that one was dancing, that's a charge for inciting a riot" so he was slapped with this bogus charge and after the RNC it was dropped. I know sure as fuck that what these cops have been doing over the years like this is sure as fuck not legal. I assume we can agree that intentional wrongful arrest is illegal. Yet since 9/11 it's been done repeatedly. Also I may add that some of the wiretapping mentioned by Chespirito was used to track and monitor actavists as well as locate and abduct organized persons. This has been going on for the past few years or at least it's been known by activists to be going on for that period of time, it could have been going on much longer. That said. I would like to address the 9/11 line of discussion here. Bush knew that Saddam was not affiliated with AQ in any operational way, never mind that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. This is not why you will not find him saying that Iraq was involved in 9/11. He deliberately set out to cherry pick intelligence to find information that made Iraq and Saddam look as evil as possible before invading. The reason they never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 was because they couldn't find anyone to say this before the war. Otherwise they would have no mater how poor the source. Many of the things that Bush cited as intelligence for invasion proved to be false and the reason is he picked faulty intelligence to justify invasion. I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the media's role in the whole facade. In fact the reality is that while CNN and FOX had vested financial interests in being pro-war, the administration re-enforced the elimination of dissent in the media. There were two ways this happened, anyone who was an adult at the time recognizes these. First the bush administration gave preferential treatment to journalists that shirked critical questions on the matter of the war. This even extended to media outlets as well, critical outlets didn't get access to officials that less critical outlets got. Second the government hammered rhetoric about 9/11 to distract from critical questions as well as hiding by saying information was confidential. People had already showed clear quotes of the bush administration bending over backwards to imply a connection between Saddam and 9/11, and given the above mentioned approaches to the media is it any surprise that the media filled in the dots and made the claims that the bush admin didn't want to be liable for. Also Phred, if a majority of posters in a thread are asking for a source it is a controversial subject and if you refuse to source your arguements then you are not offering proof. Telling someone to search for the information themselves is childish and arrogant. I've already been told this from you and found no relevant corroborating data. Why should I search this time? Also you are changing the argument about Al Qaeda Terrorists to just terrorists in general, don't fail to mention AQ because it entirely changes the line of argumentation. -------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: How am I belittling you? I initially said I didn't think your post answered phred's request and later that it was off the mark. Your later post seemed to come down on teh community here as presuming if people didn't agree with you that they were ignorant. All I'm saying is its quite easy to feel well versed in this issue (the warantless wiretaps) when you get your toe in, but it gets much more Anyways, the problem with zappa and phred's claim on the wiretapping is their inflated assurances that "courts have always ruled it legal" and other things like that. When discussing the wiretaps, what does it matter that courts in specific circumstances have ruled them legal? When we don't know the circumstances, we cannot compare the two, and that is the problem. This is why I feel it very hard to believe zappa or phred have any reasoned answer to how they know these wiretaps were legal- they are probably just aware that in theory they might be so are presuming they were. Not very convincing- especially when the source of the information is the very people who have something to loose by the conduct being found illegal. Edited by johnm214 (04/06/09 08:16 PM)
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: What's the distinction? The law plainly made illegal their conduct (0or desired conduct). Surely your not a fan of prosecutorial discretion? The issue of standing is the source of much mischief in our law, and this issue is no exception. The law's prohibitions are so clearly unconstitutional and so clearly inclusive of these individuals desired conduct as to make any argument that they weren't within its grasp silly. Laws like this that are so ridiculously overbroad should be zealously rooted out and expunged from our legal memory as fast as possible. How could any legislature think passing a law that prohibits any aid to a class of people could be constitutional?
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
Quote: Quote: 'Operation Bait and Switch' is in FULL EFFECT!! ![]() Quote: -------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/13/09 Posts: 3,259 |
| ||||||
|
I haven't started reading the NSA warrantless wiretapping thread that Phred pointed me to, when I do Ill update it. Also Im not sure where I implied that if people don't agree with me they are ignorant. I stated that if I have misread the case law than I hope someone would correct me on it. I was commenting on the number of posts that seem to just be reiterations of previous points made by someone who actually had facts to back it up. There is no reason for posts that do not contribute a new fact to the discussion, they just serve to convolute the thread. Granted I have no problem with posts that are purely intended to make fun of people, I find those amusing
| |||||||
|
Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 10 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
I don't think Phred understands that the warrant-less wiretapping is domestic in nature. Domestic wiretapping used to need the approval of a judge. Therefore it is an example of expanded powers of the government to monitor it's people.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
|
this is the misconception that zappa and phred are implicitly referring to in their overconfident assertions
domestic wiretapping without warrants may be legitimate under preexisting law when done for reasons the bush alleged The problem is we have no idea what the administration(s) were up to and no way to assuredly say if the law is being complied with. Another fun issue is the morons that voted for the AUMF which placed pretty much no limits whatsoever on the president are now the same morons whining about the war and, specifically, bush's attempt to use that authorization to conduct some of the wiretaps. Why do people keep electing idiots who vote for overbroad law and then whine when the entirely forseeable problems inherent in giving carte blanche authority to a person manifest?
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
Quote: What were you referring to by using the word "another"? -------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
That Bush said Saddam was involved in 9/11. And many, many more.
John, I asked you what warrantless wiretapping you were referring to. Maybe your answer got lost in this drama fest. What specifically were you referring to, please? And do you have any high court rulings that they are unconstitutional? Or not. Because this thread is one of the most tedious exercises in windmill-tilting I have ever seen. And Scavenger, just what was so bad about the security at the RNC? Or the DNC, for that matter? And how would you compare it to 1968 in Chicago?
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: The ones similar to the bush NSA program discussed. As i said, I don't know what these wiretaps are actually doing and why, and so I cannot say they are illegal or not. Like I said, I think you and phred are just arguing this point so overconfidently cuz many of the folks have the assumption that scavenger type did- that domestic wiretapping is unconstitutional without a warrant. While you guys not that isn't the case, per se, it is a far different matter to argue, as you've done along with phred, that the wiretaps are constitutional. Do we know what wirretaps they've done and why? I don't thiink we do, and therefore we cannot know if they are legal- and I don't trust them. All that is needed to sustain this concern is recognition that not all wiretaps for all reasons are constitutional. Therefore, Bush's may not have been. Unfortunatly we don't know, I don't think, enough to say one way or the other. It is concerning to me, especially given the fact it is pretty much impossible to know if you are being wiretapped unless they tell you. And the only way that would happen is if they brought a case where that was evidence- very unlikely. I certainly think you and phred have been very much overstating the matter, and you've only got away with it cuz most folks haven't really looked into the issue that much and just make assumptions that you can quash easily.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
OK, I think I might know what you are talking about from this wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA Wherein there is quite a discussion, most of which is of no relevance to whether there has been a change in the law since 9/11, which is the crux of MAIA's claim, as I understand it. Telling quotes from the wiki are: Quote: Given those facts, I cannot see how the claim that the 9/11 attacks were used as a pretext for a program already in existence would hold up. Of further dubious merit is the repeated claims by the NY Times, et idiot al, that communications with at least one end in another country are domestic. By the very definition of the word, they are "international."
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Overstating what matter? That MAIA is full of shit? If anyone is overstating anything it is the endless cavalcade of reading challenged members who insist upon adding meaning where none exists as if any utterance means whatever a listener, no matter how dishonest or ignorant, says it means. I do not think it is overstating anything to say that this kind of nonsense is more suitable to the masturbatory ravings of the amateur psychiatric community. I myself prefer to confine my practice to that of amateur gynecologist.
| |||||||
|
The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
Better watch those personalisms or Phred may get in trouble.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
I think I've figured out how to play this game and piss retards off at the same time.
| |||||||
|
The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
I think
There you go again.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
Seems to be working. Cogito ergo sum.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: First of all, no.... saying that some of the terrorists supported by Hussein belonged to al Qaeda is not saying that Hussein had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks any more than it is saying Hussein had anything to do with the 1993 WTC bombing or the 1998 African Embassy attacks. All it is saying is that Hussein harbored the bad people who carried out a number of attacks against US interests, and that only a fool would think these bad people were satisfied that The Great Satan had been punished enough and would now stop. Secondly, Hussein did give aid and asistance to some terrorists who at some point in their careers belonged to al Qaeda. Did Hussein sit in on planning meetings with Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Mohammed Atta? No, of course not, and no one in the Bush administration ever said he did. But he didn't have to involve himself to that level in order to qualify as a first-rate terrorist enabler. Quote: Because 1 - such evidence has been amply provided in past threads posted here to The Shroomery which were active at a time you were posting, and because the internet outside The Shroomery is rife with such information. 2 - If one time, in one speech, or one question period prior to March 23, 2003 some administration official slipped up and said "supports al Qaeda" rather than "supports terrorists belonging to al Qaeda" this is not indicative of some sort of Jedi mind control campaign to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people. Quote: How did you find the guy's name? Wikipedia? My suggestion is you go to the Wikipedia article on him and see what is said about him. Hussein most certainly did not arrest him in 1993 or the first part of 1994. Is it possible that at some point before the Leslie Stahl interview in 2002 Hussein arrested him? It certainly is possible. But we have no indication of when Hussein did that - could have been in December of 1994 or it could have been three days before the interview. There is quite literally no data on his arrest date. The reports we do have of his arrival in Iraq are that he was greeted cordially, and provided a place to live and money to support himself at State expense. Quote: Could that support have been withdrawn at some point in the next eight or nine years and the schmoo been chucked into Abu Ghraib? Sure... I guess it could have. But if he was imprisoned, Hussein certainly never tried to score any brownie points with Bill Clinton over this act. He never tried to say something like, "Hey, guys - I have in custody one of the FBI's ten most wanted fugitives. One of those rat bastards who killed those folks in your beloved Zionist-run Twin Towers a few years back. I'll trade him to you if you will lift the sanctions. Or if you will at least stop the overflights of the "no-fly" zone. Or if you'll stop lobbing cruise missiles into deserted buildings whenever the Lewinsky scandal heats up. Or hell... even if you'll hand over to me the $25 million reward you've posted all over the world. Deal?" But Hussein never said anything like that. In fact, it wasn't till a couple hundred thousand US troops were ready to hop across Iraq's border that Hussein suddenly produced him. Now, you may see nothing odd about this timing, but I'm sure I'm not the only reader of this thread who finds it entirely plausible that Yasin was a free man living the good life in Iraq until late 2002. As for "conjecture", you are conjecturing he was arrested, what... a month after he'd been seen walking around as a free man in 1994? In early 1995? In mid 1996? Give us a date, then tell us on what evidence do you base your guess? Quote: If you didn't read them at the time you were active in the forum, you can read them now. They are not hard to find. Quote: Again, If one time, in one speech, or one question period prior to March 23, 2003 some administration official slipped up and said "supports al Qaeda" rather than "supports terrorists belonging to al Qaeda" this is not indicative of some sort of Jedi mind control campaign to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people. As our new president has demonstrated so often, politicians without a teleprompter do sometimes misspeak. But even if you can come up with six or seven such quotes, all properly sourced, all pre-invasion and all referring to al Qaeda the organization and from several different administration members, (and you can't come up with that many instances or you would have by now) this still does nothing to show the Bush administration was trying to gull the American public into thinking Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Quote: Bus as zappaisgod has repeatedly pointed out, an inability to understand simply worded English sentences does not show Bush & Co. were being deceptive, all it shows is an inability to understand simply worded English sentences. This is a VERY common trait of the Left, by the way. Note I am not necessarily tarring you with the "Leftie" brush, merely pointing out a near-universal Leftie tactic. They read into simple declarative sentences meaning that simply isn't there, then get all huffy and indignant when called on it. "Well, that's your opinion, man! I say it can be interpreted this way, so there." So sorry, but this is not a question of opinion. No matter how you slice, dice, squeeze and torture the rules of English grammar, it was never implied in any way by the Bush administration that Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Quote: You mean like the role a father might have in giving his son a handgun for his eighteenth birthday, and the son then goes out and shoots up a bar with it? Quote: First of all, I and others have provided all this evidence in previous threads. As well, the evidence is all over the internet. This is not a tightly-guarded secret, you know. Again, for the tenth time in this thread, Hussein's harboring of some of the world's most deadly terrorists was common knowledge for a very long time before Bush ever came to power. Badgering me to "prove" this is like badgering someone to prove Monica Lewinsky gave Bill Clinton blowjobs. And again, for maybe the sixth time in this thread, you haven't the faintest conception of how "burden of proof" works. MAIA made two claims, neither of which have been supported by either MAIA or by anyone else. I don't need to prove anything at all. It is up to y'all to either substantiate his statements or concede that they cannot be substantiated. The fact that I allowed myself to get distracted by this little side train over just when Yasin was tossed into the clink by Hussein (if in fact he ever was) or just exactly when the world decided to acknowledge Zarqawi really was a member of al Qaeda has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread topic. Even if I am wrong about Hussein's support for terrorists who at some point in their careers joined al Qaeda - and I am not wrong about this, but let's pretend for the next minute I am - that does nothing whatsoever to substantiate either of MAIA's two claims. As a side note - and I expect no followup on this, I just thought I'd point it out - I wonder where Yasin is today? I know you all remember the furor over Hussein releasing all Iraqi prisoners not long before the coalition troops crossed the border. Yasin must have been one of those released (if he ever was really under arrest in the first place) since: - pretty much every criminal in Iraq was released - if Yasin had not been released, he would have been discovered when the coalition troops seized Baghdad and we would have heard about it by now So, was he killed in fighting and his corpse never identified? Did he slip across the border into Syria? There's no way he's still in Iraq - he would have been handed in by someone anxious to collect the award money by now. Again, no need to address this question, since it is even more off topic than most of the stuff you're belaboring - I just find it one of the mysteries of the situation which may never be resolved. Quote: Yeah, there is. Saying "Hussein supported members of al Qaeda" is no more "implying" that Hussein bears responsibility for all of al Qaeda's actions than saying "the US army trained Joe Bloggs in marksmanship" implies the US Army was responsible for Bloggs setting himself up on a hillside overlooking a freeway one afternoon and picking off a dozen drivers of cars stalled in traffic before shooting himself in the head with a pistol. Quote: Try to imagine how hurt I am. Hmmm... let's review... I challenge anyone to substantiate not one, but two of the Left's most commonly repeated bullshit talking points. Not only can no one substantiate either point, most finally come right out and admit the points cannot be substantiated, "but..." and then they dive off into the weeds with some convoluted crap about how this or that unrelated incident shows Bush really was evil or whatever. And I'm the one who is supposed to have been defeated here? Phred
