Free Republic

I don't imagine that they see it that way.

Congratulations everyone, you've made RawStory: Posters at right-wing board threaten to kill Times editors, reporters.

To the following quote in the article: Terror is not abstract, nor does it emanate from some 'evil', you responded Yes it does. Next post ...

I'm curious about how you took the meaning of the word 'abstract' or the phrase 'emanate from some evil', and why you objected to it. Do you believe that terrorism is ultimately an irrational act, or that it is an abstract, random event?

Hrm, that looks like disagreement ...

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

Hah! Let that be a lesson to you, "Doc P"!

I think you guys just got famous ;-)
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2005_10_02_patriotboy_archive.html#112860469462214576

keeping Judith Miller quiet in jail and her not disclosing information that would be VERY harmful to Hillary.

What do you mean? How do you think Hillary is involved in this?

Can you tell me where I can get this information. I have never read or heard any thing like this. If true it's a real shame.

I believe that you can see it by looking carefully at the work. Maybe it's a stylistic thing, but the figures are very stilted. It doesn't look like it was made with a lot of love.

The snopes page is here. A partial quote:

The officers didn't question Mr. Alussy [the sculptor] further about his political views. Had they pressed him, they might have learned that he's harshly critical of the U.S. and bitter over an American rocket attack during the war that killed his uncle. In an interview, he says he thinks the war was fought for oil and holds the U.S. responsible for the violence and unemployment that have plagued Iraq since.

"I made the statues of Saddam — even though I didn't want to — because I needed money for my family and to finish my education," he says, reclining in a room decorated with several of his paintings. "And I decided to make statues for the Americans for the exact same reasons."

The following is from a summary by Fox's Cameron (reprinted Media Matters' website).

Bush at a June 10, 2004, press conference after the G8 summit:

Q: Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President [Dick] Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

BUSH: That's up to --

Q: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

BUSH: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.

McClellan at a September 29, 2003, press briefing:

McCLELLAN: The president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the leaking of Plame's identity], they would no longer be in this administration.

[...]

Q: You continue to talk about the severity of this and if anyone has any information they should go forward to the Justice Department. But can you tell us, since it's so severe, would someone or a group of persons, lose their job in the White House?

McCLELLAN: At a minimum.

Q: At a minimum?

McCLELLAN: At a minimum.

Slightly related is Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev) interpretation (which has been more widely quoted than McCellan's original version):

"The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration, ... I trust they will follow through on this pledge. If these allegations are true, this rises above politics and is about our national security."

I've seen only two posts expressing support for what you've said, you seem to hold a real minority view here (either that, or the others aren't talking), so I appreciate your response.

You haven't mentioned it, but seeing as your priority is fighting terror networks, I was curious about what you thought of the recent morphs of the so-called 'flypaper theory'. For example, from the President's recent speech:

Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women, and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home. The commander in charge of coalition operations in Iraq -- who is also senior commander at this base -- General John Vines, put it well the other day. He said: "We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us."

Does that strike a cord with you at all?

The majority of the posts to you (apart from the ad hominems) have been: (a) if you think it's so easy, you go get him, (b) we're trying, so stop complaining/have patience, (c) we've already got him/he's dead (but they haven't told you), (d) catching OBL won't actually solve the problem of terrorism.

You've been of FreeRepublic a while, so I'm curious as to what prompted your outburst (you're a Brit? was it the recent attacks?), and how you feel about the responses to your question. You haven't said much in response.

I also wonder how you feel about the 'no one ever said Saddam was connected to 9/11' comments. Do you feel that you were told this?

Mr Howard would not say a terrorist attack was inevitable in Australia

In light of what happened in London, it sure feels inevitable. We've already had Bali, it feels like Sydney is next. Maybe our lovely Opera House ... What do you reckon made Johnny say that?

"I have said repeatedly and I'll say it again that there is the possibility of a terrorist attack in Australia," he said.

Maybe he's just saying that he can't know for sure. Fair enough, but I just wish there was more information coming from ASIO. I'd rather know than feel left in the dark like this ...

I went to the Muslim Council of Britain's website to see if they had done any of the things you stated.

A statement from them making it clear that they would cooperate with the investigation

From statement entitled British Muslims Utterly Condemn Acts of Terror: "All of us must unite in helping the police to capture these murderers."

an acknowledgement that their own co-religionists have been disproportionately involved in attacks of this nature

From a statement entitled Terrorist Attack: A Joint Statement from the Muslim Council of Britain and Churches Together in Britain and Ireland: "We continue to resist all attempts to associate our communities with the hateful acts of any minority who claim falsely to represent us. In the present uncertainties, we look to all community leaders to give an example of wisdom, tolerance and compassion."

Reading these reponses makes me thing that it's a no-win situation for British Muslims. If they stay silent, they are assumed to be supportive. If they condemn the attacks, it's seen as inadequate, insincere, or hypocritical. If they express fear of reprisals, people assume that's all they care about. If they ask that their scarved women not be harassed, it's seen as self-serving. And if they try to give insights into the complicated causes behind this, they'll be seen as sympathising with the enemy. It's a shame, because the British Muslim is uniquely positioned to be a useful ally in the WOT.

Does anyone know if Tony Blair or someone else with authority from Britain has commented on the authenticity of the memos?

[The plan] was contingency based on a pilot being shot down and held hostage.
Thanks for the info, I appreciate it. You are right, the memos certainly don't describe this kind of plan, or give any indication of it. Is your reason for saying that this implies that the memos are fake because any invasion plan would be built upon this hostage-contingency plan? As in, if we have an invasion plan ready, we might as well use it?

got skittish about that his handiwork would be quickly discovered, told to the Associated Press that he typed up the memos himself on an "old-fashioned typewriter", marked them "SECRET" and "CONFIDENTIAL"
Thanks for the link. After following it for a bit, I found a pdf of the typed version which I had been looking for :-) . The "secret" and "confidential" marks are merely typed at the top and bottom, not stamped (as some others have said). The writing is crooked, and there's no letterhead. If he was trying to make them look like originals, he didn't do a very good job of it.

burned the originals
That is suspicious. I would have just hidden the originals (although I might have claimed they were burned so no one would try to forcefully extract the information from me).

2 -- Then he marked/stamped them Secret or confidential.
Hehe, that's hilarious! Do you know which one has the "secret" stamp on it. I'd like to see the pdf and point it out to a certain someone (I can't seem to find it) .... >:)

It never once mentioned the problematic no fly zone. There is no way that is not going to be mentioned in a "comprehensive" memo like that if it is real.
That's interesting -- I've never heard anyone point that out before. I guess if they are discussing numbers of troops, they should mention how they planned to keep the civilians in the no-fly zones safe (that is what you meant, right?). By the way, one of the newer memos does mention the no fly zone, but only to point out that using them to pressure Saddam (presumably the "spikes of activity" mentioned in the first memo) was not consistent with the resolution that created them (point 9).

This memo has already been debunked. Where was it debunked? Do you mean Ken Mehlman's statement on Meet the Press, or something else.

Here is the AI report's section on North Korea. Their summary is as follows:

The government continued to fail in its duty to uphold and protect the right to food, exacerbating the effects of the long-standing food crisis. Chronic malnutrition among children and urban populations, especially in the northern provinces, was widespread. Fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, association and movement, continued to be denied. Access by independent monitors continued to be severely restricted. There were reports of widespread political imprisonment, torture and ill-treatment, and of executions.