On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:40:24 -0800, in alt.atheism , Pohaku Kane
<pohaku.kane@gmail.com> in <8LadnbABNcIhI1veRVn-tw@scnresearch.com>
wrote:

Matt Silberstein wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 16:38:49 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Herb Martin"
<news@LearnQuick.com> in <tCvxf.774$1J1.499@tornado.texas.rr.com>
wrote:

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>

wrote in

message news:jqgbs1pivjk5tgi4q3cgjg65jauiq02bu8@4ax.com...

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 00:12:08 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Herb Martin"
<news@LearnQuick.com> in <s9hxf.611$1J1.188@tornado.texas.rr.com>
wrote:

So provide some evidence and make sure it is both accurate
AND pertinent.

I am really trying to teach you that you have built your
misunderstanding on the lies and propaganda (hopefully of
others) and help you to form rational and logical arguments
based on facts instead.

You mean "there was a relationship" is not enough?

No, not in the case of Nations admitted to the UN etc since
by definition there is relationship with all and between all
of the member nations.

So it is only enough for the U.S. to invade another country.

Non sequitur and the way you used this it is a form of
intellectual dishonesty.

You did not respond. Any particular reason you avoided this point?

Gee, why would I ignore a handwave and an insult? I can't figure it
out either.

There were many reasons for the invasion of Iraq. Saddam
supported (without hiding it) terrorists of international scope.

Far less than did Syria or Libya or Iran.

You seem to think that "foreign relations" consists of whether or

invade. Syria is on a short leash with us. Everyone in the

community seems to know that, with one exception. You.

You have impressive knowledge.

As for Libya....r rr r , what a joke. Then Reagan but a few bombs down
his throat at his personal compound Ghadaffi understood quite well the
'rules' at the pleasure and indulgence of the U.S. and the

community that considers him barely above thug class.

Your knowledge of international terrorism is impressive.

As for Iran: all in good time, child, be patient.

Saddam did NOT meet his obligations to disarm and cooperate
with the inspectors.

He did disarm and the inspectors were getting in. The inspectors
opposed the war.

R R RR R R R ....Well, two things. He damn well did NOT allow free
unfettered access by the inspectors to known weapons manufacturing and
storage sites...not until those heavy trucks pulled away from the back
of the buildings many hours later, and high-tailed it off to the Bekka
valley, where Saddams family were being hosted by the folks across the
border, with billions of dollars NOT spent on the starving Iraqi's
you'll not in their hot little suitcases.

It is a good thing you have all this information unavailable to the
rest of us.

The second might be, on the opinions of the Inspectors, job security?

Both (and several other reasons) were independently sufficient.

If you are a "brother-in-law" to a criminal felon that does NOT
make YOU a felon but if you are shown to be entertaining your
felonious brother-in-law (Al Qaeda visits to Iraq) or you are
publicly providing payment to him for his criminal activities then
it would be. (Saddam did both.)

Of if there is just some vague amorphous "relationship", that is
enough for a warrentless search and imprisonment.

That was MY point, when you tried to claim that such vague
relationships were equal to Saddam's support for terrorists
of international scope.

What "support" was that? A possible meeting that never took place?

Agents of Saddam met with Al Queda in Sudan. That is an established
fact. Not in dispute.

Ah, a meeting. Well that is certainly reason for an invasion. Glad you
cleared that up.

Currently information was released that there were active terrorist
training camps using Iraqi military and specialists to train outsiders.
And interestingly, using the decommissioned body of a large Boeing
passenger jet. Not far outside Baghdad.

Would you like to contend Saddam was not aware of this activity by his
military?

I would like a valid reference.

Those relationships of Saddam were material and financial
support in many cases, not vague nor amorphous.

Such as?

He annouced to the world he was paying the families of Palestinian
suicide bombers when they made a hit. As I recall he didn't even demand
it be successful, as long as they tried.

Have you looked into the support our Saudi allies have given to
Palestinian terrorists? Have yo looked in to the decades of support
the Saudis have given for spreading militant Islam?

You don't read the news, or possibly you don't remember the news?

Must be. You are fun.

Gee, that was
enough for our president to send us to war. There was "a

relationship"

between Saddam and al Qaeda. I guess you don't like his

No, that is another lie. (It is so far from the truth it cannot
be through your sheer ignorance but whoever told you that
was lying if it did not originate with you.)

What part is the lie? I saw Shrub say "there was a

use that as a reason to go to war.

Your dismissal of the relationship between Saddam and terrorists
as either vague or amorphous. That is the lie.

Then make it less vague. What are the specifics of the relationship?

Sudan. In house terrorist training camps for foreigners.

That good enough for you?

No. Reference please.

Is that the most extensive contact you know of?

Makes them about the bottom of the list of terrorism supporters.

And no, I've looked them up enough times for you deniers. Look them up
yourself for once.

Yeah, that's it. Sure.

A half truth (yours) presented as the whole truth is in fact a lie.

It is a serious form of intellectual dishonesty on your part --
or perhaps (to give you the benefit of the doubt) and inability
on your part to think clearly and logically using facts rather
than propaganda which you repeat.

I also notice you provided ZERO evidence of your scurrilous
claim.

I figured you had some bogus fifth hand lie of someone else but
am a little surprised that you KNOW these are worthless as well.

Again, I saw him say it.

"it" "him"

Who, what (specifically), when, where can it be found?

If you had some evidence for your propaganda rumor you would
have offered it by now.

I said it already. I watched Shrub say that there was a

(his term) between al Qaeda and Saddam. No more details, just a vague
handwaving "relationship".

Gee, let's get real specific so the terrorists can take their cues from
us about how much we know, and include that in their strategizing.

Because, after all, the terrorists would not know what they had done
without our help.

During WWII those that did such things were branded, rightly so,
traitors and subject to prosecution. Or do you prefer more Americans,
and of course innocent bystanders die?

ROTFLMAO. Any other fallacies you want to engage in?

--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

You seem to rely on the UN, do you not. Go speak to them. The pimps.

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

How?

Look at the sites.

By an Illegal invasion? They have no WMD. They have not blown up
any of our ships in foreign ports, nor bombed any of our barracks or
housing. They have not flown a single plane into one of our

a domestic attack.

And if they can't do that then genocide does not matter.

We aren't supposed to invade. The UN is the great protector, just like
in Rwanda and Indonesia. What are you waiting for, hero. Go for it.

Post your letter to the UN here.

0:->

You sure like strawmen. Why don't you marry one?

--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"