War crimes charges filed against General Franks

[Axis Kast]

A working relationship was found between Iraq and Al-Qaeda? Source please.

Reports began appearing on most media channels two or so weeks ago. American intelligence services traced attempts by Iraqi agents to “import” an al-Qaeda representative to Baghdad. That implies a desire for open lines of communication. According to “Patterns of Global Terrorism, 2001,” by the American State Department, Iraq also stepped up support for HAMAS – which, as we now know, has recently sought to forge official connections with the Afghan remnants of Bin Laden’s organization.

As for your source? CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/ ... index.html

Source?

TIME Magazine. Latest issue.

Wrong. Terroists flew planes into your buildings. From any point of view (not just yours), clearly that's a bad thing, and it must be noted that if it wasn't for the reasons to dislike you you so freely admitted you gave them, they wouldn't have any reason to do it.

Therefore you DID do the wrong thing, even from your point of view. Seems like you're failing to credit Arabs with the following: the ability to remember past events. This is not a race, but a species trait.

Yours is the fallacy of fault by action. “Clearly, the fact that September 11th occurred in the first place is evidence of guilt on your part.” Bull and shit. Our troops were deployed in Saudi Arabia as a deterrent to Saddam Hussein. We are by no means an occupying power. Bin Laden has made a power play contingent on false piety and propagandic encouragement to “oust the infidels.” That by no means makes any of those specific grievances legitimate.

If you’re going to assign blame, try going global. The real problems in the Middle East stem from corrupt government that became too powerful too quickly via oil money. Unable to resist corruption, they maintain near-feudal rule over millions of otherwise disenfranchised people whose entire mentality mirrors that of a rape victim. And trust me: America doesn’t stand alone in deserving responsibility at all.

[Vympel]

As for your source? CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/ ... index.html

Lol! Those uber-partisans at the Daily Telegraph claim to have found a terror link with Al-Qaeda *and* in the same breath information that indicts France. How *convenient*! And all through traipsing through some bombed out buildings! Amazing! Pull the other one- and just after:

These are the same people who claimed 'secret Iraqi documents' to discredit controversial UK MP George Galloway as some sort of Iraqi patsy. Not a single one of these documents has been seen by any credible source, nor has CNN 'confirmed' it- they are relaying what the Telegraph said.

In addition, you know Galloway is starting legal action against the Telegraph for libel?

"The only evidence led by the Telegraph to support its allegation is a document, signed illegibly by an un-named “head of Iraqi intelligence”, purporting to be a memo to Saddam’s office asking for even more money for me personally."

You are also aware that the Telegraph has not provided these documents for scrutiny, I would hardly call this confirmed. Quite frankly, it smells like the Hitler Diaries to me. Or, more relevantly- an Iraqi order to purchase uranium from Niger

[Vympel]

Uh oh (relating to the Galloway papers, allegedly found in the same manner as the Iraq terror link and France papers)

Mirror (another tabloid) calls the Telegraph papers fakes

Not nearly as confirmed as you would have us believe, Axis.

Until they are scrutinized by people with actual authority, it ain't evidence.

[Axis Kast]

The Sunday Times is quoted in the article as confirming the French issue, Vympel.

That leaves only the Sudanese link. One that's been repeated even by HAMAS and Hizbollah, according to TIME. I find it odd that you refuse to believe it at all considering that you were the first to shout about Saddam having turned to al-Qaeda only out of desperation.

[Vympel]

The Sunday Times is quoted in the article as confirming the French issue, Vympel.

How? By repeating the accusation?

That leaves only the Sudanese link. One that's been repeated even by HAMAS and Hizbollah, according to TIME. I find it odd that you refuse to believe it at all considering that you were the first to shout about Saddam having turned to al-Qaeda only out of desperation.

I question the veracity of these documents, that is all for now. They are completely unverified and unscrutinized, and are naturally surrounded by controversy.

And I have that TIME issue. What page are you referring to? There are many articles on terror in it.

[BoredShirtless]

A working relationship was found between Iraq and Al-Qaeda? Source please.

Reports began appearing on most media channels two or so weeks ago. American intelligence services traced attempts by Iraqi agents to “import” an al-Qaeda representative to Baghdad. That implies a desire for open lines of communication.

A desire to communicate doesn't say anything to what's the reasons for wanting to communicate. And it defintely does not imply a working relationship.

According to “Patterns of Global Terrorism, 2001,” by the American State Department, Iraq also stepped up support for HAMAS – which, as we now know, has recently sought to forge official connections with the Afghan remnants of Bin Laden’s organization.

You've shown no such connection. And by the way:
An offical connection != a working relationship.

I asked for your proof of a working relationship, instead you've tried to prove a communication channel existed. Big deal if one did exist, means absolutely nothing. The twisted copper pair connecting my phone to the telephone jack is a communications channel. It however does not describe the content of my telephone calls.

