| 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.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order  Spores for European Microscopy  All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck |
| |||||||
 DeepDish2 journeyman Registered: 01/14/02 Posts: 55 Last seen: 17 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
The "major tie" used to justify the connection made by whom? Not by Hayes. "Shown by" whom?
Read the book. Yes, some of the reports are also referenced in the Feith memo. Most are not. What part of "most are not" are you having a hard time grasping? You said "quite a bit" in your previous post, not most are not. I know that Hayes prebook article in the Weekly Standard was basically a summary of the memmo, and that all the reviews I have read said that the book is poorly referenced. Simply writing "Colin Powell said" or "the Gaurdian reported" is not standard acedemic referencing. Oh, please. Moore makes stuff up out of thin air. To compare the two destroys any possible shred of credibility you might have had. While Moore may have done this in Bowling for Columbine that is not what he did in 911. I have yet to see you or anyone else point to a facually incorrect error present in his most recent movie. What Moore does, and what all the critics of his movie have shown, is correlate two events and IMPLY a cause that isn't nessecarily there. Example, Moore describes how the Bin Laden family was flown out of the country immediatly after the attack. He implies that this was done because the administration had something to hide. Moore's facts are correct, his analysis, however, is probably over the top. The same is true for "the connection," no one is denying that Bin Laden may have met with Saddam, or people from Saddam's government. In fact as shown in another post Bin Laden most likely met or had some sort of networked exchange with most Middle Eastern governments. Can you conclusivly say that this was due to terrorism, and if you can, is there any proof the Saddam financed or gave weapons too Bin Laden's network. For someone who espouses Libertarian Ideals is this how your court of law would work? If I am an illegal arms dealer and a soon to be killer meets with me multiple times in an attempt to secure a weapon, does that make me guilty? Do you now have the right to use force against me? Granted the connection needs to be investigated more, but so far the two have only been correlated, their is no definate cause.
| |||||||
|
EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 18 years, 15 days |
| ||||||
|
Has seen all of it? Assumption. You forget the brief of the 9/11 Commission was not to investigate the relationship of Al Qaeda and Iraq, but to review events leading up to the attacks of September 11, 2001. I think it's fairly obvious by now to just about anyone who has been following events that there is as yet no compelling evidence to believe Iraq had a hand in the planning or execution of that attack. Why then should the Commission waste time investigating links to Lockerbie or embassy bombings that happened a decade ago?
If the terrorist organization that carried out 9/11 had a state sponsor, it would be very much a part of the 9/11 commission's brief to determine that. It is not an irrelevant question. And the commission stated explicitly both in the report and before that they investigated the link and found no evidence of collaboration. That article is over two years old. The Czech authorities stand by their story to this day. Bullshit, pinky, sheer and utter bullshit. The link I posted to the Prague Post is to an article from late June, 2004. I know you didn't read the article, but you know, I would have thought that if you were going to try to get away with a brazen lie you would have at least covered your tracks a little better. And yet with all those thousands of leads checked, the FBI still doesn't know where he was during that time period. Who's barking at the moon here? Wrong again, pinky. They know he didn't leave the United States. There is absolutely no evidence that he did. That is indeed a possibility. It is also a possibility that an agreement to co-operate was reached at the very first meeting. Why is it okay to dismiss the second possibility out of hand? Why? I have a news flash for your pinky: the Hussein regime no longer exists. It was toppled by the United States armed forces some 16 months ago. There are no more secrets for the regime to hide. Try using common sense for once in your life: anybody who could give the Americans concrete proof that Hussein had an active WMD program would be a very rich man right now. He could escape the chaos, violence, and poverty in Iraq to live in a seaside villa in Hawaii or Italy and never work another day in his life. Anybody who could provide concrete evidence of an active collaboration with al-Qaeda would be rewarded almost as amply. In order to believe the speculations made by you and other deluded ideologues, we would have to believe that every single person in the Hussein regime who has access to information that could confirm these things is keeping his mouth shut. Every single person who had a hand in these (imaginary) matters is passing up wealth, comfort, peace, a new life, all out of a sense of misguided loyalty to a non-existent regime and to a tyrant in shackles who is on his way to the gallows. This despite the fact that the people whom Saddam, Odai, and Qusay trusted with their lives turned them in for similar rewards. Now, betraying a guest is one of the most despicable things humanly possible in Arab culture, and yet the desire for wealth, escape, and freedom overrode that consideration in those cases. And we're supposed to believe that a similar desire would not make the people in the know do something as simple as giving the Americans information about activities that ended with Saddam's regime? To put it mildly pinky, to believe something like that is to harbor a view of human nature so absurd and fantastical that it makes that of the average communist look deep and comprehensive. Hang on a minute here. I seem to recall your raking Bush over the coals for refusing to act on "speculation" and thus allowing 9/11 to take place. Consistency is not one of your strong points, is it? Since you seem to have a problem understanding the meaning of the word "act," let me explain it to you for the umpteenth time: To "act" does not necessarily mean to launch full scale invasions of other countries at enormous cost in life and money. Do you get it now, pinky? The word "act" is not synonymous with the word "invade and occupy." I've tried to explain this to you so many times with so little success that I despair of you ever getting your head around it, but I suppose it never hurts to try one more time. Bush could have acted in many different ways to avert 9/11 without launching wars, but we've covered that ground already. If you don't get it by now, you'll never get it. It's no speculation that Iraq harbored terrorists. See Abu Nidal et al, as well as Hussein's support for Hamas (and other) suicide bombers. Yet somehow we are to believe that this active protection of and aid to terrorist groups excluded the largest of them all -- Al Qaeda. Uh huh. The US has supported numerous ruthless dictators from Pinochet to the Shah of Iran to, at one time, even Saddam himself. Does that mean that the US props up all ruthless dictators, all the time?
