Non Partisan Political Post

[Banned]

The same documents form Saddam's cabinet meetings (now over 44,000 and hours of tapes) now shed lots of light on this. It is available as official documents being released slowly. I wonder why so slowly, could it be the criminal liberal media has an agenda?

Not only did our intelligence say there was WMD, so did the British, the Russians, the Israelies and many others. Slick Willie thought so. John F'in Kerry thought so too.

The trail from the translations of these documents seem to lead to Syria. This is no surprise to many. Saddam's own generals were surprised they had no WMD to deploy on our troops. Saddam was a sneaky shit for an egomaniacial dictaror murderer.

[f.sciarrillo]

Clinton and Kerry are also the ones who pushed bush to go after them. Now Clinton is trying to play nice guy and side with Bush ..

[Banned]

Again more of the Saddam documents that are being translated:



Monday, March 20, 2006 12:18 a.m. EST
Bin Laden Sought 'Joint Operations' With Saddam


An Iraqi intelligence document released last week indicates that Osama bin Laden sought to conduct "joint operations" with Saddam Hussein's regime six years before the 9/11 attacks - and was given the green light by the Iraqi dictator.

The document, detailed in the March 27 issue of the Weekly Standard, describes a Feb. 1995 meeting between bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence that was personally approved by "the Honorable Presidency" - an apparent reference to Saddam.

"We discussed with [bin Laden] his organization. He requested the broadcast of the speeches of Sheikh Sulayman al-Uda [who has influence within Saudi Arabia and outside due to being a well known religious and influential personality] and to designate a program for them through the broadcast directed inside Iraq, and to perform joint operations against the foreign forces in the land of Hijaz [Saudi Arabia]."

The document goes on to note that "the Honorable Presidency was informed of the details of the meeting in our letter 370 on March 4, 1995."


The document indicates that Saddam personally granted bin Laden's request for help with propaganda broadcasts and instructed his agents "to develop the relationship [with bin Laden] and the cooperation between the two sides to see what other doors of cooperation and agreement open up."

The 1997 Iraqi intelligence document goes on to report: "Currently we are working to invigorate this relationship through a new channel in light of his present location [Afghanistan]."

The reference by Iraqi intelligence to "joint operations" with bin Laden apparently contradicts one of the 9/11 Commission's most important findings that Saddam had no "operational relationship" with al Qaeda."

How hard would be to believe that Bin Ladin and Saddam would work together. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. They both hated the USA.

[grimmbass]

Boy, with all of these connections between Saddam, Bin Laden and Al Queda, it almost makes you wonder why our own U.S. Government put these guys in power in the first place? Let's see....how many times has a dictator or radical WE put into power come back to bite us in the ass?

1. Saddam
2. Bin Laden
3. Noriega
4. Castro

But now we're "making our world safe for freedom" by taking care of the problems our own government actually created. Why does nobody see this?

More later...especially on the religion thing!

Kent

[Banned]

Boy, with all of these connections between Saddam, Bin Laden and Al Queda, it almost makes you wonder why our own U.S. Government put these guys in power in the first place? Let's see....how many times has a dictator or radical WE put into power come back to bite us in the ass?

1. Saddam
2. Bin Laden
3. Noriega
4. Castro

But now we're "making our world safe for freedom" by taking care of the problems our own government actually created. Why does nobody see this?


Kent

And your point?

History is replete with allainces made and later broken. When we were trying to bring down Iran, we sided with Saddam. When we were against the Soviet Union we made friends with Afgan Islamic rebels. So. That was in our tactical interests then. Guess what, circumstances change. The world changes.

I guess we should let the El Queda go because they once fought against the Soviet Union. That gives them carte blanche to terrorize us?

[BDR]

I like beans ...

Copyright ©2005, 2006 BadDazeRob Productions, All Rights Reserved

r:>)

[grimmbass]

My points, Undercover Joe, are:

1. If we put these guys in power, then why don't we have the intelligence to know what the fuck they're up to before we committ lives and money towards pointless wars?
2. Why do we keep making the same mistakes of putting these people in power?
3. How does invading and destablizing a country fight terrorism? Terrorists, like guerilla fighters, are never fought in the open. They do damage over time, and they rarely have a centralized "hive." They don't try to take over massive pieces of land through overt military force. That being said, you cannot beat them by takinng over massive pieces of land through military force.
4. We can only achieve stability through intelligence work and internal organization which we obviously lack. Our government can't even respond to a natural disaster with a week's warning, let alone a terrorist strike.

I'm not anti-military...far from it. I AM against the scattershot use of force against convenient targets. Despite the intelligence that was on hand, our leaders made the decision to go to war. We need the following:
Better intelligence or better leaders who can make better decisions.

[Banned]

I cannot disagree that we need better intelligence. Our intelligence was just a flawed as our allies at the start of this.

But just because we supported someone 20 or 30 years ago does not mean that the relationship does not change with circumstances.

Was Iraq that stabe under Saddam? If you could ask any of the million or so people he had murdered, I don't think they would agree with you. The few surviving villagers who saw their families and whole villages killed by lethal nerve gas would not agree with you.

No one could be happy with our soldiers dying and the cost of this frigging war in Iraq, but I am glad it is there, and not on Plank Road. I hope we help get that government and its army up and running ASAP.

[lonewolf]

Boy, with all of these connections between Saddam, Bin Laden and Al Queda, it almost makes you wonder why our own U.S. Government put these guys in power in the first place? Let's see....how many times has a dictator or radical WE put into power come back to bite us in the ass?

1. Saddam
2. Bin Laden
3. Noriega
4. Castro

But now we're "making our world safe for freedom" by taking care of the problems our own government actually created. Why does nobody see this?

More later...especially on the religion thing!

Kent

Well, Kent, 2 out of 4 ain't bad. The U.S. government never supported Castro and sure as hell didn't put him into power. bin Laden received basic (grunt) guerilla training from the CIA in the early 80s for the Afghan war. We never supported him or put him in his position of power. His hatred of the U.S. did that.

Here is a good site for the Qur'an translated to English:

http://www.faizani.com/quran-koran/index.html

Mohammed was illiterate and these chapters are his entire works as taken down by his scribes.

[Blain]

Despite the intelligence that was on hand, our leaders made the decision to go to war. We need the following:
Better intelligence or better leaders who can make better decisions.

No, it was because of the intelligence that was on hand that we decided to go to war. Every bit of intel we had said that Iraq had WMDs. That is not even in question anymore. Saddam's own generals believed he had WMDs until just months before the war.

We know that Bush didn't lie. Even the New York Times has said that Bush didn't lie. The "Bush lied" crowd has been proven wrong, point-by-point, time and time again, but they still stick to their talking points...or should I say "chanting points". Anybody who still thinks that Bush lied is nothing but a kool-aid drinker.

[songsmith]

We knew that bin Laden wasn't in Iraq, right? We knew that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq. What would happen if we devoted 130,000 more troops to his capture? Iraq was a wrong turn on a one-way street. Mmmm, good koolaid. Needs a shot of Dittohead to stiffen it up a bit, though. ----->JMS

[Blain]

We knew that bin Laden wasn't in Iraq, right? We knew that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq. What would happen if we devoted 130,000 more troops to his capture? Iraq was a wrong turn on a one-way street. Mmmm, good koolaid. Needs a shot of Dittohead to stiffen it up a bit, though. ----->JMS

My reply was about intelligence on WMDs, not bin laden.

I agree that Iraq was a mistake, knowing what we now know. However, the intelligence, however wrong it was, all pointed in the same direction.

Now that we're there, we can't leave until the job is done. My problem is, we're not getting the job done.

[byndrsn]

Again, I would like to point out that this thread has turned into what most political threads turn into - an arguement about specific issues that are generally partisan in nature.

Everytime we argue among ourselves we are divided.

One of the original points of this thread was that as long as we keep playing the partisan game and are not united we run the risk of losing everything.

[Punkinhead]

Everytime we argue among ourselves we are divided.

One of the original points of this thread was that as long as we keep playing the partisan game and are not united we run the risk of losing everything.

Whole heartedly agreed...

[grimmbass]

Islamic scholars weren't just the "keepers of the flame" of knowlege during the dark ages, they were truly innovators, especially in the fields of mathematics, astronomy, and medicine. Additionally, the Qu'ran directly mentions the human reproductive process as a combination of man and woman, something that Western science didn't embrace until the latter half of the last millenium (scientists literally thought that semen contained miniature fully-formed humans).

For more information, check out the Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_sc ... ng_Science

I don't recommend using Wikipedia as a sole source (as it's an "open source" encyclopedia) but it is a good start.

Lone Wolf, regarding your "2 out of 4 ain't bad" comment:
Yeah, I don't know why I wrote "Fidel Castro," but I think I still get a 3 out of 4. The US did indeed build Bin Laden's power through financial and covert military support.

Byndrsn: How do you suggest gaining unity? What, exactly, do you think a "unified stance" mean? I don't think that everyone here who disagrees with someone else's opinion is necesarrily picking a partisan side. Some statements in this thread have truly run counter to "party lines," especially those by my conservative friends who've critized Bush. So, should we lie down and just agree to things we don't believe in? Division is what spurs debate...and debate is the only way we can truly make issues into three-dimensional subjects. Without debate, most of us would only see things from one side. So, what would you like to see happen?

I've hit the point where I probably won't post on this thread anymore....I've said my piece, and I thank you for your attention and comments. I think we've all drawn our lines in the sand...but I am glad that people are thinking. Questioning our leaders and making them accountable is one of the most valuable parts of democracy.

People want blood these days. They want to feel like we're making some progress in the war against terror. This war can't be won with big invasions or airstrikes, but only, as General Westmoreland once said, through "hearts and minds." Winning on those battlefields is a far more challenging endeavor.

Peace,
Kent

[Gallowglass]

Hey, just a point on the whole "...every time we argue, we're dividing ourselves..." sentiment. To a point, I agree..., but what makes this "experiment in democracy" we live in so great is the fact that we have the ability to express our opinions however we want. Don't underestimate the importance of that. It's insane to think that we're ever going to reach 100% consensus on anything. Does that mean we can never discuss anything for fear of dividing ourselves? I can see your points in relation to the fact that sometimes it seems as if all we are doing is spinning our wheels. There are productive ways and not so productive ways to go about it. I'll paraphrase Voltaire by saying- " I may not agree with anything you say, but I'll die for your right to say it."

[songsmith]

I don't see my rants as partisan. I'm at least somewhat more likely to vote Republican than Democrat... I just see the Iraq thing as a debacle, and I don't like how the GOP has acted and reacted to their own futzing up of my country. I don't like how they propagandize on the conservative media, how they deny any fault,how they control a Congress that has achieved so little, how they equate conservatism with patriotism, how they contribute to the divisiveness the US now deals with, and most of all, how much power one single presidential "advisor" has. Wanting the current administration to end doesn't make me a Democrat, it makes me a frustrated registered voter.
Hopefully, my friends here understand that my politics have almost no bearing on my respect for them... music is an escape from all that workaday shite.--->JMS

[RobTheDrummer]

Bill Clinton had the opportunity to take Bin Laden in, but we let him go. The US has a history of fuckin up like that, no matter what Presidente is in the white house. It's all politics anyway, we have no say in any of it, no matter if we vote or not. So, therefore, it's no use bitchin about cuz they are all gonna fuck us all anyway. So, we're all fucked so enjoy your time on this earth instead of gettin all bitchy about stupid shit. I have faith in the gov't no matter who's in power. They all suck, so fuck em! I know that every president is gonna try to protect his people, well except Clinton selling secrets to the Chinese or the whole Bin Laden thing, but anyways...who cares?

[lonewolf]

The US did indeed build Bin Laden's power through financial and covert military support.

We never gave him a penny. In the 80s, we funded the Afghani resistance to the Soviet Union and bin Laden happened to be an unwanted ally to the Afghanis--they thought his Arabs were a pain in the ass. This is where bin Laden received his basic guerilla training--a great big BFD in my book. That's the extent of his fabled "US support". He didn't start al Quaida until after leaving Afghanistan.

He and his $300 million+ share of his family's oil fortune were ostensibly exiled to al-Quaida after the Gulf war and we sure as hell didn't fund that. We may have caused his exile with pressure on the royal family, because he was kicked out of Saudi Arabia for protesting the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait.

PC has really overblown the Muslim role in science & tech. Those verses in the Qur'an don't contain any scientific knowledge per se, just references that scientific knowledge exists and we should pursue it.

They did collect a lot of knowledge from many sources and built small "universities" to preserve it, but had relatively few significant original discoveries or inventions. Like a really good cover band with 2 originals.

Leonardo da Vinci had more scientific breakthroughs all by himself.

[Banned]

Grimmbass wrote:

"Islamic scholars weren't just the "keepers of the flame" of knowlege during the dark ages..."

Totally BS.

Look up some history on the Great Library in Alexandria, Egypt. Historical reports estimate up to 700,000 documents were stored there. Basically the whole recored history of Greece, Rome, Persia, and whatever recorded writings there were up to 640 A.D.

What happened in 640 A.D. The Muslims invaders under Kalif Omar burned down the Great Library because it contained teachings which were in conflict with the Koran. --700,000 historical documents up in flame. that's really "keeping the flame"!!!!!

In 1445 A.D., when Gutenberg invented the printing press with movable type, it lead to the possible education of the masses. Before this only the rich, royal and church types had the ability to learn to read the very limited books at the time.

Guess which religion forbid the printing press? Yesserie, the Muslims. They did not want their masses educated. They wanted them ignorant as ever so the Imam could interpret the Koran for them and tell them how to live their everyday lives. Power. If the population of Muslims had the ability to obtain and read books, they would not need Imams leading them.

These events have kept the Muslim populace in a 14th century mindset.

[grimmbass]

You can use your own biases to decide which culture did a better job of preserving the previous culture's advancement in science, math, etc.....the Greeks had it taken by the Romans who lost it when the barbarians took over their bloated empire....blah blah blah...

Bottom line: Every culture builds on the knowledge of the culture before it. It's called Human History.

Guess which religion forbid the printing press? Yesserie, the Muslims. They did not want their masses educated. They wanted them ignorant as ever so the Imam could interpret the Koran for them and tell them how to live their everyday lives. Power. If the population of Muslims had the ability to obtain and read books, they would not need Imams leading them.

And you could make a similar argument about the Catholic Church only giving the mass in Latin or whatever. Prior to Vatican II, it was assumed that you'd get your religion in Latin. Religions have usually maintained some kind of power or control over knowlege. That attribute is NOT exclusively Muslim. Even today, religions have all kinds of crazy laws. Don't mix meat and milk. Don't print images of our prophet. Don't write out the word for God. Don't eat meat on Fridays..whatever.

Here's my plan for peace. Put everyone on to worshipping the same God: Money. It seems to motivate most decisions made around the globe anyway.

Uncle. I give up.

[bassist_25]

Here's my plan for peace. Put everyone on to worshipping the same God: Money.

...or beans.

I think that we would see less wars and bigotry if everyone worshipped beans. It would be the Buddhism of the West!

[Banned]

You can use your own biases to decide which culture did a better job of preserving the previous culture's advancement in science, math, etc.....the Greeks had it taken by the Romans who lost it when the barbarians took over their bloated empire....blah blah blah...

Bottom line: Every culture builds on the knowledge of the culture before it. It's called Human History.

Guess which religion forbid the printing press? Yesserie, the Muslims. They did not want their masses educated. They wanted them ignorant as ever so the Imam could interpret the Koran for them and tell them how to live their everyday lives. Power. If the population of Muslims had the ability to obtain and read books, they would not need Imams leading them.

And you could make a similar argument about the Catholic Church only giving the mass in Latin or whatever. Prior to Vatican II, it was assumed that you'd get your religion in Latin. Religions have usually maintained some kind of power or control over knowlege. That attribute is NOT exclusively Muslim. Even today, religions have all kinds of crazy laws. Don't mix meat and milk. Don't print images of our prophet. Don't write out the word for God. Don't eat meat on Fridays..whatever.

Here's my plan for peace. Put everyone on to worshipping the same God: Money. It seems to motivate most decisions made around the globe anyway.

Uncle. I give up.

1. The Muslims certainly could not build upon the cultures before them, they burned greatest collection of recorded history EVER. Muslims wanted no part of human history that went on before them. They are number one book burners of all time.

2. Kent, Just because Catholics preformed thier services in Latin did not mean that 100s of millions of catholics did not have access to every book ever published. For centuries Muslims did not have access to mass produced books, it was forbidden by their religions leaders.

You can attempt to make the arguement, but it is so weak.

[lonewolf]

Here's my plan for peace. Put everyone on to worshipping the same God: Money.

...or beans.

I think that we would see less wars and bigotry if everyone worshipped beans. It would be the Buddhism of the West!

Are you kidding? Just what beans will we worship? Great Northern or Lima? Boston baked or refried? Soy would loom large with the highest protein content and its near ability to mimic almost any food with the aid of advanced chemical engineering. Then there's stringbeans, green beans and kidney beans. Rival gangs of different beans followers would riot in the streets. Soon, civilization as we know it would crumble into utter chaos with anarchy the only possible outcome....

[bassist_25]

Are you kidding? Just what beans will we worship? Great Northern or Lima? Boston baked or refried? Soy would loom large with the highest protein content and its near ability to mimic almost any food with the aid of advanced chemical engineering. Then there's stringbeans, green beans and kidney beans. Rival gangs of different beans followers would riot in the streets. Soon, civilization as we know it would crumble into utter chaos with anarchy the only possible outcome....

It would be a polytheistic religion, one in which a myriad of beans would be worshipped.