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Clearly. This is the left's strategy, to launch a missile that crashes and burns and yet claim that it is, as we speak, broadcasting patriotic songs from orbit. And they wonder why we think them deranged. I like that. We can call this whole canard MAIA's missile.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Actually, no, he didn't. Quote: Suuuuuuuure there were. I can believe hysterical Lefty librarians hanging up such signs. I would however need to see a report from a credible source that the FBI subpoenaed library records. If that ever happened, it was never reported by any credible news organization. Or even by the New York Times. Quote: Freedom to do what? Quote: It was considerably more than a cell phone tower, for one thing. For another thing, can you show the sentencing guidelines for conspiracy to commit multiple counts of arson were raised after September 11, 2001? Finally, sentencing guidelines are altered all the time. If that's your best shot, it's awfully weak. Quote: First of all, that's a real whitewashing of what went on. Secondly, the guy pleaded out. That's it, game over. He pleaded out. He can't whine about his sentence, he agreed to it. Secondly, where is the source showing sentencing for conviction of the exact same charge was lower prior to September 11? Quote: "Mid-level" property "vandalism"? Does this sound like vandalism to you? Quote: Quote: You can't be serious! This guy was imprisoned for contempt of court. He's no different from numerous other reporters who have been similarly jailed, including the New York Times reporter who was jailed for contempt for months and months for not revealing her source in the Valerie Plame case. Dude, judges have always had that discretion. They had - and exercised - that power long before September 11, 2001. Try again. Quote: More horse shit. First of all, police have been doing this and worse forever. Ever heard of the Chicago 1968 Democratic Convention? Secondly, police are not under federal control. Then we have a long rambling disquisition about how Bush was evil and a liar and blah blah blah.... Since it has no relevance there is no need for me to address it. Quote: It isn't a controversial subject. There isn't one single poster in this thread who is trying to pretend Hussein did not provide support for terrorists. Not one, unless you want to step to the head of the line and step on your dick in public again. The most they can find to split hairs over is just what date did this or that known al Qaeda member finally get "arrested" by Hussein or whether Zawahiri and Zarqawi could really be considered to be an al Qaeda member at the time Hussein was still handing them wads of cash or did they only technically become al Qaeda after they had received the cash, etc. Oh my... such devastating rebuttals of Phred's Neocon propaganda! I'm a shattered man, now, I tell you! *Weeps uncontrollably* Phred
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: I'm not saying the existance of the program establishes MAIA's claim. Since i don't know the frequency of wiretaps or scope, it would be hard to do, though it isn't true that just cuz such a program was dreamed up prior to 9/11 that that event marked no change in it. I am mostly trying to refute the overconfident assertions of you and phred and others that the wiretaps are legal or were. We don't seem to have enough information for you to say that. Quote: No, overstating the assurance that the wiretaps are or were legal. We don't know enough to say that to my knowledge. Like I said, just cuz the power exists doesn't mean the manner in which it is purportedly implemented is legal. Therefore, I think it is not possible for you to simply say the wiretaps are or were legal.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/13/09 Posts: 3,259 |
| ||||||
Quote: You never responded to the court case issue at all, except to claim that since people were never prosecuted it didn't meet the challenge. You never responded to the issue of standing I brought up including where Ashcroft claimed the plaintiffs could be prosecuted under the law, frankly you seem to attack people who you think you can beat and ignore others who you think have points.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
|
Yes, you satisfied phred's question with that citation to the assistance to a terrorist group law. I thought that was added after your initial proffer though, wasn't it? If not I missed it as well, as I thought your initial post that I criticised missed the mark as well.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/13/09 Posts: 3,259 |
| ||||||
|
Oh it was in there, however I explained it more in depth in later posts. I still think there is plenty of other points I mentioned that fulfill his challenge. Can you point out why they did not fulfill the challenge?
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Yeah we do. We have appellate court case after appellate court case after appellate court case where the decisions all came down on the side of the government and not one single court case where the decision went against. See the thread I linked in my reply to Chespirito. Quote: If it were just me saying it, you might have a point. But it's not just me saying it, it is multiple different appellate courts. It is true that none of those appellate court decisions has yet to be bumped to the Supreme Court, but the odds of one ever even being referred to The Supremes is almost nil and even if one is referred to them the odds of them granting certiorari are less than nil. It's a slam dunk. What makes the NSA surveillance such an easy decision is that it has nothing to do with criminal law, number one, and that the listening isn't even occurring in a site subject to US jurisdiction, number two, and that one end of the conversations being surveilled is always a foreign national enemy combatant, number three, and that the ONLY relevant legislation passed by Congress which makes even an attempt to involve it in activities they have no right to involve themselves in (specifically, the conduct of espionage aimed at enemy combatants by military personnel reporting to the Commander in Chief in a warzone during wartime) is the FISA Act, which specifically includes an exception which fits the NSA circumstances to a "T", number four, and the judges on the FISA court itself - the body which is specifically charged with interpreting just when the Act has been violated - have specifically ruled that the Commander in Chief's authority to intercept enemy communications is not restricted in any way by FISA, number five, and more than 5,400 warrants relating to the program were issued anyway - even though according to the appellate court decisions there was no need to do so, number six, and no one has shown that any "US person" was ever actually bugged while they were inside the US borders in the first place, number seven. Yes folks, you read that last correctly - not one single US person has come forward claiming his communications were bugged by the NSA without a warrant. Nor has the ACLU or any other organization come forward in representation of such a person. Everyone is just assuming that even though 5400 warrants were issued, at least 5401 individuals must have been listened to. Because Bushie McChimpstain is evil, or something. I do suggest you go to the thread I linked for Chespirito and read it all the way through, checking out all the various other links in the thread. Phred
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
|
Fine, cite me the cases that show its legal.
Courts don't issue advisory opinions, and unless they disclosed way more than I'm betting they're willing, the decicisions you could possibly refer to could not be broad enough to support your statements. Enivetably you will have a handful of cases that ruled the particular conduct was a) legal; b) unable to be proven in the way the plaintiff alleges; c) disposed of per issues that are unrelated to the legality of the conduct
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Chesperito, did you read the actual decision? I mean read it? All of it? Not necessarily every line of argument and every procedural objection which was granted or not granted, but the actual findings of the court, right at the end? The part labelled "Conclusions"?
The reason I ask this is because I actually took the time to read it. And guess what? Of the five aspects of the case under consideration, the government won on four. The only one the court found the plaintiffs had a case was the one you list, where we find - to our immense horror and surprise - that once again some Congresscritters were sloppy in their wording. "Impermissibly vague" under the Fifth Amendment. On the questions of - "lack of specific intent", - "prohibitions on material support or resources in the form of 'training,' 'expert advice or assistance,' 'personnel,' and 'service' ", - “personnel”, and - an "unconstitutional licensing scheme", the government won. So, the best shot you have come up with yet is that a low level court (remember, this hasn't even seen an appeals court) threw a bone to the ACLU's usual scattergun approach and reprimanded Congress for drafting legislation in which a tiny part of it turned out to be "impermissibly vague", and the evil Bushies couldn't be bothered even appealing the decision, they just shrugged and said, "Yeah, our bad. We'll get the next session of Congress to correct that with an amendment". Oh, the horror! The oppression! Phred
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/13/09 Posts: 3,259 |
| ||||||
|
I skimmed through that, however what I read seemed to go as follows,
'blah blah, blah...(you won), blah" Was I correct?
