Issue of 2002-03-25

[Steve]

Disagreeable wrote:

That shows how out of step with the rest of America you few, loud, pro-war people are. Very slowly now, there were no Radical Islamic Terrorists in Iraq until George W. Bush invaded the country. They're in Iraq now, setting up training camps in Iraq and sending trained terrorists all over the world to spread their violence and anger. That's going to be George W. Bush's legacy.

Now Dis are you really that stupid?

Please read carefully the following article it is from The New Yorker, FACT, Saddam the great Terror, Issue of 2002-03-25

Biyara and nine other villages near it are occupied by the terrorist group Ansar al-Islam, ....

We were close enough to see trucks belonging to Ansar al-Islam making their way from village to village. The commander of the peshmerga forces surrounding Biyara, a veteran guerrilla named Ramadan Dekone, said that Ansar al-Islam is made up of Kurdish Islamists and an unknown number of so-called Arab Afghans—Arabs, from southern Iraq and elsewhere, who trained in the camps of Al Qaeda.

.....The allegations include charges that Ansar al-Islam has received funds directly from Al Qaeda; that the intelligence service of Saddam Hussein has joint control, with Al Qaeda operatives, over Ansar al-Islam; that Saddam Hussein hosted a senior leader of Al Qaeda in Baghdad in 1992; that a number of Al Qaeda members fleeing Afghanistan have been secretly brought into territory controlled by Ansar al-Islam; and that Iraqi intelligence agents smuggled conventional weapons, and possibly even chemical and biological weapons, into Afghanistan. If these charges are true, it would mean that the relationship between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda is far closer than previously thought.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020325fa_FACT1

 

[Disagreeable]

Another Conspiracy Theory, Steve. There are absolutely no facts here.

From your post:

If these charges are true, it would mean that the relationship between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda is far closer than previously thought.

(my emphasis)

Show me where a government agency, a credible news source, has proven them to be true?

George W. Bush, himself, says there's no proof Saddam had anything to do with 9-11. Before the invasion of Iraq, satillite imaging found one possible terrorist camp. One. The same number found in New Jersey. And the one in Iraq was in the Kurdish region where the US had been protecting the Kurds with the no fly zone since the first Gulf war. Saddam was a cruel dictator, jealous of his power. He was not about to allow any group that might threaten his authority to set up camp in Iraq. He and Osama Bin Laden had different views on religion. Bin Laden hated Saddam for his secular views, that he didn't enforce strict Islamic laws.

 

[Steve]

Gee the New Yorker is not a credible news source?

seems to me it is

The New Yorker is an American magazine that publishes criticism, essays, investigative reporting, and fiction. Formerly weekly, the magazine is now published 46 times a year......The New Yorker has a wide audience outside of New York due to the quality of its journalism.....Within the journalism profession, The New Yorker enjoys the reputation of having the finest fact-checking and copyediting teams in the publishing industry......The New Yorker soon established itself as a preeminent forum for "serious" journalism,.....Traditionally, the magazine's politics have been essentially liberal,....The magazine later hired investigative journalist Seymour Hersh to report on military and security issues, and he has produced a number widely-reported articles on the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation by US forces. His revelations in the pages of The New Yorker about abuses in the Abu Ghraib prison and The Pentagon contingency plans for invading Iran were reported around the world.,....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Yorker

REPORTING
This category recognizes excellence in reporting. It honors the enterprise, exclusive reporting and intelligent analysis that a magazine exhibits in covering an event, a situation or a problem of contemporary interest and significance.

The New Yorker (Winner): David Remnick, editor, for Dying in Darfur, by Samantha Power, August 30.

PUBLIC INTEREST
This category recognizes journalism that has the potential to affect national or local policy or lawmaking. It honors investigative reporting or groundbreaking analysis that sheds new light on an issue of public importance.

The New Yorker (Winner): David Remnick, editor, for the three articles by Seymour M. Hersh, Torture at Abu Ghraib; May 10, Chain of Command, May 17; The Gray Zone, May 24.

PROFILE WRITING
This category recognizes excellence in profile writing. It honors the vividness and perceptiveness with which the writer brings his or her subject to life.

The New Yorker (Winner): David Remnick, editor, for The Gift, by Ian Parker, August 2.

ESSAYS
This category recognizes excellence in essay writing on topics ranging from the personal to the political. Whatever the subject, it honors the author's eloquence, perspective, fresh thinking and unique voice.

The New Yorker: David Remnick, editor, for Last of the Metrozoids, by Adam Gopnik, May 10

( they recieved awards in almost every area, )
http://www.magazine.org/Editorial/National_Magazine_Awards/Winners_and_Finalists/

"The The New Yorker is the best magazine EVER! Remnick and Co. picked up 5 Ellies at the Waldorf this afternoon."

The nominees for the National Magazine Awards are out and once again The New Yorker leads in the number of nominations, this year with nine.
The weekly magazine, under editor David Remnick, has been nominated for awards in the categories of general excellence, fiction, reporting, essays, feature writing, reviews and criticism, profile writing and single-copy issue.
Last year, The New Yorker received 11 nominations and won five awards, and in 2000 it won three.
Other top nominees this year include The Atlantic Monthly and Time, each with five nominations, Harper's and Newsweek with four.
Esquire, Gourmet, GQ and National Geographic have each been nominated for three awards.
But the nomination list, while predictable, includes a number of first-timers, some of them relatively new niche publications to boot.
They include O, The Oprah Magazine, which is up for two awards, general excellence and leisure interest, InStyle and Sports Illustrated Women, which are both up for general excellence, and MBA Jungle, up for general excellence and personal service.

lets see more awards the Time, Newsweek, seems like The New Yorker is a fairly credible source,,,even if it is a liberal source,,,,,

 

[Steve]

Dis Wrote:

Very slowly now, there were no Radical Islamic Terrorists in Iraq until George W. Bush invaded the country.

Okey Dis lets' focus a bit, your response had little to do with the claim you made, First off ONE is more the NO, so even if you concede to ONE small training camp full of Radical Islamic Terrorists, as you did, it is still alot more then the NO, you claimed,

so when you could not admit you were wrong you,
1. attacked the Source. The New Yorker,
2. Tried to change the subject.
3. Blamed President Bush.

You claimed there were "NO RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS IN IRAQ,"until George W. Bush invaded the country.

but there was the Award winning Magazine The New Yorker and it's writer, who wrote:

Biyara and nine other villages near it are occupied by the terrorist group Ansar al-Islam, ....

We were close enough to see trucks belonging to Ansar al-Islam making their way from village to village.

that is not some report from a villager, it was the writer's eyewitness account,,,

Maybe you should read the whole article it gave a fairly good account of the ""FACT"" that there were indeed, many Radical Islamic terrorists in Iraq "before" we re-entered the conflict against them..

 

[Steve]

No answer, I guess I typed to fast for Disagreeable.....

Let me repeat it,

There is INDISPUTABLE PROOF that there were RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS in iraq prior to President Bush re-entering the war...

 

[Liberty Belle]

Don't hold your breath waiting for dis to answer after you've shown those posts for the garbage they are. He/she/it is incapable of holding an honest, intelligent discussion and will refuse to answer when caught lying.

 

[Disagreeable]

Dis Wrote:

Very slowly now, there were no Radical Islamic Terrorists in Iraq until George W. Bush invaded the country.

Okey Dis lets' focus a bit, your response had little to do with the claim you made, First off ONE is more the NO, so even if you concede to ONE small training camp full of Radical Islamic Terrorists, as you did, it is still alot more then the NO, you claimed,

You are so dishonest, Steve. Your momma would be ashamed. I said in this thread above "satillite imaging found one possible terrorist camp". Possible terrorist camp. I don't think it was ever confirmed one way or another and even if it was, it was in the Kurdish region that was under the protection of the US no-fly zone! If there was such a camp, it was there because the US was protecting it! And no one said it was "full of Radical Islamic Terrorists". Shame on you.

so when you could not admit you were wrong you,
1. attacked the Source. The New Yorker,
2. Tried to change the subject.
3. Blamed President Bush.

I didn't attack the New Yorker. I quoted from your article "If these charges are true, it would mean that the relationship between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda is far closer than previously thought" and challenged you to show me a government report, news report, saying all this speculation is true. But you don't to that. You spin and pretend that I've attacked the New Yorker.

I'm not trying to change the subject. I'm happy to talk about the lack of WMDs and terrorists and training camps in Iraq. Yes, Bush is the reason 2,000+ American military men and women are dead in Iraq. And he's the reason 23,000+ Iraqis are dead. Using figures presented here on this board, Bush is responsible for more people being killed every day in Iraq than the murderous tyrant Saddam Hussain.

You claimed there were "NO RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS IN IRAQ,"until George W. Bush invaded the country.

but there was the Award winning Magazine The New Yorker and it's writer, who wrote:
Biyara and nine other villages near it are occupied by the terrorist group Ansar al-Islam, ....

That was his belief, what locals had told him. It doesn't make it true. Show me confirmation. Again, your article says "If these charges are true...." So show me.

We were close enough to see trucks belonging to Ansar al-Islam making their way from village to village.
that is not some report from a villager, it was the writer's eyewitness account,,,

How did he know those trucks belonged to Ansar al-Islam? Did they have a sign on the door: "property of radical islamic terrorist"?

Maybe you should read the whole article it gave a fairly good account of the ""FACT"" that there were indeed, many Radical Islamic terrorists in Iraq "before" we re-entered the conflict against them..

I read the article. One more time, from your article: "If these charges are true..." Show me they're true from a reliable source.

And one more time: If they are true why did George W. Bush say Saddam was not involved in 9-11? Is he stupid or a liar?

 

[Disagreeable]

No answer, I guess I typed to fast for Disagreeable.....

Let me repeat it,

There is INDISPUTABLE PROOF that there were RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS in iraq prior to President Bush re-entering the war...

Show it to me.

 

[kolanuraven]

Me too!

 

[Steve]

If they are true why did George W. Bush say Saddam was not involved in 9-11? Is he stupid or a liar.

Terrorists in Iraq and the connection to 9/11 can either both be true or not but they are two seperate issues that you are triing to divert to not make your self look "like a lier"....or at minimum your slowly looking. less crdible (as if that was possible).

let me refocus this again, I did not make the claim, YOU DID, and it was that thier were

Very slowly now, there were no Radical Islamic Terrorists in Iraq until George W. Bush invaded the country.

But if your going to do your own biased "FACT" Check

here is a few other "credible source:

New York Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton declared on the Senate floor October 10, 2002, that Saddam Hussein gave "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members."

http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/speeches/iraq_101002.html

and for a couple goverment reports:

Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (Conclusion 95, page 347): "The Central Intelligence Agency's assessment on safe haven — that al-Qaida or associated operatives were present in Baghdad and in northeastern Iraq in an area under Kurdish control — was reasonable."

The 9/11 Commission Report (page 61): "With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request." However, "the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections."

The 9/11 Commission Report (page 66): "In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, [Ayman al] Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis."

and another GOVERMENT AGENCY:

Iraq continued to provide safehaven and support to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, as well as bases, weapons, and protection to the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK),... Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999. Although Baghdad focused primarily on the antiregime opposition both at home and abroad, it continued to provide safehaven and support to various terrorist groups....

http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/1999report/sponsor.html#iraq

is that enough or would you like to see more?

I can back up my "PROOF" with a long list of "credible" sources, William Clinton, John Kerry,JohnEdwards, Edward Kennedy, CNN, Washington post, 60 Minutes, ABC, The US State department, in fact the list goes on that it would take several pages Just to list the "credible sources",,,Let alone the facts presented in support of the fact the there were in fact terrorists in Iraq, prior to our re-entering the war....

 

[Steve]

Dis Wrote:

He had no particular ties to terrorists.

why not stick to:

Very slowly now, there were no Radical Islamic Terrorists in Iraq until George W. Bush invaded the country.

maybe it's because you know it is not true?????

Can you at least prove Saddam had "no particular ties to terrorists." ???