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son   Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
DeepDish writes:
You said "quite a bit" in your previous post, not most are not. Actually, what I said was: Upon re-reading that, I can see I could have worded it more clearly, i.e. "There is much more information from sources other than the Feith memo than there is from it". My bad. While Moore may have done this in Bowling for Columbine that is not what he did in 911. Actually, that is exactly what he does in this latest movie as well. I have yet to see you or anyone else point to a facually incorrect error present in his most recent movie. I have posted this link before, but you probably missed it. Check it out, then get back to me: http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm Here's a new (and decidedly odd) example that as yet hasn't been included on the list at the above link: http://www.pantagraph.com/flick/flick0723.html It describes how Moore took the title of a letter to the editor appearing in the Bloomington, Illinois newspaper "The Pantagraph", blew it up, repositioned it to make it look like the headline of a news article, then pasted in the wrong date on the paper. Why would Moore go to all this trouble rather than choose one of literally hundreds of legitimate headlines that read more or less identically? Because Moore is a pathological liar who is incapable of honesty. Even when he doesn't have to lie to make a point, he will anyway. He can't help himself. But if you want to discuss Moore's dishonesty, I suggest we open a new thread about it, or better yet bump one of the dozens of existing threads. The same is true for "the connection," no one is denying that Bin Laden may have met with Saddam, or people from Saddam's government. Met with him for what purpose? I tire of asking this question. What do you think may have been discussed at meetings between two groups with a pathological hatred of the West and the US in particular -- bearing in mind that one of the groups is a terrorist organization. That's all they do, remember. They blow stuff up. And again, for the umpteenth time, I suggest you read the freaking book. Nowhere in the book does Hayes say "At this meeting, such and such was discussed," or "At this time so and so plans were finalized." Honest. I swear to you. Let me again quote Hayes himself:
Can you conclusivly say that this was due to terrorism... Seeing as how Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization -- nothing more, nothing less -- I say that anyone who doesn't conclude that is (to be as diplomatic as possible) pathetically naive. ... and if you can, is there any proof the Saddam financed or gave weapons too Bin Laden's network. Compelling proof as of this date? Nope. However, the 9/11 Commission's report says that Hussein offered Iraq as a safe haven to bin Laden and Al Qaeda. To a fugitive, safe haven is worth more than either money or weapons. Hard to use weaponry or spend money if you're dead or rotting away in a jail cell, after all. For someone who espouses Libertarian Ideals is this how your court of law would work? Who's talking about a court of law here? Not me. We're talking about two groups -- one of which (Al Qaeda) had already declared war on the US several times -- and one (Iraq) who had already been at war with the US and others (see the invasion of Kuwait in 1990), then in order to save its hide signed a conditional surrender agreement and then reneged on every single term of the agreement. This has nothing whatsoever to do with courts of law and everything to do with warfare. Sorry to burst your bubble. pinky -------------------- 
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
EchoVortex writes:
And the commission stated explicitly both in the report and before that they investigated the link and found no evidence of collaboration. Actually, no that is not what they explicitly stated. What they explicitly stated was that there was no compelling evidence of an ongoing operational relationship between the two. Not even close to the same thing. I know you didn't read the article, but you know, I would have thought that if you were going to try to get away with a brazen lie you would have at least covered your tracks a little better. I read the article. Where in that article does it say that the Czech intel service has reversed their position on the meeting? Nowhere. Because they haven't. Wrong again, pinky. They know he didn't leave the United States. Actually, no they don't know he didn't leave the United States. That's the whole point, duh. The US authorities have no idea where he was from April 4 to April 11. He may have stayed in the US. He may have gone to Czechoslovakia. However, for the sake of argument and in deference to your elevated blood pressure, let's pretend that the Czechs were mistaken. Let's pretend that Atta wasn't there at all. Let's toss out the whole Atta incident entirely. That doesn't address the dozens of other incidents reported in the mainstream media for years before the invasion ever occurred. Anybody who could provide concrete evidence of an active collaboration with al-Qaeda would be rewarded almost as amply. You make a number of errors in your assumptions: 1) You make the common mistake of believing that the same thing that motivates you motivates everyone else. Fanatics don't operate by the same rules as everyone else. 2) You assume that those present at the meetings are currently all in custody and co-operating fully and honestly with their captors. 3) You assume that these people are even still alive. Need I remind you of the time it took to capture Hussein, even though all the same arguments you present held true re his capture? Even more so, since I certainly don't remember any publicized reward being heralded for those with info on Iraq Al Qaeda meetings. Months and months and more months went by, even though it was clear that at least some people knew just exactly where he was. As for corroboration, some of the reports have come from Iraqi defectors and captured Al Qaeda members , as you would know if you had read the freaking book. Yet these reports are pooh-poohed, presumably because: a) the Iraqis might be alcoholics b) the Iraqis might be saying what their captors want to hear in order to curry favor c) the Al Qaeda members might be engaging in disinformation campaigns d) it's not what you want to hear. The US has supported numerous ruthless dictators from Pinochet to the Shah of Iran to, at one time, even Saddam himself. "Has", yes. Note the past tense. Got any examples more recent than a decade and a half ago? Yet Iraq and Al Qaeda were meeting right up until the time Hussein was deposed. Can you not grasp the difference? I'm done. You've managed to convince yourself that the very possibility of Iraq and Al Qaeda co-operating on anything is absurd on the face of it -- despite the most recent revelation from the 9/11 Commission that Al Qaeda had been offered Iraq as use for a safe haven. You seem to have convinced yourself that all these meetings had some innocent explanation -- even though the only such "innocent" scenario you have given us so far is basically that they were trying to find some way to co-operate but just couldn't agree on the terms. It's doubtful anything I or anyone else could say will disabuse you of this belief. Have a nice life. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
 Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
As for when the stuff was produced -- pre 1991 or post 1991, that is irrelevant. The articles of the signed conditional ceasefire agreement required Iraq to destroy all their chem and bio stocks and dismantle their WMD programs. Clearly Iraq did neither.
