I guess the evidence is in.

[Lanya]

I'm going off on a tangent, so feel free to skip this post.
I've heard people say, "Osama's a cave dweller, just  a crazy Muslim who lives in a cave."  As if he is an actual cave man, very very primitive, perhaps can use tools but...one never knows. 

From the dreaded Wiki: "As a college student at King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, bin Laden studied civil engineering and business administration. He earned a degree in civil engineering in 1979 and also one in economics and public administration, in 1981."

I would like people in this country to be less self-satisfied, to read more, and not to think that if someone lives in harsh conditions it means he is stupid.     This is very dangerous thinking.  We have to be smarter than to think of our enemy as a dummy. 

[Michael Tee]

<<You are not reading Osamas own words , he wants to establish a big empire on Earth , a Caphilate.>>

So how does that make him similar to Saddam, similar enough that you can predict what Saddam would do based on what Osama has done?

<<Saddam was less religious  . . . >>

Bullshit.  Saddam wasn't religious at all.  He wasn't "less religious," he was non-religious.  He allowed the pubic consumption of alcohol, women in Western dress, equal educational opportunities for women - - every fucking thing that Osama and the Taliban opposed.  What are you doing, just making stuff up as you go along?  You're talking nonsense.


<< . . but the two of them were just useing diffrent means to the same end. >>

Oh that's just more  total bullshit.  A caliphate was a religion-based empire of Muslims and Saddam was a member of the Ba'ath Socialist Party.  He had no intention of establishing a Caliphate.  Anybody who wanted to establish a Caliphate would have been tortured to death if Saddam ever got his hands on him. 

Don't you see how your own mind is so crippled by racism that you can't even conceive of these guys differing? 
"They're Arabs so they gotta think the same."  You gotta get out of that box, plane!

[sirs]

Bush's lie was to tell the country he KNEW that Saddam had WMD, that it was a slam dunk.  This wasn't true.  The intel was dubious and he must have known that because he actively discouraged anyone who reported anything different to him.

Bzzzz, wrong....the intel was overwhelming.  It was overwhelmingly wrong, but was overwhelming in their conclusions that Saddam did possess stockpiles of WMD.  This was echoed by the entire global community, AND the prior administration.  Apparently we're back to they ALL lied.  So which is, they all lied, Clinton, Gore, Dean, Reid, etc., or were they all stupid??  

And the FACTS clearly concluded that no effort was made by Bush to coerce the intel conclusions.  Sorry, that lie won't fly either

[sirs]

We know who didn't think that Iraq had accounted for "all" of its chemical and biological agents - - the two invaders themselves, plus France (suddenly regaining credibility in the eyes of conservatives) and "other countries."  (probably the same stooges that the U.S. blackmailed, bribed, inveigled and ortherwise schmeered or coerced into their criminal venture)   What we don't know from the article is which countries felt that Iraq had accounted for all or most of its chemical and biological weapons. 

That didn't take long.  We're back to a lack of proof/evidence is proof/evidence that Saddam did comply with UN 1441.  Again, gotta love the consistency

[Michael Tee]

<<Bzzzz, wrong....the intel was overwhelming. >>

No it wasn't overwhelming.  It did not convince the allies that Bush wanted to convince.  If it were overwhelming it would have.

<< It was overwhelmingly wrong, but was overwhelming in their conclusions that Saddam did possess stockpiles of WMD. >>

Well, that's what happens when it's manipulated from the top.  When the boss tells anyone who brings in a contrary opinion, "Go back and look at it again."

<< This was echoed by the entire global community,>>

That's YOUR mantra, but it's a pack of lies.  The entire global community REJECTED this bullshit and wanted more time, it was Bush and his fellow criminal Blair who insisted that the circumstances did not allow for more time.

<< AND the prior administration.  Apparently we're back to they ALL lied.  So which is, they all lied, Clinton, Gore, Dean, Reid, etc., or were they all stupid??  >>

They never told the country that the threat was so immediate that an invasion was the only option.  THAT was Bush's unique lie.  Whatever else they said, they did not use the fiction of an Iraqi "threat" as demanding an invasion.

