babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 30 March 2004 09:58 AM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post
Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser

quote:


WASHINGTON - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.

Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security.

The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.



From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 30 March 2004 10:07 AM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
the university of virginia law school event in question ...
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 30 March 2004 01:24 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think making the region safe for Israel was a secondary consideration. The main reasons were US-centric: expand its influence and power by having a client state smack in the middle of the region; secure oil and prevent a possible OPEC conversion from the dollar to the euro; and the Bushes' Saddaam obsession.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 30 March 2004 01:43 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The invasion seems to have created a world terrorist centre in Iraq (which previously had little or nothing to do with terrorism), hardened opinion against the U.S. and its ally Israel in most of the world (especially among Muslims), sparked ever-increasing terrorist attacks around the world, and has been a recruitment boon for Osama bin Laden and his ilk, all at the risk of turning the entire middle-east into a powder-keg. Hardly a recipe for making Israel any safer, so if even if that was a motive for the Bush chickenhawks, they were completely wrong, as usual.

[ 30 March 2004: Message edited by: albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 30 March 2004 02:19 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So 9-11 had nothing to do with it?
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 30 March 2004 02:24 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, it didn't. There is zero evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein despised each other. The Bush family has closer links to the bin Laden family than did Saddam Hussein.

Rather than using solid intelligence and police work to go after the actual people and groups involved in those attacks, the Bush cabal decided to divert resources, using 9/11 as a pretext to attack Iraq, which apparently had nothing to do with 9/11.


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 30 March 2004 02:28 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by o:
So 9-11 had nothing to do with it?


The only thing 9-11 had to "do with it" is that it made it possible for Bush to "sell" the war to the American people. The war would have happened one way or the other. For the Bushes, this time it was personal.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 30 March 2004 02:51 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If Osama hates Saddam why would Al Queda bomb Spain for their involvement in the war?
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 30 March 2004 02:55 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One has nothing to do with the other, unless you subscribe to the Bushian 'with us or against us' line of thinking; in which case, Desmond Tutu is nothing but a dirty terrorist.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 30 March 2004 02:55 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by o:
If Osama hates Saddam why would Al Queda bomb Spain for their involvement in the war?
Osama likely wanted to replace Saddam with a fundamentalist regime, not with an American puppet.

[ 30 March 2004: Message edited by: albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 30 March 2004 03:05 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by albireo:
The Bush family has closer links to the bin Laden family than did Saddam Hussein.

To be fair, that's not saying much. The Bush family has closer links to the bin Laden family than most Islamic terrorists!

However, it's fairly likely that the Blair and Chirac and Aznar families had about as close links to the bin Laden family as did Saddam Hussein.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
DownTheRoad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4523

posted 30 March 2004 03:13 PM      Profile for DownTheRoad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein despised each other.

Ideological compatibility is rarely a factor in military alliances. Think of Churchill/Roosevelt/Stalin. It's entirely plausible that Saddam and Al Quaeda cooperated to further their own ends, though this doesn't necessarily mean knowledge of or cooperation in specific actions.

From: land of cotton | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 30 March 2004 03:17 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by o:
If Osama hates Saddam why would Al Queda bomb Spain for their involvement in the war?

Because Osama doesn't hate Iraq or its people, just Saddam.
Like Saudi Arabia, Iraq has many sites holy to Islam. If Osama was willing to target the US over having their foreign infidel troops just based in Saudi Arabia (which he was), he would certainly be happy to target the US, or anyone else involved, over having their foreign infidel troops fully occupying Iraq.
He wasn't *happy* about having a militant secularist in charge of Iraq, but at least Saddam was local and at least he wasn't an infidel. Still, he woulda nailed Saddam if a nice opportunity had come up. But having foreign Christians running things is far worse from his perspective. Or in another way, better, in terms of his ability to mobilize Islamic public opinion and organize more terrorists.

How hard is all this, o?

But well-documented issues of motivation aside, the evidence is clear. There was no connection, as every intelligence service in the world with any interest in the matter now admits. It's not in dispute any more, it's settled. Find some actual evidence otherwise, that hasn't already been debunked six ways from Sunday dozens of times, and maybe we'll talk.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gabby Hayes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5332

posted 30 March 2004 03:29 PM      Profile for Gabby Hayes     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
He wasn't *happy* about having a militant secularist in charge of Iraq, but at least Saddam was local and at least he wasn't an infidel.

A 'secularist' is not an infidel?

You really don't know much about Islam, do you, Rufus?


From: Thesherrifisnear | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 30 March 2004 03:32 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No offense Rufus, but I doubt any evidence to the contrary would sway you. And being relatively lazy and long gone from my student days, I have no inclination to gather footnotes to win an argument in cyberspace., Just a little comment,...as someone who frequents both left and right wing blog sites, its amazing how far apart the two sides are..for everyone here who is convinced that there is no connection, there is someone over there who will provide evidence that there is. Truth seems to be very elastic theses days.....
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gabby Hayes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5332

posted 30 March 2004 03:32 PM      Profile for Gabby Hayes     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There was no connection, as every intelligence service in the world with any interest in the matter now admits. It's not in dispute any more, it's settled.

Incorrect. Saddam's connections to terrorists are widely understood, even by people who actually read newspapers. Abu Nidal was in Iraq. Hussein paid the families of suicide/terror bombings. Hussein's connections to Al Quaeda and 9-11 are still largely suspected, although not proven.


From: Thesherrifisnear | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 30 March 2004 03:42 PM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post
The former dictator himself was a weapon of cruel (and mass) destruction.
From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 30 March 2004 04:04 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think history will view Iraq not so much as war in and of itself, but rather as a series of battles within the larger war on terror. And don't underestimate the impact of 9-11 on the American psyche...something far to easy to do from the smug safety of Canada. From that day on Bush rightfully declared war on terror as a whole..wherever it slithers. Saddam supported suicide bombers in Israel and has many times declared himself an enemy of America. It took 9-11 for America to finaly notice and act. And if it makes israel safer in the process, well so be it.
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 30 March 2004 04:06 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
...smug safety of Canada...

Don't stop there. Go whole hog and call Canadians "morally superior".


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
RookieActivist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4089

posted 30 March 2004 04:18 PM      Profile for RookieActivist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Evidence linking Saddam to 9/11 has been debunked by many scholars, time and time again. The Bush administration has even acknowledged that there is no link.

Apparently there are people who believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. They have 'evidence' too. It doesn't mean they're right.

By the way, do you think Israel is safer? I think the Iraq war destabilized the mideast and has increased anti-western tensions. Iraq destroyed their chemical, biological, and long-range weapons before the war. Suicide bombings, which Saddam was allegedly funding, continue. The dignity of many Muslim people has been hurt.

So, is Israel safer? Is the world safer?


From: me to you | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gabby Hayes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5332

posted 30 March 2004 04:23 PM      Profile for Gabby Hayes     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Evidence linking Saddam to 9/11 has been debunked by many scholars, time and time again. The Bush administration has even acknowledged that there is no link.

Incorrect. No proof is not the same no link, and 'the Bush administration' admitted no such thing.

quote:
{Apparently there are people who believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. They have 'evidence' too. It doesn't mean they're right.

So the photos I saw of Hussein's victims of gassing were fakes?

Who knew? Thanks for the info.


From: Thesherrifisnear | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 30 March 2004 04:26 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
President George W. Bush:
quote:
We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks.

From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 30 March 2004 04:26 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gabby Hayes:

Incorrect. Saddam's connections to terrorists are widely understood, even by people who actually read newspapers. Abu Nidal was in Iraq. Hussein paid the families of suicide/terror bombings. Hussein's connections to Al Quaeda and 9-11 are still largely suspected, although not proven.


Abu Midal was kicked out of Iraq, and when he returned it was to attempt to overthrow the Iraqi government. When caught and put under arrest, he killed himself (or was murdered by Saddam.) Sounds like they were the best of friends now doesn't it?

As for Saddam paying the suicide bombers . . . he paid the families AFTER the act . . . I wonder, do the Americans and Israelis pay their soldiers who bomb innocent civilians?

Bush's connection to Bin Ladin, and Hitler (through his granddaddy) are well documented.

[ 30 March 2004: Message edited by: No Yards ]


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 30 March 2004 04:28 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think history will view Iraq not so much as war in and of itself, but rather as a series of battles within the larger war on terror.

History will view Iraq exactly as it will view Vietnam. A hideous atrocity carried out by a rouge superpower.

quote:
And don't underestimate the impact of 9-11 on the American psyche

Nobody does. It's you who underestimates the willingness of an uncommonly unscrupulous administration to exploit that effect for their own avaricious purposes.

quote:
From that day on Bush rightfully declared war on terror as a whole..wherever it slithers.

He did make the declaration, and the patently naive believed him. If he had really wanted to stem the tide of terrorism, he would have done the exact opposite of everything he's done.

quote:
Saddam supported suicide bombers in Israel and has many times declared himself an enemy of America.

Only after America declared him an enemy. He was their best buddy before that (and still on good terms with Rumsfeld and Cheny even after that). America was largely responsible for putting him in power. He only became an enemy whenb he stopped taking orders. It wasn't becasue he was a vicious dictator, it was because he was no longer their vicious dictator. They are still supporting vicious dictators, as long as they obey.

quote:
It took 9-11 for America to finaly notice and act.

No, it took 9/11 for America to become so paranoid and dangerous that it could allow itself to be manipulated by the Bushes and Chenys of the world into using its considerable resources to achieve their corrupt and amoral ends.

quote:
Hussein's connections to Al Quaeda and 9-11 are still largely suspected, although not proven.

You are at odds with just about every intelligence network in the world with this assertion, but I'm sure you know more about it than they do.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 30 March 2004 04:29 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gabby:

quote:
So the photos I saw of Hussein's victims of gassing were fakes?

Complete decontextaulization. The issue of WMD is being discussed in the post 1991 environment, and post UN cease-fire agreements where Iraq agreed to terms where it would destroy its arsenal of gas, and stop development of nuclear weapons.

Halabja happened in 1988. The photos are real. Your point is not.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 30 March 2004 04:30 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes Israel is safer..sure there are still suicide bombings, but they are much rarer than they were a year ago. There is now one less coun try dedicated to it's destruction. Some of you guys and gals may have forgotten the scuds during the 1st gulf war but I haven't. Furthermore you have countries like Libya opening up to the west which is definately a positive. Remeber, doing nothing in the face of attacks ( the Clinton method) led up to 9-11.
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 30 March 2004 04:31 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gabby Hayes:
So the photos I saw of Hussein's victims of gassing were fakes?
No, they were very real. Saddam had WMDs back in the 1980s, when Reagan and the U.S. Republicans were busy supporting him.

It would seem that Iraq destroyed its WMDs during the years after the first Gulf War.


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gabby Hayes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5332

posted 30 March 2004 04:33 PM      Profile for Gabby Hayes     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Abu Midal was kicked out of Iraq, and when he returned it was to attempt to overthrow the Iraqi government. When caught and put under arrest, he killed himself (or was murdered by Saddam.) Sounds like they were the best of friends now doesn't it?

Ahhh, I see. Abu Nidal accidentally arrived in Iraq, and then he plotted to overthrow Hussein. Was he on 'the CIA" payroll?

quote:
As for Saddam paying the suicide bombers . . . he paid the families AFTER the act . . . I wonder, do the Americans and Israelis pay their soldiers who bomb innocent civilians?

What?


From: Thesherrifisnear | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 30 March 2004 04:34 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A 'secularist' is not an infidel?
You really don't know much about Islam, do you, Rufus?

Saddam is a Muslim, therefore not an "infidel" per se.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 30 March 2004 04:35 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Remeber, doing nothing in the face of attacks ( the Clinton method) led up to 9-11.

The WTC attacks didn't happen on Clinton's watch. It was doing nothing in the face of all the evidence left behind by the Clinton administration that Al-Queda was a huge threat to the nation which led to 9/11. Why don't you try putting some of the blame where it belongs for a change? You'll find that pacifying yourself with conmforting fictions isn't very productive.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 30 March 2004 04:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ahhh, I see. Abu Nidal accidentally arrived in Iraq, and then he plotted to overthrow Hussein. Was he on 'the CIA" payroll?

In any case their is no connection between Abu Nidal and Bin Laden, which is the point. Similar methods do not determine a politcal link.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 30 March 2004 04:37 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gabby Hayes:

So the photos I saw of Hussein's victims of gassing were fakes?

Who knew? Thanks for the info.


No, those were real photos, but ever wonder where Hussein got that gas and the missiles to deliver them? Ever wonder where saddam got the coordinates to deliver the weapons on target?

Seems all this was possible through the wonder of American technology, provided willingly by your friendly neighbourhood superpower.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 30 March 2004 04:37 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jacon 2 2 wrote "History will view Iraq exactly as it will view Vietnam. A hideous atrocity carried out by a rouge superpower."

Sorry, most millitary historians (although I am sure greying hippies and their disciples will disagree) view Vietnam in the exact terms I described..a battle in a larger war. No cold war, no Vietnam. No 9-11, no war on terror. No war on terror, no Iraq.

I like that term..rogue superpower..todays homework assignnment then is to find an example of another superpower/empire in human history with the sheer power of the US who behaves with as much restraint. Ever here of what the romans did to Carthage? The Spanish to South America?


From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gabby Hayes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5332

posted 30 March 2004 04:38 PM      Profile for Gabby Hayes     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Saddam is a Muslim, therefore not an "infidel" per se.

So why address this to me? Shouldn't you be pointing this out to Rufus?

And shouldn't you also be pointing out that Hussein called on all Muslims to engage in Jihad against the Americans, and many Muslims have responded, including al Quaeda?

But then, that would destroy the argument that Hussein and al Queada don't have anything to do with one another, wouldn't it?


From: Thesherrifisnear | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 30 March 2004 04:39 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yes Israel is safer..sure there are still suicide bombings, but they are much rarer than they were a year ago.

No. The number of Israelis killed in attacks by Arab militants are now 6 times higher than they were in 1999, or any of the 30 years previous. There may be a slight dip in activity from year to year but the present policies are dismal failures if the objective is curbing attacks against Israelis.

[ 30 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 30 March 2004 04:42 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There is now one less coun try dedicated to it's destruction.

On the contrary, Iraq is much more dedicated to Israel's destruction than it ever has been (which still isn't much, taking the country as a whole), as are all the other middle eastern nations. Hatred of Israel has increased dramatically because of the invasion, and too the extent that these countries were ever a threat, they are twice as much now.

I'll grant you that the dictatorship set up by the US in Iraq isn't trying to destroy Israel, but how long do you think that can last? Actually, judging by Saddam, I guess they can last as long as they keep following orders.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 30 March 2004 04:43 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So why address this to me? Shouldn't you be pointing this out to Rufus?

because I don't usually address trolls directly. But in this case I'll make an exception. I didn't address Rufus, 'cause he was correct in making the distinction between "infidels" and teh secularist Saddam.

quote:

And shouldn't you also be pointing out that Hussein called on all Muslims to engage in Jihad against the Americans, and many Muslims have responded, including al Quaeda?

But then, that would destroy the argument that Hussein and al Queada don't have anything to do with one another, wouldn't it?


