 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
81.202.50.46
You have affirmed that there were strong links between Saddamīs Iraq and Al Qaeda, on the basis of your reading of some declarations by Mr. Rumsfeld, and you questioned the reading capabilities of another inmate when he opined otherwise, to what I said that it was YOUR reading ability what should be questioned.You came back saying that, maybe because English is not my mother tongue, I hadnīt understood what he said...
Bullshit: hereīs one paragraph taken from Mr. Rumsfeldīs discourse of two days ago:
"Yes?
QUESTIONER: My name is Glenn Hutchins. Mr. Secretary, what exactly was the connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda?
RUMSFELD: I tell you, I'm not going to answer the question. I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over the period of a year in the most amazing way. Second, there are differences in the intelligence community as to what the relationship was. To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two. There are--I just read an intelligence report recently about one person who's connected to al Qaeda, who was in and out of Iraq, and there's the most tortured description of why he might have had a relationship, and why he might not have had a relationship. There are reports about people in Saddam Hussein's intelligence service meeting in one country or another with al Qaeda people from one person to another, which may have been indicative of something, or may not have been. It may have been something that was not representative of a hard linkage
.....
You have the whole issue in the link supplied.
Regards
BF
Follow Ups:
I'm going to forego that since I went back and reread the thread in question.You didn't answer my question about the '93 WTC bomber living openly in a house in Baghdad or point me to any material to support YOUR claim that OBL and SH hated each other.
I must say, Bernardo (it is Bernardo isn't it?), that your comprehension of the English written word is better than most Americans (really not saying much from the likes of this place) but you are mischaracterizing my comments, especially with this paragraph:
"You have affirmed that there were strong links between Saddamīs Iraq and Al Qaeda, on the basis of your reading of some declarations by Mr. Rumsfeld, and you questioned the reading capabilities of another inmate when he opined otherwise, to what I said that it was YOUR reading ability what should be questioned."
I gave you a single example of a concrete fact in that previous thread. As you pointed out, I am asking people to connect the dots or make a leap of faith based on a modicum of logic. AQ, the Taliban and Afghanistan are an example of "strong links". I just stated that there are in fact, links between SH/Irak and AQ. Also, who's to say that AQ is the only terrorist game in town? We no doubt have many 'freelancers' in the terrorist game nowadays.
I even forgot to mention the 'Three Abduls' that hung out in that lovely wasteland we call Irak: Abu Nidal (remember him?), Abdul Abbas (throwing poor cripple Leon Klinghoffer over the side of a cruise ship) and Abdul Yassin (blew up the WTC in '93.) Abu Nidal was killed in Baghdad in 2002, Yassin had the house and Abdul Abbas was called well...Saddam's bombmaker.
They are all terrorists and I don't give a flying fuck whether they operate under the banner of AQ or The Dixie Chicks. Quit being so narrow minded.
Here's the thread, so I suggest you do what I did and go back and reread it in its entirety.
Later, Chris
Iīll try to answer in an orderly way, here:1- It all started with your denigratory comments about jaivaīs ability to make sense of an article, saying that he was just paying attention to "the headlines and capsules", as your interpretation of what Rumsfeld had said, and later tried to deny having said, was different from his. Your words: "The Secretary stated that a link between Saddam and OBL, personally, was dubious. Not between Saddam and AQ."
To that, I have provided the original article, the one with the full declarations Rumsfeld had made, and from it I posted the exact question, which was: "Mr. Secretary, what exactly was the connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda?"
"Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda", Chris. Not "Saddam Hussein and OBL"2- You asked me to provide an answer about why the '93 bomber was living openly in Baghdad. I donīt know, maybe he liked the place... I know well that you are insinuating that the fact of having that terrorist (who may have been linked to Al Qaeda: I donīt know, and I see no problem in accepting that link) living there, automatically links Saddam to Al Qaeda..., but that bucket holds no water, as a single swallow makes not the summer come: a single man looking for shelter because he is being sought by the same country that had put Saddam on his knees a couple of years earlier would be more than welcome by that bastard; while cooperation with a group working on the basis of religious fanaticism trying to destroy secularism to implant religious government over the whole ME would be suicidal...
