Posted on 03/16/2006 1:46:07 PM PST by jmc1969
The group that issued the 2002 threat, calling itself "Qaida al-Jihad," or the Qaida (Base) of Holy War, also said in its letter that it had infiltrated the UAE's "security, censorship and monetary agencies, along with other agencies that should not be mentioned.
I vote for censure!!!!!
Lucky you ONKS
Savage didn't do his homework. I've lost all respect for him. He's just a blowhard now. I use this issue to judge the intelligence of all conservatives now and I was extremely disappointed by Bill Bennett, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and Michael Savage. In case you're wondering, I was never in any doubt about Sean Hannity. ;o)
These blowhards were doing exactly what I told the KNowNothings last week they were doing. More evidence of the price the UAE pays for its cooperation with us.
Fortunately the blowhards are not nearly as effective as they think.
That pyschopath has found plenty of the gullible to follow him here.
He is a dangerous whackjob extremely harmful to conservativism.
Do you have any evidence to make you believe this claim is true?
Cuz you must admit that some whack-job group making threats back in 2002 that they will bring down UAE from inside . . . are very suspect 4 years later when they have accomplished no such thing.
If they *did* have UAE infiltrated, they sure haven't had any success in turning them against us!
Again, there is credible evidence to suggest that the UAE are steadfast allies. And there is no evidence to suggest that the UAE would turn on us, or in any way endanger our security.
And Conservatives are *suppose* to make policy decisions based on reason, evidence and logic, aren't we?
None other than the article.
Cuz you must admit that some whack-job group making threats back in 2002 that they will bring down UAE from inside . . . are very suspect 4 years later when they have accomplished no such thing.
Possible. Are you willing to take that chance?
If they *did* have UAE infiltrated, they sure haven't had any success in turning them against us!
Maybe. It is possible that they are laying low waiting for the right time to strike. It wouldn't be wise to bring attention to yourself until the goal is completed (whatever it may be). JMO
Again, there is credible evidence to suggest that the UAE are steadfast allies. And there is no evidence to suggest that the UAE would turn on us, or in any way endanger our security.
I respect your opinion. Lets agree to disagree. I think most folks didn't like the idea because of Islam.. Not because they are Arabs. The Qu'ran is quite clear in how to handle "infidels". They want us dead (unless your muslim). Hopefully, I won't get flamed or called a "xenophobe" for stating my opinion. However, I am open minded - If anyone can quote scripture to the contrary, I stand to be corrected. I've found over 100 scriptures justifying my perception of Islam.
And Conservatives are *suppose* to make policy decisions based on reason, evidence and logic, aren't we?
You are correct. So why aren't we?
Maybe, but the man is still an ass.
Not much choice, obviously. :-)
But my position is based on evidence -- UAE has given us evidence to believe they are not a threat.
Your position is based on only your feelings. You don't want to take a chance that the evidence that they are allies might be wrong.
And you seem to agree that conservatives are not suppose to act that way . . . so I s'pose if you're okay with your position and it's lack of rational evidence, then there's nothing more to be said.
Your position is based on business evidence. Mine is based on spiritual evidence.
Your position is based on only your feelings. You don't want to take a chance that the evidence that they are allies might be wrong.
My position is not based on feelings. My position is based on fact of which there is plenty of.
And you seem to agree that conservatives are not suppose to act that way . . . so I s'pose if you're okay with your position and it's lack of rational evidence, then there's nothing more to be said.
If your trivializing the Qu'ran and what it means to muslims and non-muslims, you are gravely mistaken. You look at this from a business stand point in that they have been good allies for several years (Which I agree with). I look at it from a spiritual standpoint in that what they do will effect them forever (according to the Qu'ran). IMO, their spiritual health is much more important than their business/monetary gains especially when dealing with the US (it better be,or else Allah wants them dead as well). JMO, of course.
Ok, that's a good enough statement of our differences for me.
I would require evidence to show that this group of people, the leaders of UAE and the managers of DPW, are a danger to US interests. Instead of blanket condemning all muslims.
YMMV.
Synopsis: 2002 Iraqi Intelligence Correspondence concerning the presence of al-Qaida Members in Iraq. Correspondence between IRS members on a suspicion, later confirmed, of the presence of an Al-Qaeda terrorist group. Moreover, it includes photos and names.
This is from the linked article:
The Pentagon Web site said the document confirmed the presence of an al-Qaida terror group in Iraq. It described the document this way: "2002 Iraqi Intelligence Correspondence concerning the presence of al-Qaida Members in Iraq."
However, a translation by The Associated Press found the document, a letter from an Iraqi intelligence official, dated Aug. 17, 2002, merely asked agents to be on the lookout for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and another suspect whose picture was attached. The letter cited reports that the two could be in Iraq and directed Iraqi security officials to be on alert as a matter of "top priority."
I didn't see that. Thanks.
They are going to try try try to spin it, but I think there will end up being just too much info for them to spin it away. They may try to ignore it though.
The only reason I even follow what happens to Savage is the hope that my local radio station will drop him in favor of a listenable show.
I'm hoping that the LSM drowns in the tsunami of facts.
Not that it ever stopped them before.....
You effectively kill my argument by limiting my response. And if I give you another answer (of which you disagree with), will you discard it and ask for another?
I'm surprised the number is that low. My guess would have been in the low 90% range.
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.