( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

"Dave Hall" ...

If anyone still doubts that this story is nothing more than attempts
to further smear the president, I'd suggest that you are more than
just a little naive.....

You appear to be claiming absolute knowledge of others thoughts and motivations.
I'd suggest that is more than just a little ignorant...

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

-rick- wrote:

"Dave Hall" ...


If anyone still doubts that this story is nothing more than attempts
to further smear the president, I'd suggest that you are more than
just a little naive.....


You appear to be claiming absolute knowledge of others thoughts and motivations.
I'd suggest that is more than just a little ignorant...




I'm offering to sponsor a road trip to Dave's lawn for a group of guys
with large dogs. Dave is hoping to cover his front lawn in dog poop.

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

Interesting....
I copy the same paragraph you do and find it says "MEQUON, Wis., May 14 --
President Bush told graduates of a Christian college Friday that the abuse
of Iraqi prisoners has embarrassed the country, and he offered
"compassionate conservatism" as an antidote to "show the good heart of our
country to the whole world." "

Now further down in the story it does say:
"Bush spoke of Nicholas Berg, the young American who was recently beheaded
in Iraq. The CIA has blamed Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist
connected to the al Qaeda terrorist network, and Bush used the killing to
make the case that Saddam Hussein "had terrorist ties."
"The person responsible for the Berg death, Zarqawi, was in and out of
Baghdad prior to our arrival, for example," the president said. "

But I don't see bush quoted here as blaming "al Qaeda supporter Abu Musab
Zarqawi for beheading American Nicholas Berg"

I do see the CIA blaming him

Funny how you try to twist things your way, and find the twist isn't there.



"NOYB" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...
Well I guess we have located the naive fool

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in573801.shtml
President Bush and other administration officials have recently
acknowledged
there are no links between Saddam and Sept. 11.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030131-23.html

Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between
Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the
11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.


In January 2003, we had plenty of circumstantial evidence linking them.
Bush never said "there's no link". He said "I can't make that claim".
That's a pretty big difference. Why don't you look for something more
current? Like this, for example:

Bush Says Berg's Death Links Hussein, Al Qaeda

Reuters
Saturday, May 15, 2004; Page A07


MEQUON, Wis., May 14 -- President Bush on Friday blamed al Qaeda supporter
Abu Musab Zarqawi for beheading American Nicholas Berg and cited Zarqawi
as
an example of Saddam Hussein's "terrorist ties" before the U.S.-led war in
Iraq.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May14.html

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

wrote in message
ink.net...
Interesting....
I copy the same paragraph you do and find it says "MEQUON, Wis., May 14 --
President Bush told graduates of a Christian college Friday that the abuse
of Iraqi prisoners has embarrassed the country, and he offered
"compassionate conservatism" as an antidote to "show the good heart of our
country to the whole world." "

Now further down in the story it does say:
"Bush spoke of Nicholas Berg, the young American who was recently beheaded
in Iraq. The CIA has blamed Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist
connected to the al Qaeda terrorist network, and Bush used the killing to
make the case that Saddam Hussein "had terrorist ties."
"The person responsible for the Berg death, Zarqawi, was in and out of
Baghdad prior to our arrival, for example," the president said. "

But I don't see bush quoted here as blaming "al Qaeda supporter Abu Musab
Zarqawi for beheading American Nicholas Berg"

Huh? You don't see Bush quoted as blaming Zarqawi? Here's what *your*
article says:
"The person responsible for the Berg death, Zarqawi, was in and out of
Baghdad prior to our arrival, for example," the president said. "



I do see the CIA blaming him

Funny how you try to twist things your way, and find the twist isn't
there.


Twist things my way? All I did was post a story from Friday's Washington
Post. The title of the article was "Bush Says Berg's Death Links Hussein, Al
Qaeda". What more proof do you need that Bush will use the time between now
and November to show the link between al Qaeda and Hussein?

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

NOYB wrote:
In January 2003, we had plenty of circumstantial evidence linking them.
Bush never said "there's no link". He said "I can't make that claim".
That's a pretty big difference. Why don't you look for something more
current? Like this, for example:

Bush Says Berg's Death Links Hussein, Al Qaeda

Hel-lo, NOBBY, anybody home?

Zarqawi was living in Kurdish controlled territory... you know, our
friends, the Kurds, who are such strong Saddam supporters that he gassed
them many times?