Are you serious? Iraq was invaded because there might be a 15 year old dud artillery round laying round somewhere? This is too ludicrous to debate. As Echo pointed out, if this your "argument" you clearly do not have an honest bone in your body. what happened to the rest of the stuff, Alex? Where is it? Even you who delight in crowing over Scott Ritter's proclamation that "98% of his known stocks have been destroyed" (even though everyone else's figures range from 90% to at best 95%) have never told us what happened to the rest of it. Where is it, Alex? Once you've told us that, tell us your source for that information. And are you man enough to accept Scott Ritter was correct? Or is that still too disturbing to your belief system to face? Where are the other 20 year old artillery rounds? Probably duds laying in the desert somewhere. Incidentally, here's Scott demolishing on your artillery round theory. Must really hurt to be destroyed by Scott again  :
Iraq sarin shell is not part of a secret cache By Scott Ritter DELMAR, N.Y. ? In the mid-1980s I served as the intelligence officer for a Marine artillery battalion. Stationed in Twentynine Palms, Calif., I would often find myself deployed in the field, on exercises where thousands of live artillery rounds were fired downrange. In keeping with the Marine artillery motto of "shoot, move, communicate," we were always moving from one firing location to another to simulate modern war. This mobility had us often passing through live-fire impact areas. One thing you quickly learned was not to touch anything lying on the ground, because modern artillery shells had a high "dud" rate, meaning they didn't always function the way they were intended. Tens of thousands of these "duds" were scattered across the desert terrain, not unlike those found in Iraq. What makes this relevant now is the ongoing speculation about the source of the sarin chemical artillery shell that the US military found rigged as an improvised explosive device (IED) last week in Baghdad. If the 155-mm shell was a "dud" fired long ago - which is highly likely - then it would not be evidence of the secret stockpile of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that the Bush administration used as justification to invade Iraq.As a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, I know that the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), the US-led unit now responsible for investigating WMD in Iraq, could quite easily determine whether this shell had been fired long ago or not. Given the trouble the administration has had in documenting its past allegations about WMD, releasing the news of last week's sarin shell without the key information about the state of the shell itself seems disingenuous. As a former UN inspector, I'm also familiar with the level of disarmament achieved concerning Iraq's banned WMD. And during my time in Iraq, 95 percent of the WMD produced by Iraq were verifiably accounted for. But I've always contended that Iraq is a WMD archaeological site, and that if one digs long enough, vestiges of these past WMD programs will be uncovered. Determining whether the discovery of the sarin artillery shell represents such an archaeological discovery, or is part of Saddam Hussein's alleged stockpile of WMD, rests with a full forensic exam of the shell. The key to whether the sarin artillery round came from an arms cache or was a derelict dud rests in the physical characteristics of the shell. The artillery shells in question were fitted with two aluminum cannisters separated by a rupture disk. The two precursor chemicals for the kind of sarin associated with this shell were stored separately in these containers. The thrust of the shell being fired was designed to cause the liquid in the forward cannister to press back and break the rupture disk, whereupon the rotation of the shell as it headed downrange would mix the two precursors together, creating sarin. Upon impact with the ground - or in the air, if a timed fuse was used - a burster charge would break the shell, releasing the sarin gas. Many things go wrong when firing an artillery round: the propellent charge can be faulty, resulting in a round that doesn't reach its target; the fuse can malfunction, preventing the burster charge from going off, leaving the round intact; the rupture disk can fail to burst, keeping precursor chemicals from combining. The fuse could break off on impact, leaving the fuse cavity empty. To the untrained eye, the artillery shell, if found in this state, would look weathered, but unfired. What gives away whether the shell had been fired is the base-bleed charge, which unlike the rest of the shell, will show evidence of being fired (or not). Iraq declared that it had produced 170 of these base-bleed sarin artillery shells as part of a research and development program that never led to production. Ten of these shells were tested using inert fill - oil and colored water. Ten others were tested in simulated firing using the sarin precursors. And 150 of these shells, filled with sarin precursors, were live-fired at an artillery range south of Baghdad. A 10 percent dud rate among artillery shells isn't unheard of - and even greater percentages can occur. So there's a good possibility that at least 15 of these sarin artillery shells failed and lie forgotten in the Iraq desert, waiting to be picked up by any unsuspecting insurgent looking for raw material from which to construct an IED. Given what's known about sarin shells, the US could be expected to offer a careful recital of the data with news of the shell. But facts that should have accompanied the story - the type of shell, its condition, whether it had been fired previously, and the age and viability of the sarin and precursor chemicals - were absent. And that's opened the door to irresponsible speculation that the shell was part of a live WMD stockpile. The data - available to the ISG - would put this development in proper perspective - allowing responsible discussion of the event and its possible ramifications. Given that the US is in the midst of a contentious presidential campaign, it's essential that accurate data about Iraq be available to the electorate. The handling of the sarin shell incident is the greatest justification yet for shutting down the ISG, and the immediate return to Iraq of UN weapons inspectors - if for no other reason than to restore a vestige of credibility to a disarmament effort that long ago lost its moral compass. ? Scott Ritter was a UN weapons inspector in Iraq (1991-1998) and is author of 'Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America.' http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/05 -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Alex123 writes:
Iraq was invaded because there might be a 15 year old dud artillery round laying round somewhere? This is too ludicrous to debate. As Echo pointed out, if this your "argument" you clearly do not have an honest bone in your body. One of the reasons Iraq was invaded because it had reneged on every single one of the conditions of the signed conditional ceasefire agreement. One of those conditions was that it destroy its existing stocks of bio-chem weaponry and to dismantle its chem and bio weaponry programs. And are you man enough to accept Scott Ritter was correct? Ritter is completely and utterly without credibility, as his own words so amply demonstrate. Ritter is the only one of the weapons inspectors to hold the position he does, which is of course 180 degrees opposite from the position he held in the many interviews he gave immediately after leaving Iraq and the weapons inspectorate. Using Scott Ritter to bolster an argument is like using Carrot Top to bolster an argument, except Ritter is funnier. Incidentally, here's Scott demolishing on your artillery round theory. Must really hurt to be destroyed by Scott again. No "demolishing" there, Alex. Nothing but speculation that it might have been a dud round discovered by some terrorist who didn't know what he had. For the sake argument, let's pretend that through some statistically improbable (though admittedly not impossible) coincidence the terrorist who assembled the device found the round in the middle of some field somewhere -- one of perhaps fifteen such rounds in all of Iraq, if we are to believe Mr. Ritter -- rather than raiding one of the dozens of ammo dumps that comprise literally square miles with hundreds of thousands of rounds stacked up in enormous piles. Or even using one of the supposedly tens or hundreds of thousands of dud conventional rounds (again using Mr. Ritter's estimates) littering the Iraqi landscape. Let's also pretend that this guy was so mind-bogglingly dim that he didn't consider the fact that a round that failed to go off the first time might also fail to go off the second time -- or might even be a dummy practice round with no explosive charge in it at all. After all, no one said that terrorists who improvise explosive devices need to know anything about explosives, right? The hypothetical idiocy of our hapless Iraqi terrorist does nothing to explain the existence of the other thirty-odd sarin and mustard gas shells discovered to date. Nor does it explain your continued refusal to explain to us where the other 5% (or 10% or whatever) of the bio chem stocks Hussein was known to have -- that he admitted to having -- are today. As a side note, it would be better if you were to start a different thread if you want to continue to discuss WMDs and Scott Ritter. Or bump one of the dozens of existing threads. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 18 years, 15 days |
| ||||||
|
Actually, no that is not what they explicitly stated. What they explicitly stated was that there was no compelling evidence of an ongoing operational relationship between the two. Not even close to the same thing.
Okay, so if they weren't collaborating on operations what were they collaborating on? The word "collaborate" implies some sort of action taken. I read the article. Where in that article does it say that the Czech intel service has reversed their position on the meeting? Nowhere. Because they haven't. They did, way back in 2002: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/20/102425.shtml PRAGUE, Czech Republic -- Czech intelligence officials have knocked down one of the few clear links between al-Qaeda terrorists and the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, UPI has learned. Senior Czech intelligence officials have told their American counterparts that they now have "no confidence" in their earlier report of direct meetings in Prague between Mohammed Atta, leader of the Sept. 11 hijackers and an Iraqi diplomat stationed in Prague who has since been expelled for "activities inconsistent with his diplomatic status." "Quite simply, we think the source for this story may have invented the meeting that he reported. We can find no corroborative evidence for the meeting and the source has real credibility problems," a high-ranking source close to Czech intelligence told UPI Sunday. The initial report of the meeting in June 2000 claimed that Atta had met Ahmad al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence official based in Prague under diplomatic cover, whose movements were being routinely monitored by BIS, the Czech intelligence service. The report also suggested that the Iraqi was probably the source of $100,000 that Atta suddenly obtained to finance the U.S. leg of the terror mission. The report went on to claim that Atta returned to Prague on April 9 last year on a three-day mission to see al-Ani once more, just two weeks before the majority of the hijack team left Saudi Arabia for the United States. The report was then publicly confirmed by Czech Interior Minister Stanislas Gross, on the basis of the initial assessment of the BIS. The nearest to a smoking gun connecting Iraq to al-Qaeda, the Czech report was taken very seriously in Washington, in the face of growing skepticism at the Central Intelligence Agency. But other influential figures in Washington, including former CIA Director James Woolsey and former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle pursued their own inquiries using their own sources, and have now also been told by high-ranking Czech sources that they no longer stand by the initial report. Perle, in Prague this weekend for a meeting of the Trilateral Commission, was told in person Sunday that the BIS now doubts that any such meeting between Atta and al-Ani in fact took place. So what, do you have any evidence that Czech intelligence has reversed its position yet again in the past two years? If so, let's see it. You make a number of errors in your assumptions: 1) You make the common mistake of believing that the same thing that motivates you motivates everyone else. Fanatics don't operate by the same rules as everyone else. 2) You assume that those present at the meetings are currently all in custody and co-operating fully and honestly with their captors. 3) You assume that these people are even still alive. 1) I see, so every last person who had anything substansive to do with these imaginary happenings is a fanatic by definition? And you accuse me of making erroneous assumptions? 2) Duh, the whole point of a reward is to encourage those who haven't been caught or come forward yet. 3) I see, so everybody who could give the US substansive proof is conveniently dead! Have you ever heard of Ockham's Razor, pinky? It's a postulate that when a simple, direct explanation adequately explains a phenomenon that is preferable to an explanation that depends on tortuous stretches of logic and unfounded assumptions. "Has", yes. Note the past tense. Got any examples more recent than a decade and a half ago? Yet Iraq and Al Qaeda were meeting right up until the time Hussein was deposed. Can you not grasp the difference? Your cluelessness is astounding. The US is giving military aid to oppressive regimes as we speak. http://web.amnesty.org/pages/ttt4-article_8-eng I'm done. You've managed to convince yourself that the very possibility of Iraq and Al Qaeda co-operating on anything is absurd on the face of it -- despite the most recent revelation from the 9/11 Commission that Al Qaeda had been offered Iraq as use for a safe haven. You seem to have convinced yourself that all these meetings had some innocent explanation -- even though the only such "innocent" scenario you have given us so far is basically that they were trying to find some way to co-operate but just couldn't agree on the terms. Given the nature of both parties involved, I don't think anything they do or did is innocent. If both sides believed that an active collaboration would have been mutually beneficial, they certainly would not have had any moral qualms about working together to wreak havoc on the world. The question is this: why are we having this acadmeic discussion now, now that the Iraq regime no longer exists? Why? Because the Neo-Conmen are seeing public support erode for this war and are grasping at any straws to make it seem like the justifications given had some merit. I'm sorry, but circumstantial evidence does not cut it when it comes to launching wars. This country has neither the resources, nor the moral authority, to attack and invade each and every country which it thinks might be up to some funny business--there has to be a higher standard than that. The INS allowed two of the 9/11 hijackers into the country even though they were already on terror watch lists. So does that mean we should bomb the INS headquarters for giving safe haven to the terrorists? Or better yet, assume that Bush ordered the INS to let them in because it was part of his plan for the 9/11 attacks, which he masterminded himself? There's no end to the speculative possibilities provided by circumstantial evidence if you have the inclination to speculate in a certain direction. In most everyday situations I personally prefer more concrete proof. When it comes to spending hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars, when it comes to killing thousands of innocent people and hundreds of our own soldiers, I demand more concrete proof. And if anything good has come out of this Iraq War, it is that perhaps the American people will learn to be a bit more skeptical next time of the justifications given by their politicians to unleash the hounds of hell.
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
EchoVortex writes:
Okay, so if they weren't collaborating on operations what were they collaborating on? The word "collaborate" implies some sort of action taken. Training, safe haven, financing, provision of false travel documents or false ID's, provision of weaponry... I'm sure you can think of others. The whole point is that any kind of collaboration with terrorists is aiding and abetting terrorism. So what, do you have any evidence that Czech intelligence has reversed its position yet again in the past two years? If so, let's see it. I see you're able to do Google searches. I shouldn't have to spoonfeed you, but here's the very first article that popped up on Google when I typed in "Czech Atta stand by their". It's an Associated Press article dated July 9, 2003 -- Iraqi Diplomat Alleged to Have Met With Atta Arrested Wednesday, July 09, 2003 Associated Press WASHINGTON???U.S. forces have arrested the Iraqi diplomat alleged by some Czech officials to have met with the lead Sept. 11 hijacker five months before the attacks. U.S. government officials said?Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani?was arrested on July 2. The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said al-Ani had been interrogated but had provided little information. The arrest was first reported Tuesday by CBS News. U.S. investigators have dismissed Czech accounts of an April 2001 meeting in Prague between homicide hijacker?Mohammed Atta and al-Ani, who is widely believed to be an intelligence agent. Some Czech officials stand by their claims, the only known link between Saddam Hussein's government and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "Atta and al-Ani met,"?Czech U.N. Ambassador Hynek Kmonicek?said a year ago in an interview with The Associated Press. Czech officials said Atta had contacted al-Ani, who was later expelled from the Czech Republic, to discuss an attack on the Prague building that serves as the headquarters for U.S.-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Other Czech officials retracted the account after U.S. investigators said that Atta was in the United States during the time he was supposed to have been meeting with al-Ani. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,91399,00.html **************************************************** But as we have already seen, US investigators don't know that Atta was in the US at the time. They have no idea where he was. It seems reasonable to me that some Czech officials would back down from the story once assured that Atta was elsewhere -- they'd assume it was a case of mistaken identity. But if that was the only reason they changed their minds (and the article implies this) then they are reversing themselves on false information. By the way, for those who tend to sneer at FOX News, note that this was an AP article. The same article was carried in The Guardian, but its link http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2885834,00.html\ is now defunct. There's lots more links -- From a June 22, 2004 article in the WallStreet Journal http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110005249 -- "But the fact remains that Atta undoubtedly visited the Czech Republic under suspicious circumstances in 2000 and that the Czech officials who know best about their surveillance of al Ani stand by their story of a 2001 meeting. As Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross put it: 'I believe the counterintelligence services more than I believe journalists.' " and http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/000477.php "Czech intelligence, however, reports not one but four meetings between Iraqi intelligence and Atta. The CIA can confirm two Atta visits to Prague, but "data surrounding the other two--on 26 Oct 1999 and 9 April 2001--is complicated and sometimes contradictory and CIA and FBI cannot confirm Atta met with the IIS." This disclaimer was reported in THE WEEKLY STANDARD article, which also noted that the Czech government continues to stand by its reporting." and (slightly of the topic of the Atta meeting, but it makes one of my other points rather handily): "To support this argument, Isikoff and Hosenball cite a late 1998 trip to Afghanistan by Faruq Hijazi. Hijazi served Saddam Hussein both as deputy director of Iraqi intelligence and later as ambassador to Turkey. At that meeting, the authors contend, bin Laden rejected an Iraqi offer of asylum. Their source is Vince Cannistraro, a knowledgeable former CIA counterterrorism official--the kind of expert whose views should be taken very seriously. He may be right. And if his understanding of the meeting's outcome is accurate, that information certainly should have been included in the Feith memo. But stop for a moment and consider what this analysis means. It demonstrates that at the very least, Saddam Hussein was willing to give Osama bin Laden asylum in Iraq. Is this not precisely the kind of collusion the administration cited as it made its case for war? (*pinky's note -- the 9/11 Commission reached the same conclusion -- Iraq was available to Al Qaeda as a safe haven) and another http://slate.msn.com/id/2091354 -- The background: On April 21, 2001, the CIA's liaison officer at the U.S. Embassy in Prague was briefed by the Czech counterintelligence service (known by its Czech acronym, BIS) about an extraordinary development in a spy case that concerned both the United States and the Czech Republic. The subject of the briefing was Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, the consul at Iraq's embassy in Prague. The reason there had been joint Czech-American interest in the case traced back to December 1998 when al-Ani's predecessor at the Iraq Embassy, Jabir Salim, defected from his post. In his debriefings, Salim said that he had been supplied with $150,000 by Baghdad to prepare a car-bombing of an American target, the Prague headquarters of Radio Free Europe. (This bombing never took place because Salim could not recruit a bomber.) So when al-Ani replaced Salim at the Iraq Embassy in Prague in 1999, both the United States and the Czech Republic wanted him closely watched in case he had a similar assignment. The BIS handled the surveillance through its own full-time teams and its network of part-time "watchers" at hotels, restaurants, and other likely locations. Then, on April 8, 2001, a BIS watcher saw al-Ani meeting in a restaurant outside Prague with an Arab man in his 20s. This set off alarm bells because a BIS informant in the Arab community had provided information indicating that the person with whom al-Ani was meeting was a visiting "student" from Hamburg?and one who was potentially dangerous. On my trip, I spoke to Jan Kavan, who in 2001 was foreign minister and coordinator of intelligence. According to Kavan?who to my knowledge has not spoken publicly about this episode before?al-Ani had previously been spotted taking photos of the headquarters of Radio Free Europe. In this context, the restaurant meeting suggested that al-Ani might be recruiting someone to resume the bombing plot. Adding to the tension, the BIS lost track of the "student." So Kavan decided to act: He ordered al-Ani out of the Czech Republic. During the next 48 hours, as al-Ani prepared his hasty departure, the CIA liaison called both the BIS liaison and the Czech National Security Office for further details about the expulsion, which presumably he then passed on to the FBI and other relevant parties. Kavan's able deputy, Hynek Kmonicek, arranged for al-Ani to exit via Vienna, Austria. As far as Kavan was concerned, the al-Ani problem was, if not resolved, then in the hands of American intelligence The issue re-emerged three days after the 9/11 attack when the CIA intelligence liaison was told by the BIS that the Hamburg "student" who had met with al-Ani on April 8 had been tentatively identified as the 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta. Since al-Ani was an officer of Saddam Hussein's intelligence (and diplomatic) service, this identification raised the possibility that Saddam might have had a hand in the 9/11 attack. It could also be potentially embarrassing, as Kavan pointed out, "if American intelligence had failed before 9/11 to adequately appreciate the significance of the April meeting." Kavan, in the newly created position of coordinator for intelligence, was in the center of the ensuing "crisis," as he termed it. He gave the FBI full access to the Czech side of the investigation. Two Czech-speaking FBI agents were allowed not only to sit in on the high-level task force evaluating the intelligence but to examine source material. If Atta was at the meeting, he could not have used his own passport to enter the Czech Republic, so