Never did understand that at all. If one is unhappy with a board then just leave. Just do not see the point with making a speech and claim they are leaving and come back 20 minutes later.
Do people have a need to see how many will speak up and beg them to stay or what?
Bottom line is that any manifesto has no real meaning so should never be taken on a serious level. It is only human nature to want to vent and leave at times.
posted on September 24, 2004 06:49:44 PM
I know it may sound just too wild and crazy but did it ever occur to anybody that I was going to go off for awhile and then, as humans have a tendency to do on a regular basis
I CHANGED MY MIND
So don't lose yours worrying about it.
No where did I sign a contract with Vendio to stay on forever, or not be able to post again after saying I was leaving.
I'm not sorry some are upset by
my leaving and my coming back.....read my lips.....I don't care.
If some dipship pea brains wants to turn this into me being a liar ...let 'em. They must be very stupid.
posted on September 24, 2004 07:12:22 PM
I take it you are talking to me so I'll give you a short answer. I do not care if you leave to take a break. Why do you think that would concern myself?
Anyone is free to come and go as they see fit.
This is what I said. "It is only human nature to want to vent and leave at times."
This was a broad statement that could apply to anyone.
posted on September 24, 2004 07:34:36 PMkiara, libra left... was only 2 days but she left... never seen etexbill's manifesto...
Twelvepole, what's your point about Crowfarm then? Some announce it, some don't, some leave, some come back..... who cares?
I left the EO and the RT on several occasions and never told anyone. I moved, I went on vacation, sometimes I was too busy to post, and a few times I just got pissed at some of you as well as myself and I took a break.
posted on September 25, 2004 06:07:23 AM
No, trai, I'm speaking to the posters who, when I prove them wrong on other topics, can only post that I'm a liar because I came back after saying I was leaving.
They have lost the argument and with no answer at hand, attack and call me a liar.
posted on September 25, 2004 09:07:22 AM
Li=bra and Linda- you guys are forgetting or ignoring a simple fact. Osama Bin Laden despised Saddam and Saddam feared Bin Laden. Saddam regularly killed and tortured the Sunni muslims in Iraq and treated them as second class citizens. Bin Laden is a Sunni. Additionally, Bin Laden is fighting for the furtherence of Muslim peolple. there is no way that BIN laden would work in co-ordination with someone that was murdering his people. On the other hand, Saddam knew that his action were looking badly upon by the rest of the arab world and especially Bin Laden and there is no way that he would give assistance to someone that could very well turn around and use the fruits of that assistance to attack him. Saddam is viewed as a godless man by the islamic community. Bin Laden would never align himself with an infidel.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on September 25, 2004 10:04:53 AM
1999 AP Flashback: Saddam has offered asylum to bin Laden AP Dispatch carried by CNN ^ | February 13, 1999 | nwrep
Posted on 06/22/2004 5:50:19 PM PDT by nwrep
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) -- Osama bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire accused by the United States of plotting bomb attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, has left Afghanistan, Afghan sources said Saturday.
Bin Laden's whereabouts were not known, said the sources who declined to be identified.
Taliban authorities in the militia's southern stronghold of Kandahar refused to either confirm or deny reports that bin Laden had left the country. The Taliban have called bin Laden their honored guest, a friend who helped the Afghan resistance fight invading Soviet soldiers in the 1980s.
The Taliban's ambassador in Islamabad, Saeed-ur-Rehman Haqqani, said he had not been told of bin Laden's departure, "but if it has happened, it will be a good thing."
posted on September 25, 2004 10:27:35 AMAnd the Sept. 11 Commission has shown a tracery of contacts between Saddam and Al Qaeda that continued after billions of Oil-for-Food dollars began pouring into Saddam's coffers and Usama bin Laden declared his infamous war on the U.S
Didn't the 9/11 commission say there were no links between Sadaam and Al Qaeda?
Are they now doing a flip flop? If they are now lying what else did they lie about in their report?
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
posted on September 25, 2004 10:27:41 AM
[i]In a story aired in a prime time news magazine show on Thursday, January 14, 1999, then-ABC News correspondent Sheila MacVicar reported how a few months after the embassy bombings in Africa and U.S. retaliation against Sudan, bin Laden "reaches out to his friends in Iraq and Sudan." MacVicar trumpeted how "ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief, named Farouk Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden.
Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad."
I tracked down that ABC News story after seeing it referred to in an excerpt from a new book by Stephen Hayes, "The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America," published in the June 7 Weekly Standard. Hayes cited similar news stories in Newsweek, the AP and NPR, in the 1998-99 range, which assumed bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were cooperative.
The Weekly Standard titled its excerpt, "The Connection: Not so long ago, the ties between Iraq and al Qaeda were conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom was right." In the book, Hayes recited numerous pieces of evidence of how Iraq and al-Qaeda had a mutually beneficial relationship.
Here's an excerpt from the Weekly Standard's book excerpt in which Hayes recounted how the media assumed such a relationship, based on information provided by Clinton administration officials:
There was a time not long ago when the conventional wisdom skewed heavily toward a Saddam-al Qaeda links. In 1998 and early 1999, the Iraq-al Qaeda connection was widely reported in the American and international media.
Former intelligence officers and government officials speculated about the relationship and its dangerous implications for the world. The information in the news reports came from foreign and domestic intelligence services. It was featured in mainstream media outlets including international wire services, prominent newsweeklies, and network radio and television broadcasts.
Newsweek magazine ran an article in its January 11, 1999, issue headed "Saddam + Bin Laden?" "Here's what is known so far," it read:
"Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas -- assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer."
....NPR reporter Mike Shuster interviewed Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, and offered this report:
"Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan.
According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait....Some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA Director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning additional attacks on American targets."
By mid-February 1999, journalists did not even feel the need to qualify these claims of an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. An Associated Press dispatch that ran in the Washington Post ended this way: "The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against Western powers."
Where did journalists get the idea that Saddam and bin Laden might be coordinating efforts? Among other places, from high-ranking Clinton administration officials.
In the spring of 1998 -- well before the U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa -- the Clinton administration indicted Osama bin Laden. The indictment, unsealed a few months later, prominently cited al Qaeda's agreement to collaborate with Iraq on weapons of mass destruction. The Clinton Justice Department had been concerned about negative public reaction to its potentially capturing bin Laden without "a vehicle for extradition," official paperwork charging him with a crime. It was "not an afterthought" to include the al Qaeda-Iraq connection in the indictment, says an official familiar with the deliberations. "It couldn't have gotten into the indictment unless someone was willing to testify to it under oath." The Clinton administration's indictment read unequivocally:
"Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."
posted on September 25, 2004 10:35:08 AM
I guess the entire 9/11 commission report was nothing more than a pack of lies. No wonder why many people do not trust the government.
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
posted on September 25, 2004 10:51:52 AM
More from the Media Research link I provided:
Sheila MacVicar, who a short time later jumped to CNN, and I believe she has recently departed from CNN, provided an overview of the bin Laden-Hussein relationship: "Saddam Hussein has a long history of harboring terrorists. Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, the most notorious terrorists of their era, all found shelter and support at one time in Baghdad. Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
"Three weeks after the bombing [by the U.S. in Sudan], on August 31, bin Laden reaches out to his friends in Iraq and Sudan. [over video of Iraqi man cheek to cheek with Sudanese men] Iraq's Vice President arrives in Khartoum to show his support for the Sudanese after the U.S. attack. ABC News has learned that during these meetings, senior Sudanese officials, acting on behalf of bin Laden, ask if Saddam Hussein would grant him asylum.
"Iraq was, indeed, interested. ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief, named Farouk Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad."
A CNN-posted story by MacVicar with a picture of her: www.cnn.com
A fan site, apparently, that I came across via Google: home.wanadoo.nl
All the media hullabaloo over the 9-11 Commission's claims stemmed from one paragraph on page 5 of "Staff Statement No. 15," titled "Overview of the Enemy." The paragraph:
"Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."
posted on September 25, 2004 10:54:39 AMThree intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad."
similar news stories in Newsweek, the AP and NPR, in the 1998-99 range, which assumed bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were cooperative.
recounted how the media assumed such a relationship...
Former intelligence officers and government officials speculated about the relationship and its dangerous implications for the world.
"Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas -- assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden,
Some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA Director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning additional attacks on American targets."
Good god, could there be more ass covering? Assumed... Speculated... Sources who may somehow be linked....might be tmempted to live...
Come on Linda... If I Helen, Kira, Krafty or any other liberal had posted an article with this much vascilation you would have jumped all over it.
It does not matter who was trying to imply that there might possibly be some connenction between the two. There was not one.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on September 25, 2004 11:02:53 AM
fenix - One of the things I'm trying to point out here is that this was the 'mind set' even during the clinton administration.
What changed between the two administrations, to those of you who disagree there were connections, that would have altered the [as I've proven] mind think that saddam was a threat and there was a connection? saddam didn't change his tactics...he still supported terrorists...and bin laden was still working away to do more damage to our country.
I'm not understanding what change you see that either happened during the end of clinton's administration or the beginning of President Bush's administration....that makes you guys believe all-of-a-sudden what *was believed then*....should no longer have been believed when President Bush took office. It doesn't appear to me anything changed...our intelligency believed the same under both administrations.
posted on September 25, 2004 01:07:08 PM
Linda - your mis-understanding lies in a misconception. I didn't suddenly change my mind when he administration changed and I do not fall into mental lock-step with the Clinton administration or their intelligence community. I have the same opinion now that I have always had.
I think that the biggest problem with our intelligence community is that they ASSUME that others think as they do. Bin Laden was Anti-American and Saddam is Anti-American therefore Saddam and Bin Laden must be co-horts. That is inherently faulty logic. That's like assuming that because twelve is Pro death Penalty and I am pro death penalty that we share the same point of view on everything and I think we all know that is far from the case.
We will never successfully combat terrorism until we actually take the time to understand them, how they think and what their motivators are and if you look at the idealogy of Bin Laden and Saddam the one thing that is going to jump out is that they are polar oppostes.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on September 25, 2004 03:05:21 PM
fenix - I can understand that more coming from you because I've always seen you as a supporter of the Muslin/Arab people and I can't remember a time when you've been upset with anything they do/have done. Maybe I've missed it if you have been.
I do have one question. Did you support saddam's payments and funding of groups like Hama's - and/or the Palestinians? Did you see that as supporting terrorists or not? I know you have almost always sided with the Palestinians against Israel when we've discussed the two. It has appeared to me you are pro-Palestine and anti-Israel...or maybe just anti-Sharon.
But there is a list of AQ-saddam connections on this link. Look at it please and tell me which one's you know aren't true and why. These are connections that have been reported in our press since 1994 as being true...again...from our intelligence agencies at that time...and right through our invasion of Iraq.
"A wealth of evidence on the public record -- from government reports and congressional testimony to news accounts from major newspapers -- attests to longstanding ties between bin Laden and Saddam going back to 1994."
"Those who try to whitewash Saddam's record don't dispute this evidence; they just ignore it. So let's review the evidence, all of it on the public record for months or years:"
--------------
And fenix, just to clarify the way I'm understanding what you've said above....you're say that you didn't believe our intelligence under the clinton administration and you still don't under this administration? That's the way I took it. Is that correct in whole or in part?
Because if it is...I'm just the opposite. I do believe what our intelligence was telling us then...as well as they did under this administration and have GREAT difficulty with those who believed saddam to be the threat clinton said he was but all of a sudden, under Bush, he no longer presented the same threat. [for whatever reason.]
That's what I'd like to understand from those who supported clinton on this and don't Bush. What changed in their minds?
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 25, 2004 03:12 PM ]
posted on September 25, 2004 03:54:13 PM
::I've always seen you as a supporter of the Muslin/Arab people and I can't remember a time when you've been upset with anything they do/have done. Maybe I've missed it if you have been. ::
If you mean that I do not believe that people are inherently evil because of their religion or birthplace, your are correct.
If you mean that I support anything they do simply because of their religion or birthplace then you cannot be farther from the truth.
When I state that we will never defeat terrorism without understanding the people and their motivations it no more implies that I support them then Packers watching Detroit tapes the week before a game between them implies that the Packers are Lions fans. The only way to be a successful adversary is to be an informed one.
:id you support saddam's payments and funding of groups like Hama's - and/or the Palestinians?::
I have no problem with funding humanitarian issues (I.e. families left homeless and injured after Isreal bombs an apprtment building because there might be 1 person inside they are targeting) however I think that paying rewards to the family members of suicide bombers is absolutely heinous. It sickens on two fronts...
1) No one should be rewarded for the killing of innocent people
2) The reward plays upon a mans pride and sense of responsibility to care for his family in a war torn and economically bankrupt territory. It is sick and manipulative.
::It has appeared to me you are pro-Palestine and anti-Israel...or maybe just anti-Sharon. ::
I don't like Sharon but Netanyahu is even worse. I object to the political manipulation by Isreal and the fact that if any other nation in the world took the actions that they do against their neighbors they would be publicly renounced. The worlds guilt keeps them from doing that and Isreal plays upon that fact.
::But there is a list of AQ-saddam connections on this link. Look at it please and tell me which one's you know aren't true and why. These are connections that have been reported in our press since 1994 as being true...again...from our intelligence agencies at that time...and right through our invasion of Iraq. ::
I read thru your list and more than a couple are laughable (so and so told me??? WTF is that for a credible government source) Others are statemets made with no documentation or support.
:: And fenix, just to clarify the way I'm understanding what you've said above....you're say that you didn't believe our intelligence under the clinton administration and you still don't under this administration? That's the way I took it. Is that correct in whole or in part? ::
To some extent yes. It's not that I think they were lying, I just believe that there were an abundance of far reaching and, in the long run, incorrect assumptions made. Even those who have left the intelligence community have stated that one of the biggest weaknesses is a lack of understand or even attempts to understand the culture.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on September 25, 2004 04:22:58 PM
I'm baaaack. There was no "manifesto". I stated that I would not be posting again because of the politics. I went to the EO board, where maggie saw my post and graciously asked me to back over here, and later stated that she was getting a little tired of politics too. I posted in two threads here that were non-political, until some came along and tried to inject politics again. One was two pages before it was violated and no one posted again after that post. See "the alternative" and "feedback file for doctors". I came back into the last one to refute some name calling that goes on so well here. Why can't we get all just get along! Maggie and I don't see eye to eye on politics and I wasn't here when she took her vacation and don't know the reasons, but at least she posts intelligently and kindly. Maggie, the next time you have to evacuate the hurricane zone, I have an RV with a fenced area where you can keep the dogs. I have three dogs also. We don't even have to discuss politics, (although I sure will if you want to. Bill
[ edited by etexbill on Sep 25, 2004 04:33 PM ]
posted on September 25, 2004 04:57:09 PM
etexbill - YOU haven't started anything. It was just my honest reaction to what you said...obviously how you see it.
But...people don't get a months forced vacation for no reason. Might just have been her 'un-kindly' remarks that earned her that vacation. She's promised to do better now that she's returned.....time will tell. But at least you're being treated 'kindly'.
posted on September 25, 2004 08:52:32 PM
Etexbill, thank you for your kindness.. as you can see, I am not, nor have I ever been very popular here..LOL.. and for good reason, I admit.
My first post on the board was to tell everyone that they were at best, amusing and entertaining, and that they took themselves far to seriously... stating that nothing they so heatedly debated and fought about meant a rats azz or would make the slightest bit of difference...in the long run... Whew!! I had everyone's feathers ruffled on that one.. and well, it's been kind of down hill since that...lol
I was suspended for badgering Libra and saying rude and nasty things to her, because she got on my very last nerve..and well.. she wrote to Vendio and told them I was stalking her.. and they suspended me for a month. I admit that I was very crude and used unusual potty language while addressing her.. but in my defense.. she could make a saint swear at times.. and there have been plenty of nasty things said by others, much worse than my silly poetry.. and they were not ratted on so they were never suspended..
But just so you don't get the wrong impression Bill.... I am really not a sweet and charming person.. but I am trying to keep it under control.. But it was so much more fun.. when I wasn't trying so hard to be so damn sweet... LOL.. Maggie PS.. Lindak ..your mind is so crowded with valuable information that you can't think.
posted on September 26, 2004 06:59:40 PM
Quote: "But just so you don't get the wrong impression Bill.... I am really not a sweet and charming person.. "
Maggie: are you sure? I think you are a closet sweetie. LOL
Maggie
id you support saddam's payments and funding of groups like Hama's - and/or the Palestinians?::