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: They're all listed and linked with relevant quotes from the decisions excerpted and highlighted in the thread I linked for Chespirito a few posts back. I'm not going to go back and dig them out of my posts in that thread because that's work for nothing. I spent considerable effort on that thread when it was current in order to make it as easy to navigate as possible. The whole thing is very VERY thoroughly laid out. I think the post you'll find most informative is the one where I've used a lot of purple type to avoid confusing who is saying what, but the entire thread is worth at least skimming. Phred
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/13/09 Posts: 3,259 |
| ||||||
|
From the conclusion
"Furthermore, Defendant's contradictory arguments on the scope of the prohibition underscores the vagueness of the prohibition. The "expert advice or assistance" Plaintiffs seek to offer includes advocacy and associational activities protected under the First Amendment, which Defendants concede are not prohibited under the USA Patriot Act. Despite this, the USA Patriot Act places no limitation on the type of expert advice and assistance which is prohibited, and instead bans the provisions of all expert advice and assistance regardless of its nature. Thus, like the terms "personnel" and "training" , "expert advice and assistance" "could be construed to include unequivocally pure speech and advocacy protected by the First Amendment" or to "encompass First Amendment protected activities." As for the full list of denied and approved conclusions "1.) Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the prohibition is impermissibly vague but have failed to demonstrate that the prohibition is substantially overbroad" "2.) Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the prohibition on the provision of "expert advice or assistance" criminalizes associational speech" "3.) Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the prohibition gives the secretary of state unreviewable authority to designate groups as terrorist organizations" The long quote above comes from section 1.) of the conclusion. I posted that because I'm not sure where you got your list of conclusions. Frankly I agree with the court in denying them those judgements. For number 2, there is no evidence that merely claiming you like the Tamil Tigers means you have provided expert advice or assistance. As for 3, there is a review process.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/13/09 Posts: 3,259 |
| ||||||
|
I would ask you read the rest of the original post, particularly the parts on the National Security Letters (including a court case about it) (section 505 I believe) and section 215.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: What is this from and what does it have to do with anything?
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/13/09 Posts: 3,259 |
| ||||||
|
this is a discussion myself and Phred are having, you are welcome to read past posts to get a handle on it.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
Get a room. Was my request so difficult? After 5 pages of drama queens whining about mostly bullshit?
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/13/09 Posts: 3,259 |
| ||||||
|
well well, I guess I can oblige a fellow zappa fan. We are talking about a court case entitled Humanitarian Law Project vs. Ashcroft. In it the judge ruled part of the Patriot Act unconstitutional. As for the specifics and how we arrived at our current subject you are on your own.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: To repeat myself - Quote: Look, the whole thrust of MAIA's claim was that the Bush administration instituted some Reign of Terror, cowing and subjugating the populace into submission to its will through Big Brother pervasive reach or something. So this one group - whose mission appears to be to provide help to foreign terrorist organizations - got slapped down in court for its hysterical overreach and paranoia, and this somehow shows Bush is evil? I point out again that the government didn't even bother to appeal the court's decision. They just (metaphorically speaking) shruuged and said, "Oops. Our bad." Here's where I got the conclusions - http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs5/3 Here they are in detail Quote: Phred
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/13/09 Posts: 3,259 |
| ||||||
|
Ah so you mean you got your conclusions from a different court case?
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/13/09 Posts: 3,259 |
| ||||||
|
I understand that it is not as profound as you think it should be, however the implications are bad. The law was worded in a flagrantly illegal way, and in the future it might have been used in a bad way. Not saying it would have, but I think it is fortunate that it got struck down. Respond to my NSL court case about section 505 and respond to section 215, and the rest of it. I posted more abhorrent things that have gotten little notice.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Same court case. It was just renamed when Ashcroft was replaced by Gonzales as Attorney General. Look at it again - same California court, same plaintiff, same legislation being challenged. When the case was first filed it was indeed Humanitarian Law whatever v. Ashcroft. By the time the decision was finally handed down, Gonzales was Attorney General.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/13/09 Posts: 3,259 |
| ||||||
|
Ill investigate later as I have some work to do, but it appears that its a different court case as the conclusions are all different from what I have been reading. Anyways this is an irrelevant argument to our discussion.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: "Flagrantly" illegal? Not at all. In fact, most of it was worded in a perfectly acceptable way, as the court's decision indicates. And look at the end part. This decision is to be very narrowly applied - they are not asking that the legislation be reworded, and they are noting that the injunction -and that's all it is, an injunction - is not to be applied "nationwide" or for that matter even to be applied to anyone other than the defendants named in the case - Humanitarian Law Project. They aren't even overturning the legislation, they are simply saying that the Feds can't file charges against Humanitarian Law Project operatives - no one else, mind you, just HLP operatives - in California only, and nowhere else, for providing "expert advice or assistance" (clearly in the form of legal advice) in the form of "specialized knowledge" to several specifically named terrorist groups. It is quite clear by the extremely limited and very narrow scope of the ruling - particularly when compared to the vastly greater number of issues on which the Plaintiff's arguments were dismissed by the court - that the judges did not see this legislation as anything particularly heinous or freedom-restricting. As it happens, I agree with the court's ruling about the vagueness of the wording. Fact of the matter is that the wording as it appeared in the legislation is vague enough to be argued (how successfully, I don't know) as to apply to legal counsel as well as, say, bomb-makers or experts in the manufacture of complex organic chemical compounds (think nerve toxins). You can of course believe the vagueness was a deliberate attempt to deny terrorists legal counsel, but I think it was just the usual sloppiness of Congresscritters not thinking through their wording carefully enough. Look at the news lately - almost every piece of legislation passed since Obama took office has had some bad unintended consequence because the doofus legislators can't be bothered to think things through all the way. I personally think it very unlikely the intent of the legislators was to deny anyone legal counsel, although the wording used could arguably be claimed by a particularly aggressive prosecutor to include legal experts, not just weaponry experts or forgery experts or whatever. In any case, if that's your best shot, I think we can safely assume Bush ended up being as incompetent at figuring out how to enslave the US populace as he was at at pronouncing "nuclear". Phred
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
|
You continue to conflate getting judgment and something being illegal. Additionally, your changing the goalposts. You asked for thigns which he provides, and then you say it doesn't establish that bush is some maniac or whatever- which wasn't the question.
Regardless, I cannot understand how you could defend the law that bans advice to certain groups designated by teh executive. Really? You don't see constitutional problems with that? I also don't know why your conflating geting judgment with bush being oppresive, but that's a seperate question.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Depends what the advice is, duh. Why are you crabbing at me? I agree that it would be wrong to criminalize the giving of legal advice. I said that already. But providing advice on say, synthesizing nerve agents, is a different kettle of fish. I don't see the difference between that and the numerous "accessory" laws on the books which leave you open to prosecution if you knowingly provide certain types of aid to those conspiring to commit a felony other than terrorism. It's no more onerous than the laws governing just exactly who can be indicted under the RICO statutes, for example. It's just that now you can be nailed for helping out known terrorists rather than just helping out known Tony Sopranos. Phred
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Sorry, I thought it was obvious why I was asking for these things. I was asking for those things to show MAIA's claims that somehow Bush immediately stripped Americans of numerous freedoms they had always held was erroneous. If someone can provide an example of something federal law allowed them to do prior to 9/11 that they can no longer do today, it is de facto proof that their freedom has been lessened in some way. As it turns out, Humanitarian Law Project is still free to provide legal advice to terrorists. They could do it before 9/11 and they can still do it. So what's the problem? I repeat, no one has yet shown me any action an American could legally perform in America prior to 9/11 without the Feds charging them that they can now no longer perform without the Feds charging them. State and municipal legislation doesn't count, of course - this must be federal legislation. As I said, the best anyone can come up with is, "Yeah.... I can do all the same stuff I always could, it's just now the Feds might be watching me do it. Or might be listening to me talking about doing it." And I've already addressed that aspect of it in my answer to Redstorm. Phred
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/13/09 Posts: 3,259 |
| ||||||
|
?
Im sorry but I just did that, the courts ruled it unconstitutional. By the way you are reading the wrong court case and the conclusion is different by a good deal than what you are describing. http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/do is the one I mean, notice how it was finished in January of 2004 and yours is in 2005. You just admitted that they could do something previously, then the patriot act was passed and they would have been prosecuted. It got overturned and now they are free to do it. How do you claim that doesn't satisfy your challenge? And you continuously ignore the greater scope of my original post particularly as I keep pointing out the NSL and section 215. Also people previously had the right to get notified of a sneak and peak warrant after 7 days, then the patriot act came along and made that indefinite. Does that not count as a right? You are a confusing man
| |||||||
|
Barred Spiral Registered: 02/03/03 Posts: 2,468 Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Look up the word "implied". Quote: Yet to be demonstrated. Quote: Terrible excuse. Making a claim and refusing to provide evidence is not something you can give excuses for. If you make a claim, you back it up. That's how discussions work. If we're going to play this game, then I claim that Bush said that Saddam Hussein personally planned 9/11 and was also secretly behind the Holocaust. But I don't need to prove it. You can search the internet for it. Quote: They made constant references to al-Qaeda the organization and you know it. This is such a red herring. Quote: Again, this does not answer my last criticism that there's no evidence that he was harbored by Saddam Hussein. Quote: Iraq also offered to hand him over in 1994, and again after 2001. There's too much conflicting info for this to be a sign of Iraq aiding & abetting a member of al-Qaeda. Quote: Uhh, actually, he did. "Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz told ``60 Minutes'' Baghdad had made two offers to return Yasin to the United States, first in 1994 during the Clinton administration and again after the Sept. 11 attacks." Quote: Conjecture to the extent to which Iraq aided him. Most sources point to his living in Baghdad for a year, and then having been arrested around 1994. The conjecture here is you're claiming this is proof of Hussein supporting al-Qaeda, but there's not a whole lot of info here which proves your point. Quote: Nice try. There are countless quotes which make it pretty obvious that they're talking about al-Qaeda the organization. This is pretty desperate to even attempt this as an angle. Quote: Again, read the definition of implied. I already went over this. Quote: When I point out that the quotes from Bush & co. are misleading, you guys are the ones who are unable to comprehend why the statements are misleading. When given quotes which show a falsified link between Iraq & al-Qaeda, the defense is that they meant al-Qaeda members, and when that doesn't hold up, it's about terrorists. And we don't want TERRORISTS running around, do we?!? I understand English well enough to see when arguments change on the basis of new information Quote: Again, look up the word implied. Implied doesn't mean explicitly state, it means inference through associations or necessary consequences, rather than by direct statements. These "simple declarative statements" included the phrase "implied". So it's rather mind boggling when people actually use the word "implied" to mean what it means, that the counter-argument is that "lefties don't understand English & try to pick a part simple statements". Quote: Quote: Sigh, once again, you're way off base. I gave plenty of links which showed that Bush & Co. made false associations about Iraq & al-Qaeda, thereby implying that Iraq had some kind of role in 9/11. But that wasn't good enough, and I was told that the links the administration were true. That's when the burden of proof falls onto you. You have to prove that those statements were true. But you haven't. You just keep going around in circles. Quote: That's a terrible example. What the Bush administration was saying was that Iraq posed a danger to the United States because they aided al-Qaeda, and could provide them with chemical weapons to use on the United States. Obviously, those statements are implying a cooperative relationship between the two, but saying that the Army trained Joe Bloggs in marksmanship is simply stating the origin. Look at Cheney's quote: "We'll find ample evidence confirming the link, that is the connection if you will between al Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence services. They have worked together on a number of occasions." That's worlds apart from your example. Anyway, all I'm seeing here is the same recycled defense mechanisms combined with a lack of any evidence to back up your side of the claims. Really, I don't feel like I have any obligation to respond unless you can actually present some support for your case. On every single point I've made, you've managed to dodge answering for it. Eventually, it then even falls into the "Lefties pick a part the meaning of words" defense. I've seen this all before. Although the refusal to provide info or evidence out of "principal" is a new one. That's just... wow.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: In the context of Hussein supporting them? No they didn't. There were maybe two examples over the years, both of which were made after the resumption of hostilities had already started. Quote: Says who? Quote: Is that the same guy who was assuring the world on TV the coalition forces were suffering stunning defeats at the same moment US tanks in the background were driving around shooting at stuff? Seeing as how Yasin was on the FBI's ten most wanted list, and seeing as how there was a $25 million reward on his head, can you supply the readers with a plausible explanation as to why Clinton declined Aziz's offer to extradite him? Because I confess I can't think of one. Here again we see the hypocrisy of the Bush-bashers: nothing that Bush or any of his administration members says can be trusted, no matter how plausible their statements may be, but anything that an enemy of America says must be true, no matter how implausible it may be. But hey... let's see what else Aziz has to say: Quote: Exit question: if Yasin wasn't charged with any crimes, why was he arrested? Quote: "Most sources". Translation into English - "a single Hussein puppet". And of course, Yasin aside there is the question of the wads of cash handed to al Zawahiri and the aid given to Zarqawi. Not to mention the countless terrorists who passed through Salman Pak. It is beyond stupid to try to pretend that none of them ever got around to joining al Qaeda. Quote: That's because they aren't misleading. Look, the best you have been able to provide so far is one line from Bush with no context provided where he says "al Qaeda" rather than "members of al Qaeda" and a similar line from Rice - again with no context provided - where she does the same. I will be as fair as possible here and grant that in those two instances, it would not be unreasonable for a listener to presume they were referring to al Qaeda the organization rather than to Yasin and al Zawahiri and Zarqawi and the Salman Pak bunch, so if someone who was living in a cave somewhere who had never heard any past administration pronouncements on the issue and never heard any future adminstration pronouncements on the issue had to make a snap decision, they might logically presume the Bush administration was saying Hussein was as buddy-buddy with al Qaeda the organization as was Afghanistan's Mullah Omar. And let's check the dates on those statements, shall we? Were they not made long after Baghdad had been toppled and Hussein deposed? At a time when Iraq was being administered by America? If the whole idea of this "deception" was to gull the American populace into okaying resumption of hostilities, why were such statements not made prior to Congress passing the AUMF? Why were such statements not made prior to the day the first trooper's boots hit Iraqi soil? Why wait till long after the Ba'athist regime was history? Quote: Exactly. "Necessary consequences". Even if every single statement coming out of the Bush administration had said Hussein supported "al Qaeda" rather than "terrorists", this does not imply Hussein's Ba'athist regime was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. All it implies is that Hussein provided aid and assistance to some very bad people. Quote: No it doesn't, because as I have explained so patiently so many times previously, even if every statement Bush had made said "al Qaeda" rather than "members of al Qaeda" (and such is clearly not the case, but even if it was) this still doesn't mean he is implying Hussein bore responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Look, the bottom line is this - None of you can show a statement from the administration blaming Hussein for the 9/11 attacks. The best you can do is to say that you believe it is possible to interpret one or two statements as "implying" Hussein was involved or responsible or whatever. Thing is, when we look at the actual statements, no such implication is apparent. Yet you keep insisting - with nothing to back up your insistence but your own predisposition to read into things that which doesn't exist - that the implication is there. It isn't there. At least, not in any of the statements anyone has provided so far. And by "so far" I don't mean just in this thread, I mean in any thread in the last seven and a half years. Quote: Sure. Of course. Only a completely braindead moron would dismiss that possibility out of hand. Remember, Hussein was the only head of any state who came right out in public celebrating the 9/11 attacks and praising those who carried them out. Even Arafat and Khaddafy had the sense not to do that. It was no secret that Hussein aided and abetted terrorists, and it was no secret he wished harm on the United States. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume he might hand off weapons more deadly than AK47s to terrorists one day. That does not imply Hussein even knew about the 9/11 attacks before they occurred, much less had any part in the planning or carrying out of the attacks. I don't see why you keep trying to insist it does. Quote: But that's just it. I have provided the evidence. Many, MANY times in the past. So many times that I'm sick and tired of providing it over and over again, so this time I said "fuck it". Because if you honestly have so little interest in discovering the truth of the matter that you cannot be bothered to do a simple search, why should your accurate understanding of the facts be of any more interest to me? Again, this is not some new and startling revelation . It has been common knowledge since the Clinton years. Everyone with even a slight interest in the subject knows by now Hussein aided and abetted terrorists of all stripes and colors. Why you keep insisting that "Well, yeah... he supported Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas and all those Palestinian dudes and al Zawahiri who has for many years now been Osama bin Laden's main spokesperson, and al Zarqawi who was the number one man of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia (as the New York Times hilariously reported it) and all those hundreds of terrorists who passed through Salman Pak learning how to seize a jet airliner using nothing but "short knives" (in the words of the graduates themselves), but he certainly never supported al Qaeda! That's just crazy talk, that is!" is beyond me. If it helps you sleep at night to believe this, go right ahead. No skin off my nose. Phred
| |||||||
|
Barred Spiral Registered: 02/03/03 Posts: 2,468 Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Quote: It's quote time: "I think they're both equally important, and they're both dangerous. And as I said in my speech in Cincinnati, we will fight if need be the war on terror on two fronts. We've got plenty of capacity to do so. And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The war on terror, Iraq is a part on the war on terror. And he must disarm." "This is a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat." "He's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint." "He's had contacts with Al Qaida. Imagine the scenario where an Al Qaida-type organization uses Iraq as an arsenal, a place to get weapons, a place to be trained to use the weapons. Saddam Hussein could use surrogates to come and attack people he hates." "Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." "He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations." "And Saddam Hussein becomes a prime suspect in that regard because of his past track record and because we know he has, in fact, developed these kinds of capabilities, chemical and biological weapons. . . We know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization." And finally, I would like to give you a quote from Dick Cheney which directly states that the terrorists responsible for 9/11 came from Iraq: "If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." There it is. We would have struck the geographic base (Iraq) of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11. Case closed. He's saying the geographic base for the terrorists of 9/11 was Iraq. That's a direct quote. We know the terrorists didn't come from Iraq, so not only was it a lie, it implies that Iraq was involved. Just some more quotes to disprove this "one or two times they may have misspoke" "And Saddam Hussein becomes a prime suspect in that regard because of his past track record and because we know he has, in fact, developed these kinds of capabilities, chemical and biological weapons. . . We know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization." - Dick Cheney "If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." -Dick Cheney "(Since September 11) We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization. -Dick Cheney Quote: Quote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/midd The reasons why the U.S. didn't accept him was that it came with a signed agreement which had different versions of the account of the attacks. Quote: Sure, it may have come from that guy, but an unnamed US intelligence official quoted by 60 Minutes stated that the reason why they didn't accept was because the papers had a different account than what the Americans had. That shows that the offer was made. Quote: Interesting how I was able to also point to an unnamed U.S. official which confirmed the story was true, huh? All this whining about Bush bashes automatically denying what Bush has to say when I asked you for proof of your claims and I was able to provide evidence from U.S. sources. You really jumped the gun on that one. Quote: Ahh, some more names. Finally. Let's start with al Zarqawi. Quoting Wikipedia here: "A CIA report in late 2004 concluded that there was no evidence Saddam's government was involved or even aware of this medical treatment, and found no conclusive evidence the Saddam Hussein regime had harbored Zarqawi." As for Zawahiri, I really couldn't find anything on how he was tied into all this. At least directly tied into Hussein. Quote: And again, when asked for you to prove why they aren't misleading, you refuse. You act is if you can just state it and have it be so. No dice. Quote: "of necessary consequences"... So if they made erroneous statements about funding & training the organization responsible for 9/11, it would imply by "necessary consequence" that they had a certain level of responsibility in 9/11. Quote: Quote: Wrong, but here's a direct quote from Dick Cheney which leaves no doubt. "If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Quote: It's not unreasonable to think, no, but remember, Bush was filling people's minds with images that weren't based in intelligence. Besides, Hussein never even "praised the killings". He said "the American cowboys are reaping the fruit of their crimes against humanity", while also offering condolences. Saddam was still a prick, but you're making it sound much worse than it was. Either way, the claims the Bush administration made did not match up with reality. That's all that matters. Quote: If you don't want to go over the info again, fine, but then you don't have the right to tell me I'm wrong. If this is really your justification for not providing evidence, then you should just keep your mouth shut on the matter. Don't tell someone there's plenty of evidence out there and then refuse to present it. It doesn't work that way. How am I to take your word for it, especially since I've demonstrated that all your info is essentially bunk anyway? Quote: -------------------- The very nature of experience is ineffable; it transcends cognitive thought and intellectualized analysis. To be without experience is to be without an emotional knowledge of what the experience translates into. The desire for the understanding of what life is made of is the motivation that drives us all. Without it, in fear of the experiences what life can hold is among the greatest contradictions; to live in fear of death while not being alive.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
So sorry, bro, but producing quotes without even noting who said them, when they were said, as reported by which newspaper - especially when several of them appear to be the same damn quote just reprinted several times, doesn't cut the mustard.
I shouldn't have to repeat this all over again, but it seems I must - MAIA's claim was that the Bush administration claimed Hussein bore responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Everyone who has responded to this thread has said, well, Phred, you are right. No one ever actually said that. But goddammit, they implied it! Thing is, none of the quotes you provide are examples of the Bush administration implying Hussein bore responsibility for the attacks. You can stamp your feet and screw your eyes up tight and claim "is so, is so, is so!" till the cows come home, but that isn't going to change the fact that none of those statements imply Hussein bore responsibility for the attacks. And of course, as I long ago pointed out, this whole "implication" scheme of the Bushies would collapse faster than a house of cards the very first time any reporter asked them to clarify their position - i.e. act like an actual reporter and ask an actual question, like - "Are you saying Hussein was responsible for the attacks?" Well, guess what - it turns out that quite a few reporters did ask these very simple questions in a few variations, and in every case - without exception - always got an immediate, unequivocal answer that no, the administration does not believe it, or has no evidence of it, or some such variation. You - of course - have completely ignored this well-documented, indisputable fact because it blows your "implication" theory out of the water. Why have you not addressed that? Think about this, man - at the end of every speech or press conference, some reporter stands up and says, "Umm... just so I'm clear on this, you're not saying Hussein had any involvement in the attacks, right?" and kaboom! all the carefully-fashioned subliminal hypnotizing the speechwriters so painstakingly crafted is blown to smithereens. So much for "implication". Again - for the fifth or sixth time in this thread I point out that saying that Hussein aided and abetted al Qaeda is most emphatically not the same thing as saying Hussein had anything to do with the 9/11 attack. That's the bottom line you are doing everything in your power to evade. Another thing I can't help pointing out - your complete avoidance of the topic of Salman Pak. Salman Pak has been so broadly documented by so many different sources that it cannot be brushed under the rug, but you brush it under the rug anyway. There was the fuselage of a Boeing airliner there, and that fuselage was used for the running of practice hijackings. Over and over again, by dozens and dozens of trainees. But oh, no... all of those trainees belonged to those other terrorist organizations. None of them ever got around to joining al Qaeda. The fact of the matter is that Hussein wasn't very fussy about which terrorists he helped out. He was pretty much cool with all of them. And again you ignore the fact that Hussein offered the head cheese of al Qaeda himself - Osama bin Laden - sanctuary in Iraq when Sudan got too hot for him. The fact that ObL went with Mullah Omar rather than with Saddam doesn't change the fact that Hussein quite obviously had the desire to help out al Qaeda. Why you pretend this isn't so is completely baffling to me. But enough of this. I'm repeating the same stuff to you half a dozen times in this thread that has been posted several hundred times in this forum already, by myself and others. For whatever bizarre reason, you refuse to accept that Hussein provided aid to plenty of al Qaeda members over the years. What your stake in this absurd denial might be I cannot fathom, especially since it has no bearing on whether or not the Bush administration was trying to gull the American people into blaming Hussein for 9/11. You say you're done with this, fine by me. I've nothing new to say that hasn't been said thousands of times in the last seven years. Continue to believe whatever you want to believe, dude. Whatever gets you through the day, right? Phred
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Oh, hell. One final dig. I should let this drop, but I just can't. This is the link you provided which purports to show that Iraq made two offers to hand over Yasin... one in 1994 and one in 2002.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/midd As you know I never disputed Hussein was willing to trade Yassin for concessions from the US in 2002, I disputed the 1994 offer, and asked for a source other than Aziz which would confirm the 1994 offer. I suggest you re-read the article at the link provided, especially the statements of the unnamed US intelligence official, and think carefully about what this official is actually saying. When the lightbulb finally does illuminate for you, there's no need for you to post here again letting us know it. Because we're done here, right? Phred
| |||||||
|
Barred Spiral Registered: 02/03/03 Posts: 2,468 Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Why am I not surprised to see more of the same lines & excuses. You haven't denied being wrong when I corrected you about Zarqai. Or any of the other mistakes you made. You just prattle on & on about the various quotes don't meet your standards, even though they do. The little information you provide is either irrelevant, or flat out wrong. You refuse to provide anymore. How am I supposed to take your credibility seriously? How can anyone take you seriously?
Here's a direct quote which states that Iraq was the heart of the base for the terrorists responsible for 9/11. It's undenable, and it was said on Meet the Press. "If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." - Dick Cheney from Meet the Press on Sept, 14 2003. Quote: Ok. From: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/fr [Editor's Note, November 2005: More than two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, there has been no verification of Khodada's account of the activities at Salman Pak. In fact, U.S. officials have now concluded that Salman Pak was most likely used to train Iraqi counter-terrorism units in anti-hijacking techniques. It should also be noted that he and other defectors interviewed for this report were brought to FRONTLINE's attention by the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a dissident organization that was working to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Since the original broadcast, Khodada has not publicly addressed questions that have been raised about his account of activities at Salman Pak. More: The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that "Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq. There have been no credible reports since the war that Iraq trained al-Qa'ida operatives at Salman Pak to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations.PDF Link You're done, Phred. It's over. -------------------- The very nature of experience is ineffable; it transcends cognitive thought and intellectualized analysis. To be without experience is to be without an emotional knowledge of what the experience translates into. The desire for the understanding of what life is made of is the motivation that drives us all. Without it, in fear of the experiences what life can hold is among the greatest contradictions; to live in fear of death while not being alive.
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
|
Good win, Twirling.
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
|
Pwned.
| |||||||
|
Barred Spiral Registered: 02/03/03 Posts: 2,468 Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Yeah, I got that Phred. The reason why Iraq wanted to turn over this guy was to get the U.S. to agree that Iraq had nothing to do with the W.T.C. bombings. This doesn't indicate that Iraq, had in fact, sheltered Yassin, it's just that neither side was willing to make a trade which freed Iraq of responsibility. So the best out come you have here is that he was given housing & money for 1 year, and then was arrested anyway. So you're not really proving much here.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 10 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Quote: NY Times Quote: http://www.accessola.com/olba/bi Quote: USA Today Seems like the only thing keeping people's library records safe are radical librarians. Quote:Quote: Freedom to do so without coming under investigation of the FBI or even be detained without cause. Believe it or not but freedom from tyranny is freedom from unjust harassment, this is the sort of thing that MAIA meant by the government expanding it's control. Quote:Quote: If you looked into the Elle magazine article that I told you to you would have seen the account of the FBI snitch. Those other targets were only discussed as possible targets and no plans were made. In fact the snitch, got over $65,000 for her services, while her actions were responsible for keeping the group focused on the plans when they were ready to forget the whole thing and leave. This has been the central controversial reason the case was called entrapment. As for the length of the sentience, it is called a "terrorism Enhancement" it originates in the USA Patriot act and it is responsible for giving activists disproportionately long sentences by labeling their politically motivated actions as terrorism. Quote:Quote: Quote: Sherman Austin I'd like to know how you think I whitewashed it. Quote: Like I said read the Elle article and you can hear it right from the horse's (or in this case rat's) mouth, there was no intent to kill bystanders. The tower was in an isolated area and they were going to look around for people in the area first. Nobody has ever been killed in an ELF action yet. you can check the North American ELF press office if you'd like. Last I checked they have a record of every ELF action that has been reported in North America. Quote:Quote: Quote: Josh Wolf Quote:Quote: First off, you may be right on the first count. I'd ask you for a source on this but I know how overworked you are looking for that mystery al queda terrorist that Saddam trained to piss on chlorine. However I doubt you actually saw the video. Secondly no the police are not under federal control, but some of the people who lead the riot control and coordinate protest operations for the police are the SS and FBI. In fact, I think that all the preemptive arrests are coordinated by the FBI, but it is possible that some were executed by local police. Quote:Quote: Like I said if it's not a controversial source why don't you show it. I don't think I have the time to keep up to this line of argument but it seems like you have no evidence that Saddam knowingly or unknowingly helped, funded or trained Al Qaeda operatives. All of which are claims made by the Bush administration in it's fear-mongering campaign. please feel free not to rush yourself in reply, by all means take your time. -------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
|
Don't even bother, Scavenger. Now he's saying he won't back up his arguments with facts or links to those facts out of principle.
I can imagine said principle is, "Never question or justify one's irrationally held beliefs EVER!"He says that the evidence of a Saddam-Al Qaeda link is easily available via a google search yet none of us have been able to find this...not even the US Congress or a multitude of intelligence sources. Then he claims that these can be found in a previous thread... as if a thread on the shroomery politics forum that Phred commented on a few years ago (probably with zero evidence there too) is supposed to impress us more than actual sources. Don't worry though, as he said, he doesn't care what we think (according to him)... I guess that explains why he tries so hard to convince us of his point of view by leaving his patented brand of pseudo-intellectual vomit all over this thread. In short...
