Posted on 03/21/2006 3:18:32 PM PST by jveritas
Can you document and prove beyond much doubt that there was communication and collusion between OBL and Saddamn? That can destroy a major argument of the left.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
However this current document that talk about Bin Laden meeting with Iraqi intelligence per Saddam approval in 1995, and the other document from the Afghani Consul is already a strong proof that a relation existed between Saddam and Bin Laden.
Excellent, go for it :)
KaPOW!! GREAT stuff, j!
You have my humblest gratitude for all the work you are doing in the cause of TRUTH!!
bttt
I just heard a Fox News break with Donna Fiducia...and I heard her say something about documents being found that proved the Iraq didn't have any WMDs..or something like that.
Do you know what she was referring to?
Maybe this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1600501/posts
or else the story I saw about how his generals are saying he told them right before the start of the war that he had no WMD.
And later more reporting, from the same "well placed" source:
Relying on unnamed sources is risky. Even when they are so-call "well placed" and from our side of the MSM.
That said, let the record show that the Weekly Standard's unnamed well placed source was -- correct.
By the way why crAP did not yet publish an article about the document that showed Saddam relation with Bin Laden? Of course it does not fit their agenda and it contradicts all their lies.
Thank you very much OhioWfan :)
I am not sure...like I said it was just a news break.
eyespysomething sent me to a thread written by an AP guy..that might have been it.
I just HATE when the radio news or these news blurbs pick up one sentence and repeat it as gospel...
I always am incredulous what ABC radio news reports..because I will have spent the day here..and wathing the news..and half the time ABC News is dead wrong.
Impossible! Everyone knows that Iraq under Saddam was secular and therefore OBL and Saddam could not possibly work together.
BTW...I don't know if you ever watch Hairball...but tonight Chrissy was going on and on about how Bush positively DID say that Saddam was involved in 9/11....and that he LIED about WMDS...
He got away with it quite well with Pat Buchanan, David Gergen, and Margret Carlson...but unfortunately, his other guest was Stephen Hayes..of Weekly Standard..
BUT, every time Stephen would correct Chris on his lies, Chris would try to talk over him..or go to Marget Carlson for her opinion, knowing that Carlson is worse than Chris is about calling Bush a liar...
Luckily Hayes wasn't like Byron York..who will kowtow to Chris..and not argue with him when he says lies and stupid stuff.
Even if they did, they weren't translated, and heaven forbid that the Commission should hire a few translators.
Or use machine translation, some of which is much better than the stuff one commonly sees on the net, such as Bablefish. Or just use computers to scan in the documents, and search for key words (in Arabic) and then translate the documents with "hits". You might even use machine translation on these "first pass" documents, then have real people scan the translations to see if they are really of interest. Then use trusted human translators to translate the ones that are "interesting".
PS: All the documents that I have translated so far are handwritten ones and I think there is not a software in the world that can possibly do the translation of a handwritten Arabic document.
Actually it might be easier than doing it to most European languages. Looking at the documents, it appears that even in handwritten documents, the characters are distinct. More like hand printed English (or other Latin alphabet language) rather than a written (i.e. cursive) text using the Latin alphabet. This would Kiley make optical character recognition easier. Then it's a matter of parsing the characters into words and then translating the words. I don't know how hard it is to translate Arabic words and sentences into English words and sentences. I'm sure the result of such a machine translation would be rough, but it would certainly be good enough to then employ English speakers to screen the documents. Or you could translate to Spanish, which is probably closer in structure to Arabic than other European languages, and use the many Spanish speakers we have in the US to do the screening. Maybe even translate it to Hebrew, which is probably much closer to Arabic in structure, and let a bunch of Jews and other Hebrew readers translate it. There would be a certain poetic justice in that, don't you think?
This is a big deal! Why isn't the MSM shouting this stuff off the rooftops? It's so frustrating.
Thanks for the ping!
How about "ran right over (or through) her"?
The problem is that the documents are not in typed or printed Arabic, but rather handwritten text. Because of individual variations, as well as variations within even a single document, written text is much harder to "recognize" than printed text. From looking at the site it appears that their character recognition software works very well with printed text. It would probably not work so well with hand written text. At minimum it might have to be "trained" on each individuals writing style. Still as I indicated above, it appears that written Arabic is more akin to hand printed English than cursive English. Lord knows even my printing is hard enough to read, my cursive is next to impossible. Arabic writing seems to have mix of the charactertics of hand printed and cursive English writing.
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.