Thursday, June 30, 2005

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!

20 Comments:

At 8:32 PM, Blogger greatwhitebear said...

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.

 
At 8:39 PM, Blogger greatwhitebear said...

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!

 
At 10:53 PM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

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.

 
At 10:56 PM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

As to Fr. Hessberg? There is no Fr. Hessberg listed among the Notre Dame faculty. Are you sure he's...human?

 
At 11:20 PM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

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.

 
At 6:24 AM, Blogger Saur♥Kraut 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. 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.

 
At 6:30 AM, Blogger Saur♥Kraut said...

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.

 
At 6:43 AM, Blogger Isabella di Pesto said...

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.

 
At 8:42 AM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

Isabella:
You're equivocating on the word "harbored."

We didn't shield and protect these creeps. Nice try.

 
At 8:54 AM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

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.

 
At 10:24 AM, Blogger Isabella di Pesto said...

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

 
At 10:28 AM, Blogger Isabella di Pesto said...

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.

 
At 10:53 AM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

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.

 
At 12:24 PM, Blogger Isabella di Pesto said...

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.

 
At 1:25 PM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

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.

 
At 2:01 PM, Blogger greatwhitebear said...

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.

 
At 2:02 PM, Blogger greatwhitebear said...

p.s. Fr. Hessberg is President Emeritus at ND

 
At 10:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great blog you have! I really enjoyed it. I heard of a great site that is giving away a free set of Nike Golf Clubs. I think your readers will enjoy it. Just click the link below and enter your Zip Code to see if you qualify!
Free Nike Golf Clubs!

 
At 2:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Many of our modern drugs have harsh side-affects and cost the “earth”, so the next time you come down with a cold or the flu or heat stress, why not try a gentle alternative that costs next to nothing?

Instead of immediately forking over large amounts of money for over-the-counter drugs, go to the kitchen cupboard and see what you can find to relieve your symptoms including heat stress.

Here are some helpful hints for heat stress …

A simple hot compress applied to the face is very soothing to those throbbing aches and pains of a blocked sinus, while a few drops of eucalyptus oil on a handkerchief can provide welcome relief for similar conditions. While supplements of vitamin C, D and zinc will shorten the lifespan of a common cold, a hot lemon drink is also extremely good. And be sure to cuddle-up in bed when you have a cold, as it will make the body sweat out the germs.

Cool lemon juice and honey are a great soother for a sore throat and gives the body much-needed vitamin C at the same time The juice of one lemon in a glass of water is sufficient. Melt the honey in a little hot water for ease of mixing.

A smear of Vaseline or petroleum jelly will do wonders for those sore lips and nose that often accompany a cold.

A 'streaming cold' where the nose and eyes water profusely, can respond to drinking onion water. Simply dip a slice of onion into a glass of hot water for two seconds, then sip the cooled water throughout the day. Half an onion on the bedside table also alleviates cold symptoms because its odor is inhaled while you sleep.

People prone to catarrh may find that chewing the buds from a pine or larch throughout the day will clear up their condition in just a few days.

Do you suffer from sore eyes? If your eyes are sore from lengthy exposure to the sun, try beating the white of an egg and then spread it over a cloth and bandage the eyes with it. Leave the preparation on overnight. Soft cheese (quark) is also a good remedy for this condition.

For those unpleasant times when you suffer from diarrhea, two tablespoons of brown vinegar will usually fix the problem. Vinegar can be rather horrible to take, but who cares! The problem is more horrible. Vinegar can usually be found in most people's cupboards, so you don't need to worry about finding someone to run to the shop for you in an emergency.

Sleepless? Instead of reaching for sleeping pills, which can quickly become addictive, try this: Drink only caffeine free tea or coffee starting late in the afternoon.. Go to bed earlier rather than later, as being overtired tends to keep people awake. Make sure the bedroom is dark and quiet. Use only pure wool or cotton sheets and blankets. Polyester materials can cause sweat and make you thirsty (if your child constantly asks for water throughout the night, this could be the reason).

And don't watch those scary movies just before retiring! If you still can't sleep, make a tea of lemongrass or drink a nightcap of herbal tea containing chamomile. It's easy to grow lemongrass in your garden or start a flower pot on the balcony for ease of picking. Simply steep a handful in boiling water for five minutes. Honey may be added for a sweetener.

Of course there will be times when you do need modern drugs, so if these simple remedies don't have the required affect, be sure to see a health care professional.


heat stress

 
At 8:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Everyone has days when they are down, worn out, generalized anxiety disorder symptom and just not feeling all that happy.

That's OK, you need to have days like this, otherwise how would you know when you are happy. You need to have something to contrast your happiness with. What is black without white?

Even though you know that sadness (generalized anxiety disorder symptom) is a part of life, let's try to make it a small part of life.

With that said, here are a few tips to help you feel better when you are feeling down in the dumps. They are easy to do, easy to practice every day and they work!

1. Stand up straight, sit up straight. When your body is in alignment your energy can flow and when your energy is flowing freely, you can flow.

2. Smile! Yes, just smile. Easy to do and effective.

3. Repeat positive affirmations. Things like "I feel good", "Positive energy flows through my body", "I see the good in all".

4. Listen to some music that you like. It doesn't have to be anything specific, just something you enjoy. Certain types of music work better than others, but experiment and see what works for you. Studies have shown that Classical music and new age music work best.

5. Take some time out for yourself, relax and read a book, do something for yourself.

6. Meditate. Meditation is an excellent habit to develop. It will serve you in all that you do. If you are one who has a hard time sitting still, then try some special meditation CDs that coax your brain into the meditative state. Just search for "Meditation music" on Google or Yahoo and explore.

Our outside work is simply a reflection of our inside world. Remember there is no reality just your perception of it. Use this truth to your advantage. Whenever you are sad, realize that it is all in your mind and you do have the power to change your perception.

These tips will lift you up when you are down, but don't just use them when you are sad or generalized anxiety disorder symptom . Try and practice them everyday, make them a habit. You will be surprised at how these simple exercises will keep the rainy days away.

On a final note, if you are in a deep depression that you can't seem to shake, please go see a doctor. This is your life and don't take any chances. generalized anxiety disorder symptom

 

Post a Comment

<< Home