Only to the most feeble minded who have no grasp of things like the context of Hussein's remarks.

But then, you don't have any proof of a link whatsoever. I guess all dem Muslims are pretty much the same to you.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 30 March 2004 04:45 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And shouldn't you also be pointing out that Hussein called on all Muslims to engage in Jihad against the Americans, and many Muslims have responded, including al Quaeda?

Al Queda did not respond to Hussein. Al Queda has constistently attacked the secular nature of the Baath regime. If there is a link between any state and the Middle East and Al Qeuda, it is to Saudi Arabia. In fact Hussein was repsonding to the marked increase in the support of Muslim fundamentalism in the Arab world, and was hoping to buy support by getting on the band wagon.

The US has also been a big backer of Al Queda, and helped it in the begining by funnelling money through the SSI in Pakistan.

Hey! Do you have any sources for the stuff you are propounding as fact, or does it just come out of your... head.

[ 30 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 30 March 2004 04:48 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gabby Hayes:
Ahhh, I see. Abu Nidal accidentally arrived in Iraq, and then he plotted to overthrow Hussein. Was he on 'the CIA" payroll?

No, he committed suicide just to hide the fact that he was supporting Saddam!

You certainly have quite the strong link here no don't you?

Guess what, I can link Ted Bundy to one of his victims and claim the victim was in on Bundies murders using your logic.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 30 March 2004 04:50 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sorry, most millitary historians (although I am sure greying hippies and their disciples will disagree) view Vietnam in the exact terms I described..a battle in a larger war. No cold war, no Vietnam. No 9-11, no war on terror. No war on terror, no Iraq.

I meant the historians of the future, not the textbooks written by the US. Things take on a different perspective over time. How do you think the Vietnamese perceive the total destruction of their country?

quote:
I like that term..rogue superpower..todays homework assignnment then is to find an example of another superpower/empire in human history with the sheer power of the US who behaves with as much restraint. Ever here of what the romans did to Carthage? The Spanish to South America?


This will be my defense in court when my killing spree comes to light. "Your honor, I defy you to find a serial killer who has shown as much restraint as I have". I'm sure he'll see the wisdom of my words.

The world is very different now, as a result of the global community and its history. A lighter touch is a regretable necessity for rapacious murderers, but not a sign of moral superiority.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gabby Hayes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5332

posted 30 March 2004 04:50 PM      Profile for Gabby Hayes     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So why address this to me? Shouldn't you be pointing this out to Rufus?

because I don't usually address trolls directly


Rufus is a troll? Does he know?

quote:
Only to the most feeble minded who have no grasp of things like the context of Hussein's remarks.

Ahhh, the 'context' of Hussein's call for Jihad must be considered. I see.

What is the proper context to consider the Muslim Hussein calling for jihad, and Muslims in al Queada responding, pray tell?


From: Thesherrifisnear | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gabby Hayes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5332

posted 30 March 2004 04:53 PM      Profile for Gabby Hayes     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Al Queda did not respond to Hussein.

They didn't? Do the al Queada in Iraq know this? would you be so kind as to let them know, since surely they are confused, and do not have your insights?


From: Thesherrifisnear | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 30 March 2004 04:53 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That no matter what Hussein said, it didn't matter to al-Qaida and didn't affect their behaviour in any way? That they'd do the same things with or without his opportunistic "call"? That they actually hated him, and he considered them a mortal enemy?
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 30 March 2004 04:54 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gabby, you are clueless. Why do you keep posting when you have nothing to say? Oh, that's right. You're a troll.

*PLONK*

Actually, I'm plonking this entire thread. I can't believe I'm wasting my lunch hour on these idiots. Letting my temper get the better of me.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gabby Hayes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5332

posted 30 March 2004 04:59 PM      Profile for Gabby Hayes     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But I've said plenty, Jacob who wears a balletdress. you just don't appreciate the facts. Let's review the facts.

Fact #1- Hussein, Muslim, called for all Muslims to wage Jihad on Americans. Some Muslims, inlcuding Al quaeda, have done just that.

fact #2- There is a clear, established link between Hussein and Islamic terrorists. There is strong evidence, but no conclusive proof, that Hussein was involved in 9/11.

There's more facts, but I'll let you stew on these for a while.


From: Thesherrifisnear | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 30 March 2004 05:02 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I responded to supposition #1.

#2 has been roundly and repeatedly discredited.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 30 March 2004 05:03 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gabby Hayes:
There is strong evidence, but no conclusive proof, that Hussein was involved in 9/11.
Perhaps if you could produce this strong evidence for us, we could better evaluate your claim.

From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gabby Hayes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5332

posted 30 March 2004 05:04 PM      Profile for Gabby Hayes     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jacob writes:

quote:
The WTC attacks didn't happen on Clinton's watch.

Perhaps you may not have heard, but Iraqi agent ramsy Yusef and company attacked the WTC in 1993.

Oh, that's another fact, isn't it?


From: Thesherrifisnear | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 30 March 2004 05:05 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Fact #1- Hussein, Muslim, called for all Muslims to wage Jihad on Americans. Some Muslims, inlcuding Al quaeda, have done just that.

AQ has been calling for all Muslims to wage jihad on AMericans for a looong time. I doubt they needed Saddam's say-so to do it.

quote:
fact #2- There is a clear, established link between Hussein and Islamic terrorists. There is strong evidence, but no conclusive proof, that Hussein was involved in 9/11.


Where's the evidence, troll? Show us the evidence!
No evidence. No prooof. You're wrong. You're also a liar.

quote:
There's more facts, but I'll let you stew on these for a while.

Oh boy. Can't wait...


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gabby Hayes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5332

posted 30 March 2004 05:10 PM      Profile for Gabby Hayes     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I responded to supposition #1.
#2 has been roundly and repeatedly discredited.

Incorrect on both counts, Mandos.

quote:
There is strong evidence, but no conclusive proof, that Hussein was involved in 9/11.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps if you could produce this strong evidence for us, we could better evaluate your claim.


Sure. Let's start with the fact that Ramsey Yusef, who tried to blow up the WTC, was an Iraqi agent. Let's also include the recent court case re: the Oklahoma city bombing where the judge determined that there was enough evidence that John Doe #2 was an iraqi to permit the case to proceed. let's move on to Salman Pak, where Iraqi's and othjer foreigners trained with box-cutters to take over 747's. Let's also include the fact that Hussein, Muslim, harbored Muslims terrorists, and supported muslim terroists.

All rather invconvenient facts, wouldn't you say?

[ 30 March 2004: Message edited by: Gabby Hayes ]


From: Thesherrifisnear | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 30 March 2004 05:12 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No 9-11 wasn't on Clintons watch, he just created the conditions by which the terrorists gained the nerve to commit such an attrocity...by treating each previous attack ( WTC #1, USS COLE, ETC) as a criminal matter as opposed to acts of war. It's funny how Osama and company have declared war on the US and so many people are shocked when the US says, OK, you are on! In my man Bush's words (more or less) War is what they asked for, and war is what they will get. And they got it all right. 2 terrorist supporting countires out of action in 2 years. I can't wait to see what Bush's next four years ( knock on wood) will bring..hopefully peace , stability, freedom and capatilism to all the Arab countries.
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gabby Hayes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5332

posted 30 March 2004 05:14 PM      Profile for Gabby Hayes     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Where's the evidence, troll? Show us the evidence!
No evidence. No prooof. You're wrong. You're also a liar.

Oh my, I'm a liar. You're right, Abu Nidal and Abu Abbass are not Islamic terrorists, and Hussein did not pay Islamic terrorists in Palestine, and Ramsey Yusef was not an iraqi agent.

Surely, such inconvenioent facts are enough cause to be branded a 'troll', n'est pa?


From: Thesherrifisnear | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 30 March 2004 05:22 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I thought calling someone a liar was against Babble policy...Michelle?
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 30 March 2004 05:22 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Let's start with the fact that Ramsey Yusef, who tried to blow up the WTC, was an Iraqi agent. Let's also include the recent court case re: the Oklahoma city bombing where the judge determined that there was enough evidence that John Doe #2 was an iraqi to permit the case to proceed. let's move on to Salman Pak, where Iraqi's and othjer foreigners trained with box-cutters to take over 747's. Let's also include the fact that Hussein, Muslim, harbored Muslims terrorists, and supported muslim terroists.

All rather invconvenient facts, wouldn't you say?


That's not evidence, that's you making claims. How about a source that supports these claims? It's called "proof".


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gabby Hayes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5332

posted 30 March 2004 05:27 PM      Profile for Gabby Hayes     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That's not evidence, that's you making claims

No, those are called facts. Look them up for yourself.


From: Thesherrifisnear | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 30 March 2004 05:30 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not evidence, that's you making claims
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, those are called facts. Look them up for yourself.


Uh. No. You're making the claims, you back them up. I'm not doing your dirty work for you.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 30 March 2004 05:40 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I thought calling someone a liar was against Babble policy...Michelle?

It is.

So, we are to trust as sources provided by convicted fraud artist Ahamed Chalabi on issues such as Salam Pak, when those source have been repeatedly called into question, and Chalabi himself and has admitted in public that some of the intelligence provided was false.


quote:
A detailed investigation in the Los Angeles Times revealed that the source claiming to have seen mobile bioweapons labs was the brother of one of the senior aides to Ahmed Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National Congress, who recently boasted how the erroneous information provided by his group achieved his long-cherished goal of toppling Saddam. *

Iraqi defector behind America's WMD claims exposed as 'out-and-out fabricator'

This is choice:

quote:
He failed a second polygraph test and in May 2002, intelligence agencies were warned that the information was unreliable.

In the same article note this quote from your boy Chalabi:

quote:
Mr Chalabi, by far the most effective anti-Saddam lobbyist in Washington, shrugged off charges that he had deliberately misled US intelligence. "We are heroes in error," he told the Telegraph in Baghdad.

Chalabi stands by faulty intelligence that toppled Saddam's regime

BTW, the above is corroborative sourcing, three major newspapers (Las Angeles Times, the Indempendent UK and the Telegraph) ALL debunk the source for yout 'intelliegence' and the basis your deep conspiracy paranoia fantasy.

Simply reasserting your assertions is not proof of anything Gabby.

Try finding some sources of your own... I loved the Oklahoma bombing fantasy the best! Try your hand at fiction.

Original LA Times Article: Kay said in an interview that the defector "was absolutely at the heart of a matter of intense interest to us." But Curveball turned out to be an "out-and-out fabricator," he added -- in the LA Ttimes

[ 30 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 30 March 2004 05:52 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
More on Chalabi (now under investigation by Congress for misuse of US govermnent funds):

Investigators to inquire into Chalabi’s use of US money

quote:
Yet the INC itself told Congress in 2002 that there were more than 100 news stories published between October 2001 and May 2002 containing information collected by INC informants – informants who had their expenses paid with State Department money, the magazine said.

These included articles on Saddam’s links to terrorism, links to the September 11, 2001, attacks, and his alleged banned biological, nuclear and chemical programmes, the magazine reports.


Get a credible source, get your head out of the sand, get a life, do something, pu-lease, other than assert the same ole' same ole.'

[ 30 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 30 March 2004 07:12 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, I'll temporarily unplonk you, o, because unlike Gabby you're not a troll. You're just sadly, sadly deluded.

quote:
No 9-11 wasn't on Clintons watch, he just created the conditions by which the terrorists gained the nerve to commit such an attrocity

The nerve!? You think they lacked the nerve!? These are suicide bombers, dumbass. They don't need Clinton to give them nerve. They've already got more than you or I would ever have.

What they lacked was the ability to attack the strongest nation on earth. That is, they did lack it until the Bush administration got in and totally ignored the threat that Al-Queda posed. Condi admits that the huge Al-Queda file that her predecessor left her, warning her it was the biggest threat that America faced, wasn't even read until after the attacks happened. Face it. This disaster is entirely the fault of "your man" Bush, who fell asleep at the wheel (much like he's done with everything else in his life) and allowed the deaths of thousands of his people by doing so.

quote:
It's funny how Osama and company have declared war on the US and so many people are shocked when the US says, OK, you are on!

No it's funny how people like you believe him when he says he's declaring war on terrorism, and then goes and attacks Iraq instead. Don't you get it, muttonhead? Invading Iraq was always their plan. They wanted to do it right away but they needed an excuse. Then they wanted to do immediately after 9/11, but they figured they'd better attack something remotely related to terrorism first, so they invaded Afghanistan and then promptly forgot about it. That country will no doubt soon be back in the Taliban's hands but you think he shut them down. Does your capacity for self-delusion know no limits?

The reason people were shocked is because it is stupid to declare "war" on a group that cannot be found on a map, and even stupider to declare war on a technique of battle. Only idiots talk this way, and the realisation that the president of the United States is an idiot is a shocking one. But of course, we can deduce from their actions that the Bush administration doesn't care a fig for stopping terrorism (although it's quite possible that Bush is not aware of this). Any credible expert on this subject says that Al-Queda has been strengthened by the invasion, not weakened. You want to beleive the opposite because it pleases you, but that doesn't make it true.

quote:
2 terrorist supporting countires out of action in 2 years. I can't wait to see what Bush's next four years ( knock on wood) will bring..hopefully peace , stability, freedom and capatilism to all the Arab countries.

Oh yeah, he's done wonders on this front so far. War is peace, o, chaos is stability, freedom is slavery. It's all doubleplusgood, wouldn't you say, or does the newspeak allow that many syllabals? How you can interpret dozens of daily attacks as being "out of action" is beyond me. Bush has incensed the middle east, swelled the ranks of terrorist groups, and turned all of Iraq into the terrorists' proxy battleground, much to the suffering of the Iraqi people. Will you have to destroy the country in order to "liberate" it?

Get off the meds. They're clouding your mind.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 30 March 2004 07:57 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by o:
And don't underestimate the impact of 9-11 on the American psyche...something far to easy to do from the smug safety of Canada.

Not to mention the smug safety of Spain.

(For those who are likely not to get this, it is meant as a sarcastic comment underlining the fact that in Spain, when they got hit, they did not stampede into moronically lining up behind leaders pushing foolishly aggressive courses of action which would only make the problem worse)


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 30 March 2004 08:16 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by o:
Remeber, doing nothing in the face of attacks ( the Clinton method) led up to 9-11.

This is an interesting new meme which is being spread by such liars as Jack Straw, and it's important to debunk it.
A more detailed discussion of this issue appearshere

Clinton in fact did two important bombings theoretically targeted against Al-Quaeda in 1998, one in the Sudan, one in Afghanistan.
The first blew up the main Sudan pharmaceutical plant, leading to tens of thousands of deaths from previously preventable diseases. It also radicalized the Islamic government there, derailing progress towards ending the civil war. It also hardened the attitudes of many Moslems against the United States, making recruitment easier for Al Quaeda.

The other bombing, of Afghanistan, was also counterproductive.

quote:
By summer 1998, Mullah Omar, the head of the Taliban, had become so fed up with his unwanted guest Osama bin Laden that he concluded a secret agreement with Saudi intelligence to expel the al-Qa’eda leader from his country.

But just before Mullah Omar’s order to oust the ‘arrogant, publicity-seeking’ bin Laden was carried out, President Clinton launched his missiles against Sudan and Afghanistan.

Prince Turki bin al-Faisal, the head of Saudi intelligence who had brokered the expulsion deal, says that after the missile strikes, ‘The Taliban attitude changed 180 degrees.’ Returning to Afghanistan a month after the strikes, he found Mullah Omar ‘absolutely rude’, and the deal was off. (Times, 3 Aug. 2002)


So, by failing to 'do nothing'--or more precisely, by failing to work through diplomatic channels, in the interest of looking tough for the American people, Clinton, like Bush, successfully managed to avoid getting his hands on Osama bin Laden. Clinton's actions did probably help make 9/11 a possibility--in the same way that Bush's actions pave the way for the next one. The tendency of American presidents to design their foreign policy purely for the way it plays to domestic audiences is a source of many American foreign policy failures, especially since "tough" seems to be much easier to sell to the American people than "useful".


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 30 March 2004 08:19 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Remeber, doing nothing in the face of attacks ( the Clinton method) led up to 9-11."

If you've heard any of Richard Clarke's testimony, or know of anything that's in his book, you would know that because Clinton put the government on "battle station" a millenium attack was averted. A planned attack in LA was thrwarted by arrests. That's not doing nothing. And it was a hell of a lot better than Bush, who reduced terrorism as a priority when he came in, and specifically eased up on bin laden in the months leading up to 9/11, and then flew his family out of the country thereafter. But there has always been a closeness between the Bush and bin laden clans.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 30 March 2004 09:49 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
josh, I think I read somewhere that Clark was behind the bin Laden evacuation. I’ve only read small parts of Clark’s book. What’s the evidence that Bush eased up on bin Laden and reduced terrorism as a priority?

Here’s a take from the WAPost.

quote:
For all the sniping over efforts by the Bush and Clinton administrations to thwart terrorism, information from this week's hearings into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks suggests that the two administrations pursued roughly the same policies before the terrorist strikes occurred.

Witness testimony and the findings of the commission investigating the attacks indicate that even the new policy to combat Osama bin Laden and his Taliban hosts, developed just before Sept. 11, was in most respects similar to the old strategy pursued first by Clinton and then by Bush.

The commission's determination that the two policies were roughly the same calls into question claims made by Bush officials that they were developing a superior terrorism policy. The findings also put into perspective the criticism of President Bush's approach to terrorism by Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism chief: For all his harsh complaints about Bush administration's lack of urgency in regard to terrorism, he had no serious quarrel with the actual policy Bush was pursuing before the 2001 attacks.


Except maybe that he was no longer at a cabinet level, perhaps?

Guess who used to believe in the Iraq/al-Qaida connection?

By Christopher Hitchens

[ 30 March 2004: Message edited by: SHH ]


From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 30 March 2004 09:57 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"At the key briefing, Mr Clarke presented proposals to "roll back" al-Qaida which closely resemble the measures taken after September 11. Its financial network would be broken up and its assets frozen. Vulnerable countries like Uzbekistan, Yemen and the Philippines would be given aid to help them stamp out terrorist cells.

Crucially, the US would go after Bin Laden in his Afghan lair. Plans would be drawn up for combined air and special forces operations, while support would be channelled to the Northern Alliance in its fight against the Taliban and its al-Qaida allies.

Mr Clarke, who stayed on in his job as White House counter-terrorism tsar, repeated his briefing for vice president Dick Cheney in February. However, the proposals got lost in the clumsy transition process, turf wars between departments and the separate agendas of senior members of the Bush administration."

http://www.angelfire.com/linux/pearly/htmls/bush-911inaction.html


"January 2001 - The Bush Administration orders the FBI and intelligence agencies to "back off" investigations involving the bin Laden family, including two of Osama bin Laden's relatives (Abdullah and Omar) who were living in Falls Church, Va. -- right next to CIA headquarters. This followed previous orders dating back to 1996 that frustrated efforts to investigate the bin Laden family. [Source: BBC Newsnight, Correspondent Gregg Palast, Nov. 7, 2001]"


http://www.sumeria.net/politics/bushknew/ohlucy.html


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 30 March 2004 11:24 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
josh, from the very first paragraph of your first link:
quote:
JULIAN BORGER
August 5, 2002

The Bush administration sat on a Clinton-era plan to attack al-Qaida in Afghanistan for eight months because of political hostility to the outgoing president and competing priorities, it was reported yesterday.

The plan, under which special forces troops would have been sent after Osama bin Laden, was drawn up in the last days of the Clinton administration but a decision was left to the incoming Bush team.



Now normally I wouldn’t link to NRO in these parts for obvious reasons, but we all gotta make exceptions.
quote:
And that's what has Chambliss perplexed. "I've had Dick Clarke testify before our committee several times, and we've invited Samuel Berger several times," Chambliss says, "and this is the first I've ever heard of that plan." If it was such a big deal, Chambliss wonders, why didn't anyone mention it?

Sources at the White House are just as baffled. In public, they've been careful not to pick fights with the previous administration over the terrorism issue. But privately, they say the Time report was way off base. "There was no new plan to topple al Qaeda," one source says flatly. "No new plan." When asked if there was, perhaps, an old plan to topple al Qaeda, which might have been confused in the story, the source says simply, "No."


Don’t ya just love the spin and sweat of high political debate and demeanor? Can't you just smell Kissinger in the air?

Somewhere deeper in one of the articles:

quote:
By now, Clarke's famously short fuse was giving off sparks. A participant at one of the meetings paraphrases Clarke's attitude this way : "These people are trying to kill us. I could give a f___ if Musharraf was democratically elected. What I do care about is Pakistan's support for the Taliban and turning a blind eye to this terrorist cancer growing in their neighbor's backyard."
This guy isn’t my guy. Whose guy is he?

Slate Sidebar.

[ 30 March 2004: Message edited by: SHH ]


From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gabby Hayes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5332

posted 30 March 2004 11:45 PM      Profile for Gabby Hayes     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball writes:

quote:
So, we are to trust as sources provided by convicted fraud artist Ahamed Chalabi on issues such as Salam Pak,

Who said anything about "Chalibi"?

Not one sentence in your entire 2 posts has any meaning, at all, because you are whacking away at a straw man that you created. If you want to learn something about Salman Pak, I suggest you talk to the Iraqi generals who were there, in a position to know.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm


From: Thesherrifisnear | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gabby Hayes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5332

posted 30 March 2004 11:48 PM      Profile for Gabby Hayes     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A detailed investigation in the Los Angeles Times revealed that the source claiming to have seen mobile bioweapons labs was the brother of one of the senior aides to Ahmed Chalabi,

Oh, yawn. The brother of the cousin of son of the babysitter said something, therefore, ipso facto, Salman Pak didn't exist. Then you've got the nerve to say "get a credible source"?

Get serious, would you?


From: Thesherrifisnear | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 31 March 2004 12:26 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Salman Pak Debunked

quote:
Almost immediately after September 11th, the I.N.C. began to publicize the stories of defectors who claimed that they had information connecting Iraq to the attacks. In an interview on October 14, 2001, conducted jointly by the Times and “Frontline,” the public-television program, Sabah Khodada, an Iraqi Army captain, said that the September 11th operation “was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam,” and that Iraq had a program to instruct terrorists in the art of hijacking. Another defector, who was identified only as a retired lieutenant general in the Iraqi intelligence service, said that in 2000 he witnessed Arab students being given lessons in hijacking on a Boeing 707 parked at an Iraqi training camp near the town of Salman Pak, south of Baghdad.

