is this real or what, dont own cable so i dont watch the news!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[diego]

http://pub12.ezboard.com/fpoliticalpalacefrm1.showMessage?topicID=2123.topi c

[diego]

ohya this one to, as it supports what the other one says: http://pub12.ezboard.com/fpoliticalpalacefrm1.showMessage?topicID=2057.topi c

and i seriously dont have an opinion on these, but they make sence...as thier not to farfetched!.

[Laughing Cow]

Hmmm.

Interesting reading.

[shaolin kungfu]

they're not outright lies, but they definitely put a a spin on what happened to make america seem worse than it was.

[diego]

Shaolin, what do you mean showed america worse then it was....:) didnt even fully read the links yet; but that comment on msnbc editing thier news, def caught my eye!?.

is that true?.

[shaolin kungfu]

well, like most things that are intentionaly covered up, it would be hard to prove that msnbc changes its news. I doubt it, because there are shows on msnbc and nbc that publicly critizice our government.

[Brad]

It's hard to say without reading a full transcript of Bin Laden's speech. Could be as simple as whoever wrote that first draft read something wrong or was given bad info, then corrected it after catching the mistake.

[Brad]

Here's another article: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia_china/story.jsp?story=377654

[diego]

.........A further embarrassment was another bit of intelligence touted by Powell, a British report that Powell referred to as a "fine paper ... which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities." The report, grammar and spelling errors intact, turned out to be largely plagiarized from a graduate student paper, grabbed off the Internet from an Israeli publication, that relied on 12-year-old data. Unfortunately, unlike Scotch, intelligence does not age well. Nevertheless, there were the dregs of old dissertations and magazine articles, recycle.................. [A BIG LIE!!!]

[Merryprankster]

Ah yes--Forums, chat rooms and opinion columns. GREAT places to get factual information!

[Xebsball]

Everybody knows that Mr. Laden (we call him "Bin bin" back home) is just an honest man, doing the best for his people and his land. In truth he is a honorable person, trying to spread the love.

Sadam was once like that too, but he got ****ed of this one time he was cleaning his bathroom and then he sliped and hit his head on the edge of the bathtub.

[Felipe Bido]

Xebsball, I hope that Bin Bin in portughese has the same meaning in spanish, because I am laughing my ass off here

[red5angel]

Their just putting their own spin on things. I was watching the news last night and while the government was claiming the tape says Osama and Saddam are in kahoots, they got a local interpreter for one of the universities to read it and he said that although Osama asks the people of Iraq to rise up against the US, he almost derides Saddam.

However, it is a fact that Iraq had and probably still has terrorist training camps located knowingly within their borders, including Al Quaeda, which is more then enough evidence for me as far as the war on terror goes.

[KC Elbows]

So they just plagiarized several reports? Anyone have any more links on this?

God, for future referrence, if you want to go to war, try not to make as many questionable statements and big, yet hollow, announcements, as possible. It really makes people not trust you.

Merry, there's a link in there to the british channel that broke the story.

I'm not drawing conclusions about Iraq from this, but more just irritated. For people who are desparately trying to earn my trust, Bush and Powell couldn't be doing a worse job of it.

This is a problem with leaders without mandates. Not their fault or anyone else's, it's just how the pieces fall.

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
So they just plagiarized several reports? Anyone have any more links on this?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-570248,00.html

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,892145,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42276-2003Feb7?language=printer

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2727471.stm

Once again, folks... if you're going to bring a topic up for discussion, it helps to have a legitimate news source to point to.

[KC Elbows]

Okay, so british intelligence is saying there's no link between al quiada and Iraq, according to one of the people plagiarized, the 'report' that was supposed to be off of all this top secret info was actually largely plagiarized off of three different publically available papers, the largest contributor based off of a 1999 book, which in turn, was based off of older info, and that key phrases, such as monitored, were changed to 'spied'.

On the flip side, british intelligence does say Iraq is up to their necks in the business of terrorism.

Yet, somehow, this is supposed to earn my trust? Why, because Colin Powell, the moderate, said it? I feel sorry for that guy. I like him, but he'll never be backed all that much by his own party because he's too left of far right, so now he gets to be the mouthpiece for a rather shoddy propaganda campaign. Some guys have all the luck.

[diego]

did anyone see/hear powell say osamas new tape proves saddam is his buddy?.

[Laughing Cow]

It appears that Mr. Powell speaks too soon in order to make a case for his goverment and ends up hurting it more.

2nd happening. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/12/sprj.irq.powell.ricin/index.html)

:eek: :( :eek:

Or are they so desparate for proof against Iraq??
:confused: :confused:

[Merryprankster]

Or are they so desparate for proof against Iraq??

I asked myself the same question only a little differently (WTF?! was my reaction). It's absolutely bizarre. It IS possible he was working off an early translation and jumped the gun. Such things do happen. **** poor timing, if that is the case. You'd think in a situation like that, you'd have your ducks in a row before you opened your mouth. It is unlike him to be that uncautious. I suspect he's playing public organ for the admin.

[Laughing Cow]

MP.

Case 1: Working of an early translation can be expected here. But I agree the info should have been verified.

Case 2: Getting the origin of "ricin" that was found in england wrong and other details that are coming from an english report.

Makes me wonder too.

[Merryprankster]

Well, the details of where it came from might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that ricin was actually found. Was there a specific inference w/respect to the quotations, or just about the origins?

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Well, the details of where it came from might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that ricin was actually found. Was there a specific inference w/respect to the quotations, or just about the origins?

Did you the read the link in my post called "2nd happening".

It states that the ricin that was found was "home-cooked" and not high-grade enough to come from a proper lab.

I also only got to go by what I read in the link unfortunately.
:(

[Merryprankster]

That's totally accurate as far as what I've read in the papers. The original articles report that they found traces of ricin and appropriate equipment to produce the stuff from castor beans. A home lab is more than adequate to run the extraction necessary. Pathetically simple to do.

I was just trying to figure out if you suspected it wasn't ricin at all, or just the SOURCE of the ricin--looks like the source is a homelab. I'd say that's consistent. He may have been trying to say that knowledge of how to do this came from Iraq, what with the article outlining Bush's assertion that Al Zarqawi and Iraq have some sort of connection.

Who knows? But it certainly doesn't appear accurate to say "It came from Iraq."

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
That's totally accurate as far as what I've read in the papers. The original articles report that they found traces of ricin and appropriate equipment to produce the stuff from castor beans. A home lab is more than adequate to run the extraction necessary. Pathetically simple to do.

I was just trying to figure out if you suspected it wasn't ricin at all, or just the SOURCE of the ricin--looks like the source is a homelab. I'd say that's consistent.

Yes, that is consistent.�@Now match it with Powell's statement that it originated in IRAQ, etc.

And it becomes a big blunder IMO.

[Merryprankster]

No argument that it was a blunder. But I'm not convinced that the motive was to mistate the evidence hoping nobody would catch it.

I guess I'm a little less skeptical of Powell's motivation. I would chalk this up to a classic ****-up rather than a calculated plot.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
No argument that it was a blunder. But I'm not convinced that the motive was to mistate the evidence hoping nobody would catch it.

I guess I'm a little less skeptical of Powell's motivation. I would chalk this up to a classic ****-up rather than a calculated plot.

Never stated it was a plot, but I don't think that the USA at the moment can afford those blunders.

And 2 blunders in 2 days don't IMO increase my respect/support for their cause.

[fa_jing]

Originally posted by Xebsball
Everybody knows that Mr. Laden (we call him "Bin bin" back home) is just an honest man, doing the best for his people and his land. In truth he is a honorable person, trying to spread the love.

Sadam was once like that too, but he got ****ed of this one time he was cleaning his bathroom and then he sliped and hit his head on the edge of the bathtub.

Thank you for your kind remarks, Xebby. As my name is Mr. Laden. LOL

But why do you call me Bin Bin?

[KC Elbows]

Merry,
I'd agree with the organ for the admin comment, and I really feel bad for the guy. I mean, we may well have good reason to go to Iraq, but the ones we're being offered are sloppy. And considering the political climate, sloppiness isn't good.

[Merryprankster]

The problem, inherent here, is that if we have the information, we need to release it. We need, as much as we are loathe to do it, compromise our sources and methods and reveal the big picture, IF we really feel it's that important.

I personally believe we have plenty of reason to enforce compliance. The real issue is that we did not BEGIN with the UN. We only went to the UN after the admin noticed it was unpopular with the nation and the rest of the world.

The right way to do this would have been to build the coalition in the UN first. But that's not what happened. Instead they claimed a terrorist nexus--but that seemed too weak so they went to UN violations.

The bottom line is that this is actually a real problem for the Bush admin--In order to stay on message they have to change the reasoning to make it viable. They did it with taxes, they're doing it with Iraq.

[red5angel]

good post MP, although I am not sure if you are advocating the release of sensitive data so the "masses" of the world can be placated. I personally would have to disagree since I am not into selling a few lives or making a few mistakes so popularity polls balance out. If the government believes they have enough data and should be doing somehting then so be it, and let the data be revelaed after the fact, when it is no longer an issue.

I heavily agree with you on the admin screwing up on trying to go to the UN with weak excuses on why we should attack Iraq. Politically I can understand why they might want to be a little more sensitive to it but so far it looks like a circus. Saddam needs to be removed, if we are going to do it with the military then so be it, lets do it get it over with and be ****ed with the UN or any other population who feels we miht not be doing the right thing.

Personally I haven't heard a good argument as to why we shouldn't go at all. What I hear from protestors and advocates of peaceful resolutions are conspiracy theories abotu oil and puppet governments.

[Merryprankster]

Red, if we want to convince other countries, we're going to have to do better than we've done. Plan and simple, that means releasing classified information. We can do this IF we think it's important enough. The admin may feel that going it mostly alone is a better tack. I'm not entirely certain where I stand on that one. On the one hand, I appreciate the political sensitivity involved in going it alone--I don't want to poison the well of international relations. On the other hand, I think it's important that every now and again, the U.S. administration demonstrate exactly what the proverbial 900 lbs gorilla is capable of.

I 100% agree with the idea that the peaceniks are looking in the wrong place. If you don't agree that there is enough evidence and aren't convinced we should go it, that's one thing. However, only the lowest form of cynicism and distrust could conjure the idea that invasion would be about oil and an American empire. It's a nice neat solution that's very appealing to those that want to demonize the admin, and also wildly innaccurate.

I don't agree with most of the Bush administration platform--I don't believe there's anything like real evidence that suggests some sort of conspiratorial nonsense. It's calling them not simply dishonest, but also base and, quite frankly, suggests their operating values are 180 out from the democratic values we champion. I would find that hard to believe without real evidence.

I may not like him, but I don't think he's evil.

[KC Elbows]

Red5,
I've posted different arguments than those you've listed. I'll paraphrase from another post.

The reason that, while I wasn't thrilled with the earlier bombings in Iraq, I did not oppose them as much, was because, though they didn't solve the problem, they did keep Sadam in a weakened state without making substantially worse problems.

The reason I question this proposed action is because it appears poorly arranged, and the postwar section of it, which is the most important part, appears to be 'wing it when we get there'. This is insufficient. I want to know that we won't just do the same ol same ol, and that we'll actually improve things in the region by our actions, not just set up another leader. Otherwise, the war does nothing to protect us in the long term, because it leaves us with just as many enemies, only some of them won't be in direct control of Iraq MAYBE, which is irrelevant to our safety, as the people killing our people aren't the leaders, and aren't Iraq's government.

And popularity polls are not the only issue. The US needs it's people behind any major war, this should be evident at this point. They are not behind it, the president does not have sufficient mandate to be floundering as much as he is, the political climate of the past ten years has guaranteed a rough relationship between the parties, so the coalition just within the US is shaky, much less when you involve other countries. This is reality. Move with an unstable base in kung fu, and you can be thrown. In war, is it any different?

I would seriously consider a stable coalition to war, but I do not see one.

[fa_jing]

Have any of you ever read Machievelli?

[red5angel]

MP- I dont think we need to convince anyone if we feel it is what we have to do. My big issue with the whole thing is that we are trying so hard to win people over to what we want, except those people didn't lose 3000 of their own in the most terrible terrorist attack ever perpetrated and those same people are not the target of hatred by those in power in Iraq. Why should we try to convince them? I think we are capable of doing it pretty much alone, with the small support of neighboring countries in the form of bases of operations, etc. People are always suspecting another Vietnam, they said it when we went to afghanistan, they say it now with Iraq as well as in 92. Iraq is in no way the same as Vietnam and I have confidence that the war will be over in relatively short amount of time. Clean up may take sometime, but if anyone remembers, they gave up to us wholesale the last time we went to war with them.
I don't think there are any "evil" intents in our actions in Iraq, it looks bad because we a.)want to go so bad and b.) want to win over support, but we aren't going for oil, and we aren't going ecause we ned to add more to our empire, if that were the case, we woul dhave added the states of Russia and France to our list shortly after WW2, or any number of smaller nations, including south korea after that!

KC - I understand where you are coming from. I believe they have contingency plans in place for things like that. I am sure they have an idea of how to go in and mop up, clean the place up and let it go, we have been doing it for years. Iraq isn't like afghanistan, it has a little more economic pull, a little more resources to work with. We won't abandon it to be taken over by a govenrment that proves to be worse still then Saddams, not knowingly and in this political climate we sure as hell won't let it go to rot after we are done destroying its current government.
As for the American people being behind it, the last poll I saw, a few days ago, said that more people were for it then against it, but that more people wanted harder evidence then not. As for the source of that poll, I think it was Today.

[KC Elbows]

"I am sure they have an idea of how to go in and mop up, clean the place up and let it go, we have been doing it for years. "

Name three successful examples post Japan that don't include Afghanistan. Where regime change was done. And it didn't blow up in our faces.

[KC Elbows]

Merry, may I copy your post(the first post in regards to the need to reveal some information because of the way this has played out thus far) to the bullshido forum? I'll give credit and such, it's just very interesting.

[Merryprankster]

KC, Yup. No problem. You don't even have to give me credit if you don't want.

[KC Elbows]

Thanks.

[diego]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
No argument that it was a blunder. But I'm not convinced that the motive was to mistate the evidence hoping nobody would catch it.

I guess I'm a little less skeptical of Powell's motivation. I would chalk this up to a classic ****-up rather than a calculated plot.

and i think that "a ****-up" scares me even more then any crazy conspiracy theory about why they want to go to war...like what if the man isnt evil hes just inept

so that makes me read it like this...with conspiracy theorys its evil gangs agianst evil gangs christians vs muslims bush vs iraq


now im seeing it inept gangs vs inept gangs and i think that scares me more, cuz that tells me the attackers are crazy "osama" and the defenders are spooked and acting out of fear "bush and powels ****-up"....i would almost prefer the conspiracy theory! at least bush and them know what they doing!.........starts crying:cool:

[Merryprankster]

Oh, for christ sakes. A blunder doesn't mean ineptitude. A series of blunders without corrective action is ineptitude.