The Iraq Thread

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 31 2003,08:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What's your point? That everything the US says, it retracts a week later? OK, if you think so.<span id='postcolor'>

No my point is that you could have as well linked to an Iraqi press report from the information of ministry saying that Iraq does not have WMDs.

The official Pentagon press releases so have far been little better then Goebbels' propaganda during WW2. So to try to substantiate a claim by quoting what the Pentagon says is utterly futile.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 31 2003,09:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 31 2003,08:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What's your point? That everything the US says, it retracts a week later? OK, if you think so.<span id='postcolor'>

No my point is that you could have as well linked to an Iraqi press report from the information of ministry saying that Iraq does not have WMDs.<span id='postcolor'>

Whatever you wish to believe.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The official Pentagon press releases so have far been little better then Goebbels' propaganda during WW2. So to try to substantiate a claim by quoting what the Pentagon says is utterly futile.<span id='postcolor'>

For those of you who are sickened by the above comparison, here's a synopsis of Goebel's life:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Holocaust/goebbels.html

edit: here's the Pentagon's site, if anyone wants to check it out themselves.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 31 2003,08:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Mar. 31 2003,09:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So, are the Iraq ties to Al Quada like "Seven Degrees of Kevin Bacon"?<span id='postcolor'>

Don't know about that.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Two words:

tenuous, unsubstantiated.

<span id='postcolor'>

I never said otherwise.<span id='postcolor'>

Not attacking you personally, Avon, it's just a lot of people (not necessarily you) seem to want to see a connection between Iraq and Al Quada so badly they are drawing conclusions with no real evidence.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Mar. 31 2003,09:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not attacking you personally, Avon, it's just a lot of people (not necessarily you) seem to want to see a connection between Iraq and Al Quada so badly they are drawing conclusions with no real evidence.<span id='postcolor'>

If you'll look at my posts on the connection between any connection, if it exists (see? my very own words! ), between Iraq and Al Queda, I have simply brought them up as a counter-claim to the opinion that says there's no connection.

Rather than use the negative term "unsubstantiated", I am of the opinion that neither side has substaintiated their claims.

I've seen different analysts and "experts" giving contrary claims. I am not qualified to choose sides. From what I'm seeing posted here, neither is anyone else.

When I said "time will tell", that's all that I meant - one way or the other.

What's the matter? Is it wicked to quote a new Reuters article on the subject that's relevant to the discussion?

[Guest]

There you go again. We question an article and you take it as a personal insult. We're not talking about you and your position, we're talking about the unsubstantiated claims that are so popular these days.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 31 2003,10:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There you go again. We question an article and you take it as a personal insult. We're not talking about you and your position, we're talking about the unsubstantiated claims that are so popular these days.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't take it as a personal insult. I frankly don't have a position on this particulra subject and that's exactly what I'm trying to state.

[Guest]

As far as I'm concerned the burden of evidence is on the US side. Considering the prelude of this war and the claims that were proven dead wrong it would take quite some convincing to make me take a neutral position.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 31 2003,08:o8)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 31 2003,07:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tora @ Mar. 31 2003,04:o1)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's right, we all seem to have forgotten that there are Al Quada ties to the Iraqi regime...<span id='postcolor'>

Not all of us.  Just the intelligent people. <span id='postcolor'>

Maybe.

Maybe not.

Time will tell.<span id='postcolor'>

I hope I'm not the only one here who appreciated your emphasis on the word "maybe."  And I truly hope that "time will tell" even if the Pentagon chooses not to.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 31 2003,10:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As far as I'm concerned the burden of evidence is on the US side. Considering the prelude of this war and the claims that were proven dead wrong it would take quite some convincing to make me take a neutral position.<span id='postcolor'>

Well I sort of agree there. If 0 is total disbelief in the US and 10 is full agreement on this issue, then I'm more at 3.5-4 on the scale versus a neutral 5.

I wish I had a sig banner that says:

"I'm for not having a sig banner to express an opinion on the Iraq war either way."