DSK

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

On Mon, 17 May 2004 11:04:59 -0400, DSK wrote:

NOYB wrote:
In January 2003, we had plenty of circumstantial evidence linking them.
Bush never said "there's no link". He said "I can't make that claim".
That's a pretty big difference. Why don't you look for something more
current? Like this, for example:

Bush Says Berg's Death Links Hussein, Al Qaeda

Hel-lo, NOBBY, anybody home?

Zarqawi was living in Kurdish controlled territory... you know, our
friends, the Kurds, who are such strong Saddam supporters that he gassed
them many times?

DSK

So if a bad guy lives in California, then the California government supports
him? Is that your logic here?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

John H
If the bad guy lived in California, and the California Government supported
him, there would be a connection....

But a bad guy living in the Kurdish area, gassed by Saddam... I think it is
safe to say Saddam didn't support him.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 May 2004 11:04:59 -0400, DSK wrote:

NOYB wrote:
In January 2003, we had plenty of circumstantial evidence linking them.
Bush never said "there's no link". He said "I can't make that claim".
That's a pretty big difference. Why don't you look for something more
current? Like this, for example:

Bush Says Berg's Death Links Hussein, Al Qaeda

Hel-lo, NOBBY, anybody home?

Zarqawi was living in Kurdish controlled territory... you know, our
friends, the Kurds, who are such strong Saddam supporters that he gassed
them many times?

DSK

So if a bad guy lives in California, then the California government
supports
him? Is that your logic here?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

wrote in message
link.net...
John H
If the bad guy lived in California, and the California Government
supported
him, there would be a connection....

But a bad guy living in the Kurdish area, gassed by Saddam... I think it
is
safe to say Saddam didn't support him.


Saddam had Iraqi agents working up there with al Zaqarwi and his Ansar
al-Islam branch of al Qaeda. The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan peshmerga
began battling the group after a failed assassination attempt on the Kurdish
Prime Minister in 2002. bin Laden sent the terrorists to the Northeast part
of Iraq on September 1, 2001 to set up safe-haven for terrorists following
the 9/11 attacks that were to follow 10 days later. Also, the terrorists
were working with Saddam with the agreement to provide terrorist attacks
against the flank of any US troop movement or special forces ops advancing
on Baghdad from the north.

If Ansar-al-Islam was battling the PUK soldiers but helping Saddam, I think
it's safe to say that Saddam *did* support al Zaqarwi and his group.

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

John H wrote:
So if a bad guy lives in California, then the California government supports
him? Is that your logic here?

It seems better logic than to claim that if a bad guy lives in
California, then the North Korean gov't must be supporting him.

If the Kurds were Saddam's enemies, and Al Zaqwari was living &
operating there, then it seems likely that he was one of Saddam's
enemies too.

Is that too logical and consistent for you?

DSK

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

More information that has no place to verify it.... How much time do you
spend making this stuff up?

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

wrote in message
link.net...
John H
If the bad guy lived in California, and the California Government
supported
him, there would be a connection....

But a bad guy living in the Kurdish area, gassed by Saddam... I think it
is
safe to say Saddam didn't support him.


Saddam had Iraqi agents working up there with al Zaqarwi and his Ansar
al-Islam branch of al Qaeda. The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan peshmerga
began battling the group after a failed assassination attempt on the
Kurdish
Prime Minister in 2002. bin Laden sent the terrorists to the Northeast
part
of Iraq on September 1, 2001 to set up safe-haven for terrorists following
the 9/11 attacks that were to follow 10 days later. Also, the terrorists
were working with Saddam with the agreement to provide terrorist attacks
against the flank of any US troop movement or special forces ops advancing
on Baghdad from the north.

If Ansar-al-Islam was battling the PUK soldiers but helping Saddam, I
think
it's safe to say that Saddam *did* support al Zaqarwi and his group.

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
John H wrote:
So if a bad guy lives in California, then the California government
supports
him? Is that your logic here?

It seems better logic than to claim that if a bad guy lives in
California, then the North Korean gov't must be supporting him.

If the Kurds were Saddam's enemies, and Al Zaqwari was living &
operating there, then it seems likely that he was one of Saddam's
enemies too.

Is that too logical and consistent for you?