In separate interviews with me, however, a former C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people. (At the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and America favored Iraq.) Iraq then sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britain’s MI6. The C.I.A. offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the Middle East. “We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison,” the former station chief told me. Inspectors recalled seeing the body of an airplane—which appeared to be used for counter-terrorism training—when they visited a biological-weapons facility near Salman Pak in 1991, ten years before September 11th. It is, of course, possible for such a camp to be converted from one purpose to another. The former C.I.A. official noted, however, that terrorists would not practice on airplanes in the open. “That’s Hollywood rinky-dink stuff,” the former agent said. “They train in basements. You don’t need a real airplane to practice hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists went to gyms. But to take one back you have to practice on the real thing.”

Salman Pak was overrun by American troops on April 6th. Apparently, neither the camp nor the former biological facility has yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war.

A former Bush Administration intelligence official recalled a case in which Chalabi’s group, working with the Pentagon, produced a defector from Iraq who was interviewed overseas by an agent from the D.I.A. The agent relied on an interpreter supplied by Chalabi’s people. Last summer, the D.I.A. report, which was classified, was leaked. In a detailed account, the London Times described how the defector had trained with Al Qaeda terrorists in the late nineteen-nineties at secret camps in Iraq, how the Iraqis received instructions in the use of chemical and biological weapons, and how the defector was given a new identity and relocated. A month later, however, a team of C.I.A. agents went to interview the man with their own interpreter. “He says, ‘No, that’s not what I said,’” the former intelligence official told me. “He said, ‘I worked at a fedayeen camp; it wasn’t Al Qaeda.’ He never saw any chemical or biological training.” Afterward, the former official said, “the C.I.A. sent out a piece of paper saying that this information was incorrect. They put it in writing.” But the C.I.A. rebuttal, like the original report, was classified. “I remember wondering whether this one would leak and correct the earlier, invalid leak. Of course, it didn’t.”



From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gabby Hayes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5332

posted 31 March 2004 12:38 AM      Profile for Gabby Hayes     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why do you have such difficulty understanding what you read? In the first place, I wrote that connections to Iraq/9-11 were never proven, but there was credible evidence that pointed in that direction, like Salman Pak.

In the second place, your own link demonstrates that both Iraqi's and foreign nationals trained in a 707 at Salman Pak. And yet you prefer to believe that Iraq had such a 'terrorist' problem that foreign nationals trained there in the mid-late 1990's, in case any Iraqi planes were hijacked?

You really will believe anything, won't you?

[ 31 March 2004: Message edited by: Gabby Hayes ]


From: Thesherrifisnear | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 31 March 2004 01:09 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You certainly are a piece of work aren't you?

I guess if you want to use a lie told by a Chalibi translator as "credible evidence", then I guess your standards are a little bit lower than most reasonable peoples.

And which foreign nationals are you talking about?


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 March 2004 01:16 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why do you have such difficulty understanding what you read? In the first place, I wrote that connections to Iraq/9-11 were never proven, but there was credible evidence that pointed in that direction, like Salman Pak.

A lot of hoopla and now this backtracking. Lol. There is more credible evidence that Chenney and Saddam were having a secret love affair. Above is photographic evidence.

quote:
In the second place, your own link demonstrates that both Iraqi's and foreign nationals trained in a 707 at Salman Pak. And yet you prefer to believe that Iraq had such a 'terrorist' problem that foreign nationals trained there in the mid-late 1990's, in case any Iraqi planes were hijacked?

The SAS does the same training its not proof of anything. In fact Iraq was a very likely final destination for hijacked planes. You are saying the SAS are preparing for terorrist operations? Nutbar.

Perhaps you don't know how to insert links, that is why we have yet to see any of your evidence.

Below the box where you write your reply message there is a button called URL. Click on that button then insert the URL of any internet source that supports your thesis that the Oklahoma bombing was inspired by, controlled by or involved with Iraqi nationals.

I wanna see that for sure.

Hooh ha. What a joke.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gabby Hayes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5332

posted 31 March 2004 01:35 AM      Profile for Gabby Hayes     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I guess if you want to use a lie told by a Chalibi translator as "credible evidence", then I guess your standards are a little bit lower than most reasonable peoples.

Let me do a Damien Williams here:

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF MY MOUTH?????????

Read again. Salman Pak has nothing to do with "Chalibi" it is a real place in Iraq, whose existance and programs have been confirmed by not one, but several generals, defectors and captured alike.

Following so far? No "chalibi" no translator, no hallucinations.

Now, this does not mean that Iraq was proven to be involved in 9/11. It does mean that Iraqi and foreign nationals trained in hijacking at Salman Pak in a 707 airplane.

What on earth is so difficult to understand about this?

[ 31 March 2004: Message edited by: Gabby Hayes ]


From: Thesherrifisnear | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gabby Hayes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5332

posted 31 March 2004 01:39 AM      Profile for Gabby Hayes     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The SAS does the same training its not proof of anything. In fact Iraq was a very likely final destination for hijacked planes. You are saying the SAS are preparing for terorrist operations? Nutbar.

Ahhhh, I see, Iraqi's and foreign nationals were training hijacking techniques with box cutters in a 707 because, like the SAS, they only wanted to return hijacked jets to democratic countries.

And you call me a nutbar? Have you no grasp of reality?


From: Thesherrifisnear | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 March 2004 01:42 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Where do you find the box cutters? That comes from the Chalabi source, which you just said had nothing to do with your information.

The program was set up by MI6. SAS... MI6... counter-terrorism training. Get it?

[ 31 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gabby Hayes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5332

posted 31 March 2004 01:45 AM      Profile for Gabby Hayes     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Again, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF MY MOUTH???

Chalibi, or whatever-bi, has nothing to do with anything. Iraqi generals who were at Salman Pak, captured and defectors, provided this information.

Stop hallucinating.


From: Thesherrifisnear | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 31 March 2004 01:46 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gabby Hayes:
Again, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF MY MOUTH???
Do you actually mouth the words as you type?

From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 March 2004 01:47 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Which captured defectors? Which source? Surely some wire serivce must have picked up this red hot item?

Give it me slugger.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gabby Hayes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5332

posted 31 March 2004 01:48 AM      Profile for Gabby Hayes     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The program was set up by MI6. SAS... MI6... counter-terrorism training. Get it?

OK, I get it. You are such an imbecile that you think I should believe your claim that the iraqi secret service is the same things as the SAS.

Why do you embarrass yourself so?


From: Thesherrifisnear | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gabby Hayes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5332

posted 31 March 2004 01:51 AM      Profile for Gabby Hayes     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Which captured defectors? Which source? Surely some wire serivce must have picked up this red hot item?

Already did. But then, if you actually UNDERSTOOD THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF MY MOUTH, you would have read this.


From: Thesherrifisnear | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 31 March 2004 01:58 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He's asking for a link to a web site with some evidence to back up the foam that is coming out of your mouth.
From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 March 2004 01:58 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is not a single name or quote in that. I was hoping that you had something based on information coming from people actually captured after the war. Almost all defecors, army officers etc. prior to that were provided by Chalabi's INC.

No good.

Let me put it this way. Since the end of the war the US has had access to unparalled intelligence resources based on captured Iraqis, yet this really hot 9/11 link that you are insiting on is not coming out in the mainstream press. Anywhere?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 31 March 2004 02:01 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Alright, who let Laurie Mylroie in here.
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 March 2004 02:01 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Notice the sources qouted in your piece are defectors (not captured), therefore they are pre-invasion sources. The hand of Chalabi is there.

From No Yards source....

quote:
A former Bush Administration intelligence official recalled a case in which Chalabi’s group, working with the Pentagon, produced a defector from Iraq who was interviewed overseas by an agent from the D.I.A. The agent relied on an interpreter supplied by Chalabi’s people. Last summer, the D.I.A. report, which was classified, was leaked. In a detailed account, the London Times described how the defector had trained with Al Qaeda terrorists in the late nineteen-nineties at secret camps in Iraq, how the Iraqis received instructions in the use of chemical and biological weapons, and how the defector was given a new identity and relocated. A month later, however, a team of C.I.A. agents went to interview the man with their own interpreter. “He says, ‘No, that’s not what I said,’” the former intelligence official told me. “He said, ‘I worked at a fedayeen camp; it wasn’t Al Qaeda.’

These people are the sources your article refers to. Your link is the same story that the Telegraph article refers to that Seymour Hersch rebuts.

Again, nothing has come up post invasion to corroborate anything in your linked article?

[ 31 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 31 March 2004 05:01 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by o:
Jacon 2 2 wrote "History will view Iraq exactly as it will view Vietnam. A hideous atrocity carried out by a rouge superpower."

Sorry, most millitary historians (although I am sure greying hippies and their disciples will disagree) view Vietnam in the exact terms I described..a battle in a larger war. No cold war, no Vietnam. No 9-11, no war on terror. No war on terror, no Iraq.


While this is probably somewhat off-topic, I feel it is worth noting that many people (aside from the rabid Commie Fanny-Whacker crowd who think nuking the bejeezus out of Vietnam would have done the job - talk about destroying the village to save it!) regard the Vietnam war as a total failure of American diplomacy and military estimates of US capabilities in that region.

I certainly regard Vietnam as a disaster, not as a worthy cause that just needed more guns, bombs, airplanes and men.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 31 March 2004 07:23 AM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
nice link, slim!
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 31 March 2004 07:28 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by albireo:
Do you actually mouth the words as you type?

No, only when he reads. Not to mention the fingerprints on the screen.

Okay, that was a low blow. But come on, Gabby, why keep repeating the same thing? People have read what you wrote - and they've responded to it. Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they didn't READ it.

[ 31 March 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 31 March 2004 09:45 AM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Click on that button then insert the URL of any internet source that supports your thesis that the Oklahoma bombing was inspired by, controlled by or involved with Iraqi nationals.
Clark is on record as suggesting that Nichol’s bombs didn’t work very well until he got back from the Philippines. IIRC, Yousef was traveling with an Iraqi passport.

Link.


From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 31 March 2004 09:56 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Geez, I'm late coming to this thread. Let me just say two things -

*PLONK*
*PLONK*

That's my count. Please let me know if I missed any foamy-mouthers.

[ 31 March 2004: Message edited by: Sarcasmobri ]


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gabby Hayes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5332

posted 31 March 2004 11:24 AM      Profile for Gabby Hayes     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But come on, Gabby, why keep repeating the same thing? People have read what you wrote - and they've responded to it. Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they didn't READ it.

If Cueball actually responded to what I wrote, there wouldn't be a problem; instead, he just keeps repeating "Chalibi" when what I wrote has nothing to do with "chalibi"

Secondly, he has accused me of 'backtracking" for repeating what I had stated in the first place. There is ample evidence, but no conclusive proof, that Iraq was involved with Islamic terrorists, and may have been involved in 9-11.

So, given the above, can you blame me for asking if he actually UNDERSTANDS THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF MY MOUTH?

Cueball:

Iraqi defectors before the war on Salman Pak and 707's

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/general.html

Captured Iraqi's and the UN on Salman Pak and 707's after the war.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36318

I suppose none of this makes any differecne to someone who is so out of touch with reality that they believe the Iraqi Secret Police and the British SAS are the same thing.

[ 31 March 2004: Message edited by: Gabby Hayes ]


From: Thesherrifisnear | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 31 March 2004 11:39 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Willowdale Wizard:
nice link, slim!

Superb link, slim!

SHH, you might consider reading slim's link.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 31 March 2004 12:38 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gabby Hayes:
[

Iraqi defectors before the war on Salman Pak and 707's

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/general.html


From my previous post with link provided.


Almost immediately after September 11th, the I.N.C. began to publicize the stories of defectors who claimed that they had information connecting Iraq to the attacks. In an interview on October 14, 2001, conducted jointly by the Times and “Frontline,” the public-television program, Sabah Khodada, an Iraqi Army captain, said that the September 11th operation “was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam,” and that Iraq had a program to instruct terrorists in the art of hijacking. Another defector, who was identified only as a retired lieutenant general in the Iraqi intelligence service, said that in 2000 he witnessed Arab students being given lessons in hijacking on a Boeing 707 parked at an Iraqi training camp near the town of Salman Pak, south of Baghdad.

In separate interviews with me, however, a former C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people. (At the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and America favored Iraq.) Iraq then sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britain’s MI6. The C.I.A. offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the Middle East. “We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison,” the former station chief told me. Inspectors recalled seeing the body of an airplane—which appeared to be used for counter-terrorism training—when they visited a biological-weapons facility near Salman Pak in 1991, ten years before September 11th. It is, of course, possible for such a camp to be converted from one purpose to another. The former C.I.A. official noted, however, that terrorists would not practice on airplanes in the open. “That’s Hollywood rinky-dink stuff,” the former agent said. “They train in basements. You don’t need a real airplane to practice hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists went to gyms. But to take one back you have to practice on the real thing.”

Salman Pak was overrun by American troops on April 6th. Apparently, neither the camp nor the former biological facility has yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war.

So this credible evidence from someone idenitified as Iraqi Lt. General is to be believed over the C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst, and the US military that captured said "terrorist training camp" and found nothing to support this claim?


quote:

Captured Iraqi's and the UN on Salman Pak and 707's after the war.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36318


Another report from ONE Iraqi officer telling US soldiers what he thinks they want to hear. (where is the evidence? where is the supporting claims from the other officers capture with him?)

And of course, this comes from Worldnetdaily . . . if you bothered to look around the site, there must be fifty claims made by them over the last year regarding "evidence" of an Iraqi/A-Q link, all of which have turned out to be a bunch of hooey.)

How many times must this source of "intelligence" information be shown to be crap before we realize that the information comes straight from the asshole?

[ 31 March 2004: Message edited by: No Yards ]


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gabby Hayes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5332

posted 31 March 2004 02:17 PM      Profile for Gabby Hayes     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ohh, Boo-hooo, World Net daily, rather than Noam Chomsky's site, so of course it can't be possible.

Look, the UN confirmed the plane is still there. Iraqi officers captured and interrogated after the war, confirmed the presence of islamic fighters at Salman Pak. I realize this doesn't fit in with your hate America/hate Bush philosophy, but those are the facts.


From: Thesherrifisnear | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 31 March 2004 02:20 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gabby Hayes:
Ohh, Boo-hooo...

Well, I did notice that your own occupation is "town cryer", a pretty apt description of most of your 38 posts to date.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gabby Hayes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5332

posted 31 March 2004 02:30 PM      Profile for Gabby Hayes     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not interested in facts, Scot?

Attacking me personally won't change the facts.


From: Thesherrifisnear | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 31 March 2004 03:16 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
FACT: Gabby was just banned from babble.
FACT: Levels of venomous bile are receding as a result.
FACT: No babblers are sorry to see Gabby disappear.

[ 31 March 2004: Message edited by: albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 31 March 2004 03:20 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If Gabby is banned then so should half the people here....venomous bile doesn't just come from the pro israel side. What, you guys can dish it out but can't take it?
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 31 March 2004 03:21 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To get back to the theme of this thread, I'd like to ask one question:

Does anyone out there have a good recipe for chalibi?


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 March 2004 03:38 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For the record. I did respond to Gabbys post and I asked where is the post-war evidence, as everything pre-war has INC and Chalbi fingerprints all over it.

Finding 707 at a special forces base does nothing to extablish its use, as I pointed out the SAS does training in commercial airliners. The only reason of assuming that it might have other pruposes, is ir you give gredibility to the pre-war story, which has Chalabi all over it.

As for the World Net report, it is suspiciously lacking in sources, named or unnamed, and contains not a single quote. The main body of the story, also leans heavily in the de-bunked pre-war story run on the telegraph and elsewhere.

[ 31 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
dnuttall
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5258

posted 31 March 2004 03:39 PM      Profile for dnuttall     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Open bottle. Pour into large glass. Enjoy.
From: Kanata | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
dnuttall
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5258

posted 31 March 2004 04:07 PM      Profile for dnuttall     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Seems to me (slurp..) that this whole thread (sip...) needs more chalibi. A quart bottle, no less.

I find a large glass helps with my conspiracy theorizing:

My view is that there is a striking similarity between Pearl Harbour and the WTC collapse.

Why did the Japanese launch their planes once and then leave? Why were the aircraft carriers elsewhere? The attack allowed the US to enter a war that the people and government didn't want, but the president did.

vs

Why did only 3000 people die when there are 100,000 people there every day? Why was the Duchess of York rescheduled to be done her interview before the attack? The attack allowed the US to enter a war that the people and the government didn't want, but the president did.

I could go on for hours.


Actually, the initial thread - Iraq War ... Isreal - was a motive suggested to me by a friend who was involved in building armored vehicles for the Canadian government, and was fairly 'in there' with security issues. He said that was the conclusion that a group of security professionals (US and Canadian) came up with. He also said there was so much spin from all directions, there can be little truth.

An example of that came from a cabbie I rode with. His family originally came from Palestine. He told me the photos of Saddam's hideout showed palm trees in bloom, and that palm trees bloom in April & May. I don't know if any of that is true.

And lastly, that cabbie predicted 2 things would happen before the election. The US would announce that they had finally found WMD in Iraq, and they would announce the capture of Osama BL's 2CO. I'm willing to take bets...


From: Kanata | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 31 March 2004 04:54 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by o:
If Gabby is banned then so should half the people here....venomous bile doesn't just come from the pro israel side. What, you guys can dish it out but can't take it?


o, I assume you have discovered by now (by reading the thread on which he was banned) the error you made by allying yourself to a, well, venomous bilious troll, as you say.

We have met Gabby before. He is a troll, but he is also a neo-fascist. He has a fetish for serial killers. Look at his location line: that is a veiled reference to the n-word.

Train your ear, o -- because for sure, Archimedes2K aka Gabby aka dozens of handles in between will be back.

The one thing I can't understand about this manifestation: Gaby Hayes wasn't a serial killer.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 March 2004 05:14 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting what other nick names does Gabby go by?

Hayes was a Cowboy Gunslinger in the movies.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 31 March 2004 05:22 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can't remember how he styled Archimedes2000, but that was the original. He was also Hermann Mudget (misspelled -- he often misspells a historical name by a letter or two -- but google that one and Google will correct the spelling: it's a fascinating story) and Robert Picton (the accused BC pig farmer), and once he called himself Johnathon Pilger (misspelled journalist).

His inability to style Canadian postal codes properly used to give him away, so this time he didn't include one on his profile. It doesn't matter, though: meet him once, and you'll recognize him quickly ever after.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 31 March 2004 05:42 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
I can't remember how he styled Archimedes2000, but that was the original. He was also Hermann Mudget (misspelled -- he often misspells a historical name by a letter or two -- but google that one and Google will correct the spelling: it's a fascinating story) and Robert Picton (the accused BC pig farmer), and once he called himself Johnathon Pilger (misspelled journalist).

His inability to style Canadian postal codes properly used to give him away, so this time he didn't include one on his profile. It doesn't matter, though: meet him once, and you'll recognize him quickly ever after.



That's fascinating. I don't understand why he'd keep coming back. Oh wait: he's a psycho! He seems to have a persecution complex, repeated bannings probably make him feel important. And now back to our regular scheduled programming.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 31 March 2004 05:57 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There's a "Gabby Jay" at the evil Dominion...land of Gem Haddar and the Borg.
Check it out in the land of...
"Principled" Conservatism

[ 31 March 2004: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 31 March 2004 06:14 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, I don't know the history of the poster who went by Gabby, but judging from what I read on this particular post they didn't seem any crazier or emotional then some others I have read here..and as for the racial slur, I missed it...must be a term I haven't heard (not that I collect racial insults or anything)
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 31 March 2004 06:24 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
judging from what I read on this particular post they didn't seem any crazier or emotional then some others

Quoting directly from "How to Win Friends and Influence People", without credit is a violation of copyright. Shame.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 31 March 2004 06:43 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's an important lesson for all the kiddies out there. If you think everyone around you is crazy, when in fact they are being quite reasonable (going about their daily routines, actually providing citations for statements, creating arguments that make logical sense and don't distort history), then they are not the crazy ones.

I know, I know. Deaf ears and all that.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 March 2004 06:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's a big world out there "o". Perhaps you will learn something about they way people think here, if you check out threads other than those with the word Israel in them.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 31 March 2004 07:01 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry Cueball, Israel is my issue...you know the whole having a life, making money thing kinda keeps me from living on this board, unlike some people....*cough*..you..*cough*.. But it is amusing seeing how people on both sides of the political spectrum will only accept facts that support their arguments and disregard anything that contradicts their views. I am not innocent of this..I still think most of you are full of it , but I am willing to accept any reasonable arguments.


Let me start a new argument..What happens if Israel does everything you guys want..pulls back the 67 borders and a Palestinian state is born. Now what happens if that new state becomes just like all the others in the region..( with the exception being Israel of course) No freedom of press, jailing or murder of dissidents, abuse of woman and gays..a religous theocracy..whats the next move for the left if all thiis unfolds..and don't say it can't happen, because things like this are already going on under the PA.


From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 31 March 2004 07:11 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The most likely thing to happen would be that all the strawmen in this postulated Palestinian State would spontaneously combust after drinking one too many glasses of chalibi...
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 31 March 2004 07:15 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
..whats the next move for the left if all thiis unfolds..

I can't speak for everyone, but I plan to sit around not working and living off right-wingers' taxes with my thumb up my nose, drooling.

....*gaaaaah*


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 31 March 2004 07:17 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Let me start a new argument..What happens if Israel does everything you guys want...

You mean to create the one democratic state for Arabs and Jews to live together as equals in Palestine?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 31 March 2004 07:24 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What do you mean Alquabong..that the Palestinians will let the settlements stay in the west bank and gazza?
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 March 2004 07:47 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why dont you start that argument on another thread as opposed to taking cheap pots shots, and then not backing them up with anything substantial, other than your ideas. I don't think I've ever seen you qoute a source ever.

quote:
Sorry Cueball, Israel is my issue...you know the whole having a life, making money thing kinda keeps me from living on this board, unlike some people....*cough*..you..*cough*..

And then of course we have the great double standard issue. Those who critcize Israel who post a lot on the issue are being unfair (or worse) while those who support Israel actions are... are what? What are they "o?" Exhibiting some kind of obsessive paranoia complex, perhaps?

No thats not fair, I take that back. Lets just say you should open your mind a little.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 31 March 2004 07:58 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't quote because I don't have the patience to look up a bunch of facts which won't sway 9 out of ten people here.And if I need footnotes to back up the claims that most Arab countries repress their woman and homosexuals, then whats the point..its common knowledge....my days of footnoting ended the day I left university . Actually, I am signing out on this thread...too far from the original post....But i am sure some big bad right winger will start another one, sending all of you guys into a foaming frenzy!!! ta ta
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 31 March 2004 08:05 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Too long!

The discussion can be continued in this thread, though.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca