War crimes charges filed against General Franks

[Justin]

Wow. Let me try one more time, Oh Petulant one.

"Well that's my opinion, you can take it or leave as you please. Frankly I don't give a damm. The people I intended this message for have no doubt recieved it."

[Axis Kast]

Ad-Hominem.

Actually, I think his analysis of Vympel’s outlook – and thus by extension the jist of his arguments – hits the nail on the head. When you get down to the core of it, Vympel’s been arguing that nothing but absolute, physical proof can ever justify movement on the geopolitical level. That’s willful ignorance of the value of forewarning and the historic role of basic speculation in political maneuvering.

Not to mention that Vympel uses continuously the rules of formal logic to attempt and win debates on geopolitics, a beast that is at best only half reliant on pure fact. His little logical connections might work when he’s pissing over Star Destroyers with Mike Wong. They certainly don’t hold water when we’re in the world of intelligence communities and foreign policy. The entire board seems to have too “soft” a mentality to fully appreciate the hard, vicious center of foreign policy. That certainly colors objective assessment of any and all issues about which we speak. It has for instance led people to go the route of Napoleon - wherein they justify each and every attack by Saddam and al-Qaeda out of embaressment for the criticism leveled at their own country, and to the route of Shirtless, where we're actively telling ourselves that any meeting between Saddam and al-Qaeda was probably mundane and harmless. The first is sad and the second is wrong. We know this. Some people here just can't bear to admit it.

Therefore, you invaded, with international blessing, Afeghanistan, where the confessed culprits had their shelter, under the protection of the talibans. Being at war doesn't give you a free-for-all card. the big reason given to invade Iraq was the alleged WMD. Apparently, they don't exist [look for burden of proof].

Again, time will tell. I seem to recall a mass movement against the invasion of Afghanistan based on “evidence against Bin Laden.” Not that we needed any after 1998, mind you.

Erm...where are those WMDs we were promised?

Again: time.

But that’s another argument I’ve been wanting to make. Bush tagged Saddam as a threat long ago. There were of course many roads to achieving régime-change. And in the end, despite the public egg throwing, that’s exactly what we got. Now the plan may have been bungled both pre-game and during execution. That doesn’t mean that Bush didn’t achieve the ultimate objective of sitting in Iraq and preempting Hussein from any further gambits whatsoever. Time will tell with the WMD.

[Vympel]

Actually, I think his analysis of Vympel’s outlook – and thus by extension the jist of his arguments – hits the nail on the head. When you get down to the core of it, Vympel’s been arguing that nothing but absolute, physical proof can ever justify movement on the geopolitical level. That’s willful ignorance of the value of forewarning and the historic role of basic speculation in political maneuvering.

In the case where 'movement'='organized murder' you're damn fucking right that's my position- instead of 'absolute, physical proof' you could actually put 'solid evidence', that would be much more to my liking. But then again, you were always fond of false dilemmas.

Not to mention that Vympel uses continuously the rules of formal logic to attempt and win debates on geopolitics, a beast that is at best only half reliant on pure fact. His little logical connections might work when he’s pissing over Star Destroyers with Mike Wong. They certainly don’t hold water when we’re in the world of intelligence communities and foreign policy.

Concession Accepted. You just admitted your arguments are illogical- i.e. they do not follow from their premises.

You really are incredibly stupid- you think that the need for a conclusion to follow from it's premise applies to sci-fi debating, but not to issues of national security? What kind of dumbfuck comes out and says something that stupid? I mean fuck, if you weren't so verbose, I'd quote you in my sig.

[Vympel]

Wow. Let me try one more time, Oh Petulant one.

"Well that's my opinion, you can take it or leave as you please. Frankly I don't give a damm. The people I intended this message for have no doubt recieved it."

In case you didn't notice, retard, on a discussion board your opinions aren't immune from criticism.

Go take your shit-flinging someplace else.

[Vympel]

Axis, forget it. Vympel is a fanatic. You cannot argue with a fanatic. He is not going to change his mind or concede that you are right no matter what.

Actually, from what I read below, the fanaticsm is clearly imbued in you- Orlik has already debunked your bullshit, but I think I'll take on the ad-hominems.

He's another appeaser. Another Chamberlain. He wouldn't admit you were right if a city in Australia or America went up in nuclear flames and Saddam got on TV and bragged that he was responsible. He would however blame the US. Vympel, deep down I believe that you are craven. You have stated before in your posts (and no, I'm not going to quote you, you know what you wrote, Mr. "I want confirmation") that no matter what, you would not act, you would only react. In other words, you would wait until you got shot before you pulled your weapon. Sorry, but we Americans found out the hard way on September 11, a date that will live in infamy, that you cannot do that. Sometimes you have to act and pray that you made the best desicion you can with the facts you have.

Funny how you make ridiculous comparisons to WW2, but then use Nazi Germany's defunct Nuremberg defense. Ooooh the irony.

Who said anything about appeasement? Who said Iraq should be left to its own devices? Who said Iraq should be left to demand concessions, like Nazi Germany did? You're a fucking retard= Iraq had been under the eagle eye for 12 years, under sanctions, and was totally toothless.

[weemadando]

Not to mention that Vympel uses continuously the rules of formal logic to attempt and win debates on geopolitics, a beast that is at best only half reliant on pure fact. His little logical connections might work when he’s pissing over Star Destroyers with Mike Wong. They certainly don’t hold water when we’re in the world of intelligence communities and foreign policy.

Wow, that really is stupid. To point out how stupid I will now quote Dr Zoidberg:

"Help me friends, I've been outwitted by a hamster . . . again."

[Axis Kast]

In the case where 'movement'='organized murder' you're damn fucking right that's my position- instead of 'absolute, physical proof' you could actually put 'solid evidence', that would be much more to my liking. But then again, you were always fond of false dilemmas.

Your position is flawed. You fail to take into account the fact that others don’t always make moral considerations that might somehow risk their own countrymen.

As for “solid evidence?” It’s something we’ve got to have people on the ground to find. And more people with better coverage and access than UNSCOM. Or hadn’t you noticed Saddam’s “one step forward, two steps back” policy on cooperation?

Concession Accepted. You just admitted your arguments are illogical- i.e. they do not follow from their premises.

You really are incredibly stupid- you think that the need for a conclusion to follow from it's premise applies to sci-fi debating, but not to issues of national security? What kind of dumbfuck comes out and says something that stupid? I mean fuck, if you weren't so verbose, I'd quote you in my sig.

No. My arguments take into account the failure of logic in certain situations. As I’ve said before, solid evidence isn’t always found in abundance. We weren’t necessarily going to find WMD unless they were deployed or more rigorous inspections put in place. And I’ve no faith in UNMOVIC to successfully carry out the later option.

Issues of national security are far different from issues of Star Wars, Vympel. The same structure of debate and consideration is inapplicable. You refuse consistently to see anything but what you want to see.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

I believe what Axis Kast is trying to say here, is that geopolitics don't always operate on a logical rational basis.Unlike a GOOD debait.
Cultural, and philosophical outlooks can make the people operate highly illogicaly, but VERY predictably.(Islamofacist, KKK, You name them) Once you understand the illogical behaviour paterns of your subject, predicting illogical behaviour is easy, but not LOGICAL.
Crazy,stupid,emotional,irrational, HUMAN behaviour is what this world is realy all about.
Even if your debait is won, you can still be WRONG in the real world. Logicaly what you said was true, and "proveable."
If only the people involved you were talking about were acting rationaly.
But it was wrong in it's predictive ability.

Logic and truth, (when dealing with human choices,)are not always the same. Crazy as it sounds.
And don't think that just because you won a debait you are right. It means you were a better debaiter, and had more facts to support your case AVAILABLE TO YOU. I have seen people take a side in a debait, and win, and turn around next week, and win the debait from the opposite point! You won the debait from both sides, does that mean you changed what was true by the power of your debait? No, it means you won the debait once when wrong.

People here keep asking for proof of things in Iraq , that they will maybe never get. If hidden well enough, and no on who knows lived through the war precisely where hidden, the WMDs may never be found. That doesn't mean there never were any, just we didn't find any.

I can already hear the howling. "he's arguing about evidence he can't produce, so he loses this debait."
Maybe so, and I will concede.(this debait, NOT the truth)


Our president isn't in a debate. He's THE man in the hot seat. The outcome of a wrong decision isn't the loss of a debait. It is the loss of life(s). As such, this game is not played by the rules of debait. Get that shit right out of your heads boys and girls, NO ONE at that level pf geopolitics plays it by the rules of a formal debait.

Note,this is not a TRIAL in a court of law, either.
World class power politics has a "logic" all it's own.

[MKSheppard]

Erm...where are those WMDs we were promised?

Who gives a fuck? We cleaned up a mess that we
left behind in 1991, showed american military prowess
and kicked some ass...IOW: Mission Accomplished

[Axis Kast]

*snip*

Amen.

[Vympel]

I believe what Axis Kast is trying to say here, is that geopolitics don't always operate on a logical rational basis.Unlike a GOOD debait.

And you're arguing that decisions made on illogical grounds are somehow acceptable?

Cultural, and philosophical outlooks can make the people operate highly illogicaly, but VERY predictably.(Islamofacist, KKK, You name them) Once you understand the illogical behaviour paterns of your subject, predicting illogical behaviour is easy, but not LOGICAL.

I'm sorry, I think you've confused logic with Star Trek's Mr Spock notion of logic.

Logic is simply a system to ensure that your conclusions follow from your premises. That's all. It doesn't eschew irrationality. It has nothing to say on irrationality.

Crazy,stupid,emotional,irrational, HUMAN behaviour is what this world is realy all about.

And you still seem to think that Mr Spock is a paragon of logic.

Even if your debait is won, you can still be WRONG in the real world. Logicaly what you said was true, and "proveable."

That's true, the most logical conclusion is not necessarily the right one. Is it probably the right one? Yes.

If only the people involved you were talking about were acting rationaly. But it was wrong in it's predictive ability.

Logic does not stop working when applied to irrational people= it is simply a system for ensuring your conclusion follows from it's premise. Your criticism has very little, if anything, to do with this debate. There has been not one question centering on 'irrational people' in this entire debate.

Logic and truth, (when dealing with human choices,)are not always the same. Crazy as it sounds.

It doesn't sound crazy at all.

And don't think that just because you won a debait you are right. It means you were a better debaiter, and had more facts to support your case AVAILABLE TO YOU. I have seen people take a side in a debait, and win, and turn around next week, and win the debait from the opposite point! You won the debait from both sides, does that mean you changed what was true by the power of your debait? No, it means you won the debait once when wrong.

I don't debate for the sake of it. I debate because I have convictions. If I think I'm wrong, I won't debate the subject, or I'll quickly and hastily concede.

People here keep asking for proof of things in Iraq , that they will maybe never get. If hidden well enough, and no on who knows lived through the war precisely where hidden, the WMDs may never be found. That doesn't mean there never were any, just we didn't find any.

I can already hear the howling. "he's arguing about evidence he can't produce, so he loses this debait."
Maybe so, and I will concede.(this debait, NOT the truth)

In that particular debate, they are one and the same. We're not talking about the existence of God here= where it's already perfectly reasonable to conclude that he doesn't exist. We're talking about verifiable, physical, testable evidence. If it is not found, and no explanation can be advanced as to where it went, then it was not there. Period.

Our president isn't in a debate. He's THE man in the hot seat. The outcome of a wrong decision isn't the loss of a debait. It is the loss of life(s). As such, this game is not played by the rules of debait. Get that shit right out of your heads boys and girls, NO ONE at that level pf geopolitics plays it by the rules of a formal debait.

Actually, that lives are at stake (others,as well as Americans), is precisely why all decisions should be made for the absolute best reasons possible, not half-assed paranoia. It was half-assed intelligence that saw US intervention against the Soviets in Afghanistan- which created Osama in the first place, and created a breeding ground for terrorists to attack America. It also gave the Soviets military experience that they used to improve their weapons systems- if we're gonna talk from a purely geopolitical perspective.

Note,this is not a TRIAL in a court of law, either.
World class power politics has a "logic" all it's own.

I don't follow the reasoning whereby the rules of debate and the rules of the courtroom (where one man is being tried) should not be as stringent as those that apply to decisions governing the lives of millions of people.

[Axis Kast]

Actually, that lives are at stake (others,as well as Americans), is precisely why all decisions should be made for the absolute best reasons possible, not half-assed paranoia. It was half-assed intelligence that saw US intervention against the Soviets in Afghanistan- which created Osama in the first place, and created a breeding ground for terrorists to attack America. It also gave the Soviets military experience that they used to improve their weapons systems- if we're gonna talk from a purely geopolitical perspective.

Oh, yeah, the Soviets were certainly the winners in Afghanistan.

Your ignorance of the social and economic dislocation wrought by the Soviet intervention is absolute, Vympel. Or hadn’t you realized that the failure of that war lead in large part to Gorbachev’s revolutionary reforms? All war produces upgrades in weapons systems. Even the victor often reviews his own fighting technique. It’s a universal result of combat. That by no means indicates that the Soviets came out the better for it however. If we’re going to make the “tit for tat” argument, Moscow was shortchanged in the extreme.

Osama bin Laden was Saudi. A vast majority of those involved in the original war against the Soviets never became al-Qaeda.

[Vympel]

Oh, yeah, the Soviets were certainly the winners in Afghanistan.

Irrelevant. What did the US gain from the exercise?

Your ignorance of the social and economic dislocation wrought by the Soviet intervention is absolute, Vympel. Or hadn’t you realized that the failure of that war lead in large part to Gorbachev’s revolutionary reforms?

Got a source for that claim, or were you just hoping to glide it past?

All war produces upgrades in weapons systems. Even the victor often reviews his own fighting technique. It’s a universal result of combat. That by no means indicates that the Soviets came out the better for it however. If we’re going to make the “tit for tat” argument, Moscow was shortchanged in the extreme.

Osama bin Laden was Saudi. A vast majority of those involved in the original war against the Soviets never became al-Qaeda.

Sorry, but the core of Al-Qaeda was formed in the war with the Soviets. America created a breeding ground for terrorists- I'd say America got short-changed more than the Russians ever did.

[BoredShirtless]

Bullshit. There's the right, people in between the right and left, and the left. Even without allocating population statistics, it's clear the opinion of the right is NOT shared by most of the United States.

Most people in the United States of America now retroactively support the decision to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime on the basis that he represented a meaningful threat to the nation security of the United States of America.

And it follows that if you supported the war against Iraq, you're right wing? I listen to AC/DC, does that make heavy metal my preferred music?

Also noted was your pathetic "educated speculation" regarding the boards opinion of George Bush. 99% was laughably inaccurate, and discredits your analytical abilities. If you can't even get close to analysing this board with a repository of over 500,000 articles to draw from, why should I accept your other conclusions?

What do you mean?

Just think about the horrible idiocy of maintaining a position based on the following statement: “Just because Hussein spoke to and communicated with al-Qaeda doesn’t mean we should be worried that it was a bad thing.”

Red herring, neither one of us made or implied this statement.

In the world of intelligence-gathering and defense analysis, Saddam’s contact – even through intermediaries – with any agent of al-Qaeda is absolutely dangerous.

No, by itself contact is very alarming. It will only become dangerous if the reason for the meeting is shown to support danger.

This isn't a frilious matter: you're deciding whether you should go to fucking WAR. For such a mammoth commitment, you'd need to be absoultely fucking sure the meeting was to establish a "working relationship" or you'll lose allies, make enemies at your flank, and create more dangerous situations which you'll later have to defuse.

If I had reports that Iraq was meeting with Al-Qaeda, I would try very hard to find out what the meetings where about, and hold off any conclusions until then. There are lots of reasons why they could have been meeting: I wouldn't declare a "working relationship" between the two based on a fucking "meeting". I wouldn't do that because I am a human being and a rational person, who understands that making a decision based on wrong conclusions could cause unnecessary death. So I will step very carefully and with the proper respect such a matter deserves.

Naturally in the above, I suspended disbelief. In real life, everyone knows Osama didn't get along with Saddam [proof: tape where Osama rallied the Iraqi people to fight, but called Saddam an "infidel"]. Everyone knows their ideologies were different, the base of their mutual hatred. Everyone but you, Axis, knows there was no working relationship. If the US couldn't find that link before the war, sure as shit it doesn't exist.

Unnecessary deaths in Iraq are desirable as compared to unnecessary deaths in the United States

You assumed I only meant Iraqi deaths? Those were Americans killed on September the 11th.

Assuming that we could not gain further knowledge of the totality of Hussein’s dealings with al-Qaeda other than the initial fact that he did send officers to the Sudan with orders to bring back a representative? I think it would be a great danger not to move toward armed hostilities.

You're fucking sick, armed hostilities over a meeting you know nothing about.

Osama might not have “gotten along” with Saddam, but there’s no certainty that Iraqi resources weren’t trickling down into the hands of al-Qaeda sympathizers. There’s no certainty that in his final hours, Saddam didn’t seek a devil’s compact with Osama Bin Laden.

If you have proof of a "trickle down" or "final compact", show it. As it is these two theories are based on fear, nothing more.

Why should I believe you? Give me one reason why I should believe your theory?

What seems more likely to you? That Saddam summoned a representative of al-Qaeda all the way from Sudan to deliver a blatantly offensive message during a period while he was under surveillance, or that Saddam summoned a representative of al-Qaeda all the way from Sudan to discuss the possibility of a working relationship in case hostilities with the United States should ever arise?

I would hold off any conclusions until I had more information. There are simply too many viable reasons why Iraq and Al-Qaeda could have met in 1998.

A meeting doesn't pose a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to the security of your country. They meet, you attack? When you later learn Iraq told Al-Qaeda not to base operations from Iraqi soil, your reaction?

Saddam's "ties to terror"? You've FAILED to prove there are any ties you lying sack of shit. I haven't appraised something which I'm arguing doesn't exist, I've been arguing against the very idea of a "working tie". If you convince me of that tie, only then can I appraise it. Putting words into my mouth like a little sneak thief, you broken record of a paranoid fuck.

Need I say it again? Patterns of Global Terrorism, 2001. Do a fucking Internet search.

Ok:

1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2727471.stm
" There are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network, according to an official British intelligence report seen by BBC News. "

2. http://www.futurenet.org/iraq/morelinkalqaeda.htm
"Asked by members of the British Parliament on January 21, 2003 if there is any link between Iraq and al Qaeda or terrorist groups in Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair, the Bush administration’s closest ally, said simply, “No.” "

3. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb20 ... -f14.shtml

I could really go on and on, there are COUNTLESS articles I could cite. All post-date your "Patterns of Global Terrorism, 2001".

You’ve repeatedly insisted that Saddam’s ties with al-Qaeda were in your opinion nothing about which to worry.

No, I've repeatedly insisted there are no ties. Learn to read jack off.

In the intelligence community – in case you hadn’t noticed -, there’s such a thing as speculation when all the facts simply aren’t there. Unlike you, I don’t subscribe to the “CIA is omnipotent” theory that says they’ll find whatever’s out there 100% of the time.

We agreed with "educated speculations", not "speculations". There's a difference. In one, you speculate without any base to evidence. In another, you have incomplete evidence. In the space of a post you've lowerd your standards from"educated speculations" to just simple "speculations". Sorry but the Intelligence community doesn't accept speculations. Politicians however do. And that's one of the reasons why they're about as trustworthy as used car salesmen.

99% of people on stardestroyer.net believe Bush is a war mongering idiot? I don't believe you. So I'll open a poll to find out.

A majority of those on SD.net believe Bush has taken us down the wrong road in terms of Iraq. There are a higher percentage of leftists here than on any other forum I’ve frequented.

What other forums do you frequent?

Isn't the US State Department headed by Colin Powell, a man notorious for peddling forged documents to the UN Security Council? Why should I believe this man, or his department? Neither is credible when it comes to Iraq.

Your speculations are NOT credible. My outlooks haven't been defined in this debate Axis you retard, so I find it amusing you claim you know what they are. As for the TIME Magazine article, refer to Vympel for reasons why it's "inadmissible".

My speculations are fully credible to most of the American public at this point in time. Not to mention the big whigs in Washington, D.C.

Bullshit. The origin of your speculations come from the far right, which tells me they are not credible with most of the American public.

Colin Powell: Is this man credible?

I've already provided you an alternate reason shit for brains. Until you acknowledge it, why give another? Or do reasons which don't amount to "let's kill the infidels!" not register?

No. Reasons like, “He probably wanted to give al-Qaeda a warning,” or, “What, Saddam can’t invite people over?” strike me as utterly stupid.

Uh huh, all Islamic entities get along smashingly with one another. Heck they're so close whenever Saddam wanted to contact the PLO he just whispered in his bed.

Strawman. Providing safe travel through Iraq and a working relationship are two COMPLETELY different types of "cooperation", you redirecting piece of shit.

Providing safe travel through Iraq – especially if, as you said, Saddam can still afford to nurse hatred of Bin Laden – is merely additional evidence of Iraq’s desire to establish a two-way relationship.

Not evidence, that's called a leap in logic.

Not to mention that open, candid communication is in effect a “working relationship” of at the very least limited intelligence-sharing.

Bullshit it is. Show it, no way do I accept your theories without supporting evidence.

What's his reasons but? Why does he hate you guys so much?

Osama Bin Laden wants power. He desires a theocratic Islamofascist government unobtainable without first removing the “pillar of the West.” And that’s not so much rooted in absolute religion as it is blind fanaticism based on personal ambitions.

Or maybe you've got it wrong, and he just wants you guys to get the fuck out of the Middle East?

Learn to read jack off, that's your conclusion.

You did link our problems in the Middle East to Israel and Palestine, did you not? Bin Laden is one of those problems, is he not?

But you linked Osama to the Israel-Palestine problem, I did not.

[Axis Kast]

Also noted was your pathetic "educated speculation" regarding the boards opinion of George Bush. 99% was laughably inaccurate, and discredits your analytical abilities. If you can't even get close to analysing this board with a repository of over 500,000 articles to draw from, why should I accept your other conclusions?

You honestly believe that the clear majority of this board supports the War in Iraq?

No, by itself contact is very alarming. It will only become dangerous if the reason for the meeting is shown to support danger.

This isn't a frilious matter: you're deciding whether you should go to fucking WAR. For such a mammoth commitment, you'd need to be absoultely fucking sure the meeting was to establish a "working relationship" or you'll lose allies, make enemies at your flank, and create more dangerous situations which you'll later have to defuse.

In my book, alarming contact between al-Qaeda and Iraq is dangerous. Where the fuck do you come up with wanting to give them all this wiggle room?

You're fucking sick, armed hostilities over a meeting you know nothing about.

The fact that al-Qaeda moved into Iraq for discussions under any protection at all is a warning sign. The fact that Hussein not only sent a personal message but summoned a representative directly is another. Where do you miss the part where he sends an ultimatum and goes on a police sweep instead of inviting al-Qaeda over for tea?

I could really go on and on, there are COUNTLESS articles I could cite. All post-date your "Patterns of Global Terrorism, 2001".

There’s a clear difference between active links and a trick-down effect. Not to mention that the reported communication came to light after these assurances were each made.

What other forums do you frequent?

SB.net, The Frontiers, and Stuart Slade’s board. Not to mention MILITARY HISTORY.

Bullshit. The origin of your speculations come from the far right, which tells me they are not credible with most of the American public.

Colin Powell: Is this man credible?

I daresay most Americans agree with my position.

Bullshit it is. Show it, no way do I accept your theories without supporting evidence.

That you honestly believe Saddam’s intentions could be benign is beyond me.

Or maybe you've got it wrong, and he just wants you guys to get the fuck out of the Middle East?

When he calls for a Holy War against all Westerners, Norwegians, and Jews?

But you linked Osama to the Israel-Palestine problem, I did not.

No. I debunked that theory.

[BoredShirtless]

You honestly believe that the clear majority of this board supports the War in Iraq?

Your assertion was 99% of people think Bush is a war mongering idiot. Stop fucking around and concede your estimate was wrong. It may seem like a little issue, but it subtly proves some or all of the following:

1. You're a terrible analyser of information. You've been here long enough to see we've had a huge number of threads were people have been arguing against and for the war.

2. You lie to yourself by not "seeing" things which you don't want to see. If you don't "see" supporters of Bush here because it helps your argument in some way to play the "victim against a horde of anti-war peaceniks", consider you may also not be "seeing" things as they are in the real world too.

3. You're too emotional, you knew 99% was bullshit but thought that emotion has a place in an online debate. It doesn't.

No, by itself contact is very alarming. It will only become dangerous if the reason for the meeting is shown to support danger.

This isn't a frilious matter: you're deciding whether you should go to fucking WAR. For such a mammoth commitment, you'd need to be absoultely fucking sure the meeting was to establish a "working relationship" or you'll lose allies, make enemies at your flank, and create more dangerous situations which you'll later have to defuse.

In my book, alarming contact between al-Qaeda and Iraq is dangerous. Where the fuck do you come up with wanting to give them all this wiggle room?

Wiggle room for what, to form a diabolical plan to attack the leader of the free world? You don't have intel on WHY they're meeting, remember? Don't you see, attacking something without an acceptable reason to the rest of the world will just spawn more hate, terrorism, and problems? You can't kill everyone, so you better learn how to be diplomatic, patient and fair or you'll never know peace.

You're fucking sick, armed hostilities over a meeting you know nothing about.

The fact that al-Qaeda moved into Iraq for discussions under any protection at all is a warning sign.

Appeal to Fear fallacy. It's standard procedure by all countries that when a foreign entity is traveling through your country, you ensure safe travel.

The fact that Hussein not only sent a personal message but summoned a representative directly is another. Where do you miss the part where he sends an ultimatum and goes on a police sweep instead of inviting al-Qaeda over for tea?

Source? Got no idea what you're babbling about.

I could really go on and on, there are COUNTLESS articles I could cite. All post-date your "Patterns of Global Terrorism, 2001".

There’s a clear difference between active links and a trick-down effect. Not to mention that the reported communication came to light after these assurances were each made.

You were waving about "Patterns of Global Terrorism, 2001" to show ties existed, so concede, stop fucking dancing ok? This is getting really boring.

Trickle-down effect huh. Proof? Save time and don't offer an assessment based on speculation, you must have something in the real world or I'm not interested.

What other forums do you frequent?

SB.net, The Frontiers, and Stuart Slade’s board. Not to mention MILITARY HISTORY.

Links?

Bullshit. The origin of your speculations come from the far right, which tells me they are not credible with most of the American public.

Colin Powell: Is this man credible?

I daresay most Americans agree with my position.

Yeah right. And answer my question please: Is Colin Powell credible?

Bullshit it is. Show it, no way do I accept your theories without supporting evidence.

That you honestly believe Saddam’s intentions could be benign is beyond me.

Save your pity for yourself, when rational thinking is also beyond you it's time for some psychiatric assistance.

Or maybe you've got it wrong, and he just wants you guys to get the fuck out of the Middle East?

When he calls for a Holy War against all Westerners, Norwegians, and Jews?

Damn that imperialist mindset which got you into this vicious circle huh? Sucks to be you.

But you linked Osama to the Israel-Palestine problem, I did not.

No. I debunked that theory.

Debunking your own theories eh, that's nice.

[Axis Kast]

Dammit! My post got eaten! And that's what I'm going to do, too, before I have to go back to this ...