the BIS assumed he had used a false identity and began checking through visa records for suspicious visitors in April, examining grainy videotapes from cameras at airports, bus stations, and game arcades. As the investigation was still in an early stage, the FBI had been asked to keep the identification of Atta secret, but within a week, the Prague connection was leaked to the press?from Washington. On Sept. 18, 2001, the Associated Press reported, "A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the United States has received information from a foreign intelligence service that Mohamed Atta, a hijacker aboard one of the planes that slammed into the World Trade Center, met earlier this year in Europe with an Iraqi intelligence agent." CBS then reported that Atta had been seen with al-Ani. In Washington, the FBI moved to quiet the Prague connection by telling journalists that it had car rentals and records that put Atta in Virginia Beach, Va., and Florida close to, if not during, the period when he was supposed to be in Prague. The New York Times, citing information provided by "federal law enforcement officials," reported that Atta was in Virginia Beach on April 2, 2001, and by April 11, "Atta was back in Florida, renting a car." Newsweek reported that, "the FBI pointed out Atta was traveling at the time [in early April 2001] between Florida and Virginia Beach, Va.," adding, "The bureau had his rental car and hotel receipts." And intelligence expert James Bamford, after quoting FBI Director Robert Mueller as saying that the FBI "ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record we could get our hands on," reported in USA Today, "The records revealed that Atta was in Virginia Beach during the time he supposedly met the Iraqi in Prague." All these reports attributed to the FBI were, as it turns out, erroneous. There were no car rental records in Virginia, Florida, or anywhere else in April 2001 for Mohamed Atta, since he had not yet obtained his Florida license. His international license was at his father's home in Cairo, Egypt (where his roommate Marwan al-Shehhi picked it up in late April). Nor were there other records in the hands of the FBI that put Atta in the United States at the time. Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet testified to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in June 2002, "It is possible that Atta traveled under an unknown alias" to "meet with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague." Clearly, it was not beyond the capabilities of the 9/11 hijackers to use aliases. But just because Atta could have been in Prague did not mean that he met al-Ani there on April 8, 2001. Eyewitness identification can often be mistaken. It was known, however, that Atta had business in Prague prior to the 9/11 attack. Kmonicek, the deputy foreign minister, had found a paper trail of passport records showing that Atta had applied for a visa to visit the Czech Republic on May 26, 2000 in Bonn, Germany. Atta must have had business there, since he could have transited through the Czech Republic on Czech Air without a visa. Atta's business appeared to be extremely time sensitive and specific to May 30. When Atta learned in Hamburg that his Czech visa would not be ready until May 31, he nevertheless flew on May 30 to the Prague International Airport, where he would not be allowed to go beyond the transit lounge. Although a large part of this area is surveiled by cameras, he managed to spend all but a few minutes out of their range. After some six hours, he then caught a flight back to Hamburg. From this visaless round trip, Czech intelligence inferred that Atta had a meeting on May 30 that could not wait, even a day?and that whoever arranged it was probably familiar with the transit lounge's surveillance. Finally, the BIS determined that the Prague connection was not limited to a single appointment since Atta returned to Prague by bus on June 2 (now with visa BONN200005260024), and, after a brief wait in the bus station, disappeared for nearly 20 hours before catching a flight to the United States. The Czechs reviewing these visits in retrospect further assumed that Atta's business in Prague was somehow related to his activities in the United States, given that large sums of laundered funds began to flow to the 9/11 conspiracy in June 2000, after Atta left Prague. Even more ominous, if the BIS's subsequent identification of Atta in Prague was accurate, then some part of the mechanism behind the activities of hijacker-terrorists may have been based in Prague at least until mid April 2001. Czech intelligence services could not solve this puzzle without access to crucial information about Atta's movements in the United States, Germany, and other countries in which the plot unfolded, but it soon became clear that such cooperation would not be forthcoming. Even after al-Ani was taken prisoner by U.S. forces in Iraq in July 2003 and presumably questioned about Atta, no report was furnished to the Czech side of the investigation. "It was anything but a two-way street," a top Czech government official overseeing the case explained. "The FBI wanted complete control. The FBI agents provided us with nothing from their side of the investigation." ************************************ 1) I see, so every last person who had anything substansive to do with these imaginary happenings is a fanatic by definition? Certainly those on at least one side are, yes. Or do you not think those who dedicate their lives (and deaths) to Al Qaeda are not fanatics? If they aren't, then who the hell is? Duh, the whole point of a reward is to encourage those who haven't been caught or come forward yet. And you have seen publication of this reward where? How big is it? Source, please. I see, so everybody who could give the US substansive proof is conveniently dead! Or not in custody yet, or in custody but unwilling to co-operate. Don't be disingenuous. Have you ever heard of Ockham's Razor, pinky? Yes. I was beginning to think that you hadn't though. It's a postulate that when a simple, direct explanation adequately explains a phenomenon that is preferable to an explanation that depends on tortuous stretches of logic and unfounded assumptions. Then Occam would be on my side on this one. How much more simple and direct is it to conclude that when representatives of a terrorist organization meet repeatedly with representatives of a state well-known for sheltering terrorists the topic being discussed at these meetings is terrorism, not theological debate or exchange of recipes? I leave it to the readers to decide who is engaging in tortuous stretches of logic here. The question is this: why are we having this acadmeic discussion now, now that the Iraq regime no longer exists? Why? Because those opposed to the war persist in falsely claiming that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Ba'athist Iraq. Those connections are a matter of public record, and have been for a very long time. No one disputed those connections -- as a matter of fact not many people even paid much attention to them one way or the other -- until Bush declared he was going to overthrow Hussein. Then all of a sudden all these reports magically became bogus. Uh huh. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
DeepDish2 journeyman Registered: 01/14/02 Posts: 55 Last seen: 17 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Met with him for what purpose? I tire of asking this question. What do you think may have been discussed at meetings between two groups with a pathological hatred of the West and the US in particular -- bearing in mind that one of the groups is a terrorist organization.
Then stop asking it, and instead offer up an answer backed by solid evidence. Oh thats true you can't. Lets try another example. You are a coffee exporter in the Dominican Republic, and I am a coffee buyer in the United States. We are recorded meeting several times. There is no proof that any coffee or money exchanges hands. Can an investigator conclusivly prove, just from the fact we held meetings together, that you actually sold anything to me. This is why the 9-11 commission, Colin Powell, David Kay, and even Hayes himself in a round about way found no CONCRETE link that Saddam was activly engaged in anti-western terrorism. The Washington Post has an article in which an Iraqi informant told them that Saddam did consider a relationship with Osma but rejected it. So what you have layed out is vast amounts of secondary evidence. This same evidence could probably be generated for any Middle Eastern country, Al-qaeda has operatives in over 60 countries, and a simple search for connections with US "allies" such as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan proves that.
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
DeepDish writes:
You are a coffee exporter in the Dominican Republic, and I am a coffee buyer in the United States. We are recorded meeting several times. There is no proof that any coffee or money exchanges hands. Can an investigator conclusivly prove, just from the fact we held meetings together, that you actually sold anything to me. No. But he can logically conclude that the topic we most likely discussed, and the deal we were attempting to reach, involved the buying and selling of coffee. This is why the 9-11 commission, Colin Powell, David Kay, and even Hayes himself in a round about way found no CONCRETE link that Saddam was activly engaged in anti-western terrorism. Actually, this too is incorrect. See one of the above links re the funding by Baghdad of Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani. And there was of course the attempt on the life of Bush the elder. So what you have layed out is vast amounts of secondary evidence. Correct. Not just a little bit, not a meeting or two, but vast amounts. You do realize of course that it is extremely rare for a criminal to be convicted on direct evidence. Virtually all criminals are convicted through circumstantial (secondary) evidence. This same evidence could probably be generated for any Middle Eastern country, Al-qaeda has operatives in over 60 countries, and a simple search for connections with US "allies" such as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan proves that. And this is relevant how? No one is disputing that Afghanistan and Sudan aided and abetted Al Qaeda, for example. How does the fact that many countries co-operate with Al Qaeda show that Iraq did not? pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
One of the reasons Iraq was invaded because it had reneged on every single one of the conditions of the signed conditional ceasefire agreement.
Nonsense. The UN and the UN only has the authority to decide whether or not a resolution has been broken and what action is appropriate. They rejected invasion. One of those conditions was that it destroy its existing stocks of bio-chem weaponry and to dismantle its chem and bio weaponry programs. Come again? You mean the stocks no-one can find and the programs there is no evidence for? Ritter is completely and utterly without credibility Does he have as much credibility as the morons who claimed Iraq had WMD when they didn't? Who have slaughtered thousands upon thousands of innocent people in the name of their lie? which is of course 180 degrees opposite from the position he held in the many interviews he gave immediately after leaving Iraq and the weapons inspectorate Could it be that as he learned more his position changed? Using Scott Ritter to bolster an argument is like using Carrot Top to bolster an argument, except Ritter is funnier. Except he has been proved right about WMD. Nothing but speculation that it might have been a dud round Be real easy for the US who found the shell to prove him wrong wouldn't it. As Scott says they could release details of the shell, let it be examined. Why havn't they? The hypothetical idiocy of our hapless Iraqi terrorist does nothing to explain the existence of the other thirty-odd sarin and mustard gas shells discovered to date. Do you have a source for this "thirty odd" figure? or might even be a dummy practice round with no explosive charge in it at all. After all, no one said that terrorists who improvise explosive devices need to know anything about explosives, right? ? Nor does it explain your continued refusal to explain to us where the other 5% (or 10% or whatever) of the bio chem stocks Hussein was known to have -- that he admitted to having -- are today. First off who told you what he was "known to have"? Secondly, what "continued refusal" are you talking about? Destroyed, decomposed, thrown away, duds etc. As a side note, it would be better if you were to start a different thread if you want to continue to discuss WMDs and Scott Ritter You brought up the 20 year old artillery shell remember. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Alex123 writes:
You brought up the 20 year old artillery shell remember. Alex, from your third sentence in this thread, you have tried to sidetrack it into yet another WMD discussion. Here's your first post in the thread: "Only if you understand "fact" to mean "complete and utter bullshit". " Here's your second post, responding to points of mine, none of which had anything to do with WMD. As a matter of fact, no one to this point in the thread has said a thing about WMDs -- "No-ones in denial about it. And before you get too carried away with the smokescreen of "Al qaeda - Iraq links" remember the reason we allegedly invaded Iraq was to save us from the non-existent WMD, not because someone in Al-qaeda "allegedly" visited Iraq." Same post, next two sentences -- "Where is the "overwhelming evidence" of which you speak? Is it similar to the overwhelming evidence we were assured of that Iraq had WMD?" Same post, next sentence -- "This sounds like the bullshit we were assured of about WMD. Don't you ever learn?" Same post, final two sentences -- "Wow, it like must be true dude. Do you think Newsweek and Time ever "noted" the endless bullshit the Iraqi exiles were spoonfeeding them about WMD too?" My reply to this WMD-fest of yours ignored WMDs and instead repeated for you some sources for the evidence which you had requested. Apparently you were to busy thinking up new ways to horn "WMD" into the thread to have noticed that exact same information the first time I had posted it, but hey. Your third post, to my astonishment, actually had a little bit to do with the Al Qaeda - Iraq connection. This time you only mentioned WMDs in three sentences. Way to go, Alex! And here is where I made my error -- I actually responded to one of your trollish bullshit proclamations about WMDs, and now the full patented Alex123 "there are no WMDs because I say so" routine revs up to full speed for the umpteenth boring time. Anyone with at least one retina and a semi-functioning cerebral cortex can easily tell just who it was who introduced WMDs into this thread, Alex, and his name doesn't start with a "p". You want to go over the same old ground again for what -- the seventy-ninth time in this forum? Feel free to start yet another thread assuring us yet again -- with absolutely no evidence whatsoever -- that there are no WMDs left in Iraq. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!?    Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
You are the
-------------------- 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
| |||||||
|
DeepDish2 journeyman Registered: 01/14/02 Posts: 55 Last seen: 17 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
No. But he can logically conclude that the topic we most likely discussed, and the deal we were attempting to reach, involved the buying and selling of coffee.
Exactly, meetings between people are simply not evidence that any dealings took place. Let us expand the situation. If the Domican vedor meets with a number of coffee buyers from a number of different countries, and later is recorded distribuiting coffee he has aquired, can you logically conclude that the coffee is mine? Actually, this too is incorrect. See one of the above links re the funding by Baghdad of Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani. And there was of course the attempt on the life of Bush the elder. What is incorrect the fact that the Saddam has not engaged in anti-western terrorism or that 9-ll commission, Colin Powell (High ranking government official), and David Kay (Weapons Inspector) all concluded there was no concrete, because the latter statement is most certainly correct. Both the 9-11 report and Kay have been cited in an above post. Powell retracts statement Explain to me why Colin Powell or David Kay would say such a thing. Is it because of administrative pressure to deny the connection. If these meetings are damnable evidence as you say they are why is the administration downplaying them so heavily. The bush has so much to gain from an Iraq Al-qaeda connection. Correct. Not just a little bit, not a meeting or two, but vast amounts. You do realize of course that it is extremely rare for a criminal to be convicted on direct evidence. Virtually all criminals are convicted through circumstantial (secondary) evidence. They are? Meeting with people is consider incriminating evidence, even when a number of souces have come forth saying the meetings amounted to nothing? Try again Pinky.
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Alex, from your third sentence in this thread, you have tried to sidetrack it into yet another WMD discussion
Are you denying you brought up the issue of the 20 year old artillery round? there are no WMDs because I say so". Don't be utterly ludicrous. I am not that powerful. I have not established there are no WMD in Iraq. David Kay and hundreds of others have done so. Much to your chagrin. No-one with an honest bone in their body could still proclaim the existence of WMD. for the umpteenth boring time If you find the truth boring there's nothing I can do about that. Now do you have a point apart from your endless, pathetic flames? You have based another belief on intelligence by the same people that "assured" you there were WMD in Iraq. I repeat, will you ever learn? -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 18 years, 15 days |
| ||||||
|
Training, safe haven, financing, provision of false travel documents or false ID's, provision of weaponry... I'm sure you can think of others.
And is there concrete proof that Iraq provided any of this to al-Qaeda terrorists? It seems reasonable to me that some Czech officials would back down from the story once assured that Atta was elsewhere -- they'd assume it was a case of mistaken identity. But if that was the only reason they changed their minds (and the article implies this) then they are reversing themselves on false information. That wasn't the only information. The Czech report is based on the testimony of one person, who claims to have seen Atta meet with al-Ani. He only made this claim after 9/11, when Atta's photographs were broadcast worldwide. Now, this kind of claim is often unreliable even under the best of circumstances, but when it's only one person making it, five months after the event presumably occurred, it means nothing. Does the man have a photographic memory? How good is he at telling similar-looking Arab men apart from one another? It's happened to me a couple of times living in Asia to be mistaken for another white person whom I hardly resemble at all. There are no positive records of Atta being in the Czech Republic during this time--no photographs, no video, immigration documents, nothing. Just one guy's word delivered under very dubious circumstances. Basically, the Czechs finally woke up to the fact that's not enough to claim a positive ID. If al Ani was under such detailed surveillance by BIS in April 2001, as the report you posted says, why didn't the BIS watcher get a photograph of the man he was meeting? I mean surely these people have heard of microcameras, haven't they? All it would take is one photograph of Atta sitting across from al Ani at a table, one surveillance video clip of Atta passing through passport control in Prague--hell, in ANY European city in early April--to clear this up decisively. There is no concrete physical evidence whatsoever that Atta was in Prague, the Czech Republic, or Europe during that time. 1) I see, so every last person who had anything substansive to do with these imaginary happenings is a fanatic by definition? Certainly those on at least one side are, yes. Or do you not think those who dedicate their lives (and deaths) to Al Qaeda are not fanatics? If they aren't, then who the hell is? I was talking about the Iraqis. Certainly no al Qaeda members are going to come forward. And you have seen publication of this reward where? How big is it? Source, please. http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive_Index/State_Department_Rewards_for_Justice_Program.html Under this program, the Secretary of State may offer rewards for information that prevents, frustrates, or favorably resolves acts of international terrorism against U.S. persons or property worldwide, including by dismantling an organization in whole or significant part. Rewards also may be paid for information leading to the arrest or conviction of terrorists attempting, committing, conspiring to commit, or aiding and abetting in the commission of such acts or to the identification or location of an individual who holds a key leadership position in a terrorist organization. http://www.treas.gov/rewards/about.html This Campaign seeks information on those funding mechanisms that support terrorist activities, including underground financial systems, illicit charities, and corrupt financial service providers; even crimes like check fraud, identity fraud and credit card fraud can support terrorists. Such information could be related to financiers, fundraisers, or donors who provide financial support to terrorists or are related to terrorists and their networks that intend to use it. Proof that the Iraqi regime financed or aided and abetted al Qaeda could potentially qualify under either of these programs. If the US government doesn't have a reward program geared specifically towards an Iraq-al Qaeda link, the reason is probably because they have RULED IT OUT quite definitively already: http://www.freep.com/news/nw/intel3_20040303.htm Then Occam would be on my side on this one. How much more simple and direct is it to conclude that when representatives of a terrorist organization meet repeatedly with representatives of a state well-known for sheltering terrorists the topic being discussed at these meetings is terrorism, not theological debate or exchange of recipes? I leave it to the readers to decide who is engaging in tortuous stretches of logic here. The circumstantial evidence suggesting that al Qaeda and Iraq had a working relationship is about as compelling as the circumstantial evidence that the Bush Administration willfully allowed 9/11 to happen (INS letting known terrorists into the country, FBI dropping the ball repeatedly, no fighters ready to scramble on the Eastern seaboard for a full hour, the Secret Service allowing Bush to hang around the elementary school, knowing that America was under attack and thus endangering both him and the school children, and so on and so forth). I do not accept either conjecture at the present time because higher standards are called for when it comes to momentous acts like sending a President to prison or invading another country. While seeing Bush behind bars would certainly be a political bonanza, unlike you I do not believe things simply because I want to believe them. Edit: typo Edited by EchoVortex (07/27/04 07:26 AM)
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Nice demolishing.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
What none of you people in denial over the Al Qaeda - Iraq links ever seem to ask yourself is why did Iraq go to all the trouble of having regular meetings with Al Qaeda representatives
And of course the links between Al Qaeda and Iraq are legion "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," - Donald Rumsfield -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order Spores for European Microscopy All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Bush & Cheney & the 9/11 Commission (  1 2 all ) |
 Clean |
3,239 | 21 | 04/30/04 03:09 PM by sir tripsalot |
|
 |
The 9-11 Commission Charade |  Ancalagon |
602 | 1 | 08/25/04 10:20 AM by CJay |
|
|
McCain: Bush 'Stonewalling' 9/11 Commission |  Learyfan |
1,173 | 13 | 07/11/03 10:03 AM by Learyfan |
|
 |
Whistleblower Explodes 9-11 Commission Report |  SquattingMarmot |
835 | 2 | 08/05/04 09:25 AM by Learyfan |
|
|
Pop goes the Bush mythology bubble - Part 1: The 9-11 Commission |  usefulidiot |
1,296 | 4 | 12/18/04 11:43 AM by usefulidiot |
|
 |
9/11 commission told of Atta cover-up | Learyfan |
2,884 | 18 | 08/20/05 07:17 PM by zappaisgod |
|
 |
No "Real" questions asked by 9/11 Commission |  Swami |
874 | 14 | 04/09/04 04:27 PM by infidelGOD |
|
 |
To those concerned with the lack of WMD's in Iraq: ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
JohnnyRespect |
5,306 | 70 | 06/30/03 05:17 PM by luvdemshrooms |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 5,201 topic views. 2 members, 1 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||
