Posted on 04/27/2004 2:12:25 AM PDT by Beckwith
1) I have never been to DU. Apparently a bunch of FReepers hang out there, but I've never seen the point.
2) At no time on this thread have I argued that there is no connection between Saddam and the terrorists. What I have argued is that the information in this article does not establish it "beyond any doubt" as alleged.
3) You have not submitted a shred of evidence that contradicts a single factual assertion by me on this thread.
Now, I'm trying to be polite here. You have unleashed a bit of personal invective presumably based upon a position I have not taken, or by lumping me in with some who have taken such a position. Your rationale for this is beyond me. I would like to think that most here are a little above the silly troll-zot-vk juvenile crap and can actually have a discussion/debate, rather than an echo chamber circle j**k where all views must conform or be "zotted". Some days I think that is possible here, some not. I guess we'll see where you stand.
And "experts" also point out that FDR, a President of a capitalist republic who refuses to communize all property and seize control of the means of production in the name of the people, was a natural enemy of Joseph Stalin.
Didn't stop them.
Another example: Ronald Reagan, a President of a capitalist republic who refuses to rule by the Muslim religious law of Sharia, was a natural enemy of Afghan jihadis (among them OBL).
Didn't stop them.
Frankly this "Saddam secular Osama religious therefore they can't mix" talking-point is getting really tired and needs to be put out to pasture. There are very few more idiotic things I have heard people say when discussing geopolitics than "secular and religious can't mix". It really makes one sound like a naif.
As for bin Laden, he has vowed to topple Arab leaders like Saddam who don't embrace Islamic fundamentalism.
In general, that's true. That's probably a big reason why Saddam felt such a need to reach out to "Al Qaeda" and come to some kind of ceasefire/accord with them in the '90s (as was extensively reported at the time). There are signs that Saddam succeeded in these experts, especially the Osama tape in which he declares that it is acceptable, for the greater good of Islam, to ally with "socialist" governments if they will help fight against and drive out the Crusaders.
Haven't you been paying attention to anything over the last two years? I feel like I'm giving a remedial course here.
Sure.
no links between Saddam and 9/11,
Straw man - few are claiming there are. (the Baathist newspaper story being at best circumstantial evidence)
and at best a loose relationship between Ansar al-Islam and the Saddam government, though other intelligence sources indicate that relationship was meaningless and non-operational.
"meaningless" is meaningless. What pray tell is a "meaningless link"?
As for "non-operational", I'm beginning to understand that this just means "he only gave them money and stuff". If some lefty wants to poo-poo a link he just parrots "yes there were links but not 'operational' ones". What I can't understand is why I'm supposed to hear that and go "oh ok, THAT'S OKAY THEN".
Furthermore, the complete refusal of the hawks to acknowledge that the stated goal of the Iraq policy is "global democratic revolution,"
Uh, who doesn't "acknowledge" that a big reason we're doing this is to try to sow democracy to get at the root of the problem? This concept figures prominently in every single Bush speech.
There you go again. You, my friend, are nothing but a liar, unabashed. This statement by you is categorically untrue, and cannot be backed up by you in any way. I wish you were here so I could say it to your face, you lying SOS.
Moving goalposts? Is this a catchphrase that you think allows you to avoid the point? My goalpost is in the same place it was in my first post: The evidence in THIS article does not prove the link "beyond all doubt." I DARE you to show any "goalpost" of mine that is different from this. I DARE YOU. PUT UP OR STFU.
Come on. Try it. Or can you just hurl invective? Are your skills that limited?
"the WMDs"? I believe that some of the finds which have been reported, qualify as WMD, yes. Particularly the ones everyone is pretending were just "pesticides". Iraqi army sure stashed a lot of camoflaged "pesticides" in bunkers!
But I don't know that I can say "the WMDs have been found" because I certainly don't think all of them have been found. (Especially anthrax.) But that was a weird way for you to phrase the question in the first place.
Peach believes in the Chalabi/Mylroie tinfoil hat theory that Saddam was behind 9/11. If you posted to her that this is nonsense, [...etc]
I don't know that Saddam wasn't behind 9/11. How can I call a theory "nonsense" if I don't know it to be false? That would be silly and irresponsible.
Anyway, why is this about Peach?
Meaningless? Ask the CIA and FBI and read their reporting yourself and make a decision.
I have. Saddam was supporting Ansar al Islam. Or "had links to" them, if you feel a burning need to use that word "links". Putting the word "meaningless" in front of "links", to try to downplay those links for some who knows what reason, is an effort at misdirection and I ain't playing along.
Okay, just agree here that 'global democratic revolution' is rooted in leftwing ideology not American conservatism.
I don't know what the hell you're talking about.
As I've said, it's well established that one of our goals here is to try to sow democracy in the Middle East. You keep using that phrase "global democratic revolution" but that is a parody or cartoon of what we are trying to do, which is as I've already stated. The fact that you think your straw man phrase "global democratic revolution" can, in turn, be traced to leftwing ideology, does not especially interest me, even if you think it's a clever thing.
Look, Peach - I don't know why you are trying so hard to argue with a position I'm not taking. Must be easier than arguing with one that I am.
If there is proof - not association - of SH running the Ansar camp, fine. People have been asserting that for two years, but they haven't proven it yet. My position is that the "information" in the posted article - that the Jordan terrorist got training or hooked up with Zarqawi in Iraq - does not constitute proof of Baghdad's involvement because Baghdad did not control the area where Ansar was HQ'd. That's it. I'm not arguing about other proof, and you aren't presenting any. But the posted article at the top of the thread does not even begin to provide the kind of "vindication" you are crowing about.
Of course, you'll run from this like you do everything else.
Do you believe that Saddam Hussein HAD NO KNOWLEDGE of ANY chemical weapons training going on in his country and that SH had no knowledge that AL Qaeda was in his country planning or plotting any hostile action against the west?
If that is your reference, I have no idea what knowledge he had of what was going on in the Ansar camp, but it wouldn't surprise me if he did. My point is not whether he knew about it our not. My point is that the fact that it was in Iraq does not mean it was an operation sponsored or supported by him, because it was in a part of Iraq that was largely beyond his reach. If the same operation had been going on in al Ramadi, it is fair conclusion not only that he condoned it but also that he sponsored it, given his control over the country.
Whether AQ was in the country plotting hostile action against the west? Again, your question seems pretty broad. To the extent that anyone even tangentially associated with AQ can be said to be plotting hostile action against the west, I'd say yes. I'm sure he knew Ansar was in the Kurdish area - and my guess is that he probably supported them because of their actions against their common enemy, the Kurds. But, while Saddam was in power, I'm not sure we can say that Ansar was actually planning attacks on the West. You got anything on that? I thought they wanted a little mini-Taliban-state in northern Iraq.
Your original (unsolicited) post to me was in regards to why I raised the 9/11 and Saddam specter, which was in context to certain people.
The CIA reported the links between Saddam's government and Ansar al-Islam as a couple of meetings where Saddam's government determines links with A a-I would be suicidal for him. Where did you get this information that Saddam was "supporting" Ansar a-I? I don't get the impression you read that much on the subject.
RE: LOL 'Global Democratic Revolution' was Bush's term. How are we suppose to take y'all seriously? And your lack of understanding basic intellectual history is certainly a danger to us all.
I posted that link for a purpose, yes, to show you that "there are no WMDs" is not exactly a slam-dunk mathematically true statement (much as you might like it to be one). Did you not read it?
Your original (unsolicited) post to me
Well there I go again, committing the sin of making unsolicited posts to people in a FREAKING DISCUSSION FORUM. Shame on me!
Perhaps if you hadn't conveniently ignored the previous post I made to you earlier in this thread....
was in regards to why I raised the 9/11 and Saddam specter, which was in context to certain people.
Fair enough, you can discuss all you like 9/11 and Saddam, with Peach.
I remind you though that my "original" (i.e. most recent, #323, not #235) post to you was about lots of other stuff besides just 9/11-Saddam links or non-links. In fact there's only one little sentence fragment about the 9/11-Saddam link issue in particular.
The CIA reported the links between Saddam's government and Ansar al-Islam as a couple of meetings where Saddam's government determines links with A a-I would be suicidal for him. Where did you get this information that Saddam was "supporting" Ansar a-I? I don't get the impression you read that much on the subject.
Here for example. A link I posted way farther up in this thread already.
Where's your link to the CIA finding?
Funny how between the two of us only one has posted links backing up his position on this particular issue, and yet he's the same one who gets accused of having no links and not reading much....
RE: LOL 'Global Democratic Revolution' was Bush's term.
Heh you got me there. I stand corrected. I do readily admit that I don't exactly voraciously read the speeches and writings of (yawn) George W. Bush. ;-)
So Bush indeed has used the phrase "global democratic revolution". Reading further, what he seems to mean by that is, for dictatorships around the Middle East and elsewhere to crumble.
Sounds good to me. Your problem with it, is what?
How are we suppose to take y'all seriously?
Don't "take me seriously" if you don't want to. No skin off my nose. But that doesn't absolve you of need to rebut my points.
And your lack of understanding basic intellectual history is certainly a danger to us all.
!? Wait, who's the one we're not supposed to "take seriously" again? ;-)
Please kindly, if you will, explain in more detail why you think I have a "lack of understanding basic intellectual history", and how my supposed lack, translates into being a "danger to us all". I can't wait to hear this!
I sure hope you are out there beating the war drums for the attack on Pakistan? Or do you want to go to Saudi Arabia first?
Surely you aren't going to "let facts get in the way of your little worldview," are you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.