As for your source? CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/ ... index.html

Thanks Vympel

Source?

TIME Magazine. Latest issue.

Uh huh. What next, "my source is somewhere on Earth". Sorry, but if you want to substantiate your claim, provide a direct link to your source.

Wrong. Terroists flew planes into your buildings. From any point of view (not just yours), clearly that's a bad thing, and it must be noted that if it wasn't for the reasons to dislike you you so freely admitted you gave them, they wouldn't have any reason to do it.

Therefore you DID do the wrong thing, even from your point of view. Seems like you're failing to credit Arabs with the following: the ability to remember past events. This is not a race, but a species trait.

Yours is the fallacy of fault by action. “Clearly, the fact that September 11th occurred in the first place is evidence of guilt on your part.” Bull and shit.

You clearly feel guilty about something, or you wouldn't have wrote the following:

They have reason to dislike us.

Since the guilt is there Axis, the fault is there too.

Our troops were deployed in Saudi Arabia as a deterrent to Saddam Hussein. We are by no means an occupying power. Bin Laden has made a power play contingent on false piety and propagandic encouragement to “oust the infidels.” That by no means makes any of those specific grievances legitimate.

Do you know what those grievances are? If you could list them, and comment on each, it would be really great.

If you’re going to assign blame, try going global. The real problems in the Middle East stem from corrupt government that became too powerful too quickly via oil money. Unable to resist corruption, they maintain near-feudal rule over millions of otherwise disenfranchised people whose entire mentality mirrors that of a rape victim. And trust me: America doesn’t stand alone in deserving responsibility at all.

Never tried blaming the US for everything that's rotten in the Middle East. But the US sure is fucking antagonising the region by getting involved, for example playing favorites over Israel v Palestine. If you play the game, expect to get hurt.

[Axis Kast]

And I have that TIME issue. What page are you referring to? There are many articles on terror in it.

With al-Qaeda? What was he going to do, invite them over from Sudan for cake and cookies? Idiot. When any state officially contacts terrorist groups, it’s probable that they’re trying to establish some kind of communication for “black” purposes. Asshat.

You've shown no such connection. And by the way:
An offical connection != a working relationship.

I asked for your proof of a working relationship, instead you've tried to prove a communication channel existed. Big deal if one did exist, means absolutely nothing. The twisted copper pair connecting my phone to the telephone jack is a communications channel. It however does not describe the content of my telephone calls.

Nice try at evading the question.

I’m arguing that Saddam tried to establish a working relationship – which is really just as bad as having had one. Again, I call upon you to provide an acceptable reason why al-Qaeda operatives might be summoned from Sudan. A channel of open communication alone justifies action.

Uh huh. What next, "my source is somewhere on Earth". Sorry, but if you want to substantiate your claim, provide a direct link to your source.

TIME Magazine. 26 May 2003. Notebook: HAMAS Goes Global. Page 21.

You clearly feel guilty about something, or you wouldn't have wrote the following:

They have reason to dislike us.

Since the guilt is there Axis, the fault is there too.

Fault that was the sole motivator behind September 11th? Not a chance. As has been made very clear in the recent past, al-Qaeda’s is a political platform predicated on false piety.

Do you know what those grievances are? If you could list them, and comment on each, it would be really great.

Specifically, “American troops occupy Saudi Arabia.”

Never tried blaming the US for everything that's rotten in the Middle East. But the US sure is fucking antagonising the region by getting involved, for example playing favorites over Israel v Palestine. If you play the game, expect to get hurt.

Justify the notion that al-Qaeda’s primary concern is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Osama would have attacked with or without a West Bank.

Make a damn argument.

[BoredShirtless]

A desire to communicate doesn't say anything to what's the reasons for wanting to communicate. And it defintely does not imply a working relationship.

With al-Qaeda? What was he going to do, invite them over from Sudan for cake and cookies? Idiot. When any state officially contacts terrorist groups, it’s probable that they’re trying to establish some kind of communication for “black” purposes. Asshat.

And here's another reason Iraq may have had to open communications with Al-Quada: You're bringing heat on us. We don't appreciate that so tone down your activities.


You see? The probability of meeting to discuss "black purposes" is not one, so you've proven nothing. You can't form a proof using opinions which aren't based on concrete evidence, no one will accept that. Especially coming from you, a known extremist with uncommon thinking.

You've shown no such connection. And by the way:
An offical connection != a working relationship.

I asked for your proof of a working relationship, instead you've tried to prove a communication channel existed. Big deal if one did exist, means absolutely nothing. The twisted copper pair connecting my phone to the telephone jack is a communications channel. It however does not describe the content of my telephone calls.

Nice try at evading the question.

Which question did I evade Axis?

I’m arguing that Saddam tried to establish a working relationship – which is really just as bad as having had one.

Let's have a look at your argument:
1. It's based on unverified documents found by so called journalists. When your very own Secretary of State peddles forged documents, excuse me while I wait until these documents have been verified by an independent body. This could be a long wait: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 569#518569
2. You make a leap in logic from "a desire to communicate" to "a working relationship".

Again, I call upon you to provide an acceptable reason why al-Qaeda operatives might be summoned from Sudan.

Provided, see above.

A channel of open communication alone justifies action.

That's going too far, even for an extreme right winger. Are you on medication?

Uh huh. What next, "my source is somewhere on Earth". Sorry, but if you want to substantiate your claim, provide a direct link to your source.

TIME Magazine. 26 May 2003. Notebook: HAMAS Goes Global. Page 21.

Read between the lines you stupid fuck, give me a link.

You clearly feel guilty about something, or you wouldn't have wrote the following:

They have reason to dislike us.

Since the guilt is there Axis, the fault is there too.

Fault that was the sole motivator behind September 11th? Not a chance.

So you're now implying that there was fault? Don't do this to me Axis, I'll stop this argument if you pull this backpedaling shit on me again.

As has been made very clear in the recent past, al-Qaeda’s is a political platform predicated on false piety.

False piety? Explain.

Do you know what those grievances are? If you could list them, and comment on each, it would be really great.

Specifically, “American troops occupy Saudi Arabia.”

I figured you wouldn't add your thoughts on his grievances, you exhibit typical reactionist thinking: never analyze why something happened, just react.

Never tried blaming the US for everything that's rotten in the Middle East. But the US sure is fucking antagonising the region by getting involved, for example playing favorites over Israel v Palestine. If you play the game, expect to get hurt.

Justify the notion that al-Qaeda’s primary concern is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Osama would have attacked with or without a West Bank.

Your attempt to redirect our debate has not been successful, have a nice day.

Make a damn argument.

No thanks, I'll continue to attack yours.

[Vympel]

TIME Magazine. 26 May 2003. Notebook: HAMAS Goes Global. Page 21.

"Jordanian security officials tell TIME that two Hamas agents recently traveled to Afghanistan to recruit the remnants of al-Qaeda's network to join it's operations in the Arab world."

Don't you love Axis Kast's evidence? He'll evade and evade, and then when he actually posts it, it's a little fart nugget?

This is Kast's logic:

- Iraq supported Palestinian terror groups (alleged)
- Palestinian terror groups= Al-Qaeda (his one item of evidence dating from May 2003, with two Hamas agents going to Afghanistan to recruit)
- Iraq supports Al-Qaeda

[BoredShirtless]

TIME Magazine. 26 May 2003. Notebook: HAMAS Goes Global. Page 21.

"Jordanian security officials tell TIME that two Hamas agents recently traveled to Afghanistan to recruit the remnants of al-Qaeda's network to join it's operations in the Arab world."

Don't you love Axis Kast's evidence? He'll evade and evade, and then when he actually posts it, it's a little fart nugget?

This is Kast's logic:

- Iraq supported Palestinian terror groups (alleged)
- Palestinian terror groups= Al-Qaeda (his one item of evidence dating from May 2003, with two Hamas agents going to Afghanistan to recruit)
- Iraq supports Al-Qaeda

"I pity the fool!"

[Axis Kast]

And here's another reason Iraq may have had to open communications with Al-Quada: You're bringing heat on us. We don't appreciate that so tone down your activities.


You see? The probability of meeting to discuss "black purposes" is not one, so you've proven nothing. You can't form a proof using opinions which aren't based on concrete evidence, no one will accept that. Especially coming from you, a known extremist with uncommon thinking.

Iraq needed to send a pair of agents to Sudan to speak directly to an al-Qaeda representative and then invite him back to Baghdad after the fact for additional consultation? Bullshit.

A known extremist with uncommon thinking? On this board perhaps. My views on Iraq are par for the pro-war course most everywhere else.

You accuse me of creating fact out of opinion? Really – do you think it’s more likely that al-Qaeda came to Baghdad to talk niceties or to discuss the possibility of mutual cooperation and open, candid intelligence-sharing in the near future?

Get it through your fucking head: geopolitics is all about educated speculation.

Which question did I evade Axis?

You’re trying to tell me that the possible link between al-Qaeda and Iraq is no greater than that between your wall and your phone?

Let's have a look at your argument:
1. It's based on unverified documents found by so called journalists. When your very own Secretary of State peddles forged documents, excuse me while I wait until these documents have been verified by an independent body. This could be a long wait: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 569#518569
2. You make a leap in logic from "a desire to communicate" to "a working relationship".

A desire to communicate – with al-Qaeda representatives reportedly in Baghdad – can be interpreted as a desire to open dialogue, which is itself a form of cooperation.

That's going too far, even for an extreme right winger. Are you on medication?

If Iraq and al-Qaeda have enjoyed long-term communication? That qualifies as dangerous on my list.

Read between the lines you stupid fuck, give me a link.

I gave you all I’m going to give you. If you can’t find it on your own armed with all that data, it sure isn’t my fault.

So you're now implying that there was fault? Don't do this to me Axis, I'll stop this argument if you pull this backpedaling shit on me again.

Do you really think that the United States did something to Osama Bin Laden directly that caused September 11th?

False piety? Explain.

Osama Bin Laden uses religion as a means of recruitment and justification.

Your attempt to redirect our debate has not been successful, have a nice day.

Concession accepted. You have been unable to prove that Israel and the West Bank prompted Bin Laden.

"Jordanian security officials tell TIME that two Hamas agents recently traveled to Afghanistan to recruit the remnants of al-Qaeda's network to join it's operations in the Arab world."

Don't you love Axis Kast's evidence? He'll evade and evade, and then when he actually posts it, it's a little fart nugget?

This is Kast's logic:

- Iraq supported Palestinian terror groups (alleged)
- Palestinian terror groups= Al-Qaeda (his one item of evidence dating from May 2003, with two Hamas agents going to Afghanistan to recruit)
- Iraq supports Al-Qaeda

Oh, so when little Vympel can’t stand to be proven wrong, it’s “a little fart nugget.” Typical.

My logic?

Iraq supported Palestinian terrorist groups. That’s out of both the statements of Palestinians themselves as well as consistent reports by the State Department.

Palestinian terrorist groups have links to al-Qaeda. Not only did TIME confirm as much, but there are already reports out of Israel that al-Qaeda links have been uncovered on a personal basis among members of HAMAS and Hizbollah.

Now where does this lead? To people with Iraqi training or support falling into al-Qaeda’s hands and causing even more trouble.

[Vympel]

Oh, so when little Vympel can’t stand to be proven wrong, it’s “a little fart nugget.” Typical.

No, your EVIDENCE is a little fart nugget, you moron. You have a SINGULAR report dating from MAY 2003, and you're backtracking it to be the case so it suits your retarded argument for what, the entire post-Desert Storm period? You're a fucking dumbass.

My logic?

Iraq supported Palestinian terrorist groups. That’s out of both the statements of Palestinians themselves as well as consistent reports by the State Department.

Iraq was known to provide compensation to wounded/killed in the Palestinian uprising, that is common knowledge among all Palestinians. That Iraq provided any official training or support to Palestinian terror groups isn't.

Palestinian terrorist groups have links to al-Qaeda. Not only did TIME confirm as much, but there are already reports out of Israel that al-Qaeda links have been uncovered on a personal basis among members of HAMAS and Hizbollah.

Time reported that Jordan says that two Hamas agents went to Afghanistan to recruit from Al-Qaeda in probably April-May 2003. The rest is strictly your invention.

As for Israeli allegations, I guess you'd also buy into their absurd "WMD went to Syria and were buried Lebanon" claim that the intelligence community collectively rolled their eyes at? Israel's claims actually have to be verified by other intelligence appratus (those being non-partisan and without a vested interest) before they're taken as having any weight.

Now where does this lead? To people with Iraqi training or supportfalling into al-Qaeda’s hands and causing even more trouble.

You remain completely fucking loony. You think your bizarre form of 'guilt by unknowing association' and 'trickle down terrorism' based on a fucking article of TIME dating from AFTER Iraq was defeated actually is a good reason for war.

[Axis Kast]

No, your EVIDENCE is a little fart nugget, you moron. You have a SINGULAR report dating from MAY 2003, and you're backtracking it to be the case so it suits your retarded argument for what, the entire post-Desert Storm period? You're a fucking dumbass.

If they took the trouble to go to Afghanistan to recruit during a period while highly visible, I don’t think it’s too great a stretch of logic at all to say that they, like Saddam, sought open – if not working – relationships to offshoots of Bin Laden’s organization. Not to mention that even without this official action, hundreds if not thousands of Palestinians actively sympathize with and have sometimes joined al-Qaeda.

Iraq was known to provide compensation to wounded/killed in the Palestinian uprising, that is common knowledge among all Palestinians. That Iraq provided any official training or support to Palestinian terror groups isn't.

According to some Palestinians, Iraq sent them weapons. I’m also not fully convinced that Iraqi intelligence didn’t actively seek to prolong the Infitada.

Time reported that Jordan says that two Hamas agents went to Afghanistan to recruit from Al-Qaeda in probably April-May 2003. The rest is strictly your invention.

As for Israeli allegations, I guess you'd also buy into their absurd "WMD went to Syria and were buried Lebanon" claim that the intelligence community collectively rolled their eyes at? Israel's claims actually have to be verified by other intelligence appratus (those being non-partisan and without a vested interest) before they're taken as having any weight.

Strictly my invention? It proves that the groups themselves wished to promulgate actual ties – and were probably doing so up to six months before.

Where did Israeli accusations come into this argument?

You remain completely fucking loony. You think your bizarre form of 'guilt by unknowing association' and 'trickle down terrorism' based on a fucking article of TIME dating from AFTER Iraq was defeated actually is a good reason for war.

Ever heard of connect-the-dots, Vympel? Not everything is going to fly up and stare you in the face. There’s a degree of preparation and planning as well as ultimate intention intrinsic to each of these occurrences.

[Vympel]

If they took the trouble to go to Afghanistan to recruit during a period while highly visible, I don’t think it’s too great a stretch of logic at all to say that they, like Saddam, sought open – if not working – relationships to offshoots of Bin Laden’s organization. Not to mention that even without this official action, hundreds if not thousands of Palestinians actively sympathize with and have sometimes joined al-Qaeda.

Th

There's no stretch of logic involved: it does not follow. They'd be highly visible in early 2003 as opposed to any other time? And sympathizing/joining Al-Qaeda is irrelevant. By this logic, why don't we just call all Palestinians terrorists and leave it at that.

According to some Palestinians, Iraq sent them weapons.

What, the Rock Mk3?

I’m also not fully convinced that Iraqi intelligence didn’t actively seek to prolong the Infitada.

You'd have to show evidence that they did.

Strictly my invention? It proves that the groups themselves wished to promulgate actual ties – and were probably doing so up to six months before.

And 6 months before what was Iraq doing? The problem with your theory has always been the Iraq part- you have no evidence of any of your claims, and your 'guilt by association' justification would never fly as a justification, which was why the argument was never made and why the intelligence community would settle for nothing less than a tirect link.

Where did Israeli accusations come into this argument?

Where you brought them up.

Ever heard of connect-the-dots, Vympel? Not everything is going to fly up and stare you in the face. There’s a degree of preparation and planning as well as ultimate intention intrinsic to each of these occurrences.

Fact remains that your theory is not an acceptable justification. Noone in America would've gone to war with Iraq based on a threat to Israel (for obvious reasons), or an unhinged theory based on 'guilt by association'. Which is why the case was never made. You may think it's acceptable for a hyperpower to act as a proxy for one of it's allies instead of vice versa, I do not.

[Axis Kast]

There's no stretch of logic involved: it does not follow. They'd be highly visible in early 2003 as opposed to any other time? And sympathizing/joining Al-Qaeda is irrelevant. By this logic, why don't we just call all Palestinians terrorists and leave it at that.

Of course they’d be more visible after September 11th. We’ve got a fucking magnifying glass on the whole damn region. The Taliban were guests before September 2001. Palestinian movement to Afghanistan might have spurned some attention – from Israel, at best -, but that’s hardly to say it would have been more difficult.

Sympathizing and joining al-Qaeda is irrelevant? Perhaps to you, master of distant criticisms from a country half a world away. Again, you don’t stop to consider that Iraq was linked to terror throughout the Middle East.

What, the Rock Mk3?

Excuse me?

You'd have to show evidence that they did.

Patterns of International Terrorism, 2001.

And 6 months before what was Iraq doing? The problem with your theory has always been the Iraq part- you have no evidence of any of your claims, and your 'guilt by association' justification would never fly as a justification, which was why the argument was never made and why the intelligence community would settle for nothing less than a tirect link.

Did you ever stop to consider that a credible argument only had to be made for something else? The real justification might have been less concrete but just as alarming. After all, we did accuse Iraq of “baddness” on multiple levels.

Fact remains that your theory is not an acceptable justification. Noone in America would've gone to war with Iraq based on a threat to Israel (for obvious reasons), or an unhinged theory based on 'guilt by association'. Which is why the case was never made. You may think it's acceptable for a hyperpower to act as a proxy for one of it's allies instead of vice versa, I do not.

A proxy for Israel? No. In our own best interests to curb al-Qaeda’s ability to get trained recruits? Yes.

[Vympel]

Of course they’d be more visible after September 11th. We’ve got a fucking magnifying glass on the whole damn region. The Taliban were guests before September 2001. Palestinian movement to Afghanistan might have spurned some attention – from Israel, at best -, but that’s hardly to say it would have been more difficult.

On the contrary, I would say early this year would be the *perfect* time to go to Afghanistan- the war in Iraq made sure where all eyes were.

Sympathizing and joining al-Qaeda is irrelevant? Perhaps to you, master of distant criticisms from a country half a world away.

Yes, and your living in South Africa somehow makes you more of an authority? By your bullshit logic, Palestine should be invaded to insittute regime change because some Palestinians choose to go and join Al-Qaeda.

Again, you don’t stop to consider that Iraq was linked to terror throughout the Middle East.

"throughout the middle east?" Was Iraq blowing up fellow Arabs or something?

Excuse me?

You said that Iraq arms the Palestinians. That would work better if you could actually point to what arms were supplied, considering the Palestinains are the most poorly armed insurgent group I can think of off the top of my head.

Patterns of International Terrorism, 2001.

Wow, nice name dropping. Care to post the evidence now?

Did you ever stop to consider that a credible argument only had to be made for something else? The real justification might have been less concrete but just as alarming. After all, we did accuse Iraq of “baddness” on multiple levels.

The primary accusation for the war was Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and will give them to terrorists because it is run by a very bad man (TM). Once the invasion was underway, the emphasis, and rhetoric, changed to the much more feelgood 'liberate Iraq'.

A proxy for Israel? No. In our own best interests to curb al-Qaeda’s ability to get trained recruits? Yes.

And I would say that the privations inflicted on the Iraqi population, the civilian and military casualties (the evil Americans killed my brother!) in invading Iraq would be more likely to jack up al-Qaeda's ability to get trained recruits, rather than curbing them.

[BoredShirtless]

And here's another reason Iraq may have had to open communications with Al-Quada: You're bringing heat on us. We don't appreciate that so tone down your activities.

You see? The probability of meeting to discuss "black purposes" is not one, so you've proven nothing. You can't form a proof using opinions which aren't based on concrete evidence, no one will accept that. Especially coming from you, a known extremist with uncommon thinking.

Iraq needed to send a pair of agents to Sudan to speak directly to an al-Qaeda representative and then invite him back to Baghdad after the fact for additional consultation? Bullshit.

Since the two representatives sent was not Saddam or another from his inner circle, additional consultation back in Iraq would have been necessary, regardless of the reasons for wanting to communicate. Even your own evidence agrees with me http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast ... index.html:

Papers found Saturday by journalists working for the Sunday Telegraph reveal that an al Qaeda envoy met with officials in Baghdad in March 1998, the newspaper reported.

Emphasis mine.

What's the point of your question anyway? It didn't attack the credibility of the alternate reason I gave as to why Iraq and Al-Qaeda would want to meet, in even the slightest way.

I'll assume that's the best you can do in trying to show that there was a "working relationship" between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. You've failed to prove your argument. I did not accept your loony "connect the dots" leaps in logic firstly because you're too extreme for your political views to be taken by themselves, and secondly you're not basing your leaps on valid evidence.

A known extremist with uncommon thinking? On this board perhaps. My views on Iraq are par for the pro-war course most everywhere else.

No, your views are not on par with even those who were pro-war. This board is a pretty good "sample", we have people from all over the world, with many different opinions of the war and life in general which gives a nice average of "what's right, left and extreme". And when you're branded a right wing extremist with uncommon thinking by this board...

You accuse me of creating fact out of opinion? Really – do you think it’s more likely that al-Qaeda came to Baghdad to talk niceties or to discuss the possibility of mutual cooperation and open, candid intelligence-sharing in the near future?

Get it through your fucking head: geopolitics is all about educated speculation.

Right. But "educated speculations" must be related to some sort of valid [i.e. verified] evidence, otherwise they're not "educated". You've based yours on shitty tabloid bullshit from the Telegraph.

Which question did I evade Axis?

You're trying to tell me that the possible link between al-Qaeda and Iraq is no greater than that between your wall and your phone?

Jesus you're as think as shit! The point of the analogy was that a communications link cannot describe the content of a communication.

Let's have a look at your argument:
1. It's based on unverified documents found by so called journalists. When your very own Secretary of State peddles forged documents, excuse me while I wait until these documents have been verified by an independent body. This could be a long wait: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 569#518569
2. You make a leap in logic from "a desire to communicate" to "a working relationship".

A desire to communicate – with al-Qaeda representatives reportedly in Baghdad – can be interpreted as a desire to open dialogue, which is itself a form of cooperation.

Show it you paranoid piece of shit. Show that a desire to open dialogue is a form of cooperation.

That's going too far, even for an extreme right winger. Are you on medication?

If Iraq and al-Qaeda have enjoyed long-term communication? That qualifies as dangerous on my list.

Your list and my toilet paper are easily interchangable.

Read between the lines you stupid fuck, give me a link.

I gave you all I'm going to give you. If you can't find it on your own armed with all that data, it sure isn't my fault.

I think you're suffering from a misguided notion that I'd invest any more time in a debate with you. I. Don't. Think. So.

So you're now implying that there was fault? Don't do this to me Axis, I'll stop this argument if you pull this backpedaling shit on me again.

Do you really think that the United States did something to Osama Bin Laden directly that caused September 11th?

I wouldn't touch this question with a 50 foot barge pole.

False piety? Explain.

Osama Bin Laden uses religion as a means of recruitment and justification.

Justification for what?

Your attempt to redirect our debate has not been successful, have a nice day.

Concession accepted. You have been unable to prove that Israel and the West Bank prompted Bin Laden.

Since I never wrote that premise, I don't have to prove it. Inventing premises then crediting them to your opponent is not an honest debating tactic. But why am I not surprised?

[Axis Kast]

On the contrary, I would say early this year would be the *perfect* time to go to Afghanistan- the war in Iraq made sure where all eyes were.

That’s a matter of opinion that actually holds little water considering that the United States has begun zeroing in on Palestinian groups as an extension of our general War on Terror. Not to mention that al-Qaeda’s now slightly more difficult to find…

Yes, and your living in South Africa somehow makes you more of an authority?

I live in New York, in case you were never aware.

By your bullshit logic, Palestine should be invaded to insittute regime change because some Palestinians choose to go and join Al-Qaeda.

Palestine can be dealt with via other avenues. Iraq was the choice target for invasion.

"throughout the middle east?" Was Iraq blowing up fellow Arabs or something?

Don’t tell me you missed the part where he’s at odds with most of his neighbors and suspected of funding Palestinian terrorism and promulgating ties with al-Qaeda.

You said that Iraq arms the Palestinians. That would work better if you could actually point to what arms were supplied, considering the Palestinains are the most poorly armed insurgent group I can think of off the top of my head.

Guns. Munitions. Training. It doesn’t need to be on a large scale to warrant preventative action. Statements indicating that Saddam is a source of arms were actually made by Palestinian terrorists themselves.

Wow, nice name dropping. Care to post the evidence now?

“In addition, the regime continued to provide training and political encouragement to numerous terrorist groups, although its main focus was on dissident Iraqi activity overseas.”

“Iraq provided bases to several terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO).”

The primary accusation for the war was Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and will give them to terrorists because it is run by a very bad man (TM). Once the invasion was underway, the emphasis, and rhetoric, changed to the much more feelgood 'liberate Iraq'.

Obviously the rhetoric changed. It wasn’t working. That doesn’t mean the statements were false in the first place, Vympel. That’s just wishful thinking on your part.

And I would say that the privations inflicted on the Iraqi population, the civilian and military casualties (the evil Americans killed my brother!) in invading Iraq would be more likely to jack up al-Qaeda's ability to get trained recruits, rather than curbing them.

Between Afghanistan and Iraq, I’d say al-Qaeda will have a great deal of trouble deploying any new recruits effectively.

What's the point of your question anyway? It didn't attack the credibility of the alternate reason I gave as to why Iraq and Al-Qaeda would want to meet, in even the slightest way.

I'll assume that's the best you can do in trying to show that there was a "working relationship" between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. You've failed to prove your argument. I did not accept your loony "connect the dots" leaps in logic firstly because you're too extreme for your political views to be taken by themselves, and secondly you're not basing your leaps on valid evidence.

I’ll say it for a second time: my “political views” are par for the course throughout most of the United States.

You continue to wear rose-colored glasses even in the lion’s den. As an intelligence analysis, what would you have to say about reported meetings between Saddam Hussein’s representatives and those of al-Qaeda? That it’s “just a house call for tea?” Think logically about what such meetings could represent and the real likelihood of their being at all mundane.

No. I said that Saddam sought to promulgate a working relationship and might have enjoyed an active dialogue.

My “loony connect-the-dots argument” is far superior to your optimistic appraisals of Saddam’s ties to terror.

No, your views are not on par with even those who were pro-war. This board is a pretty good "sample", we have people from all over the world, with many different opinions of the war and life in general which gives a nice average of "what's right, left and extreme". And when you're branded a right wing extremist with uncommon thinking by this board...

Bullshit. This board is chock full of rabid leftists – the kind who created a threat wondering whether we should punish people who make up stories about their personal life while on the Internet and 99% of whom believe George Bush to be a warmongering idiot.

Right. But "educated speculations" must be related to some sort of valid [i.e. verified] evidence, otherwise they're not "educated". You've based yours on shitty tabloid bullshit from the Telegraph.

And other sources, including TIME Magazine and the US State Department. My credible speculations carry far more water than your cheerfully optimistic outlooks.

The point of the analogy was that a communications link cannot describe the content of a communication.

Again, cheerfully optimistic shit. WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK SADDAM MEANT TO DO WHEN HE AUTHORIZED AGENTS TO CONTACT AL-QAEDA?

Show that a desire to open dialogue is a form of cooperation.

It’s a form of cooperation to let them travel safely within the fucking country, you asscap.

Justification for what?

Hm. Let’s see. For his terrorism perhaps?

Since I never wrote that premise, I don't have to prove it. Inventing premises then crediting them to your opponent is not an honest debating tactic. But why am I not surprised?

Your argument was that the US had antagonized the region over Israel and Palestine – and that Osama Bin Laden was an outgrowth of that.

[BoredShirtless]

What's the point of your question anyway? It didn't attack the credibility of the alternate reason I gave as to why Iraq and Al-Qaeda would want to meet, in even the slightest way.

I'll assume that's the best you can do in trying to show that there was a "working relationship" between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. You've failed to prove your argument. I did not accept your loony "connect the dots" leaps in logic firstly because you're too extreme for your political views to be taken by themselves, and secondly you're not basing your leaps on valid evidence.

I’ll say it for a second time: my “political views” are par for the course throughout most of the United States.

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.

You continue to wear rose-colored glasses even in the lion’s den.

What do you mean?

As an intelligence analysis, what would you have to say about reported meetings between Saddam Hussein’s representatives and those of al-Qaeda? That it’s “just a house call for tea?” Think logically about what such meetings could represent and the real likelihood of their being at all mundane.

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.

No. I said that Saddam sought to promulgate a working relationship and might have enjoyed an active dialogue.

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

My “loony connect-the-dots argument” is far superior to your optimistic appraisals of Saddam’s ties to terror.

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.

No, your views are not on par with even those who were pro-war. This board is a pretty good "sample", we have people from all over the world, with many different opinions of the war and life in general which gives a nice average of "what's right, left and extreme". And when you're branded a right wing extremist with uncommon thinking by this board...

Bullshit. This board is chock full of rabid leftists – the kind who created a threat wondering whether we should punish people who make up stories about their personal life while on the Internet and 99% of whom believe George Bush to be a warmongering idiot.

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.

Right. But "educated speculations" must be related to some sort of valid [i.e. verified] evidence, otherwise they're not "educated". You've based yours on shitty tabloid bullshit from the Telegraph.

And other sources, including TIME Magazine and the US State Department. My credible speculations carry far more water than your cheerfully optimistic outlooks.

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".

The point of the analogy was that a communications link cannot describe the content of a communication.

Again, cheerfully optimistic shit. WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK SADDAM MEANT TO DO WHEN HE AUTHORIZED AGENTS TO CONTACT AL-QAEDA?

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?

Show that a desire to open dialogue is a form of cooperation.

It’s a form of cooperation to let them travel safely within the fucking country, you asscap.

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

Justification for what?

Hm. Let’s see. For his terrorism perhaps?

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

Since I never wrote that premise, I don't have to prove it. Inventing premises then crediting them to your opponent is not an honest debating tactic. But why am I not surprised?

Your argument was that the US had antagonized the region over Israel and Palestine – and that Osama Bin Laden was an outgrowth of that.

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

[Axis Kast]

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.

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

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 by the logic of the intelligence-gathering community in Washington. 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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

“Inadmissible?” Bullshit. Vympel dismissed my evidence on the basis of the article’s being too short. That’s running away from the facts, you idiot. Nothing more.

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.

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 to mention that open, candid communication is in effect a “working relationship” of at the very least limited intelligence-sharing.

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.

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?

[Justin]

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. 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.
Thats called courage. I think Bush did the best he could with what he had, despite what naysayers and whiners like you think. And if he was really the warmonger you think he is, then we would have reinstated the draft, and gone after everybody else who has pissed us off lately. Take the Korean situation for example. We haven't invaded North Korea. We have insisted the entire time that diplomacy is the answer. We have insisted that China, South Korea, and Russia be involved, even though the North Koreans themselves insist on talking to us alone. In fact, we are slowly pulling out of Korea. The movement is glacier slow right now, but also like a glacier, it is unstoppable. Neither have we gone after Syria or Iran. But don't worry. Bush was isolationist before 9/11 and if he wins (and he probably will, the Dems are in too big a dissaray) he wil happily go right back to it. Which means unless you are our sworn ally, piss off. Let somebody else play world cop right now for a change. The French are all hot and botherd to do it, let them.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Wow. I haven't seen that many strawmen in living memory.

[Justin]

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.

[Colonel Olrik]

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.

What, you wanted to tell the mods that you need to be HOSed? That's the message I got. But I'll humour you.

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. 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 responsibleHe 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.

Ad-Hominem.

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.

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].

And if he was really the warmonger you think he is, then we would have reinstated the draft, and gone after everybody else who has pissed us off lately.

The U.S can't take the entire world at once, dumbass. Besides draft, you'd need huge resources in material and resources. And ocupation would be impossible.

Take the Korean situation for example. We haven't invaded North Korea.

Because you can't. If Korea was in the same situation as Iraq, it would be no more.

Which means unless you are our sworn ally, piss off.

An ally is not a peon, idiot. It has the right to have different opinions about the reasons to invade a country with no visible evidence that it presents a danger.

[fgalkin]

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.

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

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin