Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (213878)	1/21/2007 8:43:25 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So the government is also cherry picking? Those guys with access to all those confidential notes that I do not have access to, and you do not have access to- those guys who looked at it all and said "no support, no connection" wrt Zarqawi- you know more than them? You gave me Zarqawi as your "link" with Al Qaeda and now we've seen he was not linked- at least according to what you posted. Not that you are going to admit it. And you say I ignore evidence? Now you want to switch not only names, but organizations. Ok- let's deal with Ansar. I said I agree that Saddam was involved in terrorism- I simply said it was not terrorism directed at the US. I'm sure he would have used any means he could to terrorize the Kurds, and if he could have infiltrated Ansar and used them against the Kurds, he would have- but that's not (imo) working with them, or being "connected to them" as we were using the phrase- as meaning "working with" or "in collabortion with". As far as I know their interests were VERY inimical to Saddam's, and they had close ties with Iran- something which pretty much negates them working with Saddam. So if Saddam did infiltrate tham and use them (which isn't proven- some of this "evidence" comes from discredited mega liars like Allawai)that's more like being an enemy isn't it? We were talking about links- as in links of support. Now, apparently, we've broadened that to infiltration. If Saddam could have infiltrated Ansar he would have. I am happy to agree on that. If he could have used Ansar against the rival Kurd factions, he would have. Again, I'm happy to agree on that. But did it happen? Not much evidence. Would Ansar and Saddam have had been linked cooperatively in a group enterprise? Absolutely not, imo. Did you READ your link? Ansar built fortified villages with Iranian support- from your own post- and you think Saddam supported these guys? You don't have anything very valid. If you had any good evidence, I'd be happy to acknowledge it- so (no doubt) would the government- but they can't acknowledge it, because there's just too much contrary evidence out there. I imagine trial lawyers don't go to court with the crap evidence there is for your position on this, and I SURE as heck wouldn't want Allawi as a witness for my side, if I were going to court. Puerile? Puerile is pretending you have hard evidence for something that is quite clearly in dispute. Puerile is getting so mixed up and switching names so many times, and switching subjects so many times, it's impossible to know what you are talking about. I'd hate to see any lawyer go in to court acting like that. Maybe lawyers do that- but I still wouldn't want to watch it, and I sure as heck hope they lose. (And "if you said Zawahiri"? Can't you just check? What's with the "if"? I mean that's something there is no dispute about. Yes. No question. You said Zawahiri. All the way through your post. No ifs about it.)