3- You ask me to supply any material to support my statement about the hate Saddam and OBL professed towards each other..., and then you, so kindly, open the door wide open for me, when you say that you are "... asking people to connect the dots or make a leap of faith based on a modicum of logic. AQ, the Taliban and Afghanistan are an example of "strong links".
Thank you very much for your kind help! The dots to connect here are: a) Saddam was a smart, ruthless tyrant, despotically ruling over the most secular country in the whole ME; b) Al Qaeda was (and still is) a terrorist group trying to wipe secularism away from the zone, to implant theocratic governments; c) OBL's fanaticism is exclusive, not inclusive: that means that they wonīt accept co-ruling, what implies that, if accepted by Saddam inside his country, the logical conclusion would be that Saddam would be displaced from government, with a theocratic government, and sharia' ruling there. Given these undisputable premises, and following the rules of a very basic Logic, the only viable conclusions would be that to the eyes of Saddam OBL and his organization were a dangerous enemy to be hated and feared..., and that to the eyes of OBL and his gang Saddam, and his secular state, were to be hated and destroyed, sooner or later.
That is my proof of the existing hate between both bastards. No leap of faith needed.
3- Now you start to lose the grip on your own line, as you are including other people, other terrorist groups..., which were not in Rumsfeldīs answer to that question. They are all terrorists, and Saddam never was a bad guy..., but now your reasoning starts to follow the lines of Mr. Bushīs, making a compact pudding of every terrorist and his uncle, to justify his more than dubious behaviour.
And I can not be accused of being narrowminded, as I am looking at quite a few sides, both from present, past, and even future implications, of the problem.
Terrorists need being fought. But there are ways to do that which are more efficient than invading a defenseless country which was not an immediate danger, and killing and maiming their people while devastating the whole country: donīt expect any gratitude from them for that "altruistic" behaviour...
Regards
BF
"RUMSFELD: I tell you, I'm not going to answer the question. I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over the period of a year in the most amazing way. Second, there are differences in the intelligence community as to what the relationship was. To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two. There are--I just read an intelligence report recently about one person who's connected to al Qaeda, who was in and out of Iraq, and there's the most tortured description of why he might have had a relationship, and why he might not have had a relationship. There are reports about people in Saddam Hussein's intelligence service meeting in one country or another with al Qaeda people from one person to another, which may have been indicative of something, or may not have been. It may have been something that was not representative of a hard linkage."The problem that most of you have here and I realize this now, is that absent concrete evidence to the contrary, the person or entity is always innocent. This is great for jurisprudence, where the State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (85-95%?) that a crime was commmitted. Since we didn't find actual WMDs in the here and now, they do not exist, even though the evidence that they did exist is abundantly clear. I could hide 10 $100 bills w/i my four condo walls here and ask you to look for them over a week or two, allowing you to keep them if you locate them. Chances are you won't find them, so does that mean that they are not hidden there, somewhere?
The Secretary states:
"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."
However, in the very next sentence, he gives two examples of a link that may or may not pan out. Nobody says that the Secretary is correct 100% of the time. People are arguing that CIA Dir. George Tennent, MI5 and Russian Intelligence all got WMDs wrong. The spy business isn't 100%. Also, a lack of hard evidence in not the inverse of existence. It just means that you can't prove it.
I gave you and Jaiva a verfiable fact. Abdul Yasin was living openly in Baghdad. Abdul Yasin worked for AQ and Abdul Yasin was the only WTC '93 Bomber to get away. Where did he go? Why Baghdad of course...that last bastion of rigorously controlled, secular, ME society.
As far as your other few points are concerned, I'm not even going to read them, let alone comment. I've spent too much time with you as it is. The last thing in the world that I want to do, is attempt to change your POV.
You win, if it makes you happy?
Take care, Chris
I think there is a chance YOU are a terrorist...What do you want to do? Kill everyone outside of the US? Or kill everyone except yourself, Bush, Cheney, Rumy, Ashcroft..etc?
Give me a break...go play with your guns!
the guns are always clean. One never knows when a terrorist will come a knockin'.Chris
nt
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
