 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:25
|
|
provide evidence that there is a link.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:25
|
|
duncan, so the majority is always right? let me introduce you to the holocaust.
what you are saying in affect is that we should go around and kill anyone that our government doesnt like simply because the white house is working its ass off in the public relations department. let me introduce you to vietnam.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:25
|
|
there isnt a terrorist connection. you cant prove it, and there is no eveidence supporting it. iraq is not a threat to us, and as such we have no justified reason to invade them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:25
|
|
Imran - quote:
Um.... why is it relevant to tell the whole world who this person was? I don't get what this has to do with him being a lawyer. This wasn't a trial. |
1) Tom Lantos is a lawyer and therefore knows all about witness credibility before a jury OR anyone hearing a witness.
2) Tom Lantos chaired the congressional hearing where "Mira" (or whatever her name was) testified that Iraqi soldiers were pulling babies out of incubators.
3) This "Mira" was in fact the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador to the USA - a fact intentionally kept from the American people.
4) Why? Because, as a lawyer, Tom Lantos knew her identity would lead large numbers of people to question the validity of her testimony.
5) Her father, the Kuwaiti ambassador was later asked why his daughter testified and if she told the truth. He said he would never put his daughter in the position of lying to Congress, a punishable offense. He didn't tell us that as the daughter of an ambassador, she had diplomatic immunity even if Congress wanted to charge her, not that they would. She was called to play a role BY Congress and FOR the public...
6) No one, not even Kuwaiti hospital workers who remained behind in Kuwait during the occupation, ever confirmed any part of her story.
7) No, it wasn't a trial, but that is irrelevant. A lawyer knows full well that the identity of a witness matters if that identity casts doubt on the testimony.
She lied to save her country - fine, I would have done the same thing. But Tom Lantos and his fellow conspirators were part of that lie and they cost thousands of Americans their lives and/or health. After all the people murdered, killed, or maimed by the Democans, I don't know how anyone with a moral bone in their body could support them...might as well claim to be neo-Nazis...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:25
|
|
I've heard from Col David Hackworth ~160,000 US soldiers are suffering health effects from accidental exposure to bio/chem weapons blown up at the end of the last Gulf War. How many this time? If regime change is our goal, Saddam will have no reason to hold back on using these weapons. The only check on Saddam is his desire to stay in power, once that's gone, all bets are off...
There is only one solution - withdraw all forces from the region, lift all the sanctions, leave Iraq alone, and inform Saddam we won't bother him as long as he doesn't bother other countries. That won't help the Iraqi people much, aside from whatever damage is being caused by the sanctions, but no solution is perfect.
The only reasons to go forward with war is the possibility Saddam will arm (or provide cover) for terrorists thinking it can't be traced back to him, and to liberate Iraqis from his oppression...oh...then there's the oil. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
intrigue
|
|
I am/was convinced already.
The inspections were a load of crap to begin with.
I could care less about what the UN thinks/wants/does.
The US needs to look out for its own interests.
Which will happen soon.
We had a war already, and Iraq had conditions as part of surrender. Since when does the loser of a war dictate policy with anyone?
The US must go in and enforce regime change as soon as possible... or we will be discussing the latest terror attack based off money and technology Iraq supplied the terrorists with. In my view... Iraq has already attacked the US. Now we remove the threat.
And if you disagree... no one likes war, but maybe when someone close to you dies as a result of such atrocities - you'll finally realize what needs to be done. Its an unfortunate necessesity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Mad Monk
|
 |
of Ice Cream
Mar 2000
time: 23:25
|
|
On the off-chance you were, I ran a search and came up with this:
quote:
11 members of Iraqi Islamic Ansar al-Islam group surrendered to Kurdish authorities in North Iraq
Sep 26, 2002
The Associated Press
Eleven members of a Kurdish extremist group with suspected ties to al-Qaida have surrendered to Kurdish forces in northern Iraq, an official of a U.S.-backed Iraqi Kurdish group said in Damascus.
Adel Murad, a Damascus-based official with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, said two militants of the Ansar al-Islam group had surrendered Sept. 21 in Sulaimaneyah and nine others Tuesday.
He identified those arrested last week as Jawad Jamal Najeeb, an Iraqi Arab, and Bakr Hussein Muhammad.
Murad said Najeeb cooperated with al-Qaida in smuggling hashish from Afghanistan in 1998.
According to U.S. officials, Ansar al-Islam (Supporters of Islam) was formed in December 2001, one of numerous small splinter factions in the region of northern Iraq that is controlled by ethnic Kurds.
It has several hundred members and broke away from another group, Jun al-Islam, which itself was formed in September 2001.
It is composed primarily of Kurds - and some Arabs - who follow an extremist brand of Sunni Islam, but their focus is primarily opposing the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, one of two large secular Kurdish groups that oppose Saddam Hussein with U.S. support.
The group's fighters are also believed to have trained with al-Qaida and U.S. officials suspect it of helping hide al-Qaida members fleeing Afghanistan.
|
http://home.cogeco.ca/~konews/26-9-...urrendered.html
Somehow, I have difficulty believing that a group that "follows an extremist brand of Sunni Islam" will have good relations with an extreemist Shiite state like Iran.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
uh Clem
|
 |
Born in the US; damned if I know where I live now
Nov 1999
time: 23:25
|
|
Why have US and British intelligence agencies been so reluctant to sign on to the "link" between Saddam and al Qaida? Anyone who says that there is a link has the additional burden of explaining why the spooks think it's a load of crap.
Make a triangle with the corners:
- US government
- Saddam Hussein
- Osama bin Ladin/al Qaida
There's tons of extremely good evidence over the years linking 1 to 2, and 1 to 3. The only leg of the triangle where the connection is murky, if it exists at all, is 2-3.
Making that connection relies on, oh, wondering who was in a hospital where and when, or whether Mohammed Atta (assuming that it really was Atta) met with an Iraqi intelligence agent (assuming it really was was an Iraqi intelligence agent)(assuming that the meeting actually took place)(assuming that the topic of discussion was the 9/11 attacks), etc.
The case for the connection has yet to rise to the level of merely being an insult to people's intelligence. Most of the "arguments" aren't even worth taking the time to refute. They're just distractions, things that people shout ("Well, what about the meeting in Prague!? Huh? Huh!?) in order to change the subject.
By contrast, of course, the evidence regarding legs 1-2 and 1-3 is lavish, even embarassingly so. A reasonable conclusion to make is that the entity at angle #1 is desperate to make some kind of connection between numbers 2 & 3, for reasons not specified.
Of course, good citizens know what they're expected to believe in cases like this, and behave accordingly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:25
|
|
quote:
Are you talking about Ansar al-Islam? |
My initial beliefs about what Ansar al-Islam is wrong. I've been reading up on the nature of the group, and it turns out that it's supported by the Iranians and Iraqis. It does seem to have connections with al-Qaeda (as it is an offshoot of the Taleban), but its goal is not to committ terror against the West. Primarily, its goal is to undermine the secular government in Kurdistan, which is in the interest of all parties in the region (in fact, "ours" too). But saying that due to this, Saddam is supporting international terror, will give nukes away to al-Qaeda, etc. really is ludicrous. Hell, we seem to have had some connections with this group (though they seem to have fallen through). Does that make us complicit in al-Qaeda's terror?
quote:
Somehow, I have difficulty believing that a group that "follows an extremist brand of Sunni Islam" will have good relations with an extreemist Shiite state like Iran. |
And it's somehow more believable that a bunch of Sunni Islamists would have good relations with a secular governments?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-02-2003 12:52
|