Edited by Virus_with_Shoes (04/09/09 01:00 AM)
| |||||||
|
Barred Spiral Registered: 02/03/03 Posts: 2,468 Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Ok, I think I finished Phred off in that last post, but I've got to come back to this. Here's Phred, criticizing me for not listing sources for my quotes. Never mind that most already do, but it's Phred who wants me to list sources. Many times throughout this discussion he was asked by people other than me, to provide sources to his claim that Hussein aided _______ (fill in the blank, Phred swapped his meaning around from members of al-Qaeda, to al-Qaeda, to just "terrorists"). Asked countless times, and completely refused. He claimed that it was a matter of principal. After all, the topic has been done, and there's no need to question such self-apparent answers! He stuck on this for pages & pages. Finally, he named a few. Why refuse such an easy request if the information is that readily obvious to the reader? Maybe it's because the examples he provided turned out to be factually incorrect, such as al-Zarqawi whom 1994 the CIA found no conclusive evidence the Saddam Hussein regime had harbored Zarqawi. He also gave me the names of two men who were indeed terrorists, but had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, so they were irrelevant to the debate. The last one is a bit conflicting. It's known that Iraq arrested the guy, but apparently he lived in Iraq for a year for free before the arrest. Not a whole lot of info to go by, but remember, Phred is giving this as an example of an al-Qaeda member who was aided by Hussein. The burden of proof falls on the one making the claim. Then you claimed I was avoiding with Salman Pak. You made some deprecating remarks about how I chose to "brush it under the rug" Of course, had Phred not done the same, he would have saved us both some time. According to PBS Editor's Note, November 2005: More than two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, there has been no verification of Khodada's account of the activities at Salman Pak. In fact, U.S. officials have now concluded that Salman Pak was most likely used to train Iraqi counter-terrorism units in anti-hijacking techniques. Consider that these are the examples that have come from a person claiming that the information is abundant and apparent, that one needs to be a buffoon to even ask for evidence. Rather, I suggest it's the opposite. Only a buffoon would not want to see evidence. But all that really needs to be said is a quote by Dick Cheney, which clearly fulfills the original challenge. That challenge being; "anyone to come up with a single quote from any credible source from any member of the Bush administration claiming Hussein was responsible for 9/11. Any one will do." "If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." -Dick Cheney, Meet the Press 09/14/2003 There it is, hanging out there pink & naked. The defense of this is to point out what Tim Russert asked next: MR. RUSSERT: So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11? Mr. CHENEY: No, I was careful not to say that. But he did say that. His very words indication that we would have struck a major blow a the heart of the base.... the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11. Think of it this way, Russert actually asked Cheney whether he meant that Iraq was responsible for 9/11? Nobody can doubt that those words don't fulfill the needs of the original challenge. It's right there. Even put into context, he is saying that the geographic heart of the 9/11 terrorists, was Iraq.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 10 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
zappa: you heard twirling, start sucking.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: No, he is saying that the region is the geographic heart of terrorism in general. "If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Any competent English speaker can tell that the region is the referent for all those "it"s. He even clarified it as clearly as possible. Further, he made a point that he was not talking exclusively about 9/11 as the only terrorist action when he spoke of terrorism. Now you are just devolving into a completely dishonest hack. Only stupid or ignorant people actually believe that Bush or Cheney said Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. I do not believe for one minute that most of the people who say it believe it, by the way, I think they are deliberately lying and pretending to be stupid. I think you are deliberately playing stupid to weasel out of a lost argument. It has been several days of this now and has it not ever occurred to any of you that if Bush or anyone else in the administration wanted to say Iraq was responsible for 9/11 there would be a quote like this, "We have evidence that Saddam Hussein assisted in the 9/11 attacks"? Because if they wanted to say it, they would have been quite unambiguous about it. They wouldn't have had to say anything else. What is quite unambiguous, even to essentially retarded listeners, is Cheney's clarification in which he said "No, I didn't say that."
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I don't think you're as stupid as you are pretending to be either.
| |||||||
|
The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
I could say the same for you except I know you're not pretending.
![]() (if you feed me lines like that you know I'll have to take em)
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
I have not demonstrated an inability to read plain English. Disagreeing with you is a sign of above idiot intelligence. Not much of an accomplishment but your comparison is a pretty low bar.
Do you really want to do this? I can go on like this all day.
| |||||||
|
The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
Sure I have tons of free time.
![]() It's all in good fun and I think I can take it. -------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
You think so. But you're not sure, are you? You're probably crying right now. In a fetal position on the floor of a remote closet in the back of your trailer.
| |||||||
|
The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
Well if that's the best you got then no worries old timer.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
Barred Spiral Registered: 02/03/03 Posts: 2,468 Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Read it again...
"If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11. Do you really mean to tell me that the subject in the above paragraph is the "region"? Even if that were true, he refers to the region "never again becomes a threat to its neighbors", implying bordering countries. So the region would never again become a threat to the region? Is that how you expect it to be read? That's what you're going after. And let's reexamine that last part "now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base (Iraq).... of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially 9/11." You mean to tell me "blow right at the heart of the base" doesn't mean Iraq, it means the "entire region"? That sentence contradicts itself. Something can't be the heart while simultaneously being the entire body. He's clearly saying that Iraq is the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Amazing how much zappaisgod goes on about reading comprehension, and how liberals play words games when.... oh wait... I think I get it now. zappaisgod is one of those ironic people, right? That's the only way his posts in this thread make sense. Edited by Twirling (04/09/09 12:49 PM)
| |||||||
|
Barred Spiral Registered: 02/03/03 Posts: 2,468 Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Of course they're not going to directly, flat out say, "Iraq was responsible for 9/11"! My whole argument has been that they make accusations through implication. By falsely stating Iraq's relationship with al-Qaeda (crediting Iraq with training, supplying, and giving chemical knowledge to al-Qaeda), they're implying that Iraq was one of the responsible parties for 9/11. So OF COURSE Cheney is going to deny it specifically. They know they don't have any evidence for that. But instead, they make false accusations and associations so that they don't have to specifically say it the way you & Phred are looking for. But it doesn't matter anyway because Cheney did say it, even if he denied it afterwords. He was trying to be as careful as possible to say Iraq is tied to 9/11 without flatly saying it. He knows he can get away with it by being so vague. Anyone who has any sense realizes what Cheney is saying in that quote. Only the naive would believe that Cheney was not saying that Iraq was the heart of operations for terrorists, especially the 9/11 terrorists. The type of rationalization is flat out denial.
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
USA HAS GONE CRAZY - TERRORIST ATACKS!!!!! ( |
14,743 | 143 | 09/12/11 11:34 AM by wood_stones | ||
![]() |
9-11 moms want answers | 869 | 8 | 08/23/03 08:02 PM by Cornholio | ||
![]() |
The September 11 X-Files | 1,483 | 9 | 08/17/03 01:34 AM by BleaK | ||
![]() |
Why Don't We Have Answers To These Questions? ( |
3,493 | 41 | 09/15/03 02:53 PM by Anonymous | ||
![]() |
How to handle terrorists ( |
5,925 | 63 | 02/20/04 06:21 PM by TheOneYouKnow | ||
![]() |
Answers to the Hawk/Dove Quiz | 698 | 4 | 01/31/03 09:59 AM by pattern | ||
![]() |
Rice Faults Past Administrations on Terror | 355 | 0 | 10/31/03 03:03 PM by PsiloKitten | ||
![]() |
Bush Administration Proposes System to Monitor Internet ( |
4,569 | 42 | 12/23/02 11:41 PM by frogsheath |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 12,420 topic views. 1 members, 5 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||