<<And the FACTS clearly concluded that no effort was made by Bush to coerce the intel conclusions.  Sorry, that lie won't fly either>>

Why?  Because you say so? Bullshit.  Insiders have published their accounts and those accounts say clearly that Bush and his cabinet basically ordered up the intelligence they wanted.  I didn't make that up.  Those books are out there.

[Michael Tee]

<<That didn't take long.  We're back to a lack of proof/evidence is proof/evidence that Saddam did comply with UN 1441.  Again, gotta love the consistency >>

Not only do you not know what you are talking about, but apparentlly you don't even read the fucking posts.  The Wikipedia article itself was the source for the original statement that Saddam HAD complied with the UN requirements.  NOT the lack of evidence.

The same article then went on to find supposed fault with its earlier statement that Saddam had complied.  The part of my post that you were quoting from was the part wherein I was attacking the latter part of the Wikipedia article.  It was not meant as proof that Saddam had complied, it was disproof of the part of the Wikipedia article that said he might not have complied.

If you are going to criticize what I am saying, at least understand what my point is before you attack it. 

[sirs]

<< It was overwhelmingly wrong, but was overwhelming in their conclusions that Saddam did possess stockpiles of WMD. >>

Well, that's what happens when it's manipulated from the top.  When the boss tells anyone who brings in a contrary opinion, "Go back and look at it again."

Ok, so despite the facts to the contrary, they ALL were apparently lying.  Bush, Clinton, the UN, France, Germany, Gore, and every Dem to claim Saddam had them, were all lying to us.  Well, hopefully we can put that to bed now

<< This was echoed by the entire global community,>>

That's YOUR mantra, but it's a pack of lies.  The entire global community REJECTED this bullshit and wanted more time, it was Bush and his fellow criminal Blair who insisted that the circumstances did not allow for more time.

Oh this should be good.  Show us Tee.  Show us where every Country's leader rejected their own intelliegence, that had concluded Saddam's stockpile of WMD was legit.

They never told the country that the threat was so immediate that an invasion was the only option.  THAT was Bush's unique lie.  Whatever else they said, they did not use the fiction of an Iraqi "threat" as demanding an invasion.

Following 911, a timetable for Saddam to comply WAS necesarry.  And the basis continued to be the conclusions that allowing Saddam's WMD to potentially get in the hands of terrorists, following what they were able to do with simple boxcutters, was a scenario that simply wasn't going to be allowed to fester on the back burner.  It was never stated the threat was "immediate" nor "imminent".  Simply one that wasn't going to be tolerated.  I realize this effort to re-write history is an emotionally gripping one, but your egregious distortions will simply be continued to be corrected,

<<And the FACTS clearly concluded that no effort was made by Bush to coerce the intel conclusions.  Sorry, that lie won't fly either>>

Why?  Because you say so? Bullshit.  Insiders have published their accounts and those accounts say clearly that Bush and his cabinet basically ordered up the intelligence they wanted.  I didn't make that up.  Those books are out there.

No, because the Bi-partisan Investigative commissions, mandated to look at ALL the facts, said so.  Their reports, minus the biased agenda, is out there as well

[sirs]

If you are going to criticize what I am saying, at least understand what my point is before you attack it. 

Just noting the thematic consistency, Tee

[Michael Tee]

<<Just noting the thematic consistency, Tee>>

That was my whole point, sirs - - there wasn't any "thematic consistency" this time, even if one were to accept your own warped view of what theme you claim to find in all my posts.

[sirs]

That was my whole point, sirs - - there wasn't any "thematic consistency" this time, even if one were to accept your own warped view of what theme you claim to find in all my posts.

On the contrary, there was.  I even highlighted it.  Lack of evidence justifies the support in believing nonexistant evidence.  In this case, that Saddam supposedly complied with UN 1441.  You use it when your egregiously bashing the military for supposed widespread atrocities, and in Bashing Bush for widespread corruption & lying about WMD.  Oh, let's not forget condemning Bush for sitting on 911 had, if he had known.  If anything, it's definately a consistent theme to supposedly validating your deductions

[Michael Tee]

<<Ok, so despite the facts to the contrary, they ALL were apparently lying.  Bush, Clinton, the UN, France, Germany, Gore, and every Dem to claim Saddam had them, were all lying to us.  Well, hopefully we can put that to bed now >>

Maybe on YOUR planet, sirs, but on mine it was only Bush who claimed that the threat was so great that an invasion could not be put off.

<<Show us where every Country's leader rejected their own intelliegence, that had concluded Saddam's stockpile of WMD was legit.>>

I'm sorry, sirs.  I guess on your planet, Bush didn't try to drum up support for a Security Council resolution authorizing use of force.  Didn't bring his "intelligence" to the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Canadians and try to get them onboard for use of force.  See, sirs, here on THIS planet, that's what happened.  Bush tried to peddle his laughable, childish "intelligence" to the UN, and to most of the Western countries he wanted on-board.  "Look at this stuff, it PROVES that there's a huge menace here in Iraq and if we don't invade them tomorrow we'll all be toast."  Words to the same effect, anyway.  And nobody was buying.  Well, almost nobody.  Nobody of any importance.  It was bullshit and it was clearly recognized as bullshit by the governments of many nations.  He could fool the huge mass of morons that goes by the name of "the American people," but there were few others that he could fool.

<<And the basis continued to be the conclusions that allowing Saddam's WMD to potentially get in the hands of terrorists, following what they were able to do with simple boxcutters, was a scenario that simply wasn't going to be allowed to fester on the back burner.>>

Oh, OF COURSE.  The logic is unassailable.  If they can use boxcutters as weapons, they shouldn't have any problem deploying atom bombs.  Once you're qualified on box-cutters, man, you're qualified on any weapons system imaginable.

<<It was never stated the threat was "immediate" nor "imminent". >>

Uh, yeah, sirs, it was.  The whole argument of the U.S. was that whereas the UN Security Council wanted to give diplomacy more time, there just wasn't any more time.  In Condoleeza Rice's words, "We can't wait until the smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud."  Sorry to let a little fact break in on your fantasy, but there it is.

<<No, because the Bi-partisan Investigative commissions, mandated to look at ALL the facts, said so.  Their reports, minus the biased agenda, is out there as well>>

sirs, you're hilarious.  First, you go out of your way to tell me all the Democrats who said the same thing as Bush.  THEN you claim that Bush was exonerated of manipulating the intelligence by a Bi-Partisan Committee, as if the bipartisanship of the committee inoculated it from any charge of whitewash - - completely forgetting your earlier argument that identical allegations regarding Saddam's WMD were made by members of both parties.  BTW, how did the "Bipartisan Committee" deal with the published reports by intelligence and White House insiders that clearly indicated manipulation of the conclusions by White House staffers?

[Michael Tee]

<<Lack of evidence justifies the support in believing nonexistant evidence.  In this case, that Saddam supposedly complied with UN 1441.  >>

OK.

Now show me where in my post I relied on lack of evidence of compliance to prove that Saddam had complied.

[sirs]

<<Ok, so despite the facts to the contrary, they ALL were apparently lying.  Bush, Clinton, the UN, France, Germany, Gore, and every Dem to claim Saddam had them, were all lying to us.  Well, hopefully we can put that to bed now >>

Maybe on YOUR planet, sirs, but on mine it was only Bush who claimed that the threat was so great that an invasion could not be put off.

Naaa, that'd be your planet Tee.  They air is apparently very thin.  In this reality, they ALL claimed that Saddam posed a distinct threat, to both the region and to America, with his stockpike of WMD.  Your biggest beef is that Bush actually did something about it.

<<Show us where every Country's leader rejected their own intelliegence, that had concluded Saddam's stockpile of WMD was legit.>>

I'm sorry, sirs.  I guess on your planet, Bush didn't try to drum up support for a Security Council resolution authorizing use of force.  Didn't bring his "intelligence" to the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Canadians and try to get them onboard for use of force.  See, sirs, here on THIS planet, that's what happened.  Bush tried to peddle his laughable, childish "intelligence" to the UN, and to most of the Western countries he wanted on-board.  "Look at this stuff, it PROVES that there's a huge menace here in Iraq and if we don't invade them tomorrow we'll all be toast."  Words to the same effect, anyway.  And nobody was buying.  Well, almost nobody.  Nobody of any importance.  It was bullshit and it was clearly recognized as bullshit by the governments of many nations.  He could fool the huge mass of morons that goes by the name of "the American people," but there were few others that he could fool.

So, in that entire rant of a paragraph, not so surprisingly, my question never got answered.  Just your nonverifiable conclusions of Bush being able to strongarm everyone else to follow his lead.  Priceless

<<It was never stated the threat was "immediate" nor "imminent". >>

Uh, yeah, sirs, it was.  The whole argument of the U.S. was that whereas the UN Security Council wanted to give diplomacy more time, there just wasn't any more time.  In Condoleeza Rice's words, "We can't wait until the smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud."  Sorry to let a little fact break in on your fantasy, but there it is.

Reading for comprehension issues again?  The paragragh supports the continued notion that we act BEFORE Saddam's WMD gets in the hands of a terrorist group, and then DOES become an immediate/imminent threat

<<No, because the Bi-partisan Investigative commissions, mandated to look at ALL the facts, said so.  Their reports, minus the biased agenda, is out there as well>>

sirs, you're hilarious.  First, you go out of your way to tell me all the Democrats who said the same thing as Bush.....

Yea, and..............?  I'm not the one implying that they're all lying.  That'd be you big guy

THEN you claim that Bush was exonerated of manipulating the intelligence by a Bi-Partisan Committee, as if the bipartisanship of the committee inoculated it from any charge of whitewash - - completely forgetting your earlier argument that identical allegations regarding Saddam's WMD were made by members of both parties.

I love the way you're able to rationalize how agenda driven books, by folks who could EASILY be shown to have an axe to grind, and who also are innoculated from any repercussions of their writings must be gospel, but Bi-Partisan committees, who were required to look at the facts, must be discounted, because they dare stray from the pre-disposed mindset of how evil and a lying bastard Bush has to be.......because.....he just has to be.  It's Bush

BTW, how did the "Bipartisan Committee" deal with the published reports by intelligence and White House insiders that clearly indicated manipulation of the conclusions by White House staffers?

As I stated, they investigated the FACTS, and concluded otherwise.

[Plane]

I'm going off on a tangent, so feel free to skip this post.
I've heard people say, "Osama's a cave dweller, just  a crazy Muslim who lives in a cave."  As if he is an actual cave man, very very primitive, perhaps can use tools but...one never knows. 

From the dreaded Wiki: "As a college student at King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, bin Laden studied civil engineering and business administration. He earned a degree in civil engineering in 1979 and also one in economics and public administration, in 1981."

I would like people in this country to be less self-satisfied, to read more, and not to think that if someone lives in harsh conditions it means he is stupid.     This is very dangerous thinking.  We have to be smarter than to think of our enemy as a dummy. 

I Knew that Osama was an engineer.

But I wish that Osama had heard your adviced before he assumed the the USA was populated by pushovers.

[sirs]

Now show me where in my post I relied on lack of evidence of compliance to prove that Saddam had complied.

Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 06:02:33 PM
We know who didn't think that Iraq had accounted for "all" of its chemical and biological agents - - the two invaders themselves, plus France (suddenly regaining credibility in the eyes of conservatives) and "other countries."  (probably the same stooges that the U.S. blackmailed, bribed, inveigled and ortherwise schmeered or coerced into their criminal venture)   What we don't know from the article is which countries felt that Iraq had accounted for all or most of its chemical and biological weapons.  

The accusatory implication is as clear as rainwater.  The countries that said he didn't comply, can't be trusted, and we don't know what countries did believe Saddam, because they've not been listed.  In other words, not 1 country that concluded Saddam didn't comply will be one you agree can be trusted or believed.  But those non-existant countries that did believe Saddam complied.....well, if we only knew, that'd prove he did