I'm sure glad the war on terror is just a figment of W's imagination... - Page 11 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #101 of 125 (permalink) Old 06-04-2007, 05:52 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
1. I was not suggesting the report was an obfucation.

2. I believe the portion you quoted was a contra response to a comment that OBL and Saddam were NOT involved in 9/11. You suggested that they were, but instead of showing evidence that there was a 9/11 connection you showed a Kurd connection.

3. Also, I believe there were cross posts that suggested both pro and con as to the verasity of the pre S&A connections that actually existed between Saddam and OBL. As I posted, it is hard to tell if that got cleared up. I was trying to work through that then I decided to go to dinner.

4. You know better than to suggest that I just make cheap assed comments for argumentation. I spent too many years as a Sys Analyst consultant...none of my comments are cheap :-)
1. No, the original post claimed no connection between OBL & Saddam. You (and others) suggested that I used that portion of the report to support an assertion that I did not make.

2. I stayed strictly within that parameter and offered the best evidence available of a factual connection. Subsequent to my post, GS tried to conflate the argument with the events of 9/11. You might note that in the subsequent dialogue that I went to considerable effort to deny that conflation. Point alleged and point denied. No other implication implied by me. Read it and weep.

3. So far, all I have seen is the accumulation of additional evidence suggesting a shift from open hostility to accommodation between OBL and Saddam. Nothing in what I said or in what I posted implied any link between OBL and 9/11 or Saddam and 9/11. I posted info suggesting 2 known instances of cooperative discussions between OBL & Saddam's representatives. Everything else is otehr folks trying to discredit that positive linkage by assuming or accusing me of implying a relationship with 9/11. Not me. Look it up. That comes from within their own fevered brows.

4. Sure. Every time you zip a partisan one-liner you are making a deeply important, factual observation of great significance. Me to.

B
Botnst is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #102 of 125 (permalink) Old 06-04-2007, 07:14 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
1. No, the original post claimed no connection between OBL & Saddam. You (and others) suggested that I used that portion of the report to support an assertion that I did not make.

2. I stayed strictly within that parameter and offered the best evidence available of a factual connection. Subsequent to my post, GS tried to conflate the argument with the events of 9/11. You might note that in the subsequent dialogue that I went to considerable effort to deny that conflation. Point alleged and point denied. No other implication implied by me. Read it and weep.

3. So far, all I have seen is the accumulation of additional evidence suggesting a shift from open hostility to accommodation between OBL and Saddam. Nothing in what I said or in what I posted implied any link between OBL and 9/11 or Saddam and 9/11. I posted info suggesting 2 known instances of cooperative discussions between OBL & Saddam's representatives. Everything else is otehr folks trying to discredit that positive linkage by assuming or accusing me of implying a relationship with 9/11. Not me. Look it up. That comes from within their own fevered brows.

4. Sure. Every time you zip a partisan one-liner you are making a deeply important, factual observation of great significance. Me to.

B
This is why I commented in my first post on the subject "It might have been cleared in following posts, it is very hard to tell."

I posted that as the clump of posts wandered through the woods a bit and seems to point in different directions. I posted in an effort to gain clarity. Apparently that was lost in the post.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #103 of 125 (permalink) Old 06-04-2007, 08:26 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
This is why I commented in my first post on the subject "It might have been cleared in following posts, it is very hard to tell."

I posted that as the clump of posts wandered through the woods a bit and seems to point in different directions. I posted in an effort to gain clarity. Apparently that was lost in the post.
That's why I number things when I think the other person is listening. For those that don't listen and simply shout, why bother?

B
Botnst is offline  
post #104 of 125 (permalink) Old 06-04-2007, 08:38 PM
~BANNED~
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 41,649
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1761 Post(s)
1. Bait the hook
2. Wait (not long)
3. Get a snag and run with it
4. Run with it until fecal throwing ensues
6. Claim high ground
5. Then, deny fishing at all
Shane is offline  
post #105 of 125 (permalink) Old 06-04-2007, 08:51 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
1. No, the original post claimed no connection between OBL & Saddam. You (and others) suggested that I used that portion of the report to support an assertion that I did not make.
Bot, here is what I said:

"If you can see past the choice of words, what about FTL's post is inaccurate? The "War on Terror" never had anything to do with Iraq until we occupied the place. We are now training generations of future Al-Qaeda fighters to terrorize us and the rest of the free world by staying where, as McBear pointed out, we are not wanted with no specific mission. When will have trained enough of them to feel like we should be reevaluating our strategy and tactics?

The point is, we should have killed Ossamma and the Taliban tools that were supporting him in short order after 9-11. And any others who either tried similar acts of violence against the US or were caught planning to do so. Inventing a new front on the war on terror in Iraq was horrifyingly stupid. And, to ignore Al-Qaeda's figurehead and operations outside Iraq to focus our limited military resources on the figment of W's imagination, that Saddam and Iraq were some kind of worthy players in the WOT, has proven nearly equally unsupportable. Yet you support the spinning of facts into stories to deflect criticism from the man in charge, and the continued expenditure of American lives and treasure merely to maintain W's facade of credibility. Sad, really.

Jim"


I don't see anything saying "no connection between OBL & Saddam" in there, just a statement that the War on Terror had nothing to do with Iraq until we occupied the place. As far as any of us knew at the time, the War on Terror was started in earnest on September 11, 2001. And the first battle was to capture or kill Bin Laden, eradicate Al-Qaeda and get rid of the Taliban who supported them.

Bush and Cheney made all kinds of noise about Iraq's role in that attack immediately afterwards and through the run up to Shock and Awe. The reasons for the invasion of Iraq were, WMD, and the link between Al-Qaeda/Bin Laden, and Saddam with the concern being WMD being passed to Bin Laden's organization to be used against us.

I do not recall the War on Terror being focused on Bin Laden's cooperation with Saddam against the Kurds. In fact, I don't recall a single news story on the subject where Bush or Cheney or Rice or Rumsfeld was quoted with this particular relationship being part of a central argument for concern.

I would say you said I said something I didn't, to enable you to insert your non sequitur to deflect the discussion from whether or not Iraq was guilty of any acts of terror worthy of having their country turned into hell as the front in America's war on terror, for the convenience of "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here."

The idea that Jaybaugh and others find the concept of brutally disregarding the sovereignty of a nation to use their land to invite loonies, previously effectively held at bay as unwelcome intruders, into their country to wreak havoc as the front on America's war on terror acceptable is in itself an example of Obama's point on CNN tonight. The cause of resisting terror is right and just, but that does not mean anything we do along the path to making America safer is justified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
2. I stayed strictly within that parameter and offered the best evidence available of a factual connection. Subsequent to my post, GS tried to conflate the argument with the events of 9/11. You might note that in the subsequent dialogue that I went to considerable effort to deny that conflation. Point alleged and point denied. No other implication implied by me. Read it and weep.
Except your argument was with something you distorted to stick your grain of sand into to try to deflect the course of the discussion. No weeping needed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
3. So far, all I have seen is the accumulation of additional evidence suggesting a shift from open hostility to accommodation between OBL and Saddam. Nothing in what I said or in what I posted implied any link between OBL and 9/11 or Saddam and 9/11. I posted info suggesting 2 known instances of cooperative discussions between OBL & Saddam's representatives. Everything else is otehr folks trying to discredit that positive linkage by assuming or accusing me of implying a relationship with 9/11. Not me. Look it up. That comes from within their own fevered brows.
Had you started a thread on this subject alone, to bring your observation of this "positive linkage" up for discussion instead of inserting it, dressed as it was by your innuendo and suppositions about the intent of Saddam (didn't you tell us all many times how you don't engage in mindreading - or is that only a restriction that applies to the minds of the living?) in his dealings with Bin Laden, as a counter to something I never actually said in the phrase or post you quoted, well, then you could have it your way. And the responses would be in the context of whatever you claimed the meaning might be. But you didn't. In this case it seems this "linkage" of yours and your suggestions of what it might mean appears to have dropped from your fevered brow, like it was bugging you that you had observed this bit of trivia and were so impatient to let us all know about it, you forced it into this thread, out of context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
4. Sure. Every time you zip a partisan one-liner you are making a deeply important, factual observation of great significance. Me to.

B
But somehow when you make those partison one-liners peeping out of Bush's asshole, you seem more like a dangle berry than McBear does when he makes his partisan one liners. Must just be my partisan outlook. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #106 of 125 (permalink) Old 06-04-2007, 08:56 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
But somehow when you make those partison one-liners peeping out of Bush's asshole, you seem more like a dangle berry than McBear does when he makes his partisan one liners. Must just be my partisan outlook. Jim
No shit, Sherlock.

B
Botnst is offline  
post #107 of 125 (permalink) Old 06-04-2007, 09:35 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
But somehow when you make those partison one-liners peeping out of Bush's asshole, you seem more like a dangle berry than McBear does when he makes his partisan one liners. Must just be my partisan outlook. Jim
Thanks, I think???

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #108 of 125 (permalink) Old 06-04-2007, 09:55 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
Thanks, I think???
Welcome, and yes, the idea there was to draw a contrast, not to try to downplay the differences. Definitely didn't intend to cast an aspersion your way. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #109 of 125 (permalink) Old 06-04-2007, 10:22 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
JFK terror threat little more than a hoax

Experts cast doubt on credibility of JFK terror plot

An alleged plot to blow up fuel tanks and pipelines at New York's JFK airport had little chance of success, according to safety experts, who have questioned whether the plot ever posed a real threat.

US authorities said Saturday they had averted an attack that could have resulted in "unfathomable damage, deaths, and destruction," and charged four alleged Islamic radicals with conspiracy to cause an explosion at the airport.

But according to the experts, it would have been next to impossible to cause an explosion in the jet fuel tanks and pipeline. Furthermore, the plotters seem to have lacked the explosives and financial backing to carry out the attack.

John Goglia, a former member of National Transportation Safety Board, said that if the plot had ever been carried out, it would likely have sparked a fire but little else, and certainly not the mass carnage authorities described.

"You could definitely reach the tank, definitely start the fire, but to get the kind of explosion that they were thinking that they were going to get... this is virtually impossible to do," he told AFP.

The fuel pipelines around the airport would similarly burn, rather than explode, because they are a full of fuel and unable to mix with enough oxygen.

"We had a number of fires in the US. All that happens is a big fire," he said. "It won't blow up, it will only burn."

Even if the attackers had managed to blow up a fuel tank, the impact would be limited, he said, citing the example of North Vietnamese forces attacking US fuel dumps during the Vietnam war.

"They hit the fuel tanks with pretty big rockets. You would get a big fire but not a big explosion other than the rocket."

"There is a difference between just exploding the tank and a huge explosion. The tank may explode and blow up some metal, but that certainly wouldn't go very far," he said.

His comments contrasted with those of US Attorney Roslynn Mauskopf, who insisted at the weekend that "the devastation that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable."

Jake Magish, an engineer with Supersafe Tank Systems, also cast doubt on the credibility of the plot, saying: "The fantasy that I've heard about the people saying 'they will blow the tank and destroy the airport,' is nonsense."

"There are people there responding to hysteria, I think. But from an engineering point of view, if someone is successful in blowing a hole into a tank, they will just have a fire from one tank.

"There is no way for the fire to go from tank to tank, that is nonsense. It just won't happen."

Besides the alleged plotters' capability, other questions have focused on the main source in the probe -- a convicted drug dealer who infiltrated the group and whose sentence was pending as part of his cooperation with police.

Neal Sonnett, a former federal prosecutor, told the New York Times there was also a danger in overstating how serious or sophisticated a plot really was.

"There unfortunately has been a tendency to shout too loudly about such cases," he said. "To the extent that you over-hype a case, you create fear and paranoia," he said.

The New York Times on Sunday pointedly avoided giving much coverage to the alleged plot, devoting only a brief on its front page continued on the local section, despite the story breaking in the early afternoon on Saturday.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #110 of 125 (permalink) Old 06-05-2007, 06:15 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
^^^^

That's the problem with conspiracy charges. Usually depend on slimy informants' information and dancing with entrapment to make a case. The result is all sorts of conflicting information. Brings to mind a question that has nagged me over the years concerning conspiracies: How long should authorities let them develop before busting them? I'll bet the current trigger is prosecutorial judgment that believes the case can be won. In terms of law, that's not unreasonable.

But in terms of the polity, I think it's a bridge too near. I'd prefer that the conspiracy develop to the point of concrete plans, plausible means, and methods near at hand. From what I have seen of these consiracy busts the conspirators are stopped before they become a reasonable threat.

Just my opinion.
Botnst is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Bush draws parallel between US revolution, 'war on terror' Jakarta Expat Off-Topic 14 02-20-2007 08:46 AM
    Bush politcal hack screwing up War on Terror FeelTheLove Off-Topic 16 09-28-2006 10:06 AM
    When Did "The War On Terror" Start, And, How Do We Determine It Is Over? JimSmith Off-Topic 344 08-26-2006 04:46 PM
    Experts Believe Washington is Losing War on Terror firstmb Off-Topic 39 07-08-2006 05:18 PM
    The Right Way to Wage War on Terror(ists) LK ONE Off-Topic 8 09-19-2004 06:27 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome