Still another 9/11 and Saddam Connection!
Wow! So much to blog...so little time!
Lawsuit: Iraq Involved in Conspiracy
This time it's CBS reporting. Is this news outlet good enough for you out there? Imagine, another connection of terrorist activity coming out of Iraq and Saddam Hussein! Hmmm, the particulars are starting to mount up. The credibility of the generalization that the Iraq War is a good strategic move is becoming stronger and stronger.
I wonder what will hold tomorrow? Man, I've been blogging a lot today!
posted by Underground Logician @ 3:04 PM
17 comments
17 Comments:
Oh please..did you actually READ the article?
You, who constantly poo poo the findings of 5 or 6 major news organizations at a time are willing to take one column in a podunk camel crossing newpaper because rumor has it that the columnist might have some ties to the Iraqi security service? Des anyone have any idea how someone with such close ties to Saddam would be stuck in bumf**k Al Nasiriyah, 185 miles from Bagdad.
And how is it the vast US, British, French and Russian intellegence services all failed to come up with this piece of valuable information?
This is an ambulance chaser chasing millions. The news is that he is filing suit, not that he has actual, credible evidnce.
Oh yeah, and could you use your catholic universtiy connections to see if you can get Fr. Hessberg to quit drivien by in that damn blue Lincoln...
He's creepin me out, man!
You sure do like poisoning the well, don't you? This seems to a favorite tactic of yours. What is it this time, Strychnine?
I look at it this way. The five or six major news networks are seriously biased against George Bush, which does erode their credibility. You may like these papers, they certainly serve your political views. Fine. An Iraqi news source prior to 9/11 reporting of a possible attack does not have this political axe to grind against Bush; it served the regime of Saddam.
This little tidbit which you find so offensive strengthens the argument for the terrorist connection of 9/11 and Iraq. Is it entirely conclusive? No. I'm not a moron. That's the pains of inductive reasoning. Nothing is completely and 100% conclusive.
As to Fr. Hessberg? There is no Fr. Hessberg listed among the Notre Dame faculty. Are you sure he's...human?
I have another thought to add. Perhaps you misunderstand what I'm after. It's more likely I am not clear. I do not assert that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. I assert that there is a terrorist link between Saddam and Al-Qaida that had great effect on 9/11. Read the article on "Saddam's Philanthropy of Terror." The Saddam Al-Qaida connection is well known among US, British, French and Russian intelligence services.
Well, despite whether the article is completely correct or not, the fact stands that Saddam was terrorist sympathetic. And it is acknowledged that he harbored terrorists. The only argument against that is that Saddam didn't know that he had terrorists living there; a poor argument indeed, given the evidences that abound.
Underground,
Don't take this as negative critism, but your blog is turning into a Pro-War blog. I think you're losing your readership due to that (IMHO). I would love to see some other topics here, with your gray matter applied to them.
Saurkraut said...
Well, despite whether the article is completely correct or not, the fact stands that Saddam was terrorist sympathetic. And it is acknowledged that he harbored terrorists.
Terrorist sympathetic and harboring terrorists--reason to invade a country?
Add to the list:
Saudi Arabia
Egypt
Pakistan
BTW: Under those terms we could also include the US.
During a dark time in our history(from the 1700's to the passage of the Civil Rights Act) we were "terrorist sympathetic," and according to investigations post-9/11, we indeed "harbored" terrorists. Most of the perpetrators of 9/11 lived here.
Isabella:
You're equivocating on the word "harbored."
We didn't shield and protect these creeps. Nice try.
Saur:
I appreciate your concern for my blog. Thanks for the constructive criticism. I have been considering the same thing as well. Great minds think alike?
What I have been illustrating in the past few weeks is the practical application of logic, primarily inductive logic in the area of politics. To be really specific, in journalism.
The key fallacies we find in journalism are as follows: Slanting the facts, equivocation, hasty generalization, hasty conclusion, false causes, poisoning the well, etc. See my posting on fallacies. It is so prevalent that people begin to believe this stuff, when it doesn't have the substance of a proof. It is pure rhetoric. For the purpose of time and space, I'm speaking in general of course.
So, in the very critical area of national security, we have a large portion of America that would actually want America to lose the War on Terror. I find that mind numbing! And, they use all the verbal weapons that America will accept to get their deadly message across. These weapons are nothing more than emotionally charged fallacies. We've just seen Isabella make an equivocation regarding "harbored."
So my whole effort these weeks is to help those who want to know to identify and debunk the fallacies that are mainstream and accepted as truth. And as truth seekers, we are to be close-minded to falsehood AT ALL TIMES! The principles of logic in daily discourse, in our economics, in our political lives and in our religious lives are extremely important.
Otherwise, we become subject to propagandists, which is a loss of intellectual freedom.
What did George W. Bush mean by this statement he made in September 2003?
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
-President George W. Bush
Wednesday 17th September 2003
What is the logic behind it?
Was he telling the truth when he said this?
He doesn't say "we have no evidence AT THIS TIME." No. He does not qualify his statement.
Is there a fallacy in this statement?
These are George W. Bush's own words, not the media's, not some wild-eyed lefty liberal's, not Michael Moore's, not Noam Chomsky's, not Hilary Clinton's.
Does anyone believe these words were not vetted before he uttered them?
George W. Bush unequivocally stated:
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
-President George W. Bush
Wednesday 17th September 2003
Here is Merriam-Webster's definition of "harbored"
1 a : to give shelter or refuge to b : to be the home or habitat of "the ledges still harbor rattlesnakes"; broadly : CONTAIN 2
I stick with my assertion that the US "harbored" terrorist. We did so under the second definition.
Yes, Isabella, you are taking the second definition. However, the terminology used in the War on Terror is in conjunction with countries who support, give refuge, protection, and collaborate with terrorists. You are still equivocating. The US does NOT support, give refuge, protect and collaborate with known terrorists. This is absurd.
It is quite possible that socialists in America collaborate with terrorists, but they exclude themselves from the catagory of patriotic Americans, and do NOT represent the US as a whole.
I am aware that there is no evidence that Saddam planned and prosecuted the attack of 9/11. If you are aware of the 9/11 commission, they have the same conclusion. ON THE OTHER HAND, the 9/11 commission DOES acknowledge a connection between Saddam and Al-Qaida; that Saddam was dealing with them, and possibly new about the attack before it happened. Our war against terror that includes Iraq is legitimate, something our liberal friends in the media conveniently avoid.
Hence, people in America who depend on the media for their indoctrination will forget as well.
UL said:
The US does NOT support, give refuge, protect and collaborate with known terrorists. This is absurd.
I disagree with that statement.
We supported and gave arms to Saddam when he was fighting the Iranians because it was in our best interest. We supported the Shah of Iran. We supported Pinochet, just for a few examples.
And may I remind you of how certain regions of this country refused to bring to justice the people responsible for murdering black Americans during the the period of time in our history when the law looked the other way as African-Americans were tortured, mutilated and killed.
That happened in this country, and it happened to over 5,000 of its citizens because of the color of their skin. That is terrorism. Pure and evil.
We are not immune to beastly actions. But we do have an instrument that can correct that beastly behavior. The Constitution.
I certainly do agree with you that we have abundant amount of injustice in this country's history, as well as current injustice, the fire-bombing of black churches. The lynching of blacks is a fact that I find absolutely no words to describe my abhorrence. And, we did support regimes that for all practical purposes were to stem the tide of communism, e.g. Shah of Iran, or extreme Islamic-fundamentalism, e.g. Hussein against Iran. Your point is noted.
However, you're extending your definition of "supporting terrorists" that will backfire and I want to alert you to the fact. If our support for Saddam in the '80's is an example of supporting terrorists, then it is very reasonable to eradicate terrorists by getting rid of Saddam, if you wish to hold to your definition. Unless you want to make an amendment, your argument becomes contradictory.
Do you see the contradiction?
Another contradiction that forms from extending your definition of "support for terror" is in the sad and damnable fact of the 5,000 dead blacks from lynchings. If this is an act of terror against blacks, could lynchings also be an act of terror against browns, whites, Arabs, etc? How about putting people in a plastic chipping machine and force captives to watch the shredding of humans alive in this reprehensible doomsday apparatus? This happened to at least 30 people in Iraq. How about the gasing of Kurds, the rape rooms, the acid vats where victims are dumped alive to be scalded to death? How about being ripped apart by Rotweilers? Decapitations, dismemberment, and castrations?
You see, if you widen the definition of "support for terror" as you do, you give greater support for our action in Iraq, not less.
I share your vehemence towards deliberate acts of injustice toward ANY people group and I'm sure you also are alluding to the apparent hypocrisy you see. I share your vehemence. I think you cloud the issue so much so as to prevent ANY action on our part to protect ourselves. This we cannot do.
US does not harbor terrorists? Only because their terrorist is our freedom fighter. We do and have regularly suported many groups that by international law would be considered terrorist, or to have commited terroist acts. Paramilitary groups employing death squads in Chile, Peru, Columbia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala. And let's not forget the tactics our good friends the Isreali's have employed the last few years.
And as for "So, in the very critical area of national security, we have a large portion of America that would actually want America to lose the War on Terror". This is, of course, hogwash, and little more than right wing propaganda. The fact that many people disagree with this governments methods of combating terrorism, does not mean they are hoping the war against terroism will fail. Some of the most critcal voices have come from the military and CIA, and people with impeccable national security credentials, like Brent Scowcroft, former president Bush's national security advisor.
p.s. Fr. Hessberg is President Emeritus at ND
Post a Comment
<< Home