Your attempt at logic misses two key elements of truth that makes your
conclusion erroneous: 1) the PUK peshmerga were battling the Ansar-al-Islam
terrorists after the terrorists tried to assassinate their Prime Minister,
and 2) Saddam had a high-level agent in northeastern Iraq coordinating
attacks while Ansar-al-Islam had at least 8 terrorist coordinating money,
supplies, and intelligence out of Baghdad.

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

wrote in message
link.net...
More information that has no place to verify it.... How much time do you
spend making this stuff up?

It's easily verified if you quit relying solely on the BBC and al Jazeera
for your misinformation.

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

I have never quoted from either of those sources in this newsgroup.

And I don't need to verify.. If you want it believed, then source it

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

wrote in message
link.net...
More information that has no place to verify it.... How much time do you
spend making this stuff up?

It's easily verified if you quit relying solely on the BBC and al Jazeera
for your misinformation.

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

wrote in message
hlink.net...
I have never quoted from either of those sources in this newsgroup.

And I don't need to verify.. If you want it believed, then source it

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world...sar021231.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0402/p01s03-wome.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101635,00.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=5571

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/768rwsbj.asp

http://www.themercury.news.com.au/co...55E401,00.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...-attacks_x.htm

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

"____m___~¿Ô___m____" wrote in message
.. .
wrote:

More information that has no place to verify it.... How much time do you
spend making this stuff up?

There is a place in Naples that offers, Palm Reading, Astrology, Tarot
cards
read, Tea leaves, The bumps on your head analized, Curses cast on your
enemies. The list goes on and on, This must be the source of info.

Just a guess...

Or you can try one of these links:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world...sar021231.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0402/p01s03-wome.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101635,00.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=5571

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/768rwsbj.asp

http://www.themercury.news.com.au/co...55E401,00.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...-attacks_x.htm

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

wrote in message
hlink.net...
I have never quoted from either of those sources in this newsgroup.

And I don't need to verify.. If you want it believed, then source it

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world...sar021231.html
This story appears to be from December 31, 2002 yet gives nothing definitive
in a Saddam - Al Al-Qaeda connection... Only speculation


http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0402/p01s03-wome.html
And this story clearly states "The Al Qaeda-Kurdish ties appear to have
grown closer by the summer of 2000"

If I remember correctly, Saddam was out to kill the Kurds.....


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101635,00.html
That information is the first solid evidence of links between remnants of
Saddam's regime and the non-Iraqi fighters responsible for at least some of
the attacks on US forces and their Iraqi allies, the official said.

Funny thing with this story is they are talking of remenants of the former
regime... Not talking about any connection prior to Saddam being removed.

And the big one:
The group operated in a small section of northern Iraq surrounded by
Kurdish-controlled areas which were outside Saddam's control.

Kurdish officials have long alleged that Saddam's government helped Ansar,
but US officials have said they haven't yet found definitive proof of that.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=5571
Bush administration and PUK officials have also speculated that Ansar may be
working with Saddam through a man named Abu Wa'il, reportedly an al-Qaeda
operative on Saddam's payroll.

Speculation is a bad thing.... Facts, now those are good things.




http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/768rwsbj.asp
This article removes the validation of any prior to it. One man that was
suposed to be active with Ansar al Islam in Northern Iraq was actually
killed in January 2000 in a battle with Lebanese forces.... Sorry but a dead
man can't be active 1 year 9 months after his death... Ansar al Islam was
started September 1, 2001 according to all other accounts.



http://www.themercury.news.com.au/co...55E401,00.html
That information is the first solid evidence of links between remnants of
Saddam's regime and the non-Iraqi fighters responsible for at least some of
the attacks on US forces and their Iraqi allies, the official said.

Funny thing with this story is they are talking of remenants of the former
regime... Not talking about any connection prior to Saddam being removed.

And the big one:
The group operated in a small section of northern Iraq surrounded by
Kurdish-controlled areas which were outside Saddam's control.

Kurdish officials have long alleged that Saddam's government helped Ansar,
but US officials have said they haven't yet found definitive proof of that.

By the way... It is the same article from the Fox News site


http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...-attacks_x.htm
I won't repeat it a 3rd time... This is the same story as the Fox News Site
again

Sorry but I don't get swayed by repetitive articles... My mind works better
than that.

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

wrote in message
hlink.net...

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

wrote in message
hlink.net...
I have never quoted from either of those sources in this newsgroup.