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 31 2003,10:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 31 2003,08:o8)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 31 2003,07:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tora @ Mar. 31 2003,04:o1)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's right, we all seem to have forgotten that there are Al Quada ties to the Iraqi regime...<span id='postcolor'>

Not all of us.  Just the intelligent people. <span id='postcolor'>

Maybe.

Maybe not.

Time will tell.<span id='postcolor'>

I hope I'm not the only one here who appreciated your emphasis on the word "maybe."  And I truly hope that "time will tell" even if the Pentagon chooses not to.<span id='postcolor'>

Clarification:

1. In my original did not use a bold font, as you are depicting. Very maniuplative on your part.

2. My point was to link to a contrary current events article.

Unfortunately, maybe you were misled to believe an emphasis on my part because links are underlined and therefore look emphasized.

I think this is about the 3rd time I've clarified my intent with that post.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 31 2003,09:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 31 2003,10:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 31 2003,08:o8)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 31 2003,07:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tora @ Mar. 31 2003,04:o1)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's right, we all seem to have forgotten that there are Al Quada ties to the Iraqi regime...<span id='postcolor'>

Not all of us.  Just the intelligent people. <span id='postcolor'>

Maybe.

Maybe not.

Time will tell.<span id='postcolor'>

I hope I'm not the only one here who appreciated your emphasis on the word "maybe."  And I truly hope that "time will tell" even if the Pentagon chooses not to.<span id='postcolor'>

Clarification:

1. In my original did not use a bold font, as you are depicting. Very maniuplative on your part.<span id='postcolor'>

My main point was to draw the attention of others to the words "maybe" in your post.  Placing them in bold font was not intended to be manipulative.  It was only intended to help others better understand what I thought you were trying to express.  Sorry for any breach of netiquette, there.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 31 2003,09:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> 2. My point was to link to a contrary current events article.

Unfortunately, maybe you were misled to believe an emphasis on my part because links are underlined and therefore look emphasized.<span id='postcolor'>

Hmmm... Rather than taking your main point to be that particular "contrary current events article" I took your point to be that you didn't have a position on this particular subject.  Perhaps I was misled by your saying, "I frankly don't have a position on this particulra subject and that's exactly what I'm trying to state."  

In fact, that current affairs article does not sit on the fence.  It presents a very unambiguous opinion on this particular subject.  So, if your main point was rather to link to it then you could forgive us for questioning your neutrality on the issue.

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Mar. 30 2003,06:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's amazing, but there is a definite mindset in many Americans that Iraq IS somehow responsible for S11, with no evidence being offered.

I can't belive how much S11 is being used as a justification for this war.<span id='postcolor'>

True and it doesn't surprise me, it's easy to make an American do/believe something. It seems like everyone needs to be patriotic over there, some ppl even follow Bush just cuz he's their president, while they don't want a war...

Being blind and patriotic is one of the most dangerous things out there. Also, a lot of ppl believe stuff without even knowing if it's true or not... Like the 911 thing, all those ppl screaming: Iraq has connections with AQ! seriously don't know what they're talking about and just repeat what they heard someone else say while there's no evidence at all.

No offense to anyone, but i think the Western culture is a very weird one... A free country but not liking your government is almost a crime...

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 31 2003,11:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In fact, that current affairs article does not sit on the fence.  It presents a very unambiguous opinion on this particular subject.  So, if your main point was rather to link to it then you could forgive us for questioning your neutrality on the issue.<span id='postcolor'>

One has to differentiate between an opinionated news item and a news item that clearly quotes a source that is or might be opinionated.

The Reuters article I linked to expresses no opinion of the writer of the article. It even goes to the point of stating "Washington accuses the Ansar al-Islam group".

In fact, it absurdly bends over backward by ending off with "Washington blames al Qaeda for the September 11, 2001, suicide hijacking attacks on the United States".

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

There are some reported links between Al-Quaida and Iraq (the territory if not the government). Whether those reports are believable is a matter of opinion. However i agree that a lot of the linkage between AQ and Iraq in the US is totally free from factual foundation. Its like an ugly rumour that gets around-regardless of fact. As one woman in the US said in a TV interview-

'Oh theyre all in it together, them arab countries'

(interviewer)- 'but there hasnt so far been any proof of Iraqs involvment (in spt.11 attacks) has there?

'Oh they did it alright.'-

Id LIKE to think there is more behind the US media and governments thinking than this.

Darklight-"it's easy to make an American do/believe something"

Its just as easy to make a European or other person do or believe something if it chimes with what they already think. Such as chanting 'no blood for oil' (how many have extensively researched the subject?- they just hear rumours of oil links to the Bush administration and thats enough 'proof'

for them)

That said i have been alarmed by what i have heard about a rather uncritical stance on any foreign policy issue taken by the mainstream US media (and public at large). I even saw on a TV report that a guy got arrested in a mall in the US for wearing a 'Peace not War' T-shirt and refusing to take it off when the security men asked him to. Then they called the police and he was arrested (i forget the charge).

Land of the free?  

Then again what would happen if you walked down the street in most european capitals wearing an 'I support War With Iraq!'

T-shirt?

verbal abuse at least.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 31 2003,15:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I even saw on a TV report that a guy got arrested in a mall in the US for wearing a 'Peace not War' T-shirt and refusing to take it off when the security men asked him to. Then they called the police and he was arrested (i forget the charge).

Land of the free?  <span id='postcolor'>

The latest on that.

Stupid mall owner and even dumber police. I am surprised not to hear from the ACLU on this case. It's preposterous.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 31 2003,13:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 31 2003,11:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In fact, that current affairs article does not sit on the fence.  It presents a very unambiguous opinion on this particular subject.  So, if your main point was rather to link to it then you could forgive us for questioning your neutrality on the issue.<span id='postcolor'>

One has to differentiate between an opinionated news item and a news item that clearly quotes a source that is or might be opinionated.

The Reuters article I linked to expresses no opinion of the writer of the article.<span id='postcolor'>

I said that the article "presents a very unambiguous opinion."  (...emphasis on presents)  Do you disagree?

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 31 2003,16:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I said that the article "presents a very unambiguous opinion."  (...emphasis on presents)  Do you disagree?<span id='postcolor'>

Agreed.

[Bernadotte 0]

Anyone who thought that GW1's "Kuwaiti incubator scam" couldn't happen again should read this article about the false basis of Washington's nuclear WMD claims.

Last paragraph:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On March 14th, Senator Jay Rockefeller, of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, formally asked Robert Mueller, the F.B.I. director, to investigate the forged documents.  Rockefeller had voted for the resolution authorizing force last fall.  Now he wrote to Mueller, “There is a possibility that the fabrication of these documents may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq.†He urged the F.B.I. to ascertain the source of the documents, the skill-level of the forgery, the motives of those responsible, and “why the intelligence community did not recognize the documents were fabricated.†A Rockefeller aide told me that the F.B.I. had promised to look into it.<span id='postcolor'>

[joltan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 31 2003,14:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 31 2003,15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Land of the free? <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'>

The latest on that.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Chief Murley defended the police, saying the mall was private property and there was a mall policy of asking people who displayed anti-war messages on their clothes to leave.

Downs and his 31-year-old son Roger both bought the T-shirts at the mall for $23 apiece.<span id='postcolor'>So its ok to sell the T-shirt, but not to wear it? What the fuck?! I think 'an apology' is definitely not enough for having someone arrested on such a bogus charge!

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joltan @ Mar. 31 2003,16:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think 'an apology' is definitely not enough for having someone arrested on such a bogus charge!<span id='postcolor'>

Not just someone................

.................... an attorney!

[Mr. Snrub 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 31 2003,23:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyone who thought that GW1's "Kuwaiti incubator scam" couldn't happen again should read this article about the false basis of Washington's nuclear WMD claims.

Last paragraph:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On March 14th, Senator Jay Rockefeller, of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, formally asked Robert Mueller, the F.B.I. director, to investigate the forged documents. Rockefeller had voted for the resolution authorizing force last fall. Now he wrote to Mueller, “There is a possibility that the fabrication of these documents may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq.†He urged the F.B.I. to ascertain the source of the documents, the skill-level of the forgery, the motives of those responsible, and “why the intelligence community did not recognize the documents were fabricated.†A Rockefeller aide told me that the F.B.I. had promised to look into it.<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

Wouldn't be the first time fabricated evidence was used as the basis for launching military action - Tonkin Gulf Incident anyone?

[Mr. Snrub 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 31 2003,22:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are some reported links between Al-Quaida and Iraq (the territory if not the government). Whether those reports are believable is a matter of opinion. However i agree that a lot of the linkage between AQ and Iraq in the US is totally free from factual foundation. Its like an ugly rumour that gets around-regardless of fact. As one woman in the US said in a TV interview-

'Oh theyre all in it together, them arab countries'

(interviewer)- 'but there hasnt so far been any proof of Iraqs involvment (in spt.11 attacks) has there?

'Oh they did it alright.'-

Id LIKE to think there is more behind the US media and governments thinking than this.<span id='postcolor'>

Well said indeed!

There have been links made between the Iraqi regime and Ansar al-Islam, a group reportedly with ties to al Qaeda - whether these links are justified remains unresolved. Perhaps there is some sort of anti-West/US alliance between Saddam and these terrorists, or maybe it was all just cooked up to help sell the war to the public...we need some solid information before we can say for sure...

Public emotion can be so easily exploited by a government - Saddam is a pre-known bad guy, so turning public opinion against him and his regime was pretty easy. It was an incredible piece of political maneuvering on the part of the Bush administration to turn attention from the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan to Saddam in Iraq, but it wouldn't have been too difficult.

The government here in Australia tried to do the same thing here a while back by trying to link the Iraqi regime to the terrorist attack in Bali, with absolutely no success. They just repeated the same old meaningless rhetoric that has been peddled for months now...

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 31 2003,15:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyone who thought that GW1's "Kuwaiti incubator scam" couldn't happen again should read this article about the false basis of Washington's nuclear WMD claims.

Last paragraph:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On March 14th, Senator Jay Rockefeller, of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, formally asked Robert Mueller, the F.B.I. director, to investigate the forged documents.  Rockefeller had voted for the resolution authorizing force last fall.  Now he wrote to Mueller, “There is a possibility that the fabrication of these documents may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq.†He urged the F.B.I. to ascertain the source of the documents, the skill-level of the forgery, the motives of those responsible, and “why the intelligence community did not recognize the documents were fabricated.†A Rockefeller aide told me that the F.B.I. had promised to look into it.<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

It's a very good article. The current working theory that the information was originally planted by the MI6 in the mid '90s as a part of a desinformation campaign is very interesting. In the Swedish intelligence business there is a term called "the Karamazov syndrome" which is used to decribe a process where you begin to believe your own lies. (Refering to the "Karamazov brothers" book by Dostojevski)

That's of course the kind interpretation of the Niger report: a combination of wishful thinking and incompetence.

Another interesting thing is that this was the primary evidence presented to the US senate in september after which they voted in favour of a war. Fortunatly for Bush, senators, just like the average population have a very short term memory.

[-Siegfried- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wouldn't be the first time fabricated evidence was used as the basis for launching military action - Tonkin Gulf Incident anyone?<span id='postcolor'>

The sinking of the Maine anyone? (led to the 1898 war between Spain and the US in which the US won easiliy the colonies of Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philipines)

http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/15/remember.the.maine/

[Assault (CAN) 1]

Well, nothing about the Maine can be said for sure, but I doubt it was blown up as part of a big conspiracy to start a war. Saying that is like saying the attacks of September 11th were huge government conspiracies, made in an attempt by arms suppliers to get rich.

Tinfoil hats anyone?