And I don't need to verify.. If you want it believed, then source it

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world...sar021231.html
This story appears to be from December 31, 2002 yet gives nothing
definitive
in a Saddam - Al Al-Qaeda connection... Only speculation

It was speculation in 2002. By now, it's pretty much confirmed considering
the recent actions of al Zarqawi.




http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0402/p01s03-wome.html
And this story clearly states "The Al Qaeda-Kurdish ties appear to have
grown closer by the summer of 2000"

If I remember correctly, Saddam was out to kill the Kurds.....

Yes. So was the al Qaeda faction, Ansar-al-Islam. That gives them a common
motive, no?



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101635,00.html
That information is the first solid evidence of links between remnants of
Saddam's regime and the non-Iraqi fighters responsible for at least some
of
the attacks on US forces and their Iraqi allies, the official said.

Funny thing with this story is they are talking of remenants of the former
regime... Not talking about any connection prior to Saddam being removed.

Miraculously, while we are looking for "remnants of the former regime", the
al Qaeda terrorists manage to find them first and combine forces. I think
it's more realistic that they simply reunited through already-established
ties.



And the big one:
The group operated in a small section of northern Iraq surrounded by
Kurdish-controlled areas which were outside Saddam's control.

Kurdish officials have long alleged that Saddam's government helped Ansar,
but US officials have said they haven't yet found definitive proof of
that.

"...haven't *YET* found definitive proof..."



http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=5571
Bush administration and PUK officials have also speculated that Ansar may
be
working with Saddam through a man named Abu Wa'il, reportedly an al-Qaeda
operative on Saddam's payroll.

Speculation is a bad thing.... Facts, now those are good things.

Facts are found when you pursue speculative leads. Remember, most of these
articles are anywhere from 6 months to almost 2 years old. The facts will
be presented in due time. There's still a lot of time before the November
election.







http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/768rwsbj.asp
This article removes the validation of any prior to it. One man that was
suposed to be active with Ansar al Islam in Northern Iraq was actually
killed in January 2000 in a battle with Lebanese forces.... Sorry but a
dead
man can't be active 1 year 9 months after his death... Ansar al Islam was
started September 1, 2001 according to all other accounts.

No. The date you mention is when bin Laden sent additional al Qaeda
terrorists from Afghanistan to northeastern Iraq...speculating that the
fallout just 10 days later would make Afghanistan unsuitable for further al
qaeda operations. The new terrorists simply linked up with groups that were
already there.






http://www.themercury.news.com.au/co...55E401,00.html
That information is the first solid evidence of links between remnants of
Saddam's regime and the non-Iraqi fighters responsible for at least some
of
the attacks on US forces and their Iraqi allies, the official said.

Funny thing with this story is they are talking of remenants of the former
regime... Not talking about any connection prior to Saddam being removed.

And the big one:
The group operated in a small section of northern Iraq surrounded by
Kurdish-controlled areas which were outside Saddam's control.

Kurdish officials have long alleged that Saddam's government helped Ansar,
but US officials have said they haven't yet found definitive proof of
that.

By the way... It is the same article from the Fox News site


http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...-attacks_x.htm
I won't repeat it a 3rd time... This is the same story as the Fox News
Site
again

Sorry but I don't get swayed by repetitive articles... My mind works
better
than that.


The point of listing the same article from three independent sites is to
show you that various mainstream media outlets have carried this story...yet
I couldn't find a single mention of them in the NY Times, Washington Post,
LA Times, CNN, BBC, or al Jazeera. If you're getting your info solely from
those sources, you're being spoon-fed liberal bull**** and spin.


The al Qaeda-Saddam link will slowly grow into the most dominant news story
flooding the airwaves this Summer and Fall. You're starting to see bits and
pieces already...which is why I say that today's discovery of the sarin gas
shell (and the discovery two weeks ago of the mustard gas shell) is just the
tip of the iceberg.

Just watch. Bush and Co. will continue to build the case that al qaeda and
Saddam were working together prior to and after 9/11.

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

On Mon, 17 May 2004 21:26:32 GMT, wrote:

John H
If the bad guy lived in California, and the California Government supported
him, there would be a connection....

But a bad guy living in the Kurdish area, gassed by Saddam... I think it is
safe to say Saddam didn't support him.

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 17 May 2004 11:04:59 -0400, DSK wrote:

NOYB wrote:
In January 2003, we had plenty of circumstantial evidence linking them.
Bush never said "there's no link". He said "I can't make that claim".
That's a pretty big difference. Why don't you look for something more
current? Like this, for example:

Bush Says Berg's Death Links Hussein, Al Qaeda

Hel-lo, NOBBY, anybody home?

Zarqawi was living in Kurdish controlled territory... you know, our
friends, the Kurds, who are such strong Saddam supporters that he gassed
them many times?

DSK

So if a bad guy lives in California, then the California government
supports
him? Is that your logic here?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


So it would not be possible for a bad guy to live in California and be supported
by someone living in Kansas?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

John H wrote:
So it would not be possible for a bad guy to live in California and be supported
by someone living in Kansas?

Sure.

But OTOH if you invaded Kansas and killed 10,000+ Kansans because of it,
then you had better be damned sure of the facts... unlike NOBBY... and
Bush & Cheney & Rumsfeld, for that matter. If you tortured 100s of
Kansans (or ordered others to do so) because of it, you'd be considered
a war criminal and definitely part of the problem rather than part of
the solution.

isn't it funny how we're one year into a major war, and the Bush/Cheney
cheerleaders have nothing to offer but maybes and future
investigation... and one 20+ year old artillery shell with sarin gas.

DSK

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

On Mon, 17 May 2004 18:08:44 -0400, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
So if a bad guy lives in California, then the California government supports
him? Is that your logic here?

It seems better logic than to claim that if a bad guy lives in
California, then the North Korean gov't must be supporting him.

If the Kurds were Saddam's enemies, and Al Zaqwari was living &
operating there, then it seems likely that he was one of Saddam's
enemies too.

Is that too logical and consistent for you?

DSK

Enemy of Saddam? Seems like you've stretched that one a little far.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

____m___~¿Ô___m____ wrote in message ...
wrote:

More information that has no place to verify it.... How much time do you
spend making this stuff up?

There is a place in Naples that offers, Palm Reading, Astrology, Tarot cards
read, Tea leaves, The bumps on your head analized, Curses cast on your
enemies. The list goes on and on, This must be the source of info.

Just a guess...

I think they offer swamp buggy rides too.

Oh, no! According to NOYB, there are nothing in Naples but affluent,
well-healed people. No swamp people, no poor people, and no swamp
buggies. Just oppulence!

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

On Mon, 17 May 2004 21:29:18 -0400, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
So it would not be possible for a bad guy to live in California and be supported
by someone living in Kansas?

Sure.

But OTOH if you invaded Kansas and killed 10,000+ Kansans because of it,
then you had better be damned sure of the facts... unlike NOBBY... and
Bush & Cheney & Rumsfeld, for that matter. If you tortured 100s of
Kansans (or ordered others to do so) because of it, you'd be considered
a war criminal and definitely part of the problem rather than part of
the solution.

isn't it funny how we're one year into a major war, and the Bush/Cheney
cheerleaders have nothing to offer but maybes and future
investigation... and one 20+ year old artillery shell with sarin gas.

DSK

Your logic took a leap I couldn't follow. I'm not saying it's bad, I just
couldn't follow the leap.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

John H wrote:
Your logic took a leap I couldn't follow. I'm not saying it's bad, I just
couldn't follow the leap.

Doesn't look good, it was all broken into easily followed baby steps.
Are you taking lessons from Nobby in "Ignoring The Obvious 101" (not
recognized by most BSME curriculae)?

DSK

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
John H wrote:
Your logic took a leap I couldn't follow. I'm not saying it's bad, I
just
couldn't follow the leap.

Doesn't look good, it was all broken into easily followed baby steps.
Are you taking lessons from Nobby in "Ignoring The Obvious 101"

What I *did* learn in my engineering program was to approach every problem
the same way:

Problem
Knowns
Unknowns
Assumptions
Proof
Solution

Problem: Did Saddam have WMD and was he working with al Qaeda?
Knowns: He once had WMD and used 'em on his own people. Every intelligence
agency in the World said he still had 'em. Saddam paid terrorists to blow
themselves up in order to kill Israelis. Saddam gave sanctuary to
terrorists (such as Abu Nidal). Saddam had intelligence agents working
closely with members of Ansar-al-Islam in northeastern Iraq.
Unknowns: Where'd he hide the WMD's?
Assumptions: Buried them in the desert like those airplanes we found. Sent
'em to Syria for safe-keeping.
Proof: Mustard gas shell recently discovered. Sarin gas shell recently
discovered. Chemical attack attempted against Jordan and organized by al
Zarqawi...who is an al Qaeda terrorist living in Iraq now...and before the
war.
Solution: Send a guy named Duerhoff into Iraq and find the WMD's we know are
there or in Syria. Kill the terrorist groups operating in Iraq...since it's
likely they have their hands on the WMD's now.

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

Doesn't look good, it was all broken into easily followed baby steps.
Are you taking lessons from Nobby in "Ignoring The Obvious 101"

NOYB wrote:
What I *did* learn in my engineering program was to approach every problem
the same way:

Problem
Knowns
Unknowns
Assumptions
Proof
Solution

Sounds like fairly good methodology. Where have you gone wrong?


Problem: Did Saddam have WMD and was he working with al Qaeda?

Here's the first thing wrong with your methodology- you are trying to
work out two problems at once. Bzzt...

Knowns: He once had WMD and used 'em on his own people.

Agreed.

... Every intelligence
agency in the World said he still had 'em.

Except for the ones who said that he had most likely disposed of them.

Here's the second place you're going wrong... ignoring obvious and
readily available data. Even Dick Cheney agrees that he was given intel
data showing that Saddam's WMD programs were either feeble or
nonexistent... he just ignored the data...

In other words, you are letting ideology trump observable facts. Leads
to bad results every time. Just ask any Politburo officer from the
former USSR.
(further examples of similar muddy thinking snipped for brevity)

DSK

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Even Dick Cheney agrees that he was given intel
data showing that Saddam's WMD programs were either feeble or
nonexistent... he just ignored the data...

Not true.

This is from January 19th, 2004:

Cheney says it's too soon to tell on Iraqi arms
By Judy Keen, USA TODAY
LOS ANGELES - Vice President Cheney says he believes "the jury's still out"
on whether Iraq had the chemical and biological weapons that were the Bush
administration's justification for war.
"I am a long way at this stage from concluding that somehow there was some
fundamental flaw in our intelligence," Cheney said in an interview with USA
TODAY and the Los Angeles Times



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

John H wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 17 May 2004 21:29:18 -0400, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
So it would not be possible for a bad guy to live in California and be supported
by someone living in Kansas?

Sure.

But OTOH if you invaded Kansas and killed 10,000+ Kansans because of it,
then you had better be damned sure of the facts... unlike NOBBY... and
Bush & Cheney & Rumsfeld, for that matter. If you tortured 100s of
Kansans (or ordered others to do so) because of it, you'd be considered
a war criminal and definitely part of the problem rather than part of
the solution.

isn't it funny how we're one year into a major war, and the Bush/Cheney
cheerleaders have nothing to offer but maybes and future
investigation... and one 20+ year old artillery shell with sarin gas.

DSK

Your logic took a leap I couldn't follow. I'm not saying it's bad, I just
couldn't follow the leap.

John H

Probably because you are too busy looking for pictures of little girls
"in the biblical sense, huh, teacher?

( OT ) Beyond Apologies (A Coalition Of Nine Human Rights Groups)
 

"DSK" wrote
Even Dick Cheney agrees that he was given intel
data showing that Saddam's WMD programs were either feeble or
nonexistent... he just ignored the data...

NOYB wrote:
Not true.

This is from January 19th, 2004:

Cheney says it's too soon to tell on Iraqi arms
By Judy Keen, USA TODAY
LOS ANGELES - Vice President Cheney says he believes "the jury's still out"
on whether Iraq had the chemical and biological weapons that were the Bush
administration's justification for war.
"I am a long way at this stage from concluding that somehow there was some
fundamental flaw in our intelligence," Cheney said in an interview with USA
TODAY and the Los Angeles Times


And this is a long LONG way from his iron-clad determination that Iraq
*definitely* had WMDs and we had to attack very soon to eliminate the
imminent threat of them.

Now he's saying "the jury's still out." Hmmm...


BTW what do you think about the CIA and NSA staff saying that they told
Cheney point-blank that there were indications Iraq did not have WMDs?
How about all the foreign intel that's been published since? How about
the UN (remember them, the guys whose mandate we are theoretically
enforcing) weapons inspection team's findings?

In short, there is no way short of hysterical delusion can you claim
that *all* the intel on Iraw showed unequivocal evidence of WMDs. Oh
wait, you're the one who thinks it would be just peachy to start a world
war to exterminate all Muslims... why am I trying to talk sense to you
NOBBY??

DSK